Matthaeus Adversus Christianos · 2018. 4. 24. · Lee, Peter Watts, Michael DiFuccia, David...

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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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 twelfthcentury 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


[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]


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



( 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


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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)


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


The Relatives of Jesus Mary had other sons and daughters (she consequently was not a virgin)


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


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)



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


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


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


The Rich Young Man Jesus affirmed that eternal life comes from keeping the Law


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



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


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



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)


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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]


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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



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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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



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)


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


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


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


site151 Also when commenting on Jesusrsquo teachings he consistently arguesthat Jesus stands within the Jewish tradition albeit perhaps marginally so152

Therefore for his contemporaries to convert from the higher order of Judaismto the lower is rather unsound Rabbinic tradition is based on the trustworthytestimony and erudition of the sages the gospels are based on the witness ofsimple folk and twisted by the deceptive ambitions of the evangelists153

Overall comment sect23 represents one of the most concise rational andcomprehensive attacks on Jesusrsquo divinity though Shem Ṭov only engageshere with a popular understanding of Jesusrsquo divinity without attempting tofurther engage the theological or philosophical aspects of Christian doctrine

6 4 9 Jesus and John the Baptist Matt 1111ndash15 (sect24)

The immediatley following comment which is based on Matt 1111ndash15 like-wise contains novel arguments although the last of the four points Shem Ṭovmakes is similar to Yosef ha-Meqanne sect1 (see 4511)The transcriber said I have four questions about this (section)

The first is that he already previously wrote that when Jesus came to be baptized by Johnthat he did not want to (baptize him) because he (felt he) was ldquonot worthy to carry his shoesrdquo(Matt 311) and that at the time of baptism a voice from heaven was heard saying ldquoThis is

151 In doing so Shem Ṭov might be the first person to clearly emphazise that Jesus wasJewish

152 Shem Ṭov repeatedly argues that Jesusrsquo teaching are in line with the sages (חזל) andthat Jesus was not innovating anything (חדש) see esp comment sect17 (f 140r see 63) Forthis purpose almost like a precursor to Paul Billerbeck Shem Ṭov connects various passagesfrom the Talmud to Jesusrsquo teaching Comment sect8 (f 137v) relates Matt 520ndash24 to m rsquoAbot311 and b Qidd 28a comment sect9 (f 137v) links Matt 527ndash30 to Deut 521 comment sect10(f 138r) links Matt 533ndash42 to b Šabb 88b But then in comment sect11 (f 138v) Shem Ṭovdeviates from this strategy and critiques Jesusrsquo teaching in Matt 543ndash48 as misinterpretationyet he returns to the previous pattern already in comment sect12 (f 138v) where he links Matt61ndash4 to b B Meṣirsquoa 85a and b Sanh 37a Then comment sect13 (f 139r) relates Matt 65ndash15to b Ber 24b comment sect14 (f 139r) links Matt 619ndash23 to b Baba Batra 11a and b Yoma37andashb comment sect15 links Matt 624ndash34 to Psalms 5522 373 and Jer 175 comment sect16 (f139v) links Matt 76ndash12 to Prov 268 b Ḥul 133a Lev 1918 and b Šhabb 31a Commentsect17 then summarizes Shem Ṭovrsquos reading of the Sermon on the Mount Another more exten-sive critique of Jesusrsquo understanding and use of the Law follows in comment sect26 (f 144v)but see also comments sect34 (f 148v) sect40 (f 152r) sect48 (f 155v) sect49 (f 156v) sect55 (f 160v)and sect56 (f 161v)

153 In various comments Shem Ṭov points out inconsistencies between Matthew and theHebrew Bible but also to other gospels (mostly Mark and John) see sect1 (see 641) sect3 (see643) sect27 (f 145r) sect41 (f 153r) sect51 (f 158r) sect52 (f 158v) sect54 (f 160r) sect57 (161v) Incomments sect2 (f 134vndash135r) and sect5 (f 135v) Shem Ṭov maintains that Matthewrsquos under-standing of the fulfilment of prophecy is misconceived In comment sect36 (f 149v) he interpetsMatt 1539ndash1612 in a way that implies that the disciples are ldquocoarse of senserdquo and ldquothick inthe headrdquo ( מושכל שום יבינו לא יבינו לא המוח עבי השכל גסי היו שהם מכאן נראה )


my son my pleasure is in himrdquo (Matt 317) But if so how is it that John sent (a messenger)to him now in order to ascertain if he is the Messiah or whether he ought to hope for another

Second since John is (supposedly) a prophet and according to his words (even) oneldquogreater than a prophetrdquo how is it that he is satisfied with this (answer Jesus gives) (Yet)here it is written that ldquothe Lord God will not do anything unless he reveals his secret to hisservants the prophetsrdquo (Amos 37) All the more he [Jesus] did not come (and tell John him-self) instead (he just told a messenger) to inform him about Jesus according to these words

Third If his power is so much greater than Johnrsquos why does he not (just) show his signsand miracles to (all) the people for (apparently) he [John] did not remember that he [Jesus]performed a (single) sign or wonder with his own hands

Fourth look Jesus testified here about him [John] that nobody like him ldquohas risen upamong all (those) born of womenrdquo (Matt 1111) If that is the case he ought to be greater thanJesus since he was also born by a woman But that a man could be greater than God (orElijah) is a lie154

להטבילישו155שכשבאלעילכתבשכברהראשונהשאלותארבעבזהליישהמעתיקאמרמןקולנשמעהטבילהובשעתמנעליולשאתראויהיהשלאלפירוצההיהשלאמיוחנןהואאםכמסתפקעתהיוחנןלושלחאיך157הואואכבווחפציבניזה156אומרתהשמיםוהא158בזהיספקאיךלדבריומנביאוגדולנביאשיוחנןאחרשניתלאחריקוהאםאוהמשיח

באלאשהואוכשהנביאיםעבדיואלסודוגלהאםכידבר160אלהיםאליעשהלא159כיכתימאותותיומראהלאמדועמיוחנןגדולכחוכךכלאםשלישיתכדבריהםישועללבשראלא

עליוכאןהעידישוהנהרביעיתידיועלופלאאותשום161יעשהנזכרלאכילעםונפלאותיוגדולוהאישאשהילודגכ163שהואמישוהיהגדול162אככמוהוהנשיםילדיבכלקםשלא

164שקר מהאלוה

Shem Ṭov argues here that John the Baptist should not have doubted Jesus ifhe himself had heard a heavenly voice or seen miracles performed by Jesus (asimilar argument is made in regard to the scribes and Pharisees in commentsect30 see 6413)165 The fact that John who is heralded to be Israelrsquos greatest

154 If one allows the emmendation Elijah אליה) instead of (אלוה the argument wouldexpress incredibility that Jesus could ever be ldquohigherrdquo than John who is meant to be under-stood as Elijah (cf Matt 1111 14ndash15) which would make sense in the context Otherwisethe argument simply expresses the theological impossibility that a created being could beldquomorerdquo than God (מהאלוה) but even Christians do not hold to Jesusrsquo superiority over God

155 MS BL כשבא156 MS BL omit157 MS BL omit158 MS BL מזה יסתפק איך159 MS BL omit160 MS BL omit161 MS BL שעשה162 MS BL ואכ163 MS BL adds היה164 MS Plutei 217 ff 143vndash144r MS BL here וכזב שקר 165 Also similar is Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq ldquoFurther at first he (John) prophesied concerning

him (Jesus) that he was the son of God and after wards he did not believe in him For he saidlsquoAre you he who is destined to come or are we to wait for anotherrsquo For he did not believe inhimrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 344 [f 16v]


prophet (Matt 1111) is unsure about Jesus does not exactly make Christiani-tyrsquos claims stronger mdash an argument that still has some force166 NeverthelessShem Ṭov also argues (slightly counterproductively) against the notion thatJohn was a prophet by referring to Amos 37 Since Jesus did not personallyinform John either Jesusrsquo estimate that John is a prophet cannot be true orJesus is not divine for otherwise he should himself have made efforts tonotify John ahead of time since John was the most important of prophets


Like Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 345) and Nizzahon Vetus sect170 (see 546)Shem Ṭov uses Matt 1125ndash30 as a means to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity andthe TrinityThe transcriber said I have five misgivings about this passage

The first If he was God how is it that he gave instruction to God when he (himself) wassomeone who had to learn167

Second how is it that he needed to be taught (at all)Third how is it that it was necessary (for him) to receive something (that was) given by

someone else when he said that ldquoeverything has been given to merdquo (Matt 1127)Fourth how is it that he said that therefore ldquonone knows (him) except the Father (alone)rdquo

and the ldquoFather (is known) by the Son (alone)rdquo and his disciples If this is so then it is appar-ent that they are two entities and that there is a difference between them and this is the oppo-site of their confession

Fifth if (the above is) the case we can draw the conclusion that the Fatherrsquos knowledgewas more than the Sonrsquos knowledge

לאלהוראהנתןאיךאלוההואאםהאחתספקותחמשהמאמרבזהליישהמעתיקאמרהכלשאממאחרמתנהלקבלנצטרךאיךשלישתלמלמדצריךהיהאיךשנית168בשלמדו

ששנינראהאכותלמידיוהבןולאבהאבאלאמכיראיןשלכןאמראיךרביריתלי169נתוןמידיעתהאבידיעתמעלתנדלהאכחמישיתאמונתםהפךוזהביניהםהפרשוישהםדברים

170הבן

166 On the relationship between Jesus and John see eg Daniel S Dapaah The Relation-ship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth A Critical Study (Lanham Md Uni-versity Press of America 2005) and Robert L Webb ldquoJohn the Baptist and His Relationshipto Jesusrdquo in Studying the Historical Jesus Evaluations of the State of Current Research (edBruce Chilton and Craig A Evans Leiden Brill 1994) 179ndash230

167 Matt 1127 in Even Boḥan reads מכיראיןולאבבלבדהאבאלאהבןאתמכירואיןהבןאלא Shem Ṭov inteprets מכיר (ldquobeing familiar withrdquo or ldquolsquonon-intimatersquordquo knowingrdquo) as

being given instructions ( הוראהנתן ) by God This is probably due to the influenced ofMilḥamot ha-Shem which reads here ldquoIf everything was delivered (נמסר) 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 him ( אביו שלמדו )rdquo see 345

168 MS BL שלמדו169 MS BL נתן170 MS Plutei 217 f 144r


In comparison to the other two texts Shem Ṭov is more systematic althoughthe argument is essentially the same as it arises directly from the text focusingon Jesusrsquo limited knowledge If Jesus had to learn then ldquothere is a differencebetweenrdquo the Father and the Son and ldquothe Fatherrsquos knowledge was more thanthe Sonrsquos knowledgerdquo Jesus is consequently not God

6 4 11 Jesusrsquo Exorcisms Matt 1222ndash29 (sect28)

The following section in which Jesus reacts to the Phariseesrsquo verdict that heuses demonic powers to exorcise demons also would appear to be Shem Ṭovrsquosown response to Matthew No other polemical texts so far have critiqued Matt1222ndash29171 Shem Ṭov in turn attempts to refute Jesusrsquo replyThe transcriber said Jesusrsquo argument against the Pharisees is not (applicable for a case)where a few wicked people were to rise up from one kingdom in order to harm (someone) inanother kingdom and the king (in turn) would punish them for this (this) would not mean(that there) is a division in his kingdom So likewise if Beelzebub were to harm one of hisservants it (would) not follow from this that there was a division in his (own) kingdom

Second if I were to assume this (exorcism) was true who told them that this did nothappen due to a division in the kingdom of Beelzebub172

Third when he said ldquohow shall a man be able (to enter the strong manrsquos house)rdquo mdash this isnot a (conclusive) argument for it is (quite) possible through the power of an oath on thename of God may he be blessed or on his angels to subdue Beelzebub so that he might doonersquos bidding or (perhaps) through some ritual that was performed on him And so he may(indeed) have first bound his servants for thus it is with those who perform oaths173

אחתממלכותרעיםאנשיםקצתיקומושכאשראינההפרושויםעלישוטענתהמעתיקאמרייסרזבובבעלאםוכןבמלכותומחלוקתבזהיהיהלאייסרםוהמלךאחרתבמלכותלהזיקהגידמיאמיתיתזאתהנחתיהיתהאםשנית174במלכותומחלוקתמזהיגיעלאמעבדיואחדאינה176כואישיוכלואיךשאממהשלישית175במלכותומחלוקתזבובלבעלקרהשלאלהםבסבתאומאמרולעשוזבובלבעליכריע177ומלאכיויתבשםהשבועהשבכחשאיפשרטענה

179ההשבעות בעלי דרכי וכן לעבדיו 178תחלה נקשר הוא יהיה ואז לו נעשית עבודה זה אי

171 Shem Ṭovrsquos version of Matthew differs here from the Greek text see Howard HebrewGospel of Matthew 223 ldquoThe meaning is different in the Hebrew text because of two majorvariations (1) Verse 27 reads lsquoIf I cast out demons by Baalzebub why do your sons not castthem outrsquo instead in the Greek lsquoby whom do your sons cast them outrsquo (2) Verse 28 readslsquothe end of [his] kingdom has comersquo instead of the Greek lsquothe kingdom of God has comersquordquo

172 In other words it would have been equally possible that Jesus was the (demonic) sub-versive element within Satanrsquos domain

173 Or perhaps ldquomagical spellsrdquo174 MS BL בביתו175 MS BL בביתו176 MS BL וכו177 MS BL ובמלאכיו בשית 178 MS BL נקשר תחילה 179 MS Plutei 217 f 145v


The Phariseesrsquo assessment of Jesusrsquo miracle activities as demonic is a pivotpoint in Matthewrsquos gospel as the resulting rejection of Jesus by the crowdsputs him on the path to the cross and effects a turn to the Gentiles (in additionit is related to the ldquoUnforgivable Sinrdquo)180 As such Jesusrsquo tertium non daturargument is a challenge that as long as it remained unanswered would notonly dispute the Phariseesrsquo and the rabbisrsquo assessment of Jesus but more sowould even put them in the realm of the ldquoUnforgivable Sinrdquo most certainly inthe eyes of Christians Thus the claim that Jesus was nothing else than an evilmagician is a decisive attack against Christianity181 a view with whichrabbinic Judaism concurred182 Therefore Shem Ṭov is keen to point outfallacies in Jesusrsquo tertium non datur argument by offering not just a third butalso a fourth and fifth option

First he argues that Beelzebubrsquos harming of his own servants does notnecessarily mean his kingdom is divided It could be a form of punishment

180 The assessment that Jesus is demonically empowered occurs four times in Matthew in934 1025 1224 and 1227 Immediately after the latter occurence the Pharisees demand asign from Jesus (1238ndash45) which he denies by deriding them as ldquoevil and adulterous genera-tionrdquo only to be finally opposed by his own family which Jesus in turn also appears to reject(1246ndash50) The following chapter which comprises the third speech in Matthew distin-guishes then between the crowds that now only hear Jesus preach in parables and riddles andthe disciples that are allowed a clear explanation (1310ndash15) This process of successivelyturning away from the Jewish crowds and the Jewish core-lands is presented in conjunctionwith 1) the death of John the Baptist as end of the prophetic era (141ndash12) 2) Jesusrsquo apparentrejection of Pharisaic halachah (151ndash20) and 3) comes to a first apex in Jesusrsquo encounterwith the Cannanite woman in Syrio-Phoenicia whom he reluctantly accepts (1521ndash29) Onthe one side Jesus is rejected by the spiritual leaders of Israel the Pharisees resulting in histurning to those few who do follow him And on the other side he is accepted by a few disci-ples and a Gentile woman esp seen in the turning point of the narrative Peterrsquos acclamationldquoYou are the Christ the Son of the living Godrdquo (1616) All this then puts Jesus on the path tothe cross (1621) which eventually leads to a full acceptance of the Gentiles (2819) andlines up with Matthewrsquos initial focus on the Gentiles (ldquothe son of Abrahamrdquo cf Mat 11)

181 The use of magic is a major issue in Contra Celsum esp in the first two books seeCels 16 and 128

182 Jesusrsquo miracle activities were explained as being performed by means of (demonic)Egyptian magic cf Justin Dial 697 b Sanhedrin 43andashb 104b 107b b Soṭah 47a alsoSchaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud 102ndash106 In contrast Toledot Yeshu relates that Jesus was ableto perform miracles because he stole the Shem ha-Meforash the Name of God which was thereason he (and also Judas) could achieve various miraculous feats see eg Krauss LebenJesus 28 (typus Wagenseil) 40 53 (Strassburg) 68 93 (Vindobona) 118 123 (Adler) andOra Limor an Israel Jacob Yuval ldquoJudas Iscariot Revealer of the Hidden Truthrdquo in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) 197ndash220 esp 201ndash202 See also Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq ldquoHe per-formed no miracles until he went down to Egypt with his father and mother where he learnedmany arts After he returned to the Holy Land he performed the miracles described in yourbooks All this was done through the arts which he learned in Egyptrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrewPolemical Treatiserdquo 342 [f 15r] see also 333ndash39 (see 348)


against some defectors or a punishment for transgressing into ldquoanotherkingdomrdquo183

Second it is actually difficult to verify that there was in fact no division inBeelzebubrsquos kingdom Jesus himself could perhaps be the instigator of such asubversive activity within Beelzebubrsquos domain

And third according to Shem Ṭov the power of exorcism can also bewielded without having to immediately infer that the exorcist has renderedSatan or his minions ultimately powerless That Satan can be temporallybound by magic would not mean that the one binding Satan is ontologicalsuperior to Satan In this sense Jesusrsquo power over Satan is comparable to amagician or spell-caster

Thus for Shem Ṭov Jesusrsquo exorcisms are not conclusive evidence for adivinely endorsed messianic mission or Jesusrsquo superiority184 He diametricallyopposes the evangelistrsquos narrative that exorcism and with that other miraclesgive validity to Jesusrsquo mission or claims Common to the Christian argumentis the understanding that miracles endorse a divine messenger and it is there-fore paramount to discern the source of these super-natural powers In thisJewish polemic usually does not dispute that Jesus performed miracles butmaintains that these were illict Overall Shem Ṭov takes the Christian posi-tion rather seriously here


Shem Ṭov stays in Matthew 12 and not surprisingly repeats the by nowfamiliar Jewish standard critique of Jesusrsquo statement on the blashphemyagainst the SpiritThe transcriber said I have two questions about this passage

The first Look they are saying that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are reflecting185

one (being) and their power and their knowledge are one and that there is no differencebetween them and (that) they are one in every aspect and in respect to substance186 And ifthis were the case how is it that there is a difference between cursing the Spirit and cursingthe Son

Second if a man curses the three of them while thinking of them as one in his mind (per-haps by saying) that the Trinity is a lie and afterwards repents mdash now the Father and the Sonforgive him but the Spirit will not forgive him If so what use is there (then) in the Fatherand the Son forgiving him And where will his soul be in the Garden of Eden or in Hell Orin a place between for the Father and the Son on their part would agree that he should be inthe Garden of Eden while the Spirit on his part (would have him) in Hell

183 Shem Ṭovrsquos own experience of war and the warring of kingdoms in Iberia may haveprovided visual examples in support of this argument

184 In this Shem Ṭov stands in the tradition of Deut 131ndash5185 Lit ldquogo backreturn to one ( לאחד חוזרים הם )rdquo186 Lit ldquothey are one from every side (צד) and one from every corner (פינה)rdquo


והרוחוהבן188שהאבאומריםהםהנההאחת187שאלותשתיזהבמאמרליישהמעתיקאמרכןואםפנהומכלצדמכלאחדוהםביניהםהפרשואיןאחדודעתםוכחםלאחדחוזריםהםבחשבוכאחדשלשתםאדםיגדףאםשנית189לבןלמגדףלרוחהמגדףביןהפרששםאיךהוא

מהאכלוימהוללא191והרוחלוימחלווהבןהאבהנה190ביתשובהשבואחרשקרשהשלושכיאמצעיבמקוםאו193גיהנםאועדןבגןנפשותהיהואנהוהבןהאבבמחילתלו192תועלת194בגיהנם הרוח וחלק עדן בגן שתהיה יחייבו והבן האב חלקי

Shem Ṭov is very systematic and precise in presenting the challenges but theargument itself is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 349) Yosef ha-Meqannesect9 and sect41 (see 4513ndash14) and Nizzahon Vetus sect223 (see 547) Though thefirst of Shem Ṭovrsquos points is more theological and the second almost moreanecdotal there is no radical new contribution or different reading than whatwas already observed It is therefore difficult to tell if this particular argumentagainst the Trinity had special importance to Shem Ṭov (cf 644)

6 4 13 Jesusrsquo Signs Matt 1238ndash45 (sect30)

Shem Ṭov returns to the topic of miracles (see 646ndash9) and echoing therequest of the Pharisees he asksIf all the signs he mentioned were true which Jesus (supposedly) performed that he revivedthe dead and healed the lepers and drove out the demons what need would there have beenfor other (signs)

מצרעיםורפאמתיםשהחיהוהואעשהשישואמתהיוהנזהאותותכלאםהמעתיקאמר195לאחרים צורך מה שדים והוציא

Shem Ṭov essentially questions the truthfulness and nature of the miracleaccounts in the New Testament If they truly occurred and were observedwhy was there a need for other signs In other words there may have beensomething intrinsically questionable about Jesusrsquo miracle activity and withthis Shem Ṭov follows the lead of the Pharisees196 In contrast in Matthewrsquos

187 MS BL תשובות188 MS BL האב שהנה אומרים 189 MS BL הבן190 MS BL בתשובה191 MS BL הרוח אבל לו 192 MS BL תופלת193 MS BL בגהינם194 MS Plutei 217 ff 145ndash146r MS BL here עכ בגהינם 195 MS Plutei 217 f 146r196 A similar question is raised in comment sect35 (f 149r) on Matt 1529ndash38 ldquoIf he was

(such) a great prophet and the lsquoSon of Godrsquo mdash the lsquoHand of Godrsquo for short mdash (why did) they[the disciples] not see that Moses (likewise) fed and supplied (food for) six hundred thousand(men) apart from the women and children (and that for) forty years in the wildernessrdquo שנית)

לבדרבואלששיםוספקזןשמשהראוולאתקצראלהידאלוהולבןגדוללנביאהיההואאם

במדברשנהארבעיםוהטףהנשים ) The reference to Jesus as the ldquohand of Godrdquo relates an


portrayal Jesusrsquo reaction makes clear that the miracles performed by Jesusought to have been sufficient and it is precisely in this context that Jesus callsthe Pharisees an ldquoevil and adulterous generationrdquo (Matt 1238)

Shem Ṭov acknowledges here in some sense that if Jesus had producedthe proper signs that he would have given sufficient validity to his divinemission and claims and hence would have been credible to the Pharisees197

Interestingly Shem Ṭovrsquos argument rests to a large extend on the Phariseersquosassessment of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of Matthew The evangelist didnot just report that people believed in Jesus he also recalls that the Phariseesrejected Jesus and this constitutes a trustworthy witness about Jesus thatholds weight for Shem Ṭov

6 4 14 Peterrsquos Confession Matt 1613ndash20 (sect37)

Athough this comment only marginally relates to Jesus divinity it has beenincluded because Shem Ṭov presents a unique challenge First of all no othertext surveyed so far has included Peterrsquos high-christological confession (ldquoYouare the Christ the Son of the Living Godrdquo Matt 1616)198 But more interest-ingly Shem Ṭov questions the entire pericope by comparing it to other versesin the Matthew thereby creating doubt about the plausibility of the gospelThe transcriber said I have three questions about this (section)

The first Look in the parable of the weeds in sect62 he said to them ldquoThus it will be in thelast days the ldquoSon of Manrdquo will send his angels etcrdquo (Matt 1341) Who is the one who rulesover angels and the righteous in the Garden of Eden and the wicked in Hell is it the ldquoSon ofGodrdquo

And how is it that he [Jesus] was amazed by Peter(rsquos answer) when he said that he is theldquoSon of Godrdquo (This is all the) more (odd since) he frequently said (things such as) ldquomyfather who is in heavenrdquo and in sect51 he said that ldquoeverything has been given to me from my

old traditionally Christian interpretation though in medieval Judaism this term was also partof the anthropomorphic dispute see Meir Bar-Ilan ldquoThe Hand of God A Chapter in RabbinicAnthropomorphismrdquo in Rashi 1040ndash1990 Hommage agrave Ephraiumlm E Urbach Congregraves Euro-peacuteen des eacutetudes juives (ed Gabrielle Sed-Rajna Paris Cerf 1993) 321ndash35 Cf also PhiloPlant 50 b Sanh 38a or Exod 156 12 Isa 628 Psalm 177 444 Ireneaus first comparedthe Son to ldquothe Hand of Godrdquo by which all things are created in Haer 5283 see alsoCyprian Test 24 (ANF 5516f) Athanasius C Ar 271 (NPNF2 4387) Isidore of Seville(d 636) Etymologiae 7223 Cf the discussion in Anthony Briggman Irenaeus of Lyons andthe Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford Oxford University Press 2012) 104ndash47

197 However according to the long argument in 648 this would not have necessarilymeant for Shem Ṭov that Jesus was divine he would have been perhaps acceptable as aprophet but not as God incarnate

198 In this context Jesus is designated as messiah (Christ) for the first time in Shem ṬovrsquosHebrew gospel all other references to Jesus as messiah have been omitted in the Hebrewtranslation up to here ldquoYou are the Messiah in the foreign language lsquoChristosrsquo son of theliving Godrdquo ( העולם בזה שבאת חיים אלהים בן קרישטו לעז משיח אתה )


Father and nobody knows the Father etcrdquo (Matt 1127) And also in sect56 ldquoevery sin and blas-phemy (against the Son and the Father) will be forgiven etcrdquo (Matt 1231ndash32)

Second in [Matthew] chapter 14 when he spoke to his disciples on the lake (after which)they worshipped him they said ldquoAlas he is the lsquoSon of Godrsquordquo (cf Matt 1433)199 So whywas he now amazed by Peter(rsquos answer) and not by (what) all of them (said) then

Third I wonder how (some) would say that he was John Was Jesus not well-known onaccount of his signs and miracles (performed even) during Johnrsquos lifetime as is mentioned inmany places above

יהיהכןלהםאמסבפרקהזונןבמשלהנההאחתשאלותשלשבזהליישהמעתיקאמרבגןצדיקיםוכןמלאכיםעלשמושל201ומיוכמלאכיואת200האדםבןישלחהימיםבאחרית

שעהכלועודאלהיםשבןשאמ202מפיטרושתמהואיךהואאלהיםבןלגיהנםורשעיםעדןובפרקוכלאבמכירואיןאבימאתלינתוןהכלאמנאובפרקשבשמיםאביאומר חטאכלנובןהואאכיהואמרולוהשתחווביםלתלמידיואמכאשרידבפרקשניתוכ203ימחלוגדוף

אומריםהיואיךתמהנישלישיתאזמכולםולא205מפיטרושעתהתמהולמה204האלהיםבהרבהלעיכנזונפלאותיו206באותותיומפורסםישוהיהיוחנןבימיוהלאיוחנןשהוא

207מקומות

While the first argument is merely a terse rethorical question it raises doubtsconcerning Christian convictions arising from the text Who do Christiansbelieve rules over Heaven and Hell Is it the ldquoSon of Manrdquo as the one who

199 The passage referred to is actually in Matthew chapter fourteen ( ידפרק ) and bothMS BL and MS Plutei 217 (a late 15th century copy) interestingly refer here to theldquomodernrdquo chapter division of the Gospel of Matthew which was probably introduced in 1205as part of a revision of the Old Latin text by Cardinal Stephen Langton who at the time wasprofessor in Paris In 1238 the Dominican Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (Hugo of St Cher)adopted this system in his concordance Sacrorum bibliorum concordantiae see Walter FSpecht ldquoChapter and Verse Divisionsrdquo in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed Bruce MMetzger and Michael D Coogan Oxford Oxford University Press 1993) 106 and RaphaelLoewe ldquoThe Medieval History of the Latin Vulgaterdquo in The Cambridge History of the BibleVolume 2 mdash The West From the Fathers to the Reformation (ed GWH Lampe CambridgeCambridge University Press 1969) 147ndash8 see esp 147 n 6 In comment sect39 (f 150r) bothMS BL and MS Plutei 217 refer to the modern chapter division again while at the same timequoting verbatim from the Hebrew Matthew pericope no 48 (in Shem Ṭovrsquos text) This mightsuggest that these modern chapter references were perhaps added by a later copyist althoughthis would have occurred fairly early since it is already in MS Plutei 217 It could also indi-cate that Shem Ṭov (or alternatively one of the earlier copyists) must have been able to accessthe Gospel of Matthew with ldquomodernrdquo chapter divisions by the time of reaching the middle ofcomment sect37 In comments sect2 sect11 sect26 sect31 sect35 and the first half of sect37 references stillcorrespond to the pericope divisions as given in Even Boḥan

200 MS BL אדם בן 201 MS BL מי202 MS BL מפייטרוס203 MS BL omit204 MS BL אלקים בן הוא כי אמרו וגם לו השתחוו 205 MS BL מפייטרוס206 MS BL באותותיו מפורסם היה ישו וכן מפורסם ישו בימי היה יוחנן והלא 207 MS Plutei 217 f 149v


sends angels (Matt 1341) his Father (Matt 1343 1617) the ldquoSon of Godrdquo(Matt 1616) or even Peter (Matt 618ndash19)

The impression of the confused nature of Christian beliefs is then rein-forced with the second question based on Matt 1617 which Shem Ṭov inter-prets as a reaction of surprise208 The comparison with the disciplesrsquo confes-sion after Jesus walked on water (Matt 1433) thus either questions Jesusrsquomental capacity or the veracity of Matthewrsquos composition for it should havebeen easy for Peter to deduce that Jesus is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo based on Jesusrsquofrequently calling God his ldquoFatherrdquo It should have been no surprise to Jesusthat Peter came to this understanding of Jesus Shem Ṭov implicitly assumeshere that Matthew gave a historical account and the tension seen betweenMatt 1433 and Matt 1617 thus questions the probability that these mattershad occured as reported

Likewise the third argument points out potential problems on the narrativelevel of Matthewrsquos gospel Shem Ṭov asks here how it could be possible thatpeople confused Jesus with John (who did not perform any miracles) if he wasso well known on account of his miracles which is indeed a good question

All three arguments appear novel but at least the first must have comefrom a different source unless Shem Ṭov had access to another Gospel ofMatthew version209 The latter two have a distinct historical-critical flavorbecause Shem Ṭov actually shows interest in the historical reality and proba-bilities behind Matthewrsquos account This then is an new quality of engagementwith the Christian text

6 4 15 The Transfiguration Matt 171ndash8 (sect38)

Also unique to Shem Ṭov is his reaction to the reading of the transfigurationaccount in Matt 171ndash8The transcriber said If he was God what need is there for Moses and Elijah to inform himabout what would happen

210יקרהו אשר להודיעו ולאליה למשה צורך מה אלוה הוא אם המעתיק אמר

For the sake of argument Shem Ṭov simply accepts that Jesus was transfig-ured and met with Moses and Elijah although without commenting further on

208 Cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 733) where the same strategy is employed in regard tothe fig tree There it is questioned why the disciples are surprised that the tree actually with-ered if they really believed that Jesus was God

209 Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthew text actually does not make any mention of Jesus as ldquoSon ofManrdquo ( אדםבן ) in Matt 1613 which reads ldquoWhat do men say about merdquo ( בניאמריםמה

בשבילי אדם ) This would suggest that the argument comes from another source210 MS Plutei 217 f 150r MS BL here ואליהוממשההיהצורךמהאלוההואאם

יקרוהו אשר להודיעו


the Bat Qol in Matt 175 which announces that the disciples should obey Jesus( תשמעוןאליו )211 He clearly interacts here with the text he has before himwhich states that Moses and Elijah ldquotold Jesus all which would happen to himin Jerusalemrdquo ( בירושליםשיקראהומהכללישוהגידו )212 This argument is inline with that seen in 6410 on Matt 1125ndash30 where Shem Ṭov remarkedthat Jesus apparently had things to learn and was in need of further instruc-tion The expectable response to this of course is to wonder about Jesusrsquoignorance an objection that is usually attached to Jesusrsquo cursing of the figtree which is included in Shem Ṭovrsquos critique as well

6 4 16 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Matt 2110ndash22 (sect42)The transcriber said Look at this for there are three questions to ask

The first question is Can God hungerThe second is about his lack of knowledge recognition and vision since he did not know

recognize or see that there were no figs on the fig treeThe third is that he cursed the fig tree although the tree had done nothing to him213 nor

did it called him (a bad name) he simply did not receive anything

שהיההשני215ירעבשהאלוההאחתשאלות214שלשכאןוישוהביטהזהראההמעתיקאמרבתאנהתאניםיהיושלא216וראההכירולאידעשלאוראיההכרהוחסרוןידיעהחסרוןלו

217לו נתן ולא לו קראה האם בכפיה חמס לא על התאנה שקלל השלישית

The argument is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) although lessaggressively presented here218 Jesus is understood as somebody with limitedknowledge and appears even as cruel both are taken as arguments against hisdivinity Again one notes the rather simplistic formuation of the questionldquoCan God hungerrdquo The assumed Christian understanding behind this is thatJesus is simply understood as God which on the popular level may very wellhave been the case for many Christian Like in previous polemical works thedoctrine of the two-natures is not commented on though Shem Ṭov havingdisputed with a cardinal likely would have been aware of this teaching

6 4 17 Paying Taxes to Caesar Matt 2215ndash22 (sect44)

As already observed earlier Shem Ṭov follows the Phariseesrsquo lead (see 6411and 6413) when evaluating Jesus and his claims In a discussion of Matt

211 Already in 644 at Jesusrsquo baptism Shem Ṭov did not comment on the Bat Qol212 Cf Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 82ndash83213 Lit ldquoAbout violence in her [the fig treersquos] handsrdquo cf Job 1617214 MS BL שלשה כאן יש כי 215 MS BL רעב216 MS BL ממה217 MS Plutei 217 f 153v MS BL here לו נתנה ולא קראה האם 218 See also Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 83ndash84 92ndash93 cf Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410)


2215ndash22 where Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar Shem ṬovobservesHere the Pharisees asked him if it was true that he was the Messiah who was able to take offthe yoke of Caesar from their necks and to put their yoke on his shoulders [Caesarrsquos] as it iswritten in the passage ldquoArise shinerdquo (Isa 601) and ldquoforeigners shall rebuild your walls theirkings shall serve you For in my anger I struck you but in my favor I shall have compassionon you And your gates shall be open day and night They will not be closed so that men maybring to you the wealth of the nations and their kings led (in procession) For the nation andthe kingdom which will not serve you will perish and the nations will be utterly ruinedrdquo (Isa6010ndash12) And so the Pharisees seeing that they were (still) under Caesar accordinglyjudged that they would not believe in him

Second if he was the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or the Messiah how is it that he was afraid of CaesarAnd why did he not tell them clearly that they should not give to him anything Has Mosesalthough he was (merely) a man not told Pharaoh in his own country (even) his own houseand to his face ldquoYou must also let us have sacrifices and burnt offeringsrdquo (Exodus 1025)

220שיזרעוללפרוקלוהיה219הואמשיחשאםנכונהממנושאלוהפרושיםהנההמעתיקאמר

ומלכיהםחומותיךנכרבניובנואוריקומיבפרשתדכתיצוארועלעולםולתתצוארםמעליסגרולאולילהיומםתמידשעריךופתחורחמתיךוברצוני221הכיתיךבקצפיכיישרתונךחרובוהגויםיאבדויעבדוךלאאשרוהממלכההגויכינהוגיםומלכיהםגויםחילאליךלהביאאלהיםבןאםשניתבולהאמיןשלאהיהכדין222שיזרתחתשהםבראותםוהפירושיםיחרבו

והלאדברלויתנושלאבפירושלהםאמלאולמה224משיזרנתיראאם223איךהואמשיחאוזבחיםבידנותתןאתהגם226בפניוובביתובארצולפרעהאמראדםבן225הותועםמשה

227ועולות

The question about paying taxes to Caesar was according to Shem Ṭov a validway of assessing if Jesus was the Messiah who was expected to remove theRoman governance of the Promised Land228 Since Jesus was not concernedwith the Roman rule the Pharisees judged him to not be a credible messianiccontender In Shem Ṭovrsquos day a period of intense messianic speculationamong the Jewish communites of Iberia this was an important argument asmany Jews had abandoned their Jewish faith in favor for Christianity precise-ly over the question of the Messiah229

219 MS BL המשיח הוא שאם 220 MS BL ציזארי221 MS BL הכיתך222 MS BL סיזארי223 MS BL omit224 MS BL מציזארי225 MS BL היותו עם עה רבינו ומשה דבר 226 MS BL omit227 MS Plutei 217 f 154v228 For the related historical question see Martin Hengel Die Zeloten Untersuchungen

zur juumldischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I bis 70 n Chr (Leiden Brill1961 2nd rev ed 1976 various translations) recently revised and republished 3rd ed byRoland Deines and Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton (WUNT I283 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011)

229 See Roth Conversos 11 141 194ndash95 383 n 18 et al (see index)


The second objection is similar to comment sect4 (see 643) where Jesusrsquoescape to Egypt is likewise interpreted as an act motivated by fear of a humanruler That Jesus experiences fear which is a point that also appears incomment sect53 (see 6419) is however not the issue here but that Moses issuperior in this regard Where Jesus seems to be a coward Moses showshimself to be a brave national leader Consequently Jesus is not a propersavior and Moses is to be preferred While this argument is only marginallyrelated to Jesusrsquo divinity nevertheless it portrays Jesus as someone unlikely tobe divine as he does not compare to Mosesrsquo stature vis-aacute-vis a foreigner ruler

6 4 18 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Matt 2427ndash36 (sect50)

As in other polemic texts and already earlier in comment sect42 (see 6416)Jesusrsquo ignorance is shown to be being incompatible with divinityThe transcriber said I have two questions here

The first is that that whole generation has already passed away and (also) many other gen-erations (after them) and all this is (quite) evident

Second he said that nobody knows that time but the father alone (and) if so (it means)the Son does not know If so (then) there is a difference between the knowledge of the Fatherand the Son but that is the opposite of their belief

רבותאחרותודורותההואהדורכלעברשכברהאחתשאלותשתיכאןליישהמעתיקאמרכןאםיודעבלתיהבןאכבלבדהאבאלאהעתאותייודעשאיןאמרהואשניתנראהזהוכל230אמונתם הפך והוא לבן האב ידיעת בין הפרש יש

The argument of Jesusrsquo ignorance about the future is similar to NizzahonVetus sect177 and sect194 (see 5411) and Qiṣṣa sect39 (see 2511) Shem Ṭovadds another question concerning Jesusrsquo near expectation of the parousia inMatt 2434 which is also a hotly debated topic in New Testament studies231

If Jesus was wrong as Shem Ṭov implies Jesus clearly lacked divine knowl-edge and may have even have been a false prophet

6 4 19 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2631ndash44 (sect53)

The last of the three more extensive comments in Shem Ṭovrsquos critique of theGospel of Matthew are based on the Gethsemane pericope which are alsoquite similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Judged by the length of therespective comments the Gethsemane pericope played an important role inShem Ṭovrsquos polemic

230 MS Plutei 217 ff 156vndash157r231 See eg Luz Matthew 21ndash28 208ndash10 Davies and Allison Matthew 19ndash28 366ndash68

Randall Otto ldquoDealing with Delay A Critique of Christian Copingrdquo BTB 34 (2004) 150ndash60also Reinaldo Siqueira ldquoThe Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretationrdquo Kerygma 3(2011) 23ndash42


The transcriber said I have six questions about this (section)The first how is it that he was praying that the cup of death should depart from him

although he had come down just for this And he said moreover ldquoLet it not be as I will butaccording to your willrdquo This shows that their wills are not equal But this is the opposite ofwhat they say in their creed232 that their will and their power are one233

Second if he were God how is it that he said that ldquothe Spirit is ready to go to his cre-atorrdquo234 If so (this) should show them that the [his] spirit has a creator and that he is in factcreated If so he would have a God who is above him

The third how is it that he shivered (of fear) of death235 Is God not ldquoexalted in powerrdquo(Job 3723) And if you should say that it was (only) the flesh that was shivering has he notsaid (earlier) ldquomy soul is grievedrdquo And moreover does the body (really) shiver by itselfwithout the participation of the spirit that is giving (the body its) senses

Fourth how is it that he is praying for the cup of death to depart if he was able to do so[himself] It appears that he lacked the awareness (that he had) this ability236 And if so(then) there is a shortcoming in his knowledge and if he were (indeed) God this would be animpossibility with respect to his essence ( בחוקו נמנע זה יהיה אלוה הוא ואם )237

Fifth he shows (here) that the death he received was out of compulsion in order to estab-lish Godrsquos decree and that is the opposite of what is said about him that he received itwillingly238

232 Lit ldquotheir knowledgerdquo (דעתם)233 Shem Ṭovrsquos argument seems not directly relate to the debates over Monotheletism and

Dyothelitism in the 7th century despite the fact that he phrases the problem similarly Thequestion for him (as for other polemicists) is if Jesusrsquo will and Godrsquos will are ldquoin-sync rdquo andhis aim with this argument is to dispute Jesusrsquo divinity For a in-depth study of the debateover Monotheletism see Cyril Hovorun Will Action and Freedom Christological Controver-sies in the Seventh Century (The Medieval Mediterranean 77 Leiden Brill 2008)

234 This argument is based on Shem Ṭovrsquos differing version of Matt 2641 ldquoWatch andpray lest you will come into temptation for (it is) the truth that the spirit is ready to go tohim see (that) the flesh is weak and sickrdquo ( שהרוחשהאמתבנסיוןתבאופןוהתפללושמרו

וחולהחלושהבשראתראולולילךנכון ) The Greek reads here ldquoγρηγορεῖτε καὶπροσεύχεσθε ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόνmiddot τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξἀσθενήςrdquo (NA27) the Latin ldquovigilate et orate ut non intretis in temptationem spiritus quidempromptus est caro autem infirmardquo (Vg) Shem Ṭovrsquos comment interprets this as ldquothe spirit isready to go to its Creatorrdquo ( לבוראולילךנכוןהרוח ) It is thus possible that the gospel text hasbeen corrupted here Based on Howardrsquos apparatus MS Heb 28 Bibliotheek der Rijksuniver-siteit Leiden reads הבשר אך לבוראו לילך (ldquohellipto go to its Creatorhelliprdquo) here

235 This detail is not found in Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthew text nor do any of the other canonicalgospels explicitly report that Jesus was shaking (but cf Luke 2244) Shem Ṭov must havetaken this from Milḥamot ha-Shem (cf ומתפחד מריעד היה ועתה ) see 346

236 Or ldquooptionrdquo237 The argument probably relates to Ḥasdai Crescasrsquo philosophical treatise rsquoOr Adonay

(ldquoLight of Godrdquo) book 2 chapter 5 שהואאצלוומורגשנגלהמבוארוההכרחהחיובהנהההיאהאמונהסותרלהאמיןבחוקונמנע This then is one of the few times in the discussion

of New Testament texts that a more serious problem with the Christian understanding ispointed out though it still does not fully engage the Christian understanding of the two-natures of Christ Lasker has already pointed out the influence of rsquoOr Adonay on Kelimmatha-Goyim see idem The Refutation of the Christian Principles 8 88 n 27 cf also 12ndash15

238Cf Mark 831ndash33 John 1017ndash18 1910ndash11 also Origen Cels 131 211 34 473


Sixth if you should (however) say that the truth (of the matter) is that he received thisdeath willingly mdash if so why were the Jews then (according) to your opinion239 punished forthis Or is the doer of Godrsquos will not deserving of good reward much less deserving of pun-ishment And if you should say that their punishment is based on the fact that they did notintend to do his will instead (even) angered him mdash are simple intentions then (punishable)like deeds240 And therefore since this was (presumably) a good deed and willingly donethere is then no reason to punish (anyone) over this But much more so they [the disciples]are (even) compelled by him to fulfill the will of the Lord and his decree as is mentioned inthe next pericope ldquoto fulfill what is written in Scripturerdquo (cf Matt 2654) And also it isclear241 that the killers did not (really) hold him to be the ldquoSon of Godrdquo unless they wouldhave been completely foolish (either way) they are not liable Instead according to their(own) words they were thinking he was an impostor and a blasphemer of God And if that isthe case they killed him in accordance with the law So why were they punished

לאוהואממנוהמותכוסשיסורמתפללהיהאיךהאחתשאלותששבזהליישהמעתיקאמרוזהשוהבלתישרצונםיראהכרצונךאלאיהיהרוצהשאניכמולאאומרוועודלזהאלאירדלילךנכוןשהרוחאמראיךאלוההואאםשניתאחדוכוחםורצנםשדעתםשאמרמההפך

נרעדהיהאיךהשלישיתלוממעלאלוהישאכברויוהואבוראלרוחשישיראםאכלבוראווהלאועודמתעצבתנפשיאמרוהלאנרעדהיהשהבשרואתכחשגיאהאלוהלאמהמות

המותכוסלהסירמתפללהיהאיךרביעיתהחושהנותןהרוחבשתוףאםכינרעדבלתיהגוףואםבדעתוחסרוןיהיהואכהאפשרותבזההידיעהחסרהיהשהואנראהלהיותיוכלאםהאלגזירתלקייםכרחועלקבלהשהמיתהיראהחמישיתבחוקונמנעזהיהיהאלוההואלמהאכברצונוקבלהשהמותשהאמתאתששיתברצונושקבלהעליוהנאמרהפךוהואראוישאיןוכשטובלתגמולראויהשםרצוןהעושהוהלאזהעללדעתכםהיהודיםנענשושבלבדבריםוהלאלהכעיסואלארצונולעשותהםנתכונושלאלפישעונשםואתשיענשעליומוכרחיםשהםוכשעליוליענשראויאיןורצויטובשהפועלאחריולכןדבריםאינם

לאשההורגיםספקשאיןועודהכתביםכתבילמלאתהבאבפכנזוגזירתוהשםרצוןלמלאתהיוהםאבלעונשיםבניואינםגמוריםשוטיםיהיוכןלאשאםאלוהבןהיותוחושביםהיו

242נענשו ולמה הרגוהו כדין כן ואם לדבריו השם ומחלל משקר היותו חושבים

As already noted the Gethsemane prayer features prominently in most Jewishpolemic texts that discuss New Testament texts243 Shem Ṭov is clearlyindebted to Jacob ben Reuben since there are several clear paralles in wordingand argumentation (cf 346)244 though he is more succinct in presenting hisarguments In addition to what is found in Milḥamot ha-Shem he adds twomore points (questions two and six) which appear to be Shem Ṭovrsquos owncontributions The former is based on the Hebrew gospel translation available

239 Lit ldquoto your knowledgerdquo (לדעתכם)240 This rabbinic principle is phrased here as a double negative ldquoThen are not the matters

of the heart not (real) mattersrdquo ( דבריםאינםשבלבדבריםוהלא ) meaning there is no reli-gious significance or consequence to unexpressed (and unverifiable) human intention cfb Qidd 49b

241 Lit ldquothere is no doubtrdquo ( ספק אין )242 MS Plutei 217 ff 159rndash159v243 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect53 and sectsect139ndash141 (see 2515) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see

4519ndash20) and Nizzahon Vetus sect176 (see 5412)244 See also Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 142


to him and the latter relates to the accusation of deicide and is perhapsgleaned from Sefer ha-Berit245 In particular this last point is noteworthyaccording to Christian thinking Jesus went to the cross willingly and in doingso fulfilled a divine plan Jews should therefore be doubly blameless from theaccusation of being ldquoChrist-killersrdquo246 This is of course not only a very goodargument it is also a central theological issue Jews should not be held culpa-ble for Jesusrsquo death that Matthew and Christian theology maintain to be God-ordained247 In fact this notion has fueled anti-semitic atrocities throughouthistory and for Shem Ṭov and his contemporaries this matter may have beenmuch more serious

6 4 20 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2727ndash66 (sect56)

The last comment that relates (although very remotely) to Jesusrsquo divinityfollows the crucifixion account in Matt 2727ndash66The transcriber said John wrote that Jesus carried the cross himself but here it says thatSimeon (carried) the cross

Second if he is God how is it that he did not know what was in the bitter wine until hestarted to drink it Moreover how is it that Jesus was three hours on a cross and there were(also) thieves with him Did the (act of) hanging not strangle him within the hour But more-

245 ldquoThe gentiles say that the time had not yet come when he was to suffer This provesthat according to them he was afflicted when he wished it so Accordingly he descended toearth to die and save the world from the torment of hell Why then did he punish the nationthat dealt rightly with him since by his own free will he accepted death Had the Jews notwanted to kill him he would have put it into their hearts to do so since he was God and itwas so decreed from above by his father in heaven He underwent death to safe the world forin no other way could he have saved the world from the torment of hell Only by his bloodand his death according to their notion did he redeem the world from Satanrsquos power If sohe committed a grave injustice in punishing the nation that killed and afflicted him accordingto his own wishes We can say too that the intention of the Jews was positive since theyheard from his own mouth that the salvation of the world depended on his death [Theywished then] that the world be be saved through them that they might have some merit in theworld to come in this matter Therefore they killed him to save the worldrdquo Talmage TheBook of the Covenant 76ndash77 [Hebr ed pp 63ndash64] A similar argument also occurs in QiṣṣaNestor sect24a see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 156 n 7 143 cf also RosenthalJoseph Hamekane sect43 137 Moreover it appears already in Justin Dial 952ndash4

246 The accusation that Jews were ldquoChrist-killersrdquo (deicide) is according to Roth compara-tively rare in medieval Spain as relations between Christians and Jews were usually morecordial see Roth Conversos 347 But cf MS Plutei 217 f 107r ldquoThey think we killedJesusrdquo ( לישוהרגנושאנוחושביםהם ) For the history of this idea see esp Jeremy CohenChrist Killers The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen (New York OxfordUniversity Press 2007) also Cohen ldquoThe Jews as the Killers of Christrdquo

247 In spite of this some Christian theologians nevertheless tried to maintain this accusa-tion see the discussion under 453


over in the legal traditions of Israel there is no (mandate that stipulates that a) thief ought tobe killed So why did they hang these as thieves

הואאםשניתהוליכהששמעוןאמוכאןהצליבההוליךעצמושישוכתיוחנןהמעתיקאמרבצליכהשעותשלשישוהיהאיךועודלשתותשהתחילעדמרהבייןשהיהידעלאאיךאלוהתלוולמהנהרגהגנבאיןישראלשבדיניועודלשעתונחנקהנתלהוהלאעמוהגנביםוכן

248גנבים לאותם

Shem Ṭov limits himself here to the discussion of the discrepancies betweenthe passion narratives and the inconsistencies between the gospel accountsand rabbinic criminal law He wonders about the oddities of the story itselfhow is it that mere robbers received capital punishment and how could Jesushave been unaware that he was given vinegar The first questions the veracityof the Gospel account the latter the veracity of the claim that Jesus is divinesince he seems ignorant

Shem Ṭovrsquos polemic also operates on the premise that Jesus death occurreddue to being strangulated (by hanging on gallows) His argument is curiousinasmuch it would stand to reason that he had seen depictions of Jesus cruci-fied249 Therefore it would seem most probable that the Hebrew translation hereceived already described Jesus as being ldquohangedrdquo (on gallows)250 and thathis comment criticizes the text itself In other words he disputes what isdepicted in the translation at hand over against what he knows from Christianart and gospel narratives Based on this passage Garshowitz has suggestedthat the translator may have been a zealous apostate who capitalized on theprevailing Jewish tradition and wanted ldquoto maximize the Jewsrsquos blame forJesusrsquo deathrdquo inasmuch as hanging was a Jewish form of punishment251

In this context Shem Ṭov unlike other polemicists does not discuss thenotion of suffering or death However in comment sect58 he writesYou already saw my comment about (his) death and on the outcry (on the cross) So to whomand about whom can one say and arrange such a thing as this (Surely) one can much better

248 MS Plutei 217 f 161v249 Eg crosses are depicted on medieval Aragonian coinage of the 13th and 14th

century also altar crucifixes or Christian jewelry of the 14th century ought to have beenfamiliar to Shem Ṭov

250 But more likely on the cabbage stalk mentioned in Toledot Yeshu see Hillel INewman ldquoThe Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literaturerdquo JTS 50 (1999) 59ndash79 andMichael Meerson ldquoMeaningful Nonsense A Study if Details in Toledot Yesurdquo in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) 181ndash96

251 Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo 303 HoweverDavid W Chapman has shown that תלה can indeed refer to crucifixion though in the Mishnait is not a death penalty on its own but following crucifixion see idem Ancient Jewish andChristian Perceptions of Crucifixion (WUNT 2244 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2008 GrandRapids Baker 2010) 30ndash32 228ndash34 et passim


(say) this about the King of ldquothe King of Kingsrdquo may he be blessed (who is) beyond anychange or any ldquooffspring of the mightyrdquo252

מלךעלכשהזהכדברויסדריאמרמיועלולמיוצעקתההמיתהזאתדברירואהאתהכבר253רב ועלוי שנוי מכל ית המלכי מלכי

Shem Ṭov presumably refers here to his discussion of Psalm 22 whichappears much earlier in Even Boḥan in a debate between a Christian (המשלש)and a Jew (המיחד) which is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem254

The Jew replied ldquoYou are saying that he received the judgment of the crucifixion willinglyand that he came down for this [very purpose] If so why did he call out to God to save himFurthermore how could he have placed himself under another by saying lsquomy God my Godrsquo(Psalm 221) and similarily lsquoMy God I cry by day but you do not answerrsquo (Psalm 222) Itseems he was screaming without being answered And if you should say that the flesh said allthis tell me how to interpret the passage lsquoDeliver my soul from the sword my only [life]from the power of the dogrsquo (Psalm 2220) Moreover you [essentially] explained lsquoBut I am aworm and not a manrsquo (Psalm 226) [to mean] that he is in the likeness of a worm If so youshould interpret in like manner lsquoDo not fear you worm of Jacobrsquo (Isa 4114) [and] lsquoHowmuch less man a worm the son of man a maggotrsquo (Job 256) Moreover your translatorserred when they wrote lsquothey pierced my hands and feetrsquo (Psalm 2216) Surely lsquolike a lionrsquo iswritten [there]rdquo255

ייאלצעקלמהכןאםירדושלכךברצונוהצליבהדיןשקבלשאמרתאתההמיחדהשיבולאיומםאקראאלהיוכןאליאליבאומרואחרתחתעצמושםאיךועודשיצילהו

מההודיעניזהכלאומרהיהשהבשרתאמרואםנענהבלתיצווחשהיהנראהתענהאישולאתולעתואנכיפירשתעודיחידתיכלבמידנפשימחרבהצילהבפסוקתאמראדםובןרמהאנושכיואףיעקבתולעתתיראיאלכןתפרשכןאםהתולעתבדמיוןשהואכארישהאמתהעתיקולאוכוורגליידיכרובשכתבושמעתיקיךתדעעודתולעת256כתיב

252 The phrase רבעלוי also occurs in Ibn Tibbonrsquos translation of Moreh Nevukim 19 לארבעלוייתעליוהבוראשינשאגשםשיש expressing there that God is too exalted to become

corporeal which is perhaps also what Shem Ṭov had in mind by using this phrase253 MS Plut 217 f 162r254 See Rosenthalrsquos edition 66ndash67 and Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos

Even Bohanrdquo 2177ndash181 (Plutei 217 ff 88vndash89r) Cf the discussion of Psalm 22 in Nizza-hon Vetus sect145 (see 5413)

255 The phrase כארי in Psalm 2216[17] most naturally would be rendered as ldquolike a lionrdquothough this creates an awkward reading and may not be original the JPS Bible eg trans-lates ldquolike lions [they] maul my hands and feetrdquo adding the verb ldquomaulrdquo Alternatively bymeans of an emmendation it can be related to the root כרה (to dig) thus the LXX translatedhere ὤρυξαν (ldquothey dug out made a hole by diggingrdquo) which corresponds to the traditionalChristian reading ldquothey pierced my hand and feetrdquo Christians consequently have used Psalm2216[17] as a prediction of Jesusrsquo death on the cross the first being Justin Martyr in 1 Apol3538 and Dial 97 104 On this see esp Gregory Vall ldquoPsalm 2217B lsquoThe Old GuessrsquordquoJBL 116 (1997) 45ndash56 and Kristin M Swenson ldquoPsalm 2217 Circling around the ProblemAgainrdquo JBL 123 (2004) 637ndash48

256 Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 2179ndash80


After this Shem Ṭov inserts his own comment257

The abridger said If Jesus were God and the Trinity were stuck together eternally in accor-dance with your belief how could the flesh have said ldquoWhy have you forsaken merdquo(Psalm 221) since heit258 was always with him Also ldquodeliver my soul from the swordrdquo(Psalm 2220) He could have said ldquomy bodyrdquo or ldquomy fleshrdquo because the soul which is thedivinity is not subject to salvation259

יוכלאיךכאמונתךלעולםיחדנדבקיםוהשלשהאלוהישוהיהאםהמקצרטובשםאמרכיבשריאוגופילומרהיהנפשימחרבהצילהועודעמותמידוהואעזבתנילמהלומרהבשר260הצלה בה יפול לא האלהות שהיא הנפש

After essentially reproducing a passage from Milḥamot ha-Shem Shem Ṭovforwards a challenge based on Psalm 221 (Matt 2746 par Mark 1534) ifJesus Christ had pre-existed with God and always was joined to God howcould he in his incarnationhumanity (ldquothe fleshrdquo) despair over being left byGod And on the other side how could Jesus pray for his ldquosoulrdquo to berescued If the soul is understood as the divine aspect of Jesus which seemsto be the understanding Shem Ṭov shares with other Jewish scholars261 heshould have prayed for his flesh ie his human nature to be delivered not hisdivine nature But by praying for his soul so the implication he demonstratesthat he is at the core a man which is also why he can despair over beingseperated from God

Shem Ṭov clearly points here something of the inherent paradox of confes-sing Jesus as the God-man Even after distinguishing human and divinenature262 the language of the passage at hand challenges the notion that thedivine nature was unaffected It is as such evident that Shem Ṭov is familiarat least rudimentarily with the notion of the two-natures of Christ and hefinds that the imagery of separation abandonment and despair does not siteasy with high christological claims nor the doctrine of the Trinity

6 5 Summary

In Even Boḥan we have a fine presentation and sample of a Jewish critique ofthe Gospel of Matthew which mdash as most likely intended by the author mdash

257 Shem Ṭov refers to himself here as the ldquoabridgerrdquo ( המקצרטובשםאמר ) and as wasseen throughout as someone who essentially extracts from Milḥamot ha-Shem elements hedeemed important

258 Grammatically both is possible either the flesh was co-joined with God or the Son259 The translation is based on Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 1xxiiindashix260 The critical Hebrew text is given ibid 180261 See the summaries in 55 and 913262 Or even pre-incarnate and incarnate existence though not as Christians understand it


allows for a relatively comprehensive view of Jewish objections to the claimsof Christianity based on the New Testament itself

Shem Ṭovrsquos arguments against the divinity of Jesus stand within the trajec-tory of the previous polemic tradition and in particular Jacob ben ReubenrsquosMilḥamot ha-Shem which he clearly knew and defended in the later revisionof Even Boḥan against Alfonso de Valladolidrsquos refutation263 He liberallydraws from Jacob ben Reubenrsquos treatise though he presents a more succinctand systematic treatment of the Gospel of Matthew than many of his prede-cessors His reasoning is based on a plain exegesis and he abstains fromlengthy exegetical excursions or sharp polemical attacks Especially in placeswhere his Hebrew gospel text deviates (from the canonical text) it is possibleto see some of Shem Ṭovrsquos own thoughts on Matthew

Although his comments are usually quite brief he is more verbose whencommenting on Matt 41ndash11 (see 645) Matt 932ndash38 (see 648) Matt1111ndash15 (649) Matt 1125ndash30 (see 6410) Matt 1222ndash29 (see 6411)and Matt 2631ndash44 (see 6419) Of these Jesusrsquo temptation (Matt 41ndash11)Jesusrsquo miracles (Matt 932ndash28) and Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane (2631ndash44)are discussed in great length Matt 932ndash38 in particular presents him with theopportunity to give a systematic and rational critique of the incarnation thevirginal conception claims of Jesusrsquo divinity and the trustworthiness of theGospel of Matthew itself which in this form appears to be original to ShemṬov Likewise his remarks about Jesusrsquo exchange with the Pharisees over hisexorcisms (Matt 1222ndash29) are not commonly found in other sources This isalso true for his observations on Matt 1111ndash15 (see 659) and Matt 1613ndash20(see 6414) which question the probabilities of Matthewrsquos account within thegospelrsquos narrative horizon Interestingly Shem Ṭov follows the Phariseesrsquoevaluation of Jesus for which he relies on the Gospel of Matthew264 Unlikemost of the polemical tradition he does not explicitly argue that Joseph isJesusrsquo biological father instead he questions the purpose relating Jesus toJoseph if the latter is indeed conceived without Josephrsquos involvement (see641)

Shem Ṭovrsquos incorporation and in fact propagation of the entire Gospel ofMatthew must be understood in line with his view and use of the gospel Onthe one side Shem Ṭov clearly seeks to explain how Matthewrsquos account ofJesusrsquo life and teaching could be attractive and in doing so arrives at a diffi-cult but also more nuanced Jewish view of Jesus On the other side hemaintains that the arguments for Jesusrsquo divinity are irrational and cannot beestablished from the gospel text itself His view of the gospel is thus some-what ambivalent and while he clearly identifies it as flawed he still finds it in

263 See Garshowitz review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ 458264 See 6411 6413 and 6417

65 Summary 255

its entirety useful enough to argue against Christianity This then allows himto reject ontological claims about Jesus but at the same time to still affirmJesusrsquo teaching as far as it is in line with the rabbinic tradition He goes togreat lengths to show that ldquoJesusrsquo halachahrdquo is a copy of Jewish traditionJesus was not innovating (מחדש) on anything Thus he can show that Jesusrsquosteaching was mostly in line with Jewish thinking and that it was Matthewrsquos(or Jesusrsquo) intention to attract his Jewish audience with this265 Shem Ṭov isas such one of the first Jewish scholars to explicitly acknowledge that theGospel of Matthew shows an affinity between Jesus and Judaism

265 See the discussion under 63 and 648


Chapter 7

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inProfiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim

7 1 Introduction

Isaac ben Moses ha-Levy1 usually referred to as Profiat Duran or Efodi2 isone of the most exceptional polemical writers of the Late Middle Ages It islikely he was forcibly baptized in the wake of the anti-Jewish persecutionsthat began in Seville in 1391 and he may have taken on the Christian nameHonoratus de Bonafide3 Nevertheless he appears to have secretly continuedin his Jewish faith or returned to Judaism at a later point and therefore wouldhave written the polemical treatise Kelimmat ha-Goyim (ldquoThe Reproach of theGentilesrdquo) at considerable risk to himself4 Kelimmat ha-Goyim stands out as

1 Norman Roth (erroneously) calls him Israel instead of Isaac see Conversos 1922 His nome de plume Efod (אפד) according to Talmage was based on the acronym of

his Catalan name En Profiat Duran although it could also be the abbreviation for אניאמרדוראןפרופייט Efod could also be a veiled reference to the shame of his forced baptism see

Frank Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Immanuel 13 (1981) 69ndash85 see69 72ndash73 also Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155 Jonathan Friedlaumlnder and JakobKohn Maase Efod Einleitung in das Studium der Hebraumlischen Sprache von Profiat Duran[ אפדמעשה ] (Vienna Holzwarth 1865) 2 (German part) Also Norman Roth has suggestedthat the name is referring to the efod (the priestly breastplate) mentioned in the Talmud (andTorah) which signifies that Profiat Duran ldquosought atonement for his own conversion and forothers in his generationrdquo see his Conversos 192ndash3 see also 36ndash37 142ndash43

3 Richard W Emery ldquoNew Light on Profayt Duran lsquoThe Efodirsquordquo JQR 58 (1968) 328ndash37 see especially 331ndash32 Emeryrsquos reconstruction has been questioned however to date hisinvestigation of Duranrsquos life circumstances appears to be based on the best evidence avail-able Cf Baer History 2152 Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo 72Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155ndash156 and Netanyahu Marranos 221ndash23

4 Sometimes also translated as the ldquoShamerdquo or ldquoConfusion of the Gentilesrdquo To date thereare two Hebrew editions of Kelimmat ha-Goyim available The earlier edition was publishedby Adolf Posnanski ldquoThe Reproach of the Gentiles The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran ofPerpignan in the year 1397rdquo [ דוראןפרופייטמאישטרוחיבורוהגויםכלימתספר

הקנזבשנתמפירפינייאנו ] Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914) 99ndash113 143ndash80 4 (1915)37ndash48 81ndash96 115ndash23 [Hebr] which was translated into English by Anne D Berlin butunfortunately never published idem ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Polemic Against Christianityrdquo (BA thesis Cambridge Mass RadcliffeCollege Harvard University 1987) The more recent edition was published by FrankTalmage ed The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran The Reproach of the Gentiles and

one of the best informed and ingenious anti-Christian treatises of its genre inparticular when it comes to the treatment and use of the New Testament5 Itwas most likely written between 1396 and 1397 though the composition datehas also been discussed in relation to the timing of Duranrsquos forced conversionaround the year 13916

Duran was an erudite writer and had extensive knowledge of Semitic andRomance languages even Greek7 which he ably demonstrates in his treatiseon Hebrew grammar Malsquoaseh rsquoEfod8 He also wrote on astronomy andperhaps may have been the court astrologer of Juan I of Aragon9 Duran is

lsquoBe not like unto thy Fathersrsquo [ תהיאלואיגרתהגויםכלימתדוראןלפרופיטפולמוספכתבי[באבותיך (ldquoKuntresimrdquo Texts and Studies 55 Jerusalem The Zalman Shazar Center andThe Dinur Center 1981) Neither publication can be considered a full critical edition ofKelimmat ha-Goyim Talmagersquos version is based on what he has deemed to be the most reli-able manuscript (MS Bodl Caps Or F 4 19969 = Neubauer 2155) see ibid 27 (מבוא)He chose this 16th century copy and two further manuscripts from more than 30 extant copiesof Kelimmat ha-Goyim by analyzing how faithfully the (Italian) scribes had rendered Catalanwords Posnanskirsquos edition although his footnotes provides a wealth of information appearssomewhat ldquoover-editedrdquo eg the New Testament is referenced with verse numbers as if theywere part of the original text For these reasons Talmagersquos edition has been chosen as theprincipal text underlying this chapter An English translation of the slightly abridged intro-duction (מבוא) of this edition appeared in the same year see idem ldquoThe Polemical Writingsof Profiat Duranrdquo which was republished in Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver Studies inMedieval Jewish Exegesis and Polemics (ed Barry Dov Walfish Papers in Medieval Studies14 Toronto Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies 1999) 281ndash97

5 On Duranrsquos polemic see Jeremy Cohenrsquos valuable article ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos TheReproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicrdquo in ShlomoSimonsohn Jubilee Volume Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages andRenaissance Period (ed Daniel Carpi et al Jerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen1993) 71ndash84 see also Lasker ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemicsrdquo 74ndash76 and RosenthalldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo 229ndash34 [1349ndash54]

6 See Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 286 Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 335 most relevant isNetanyahu Marranos 221ndash23

7 See Jacob S Levinger and Irene Garbell ldquoDuran Profiatrdquo EncJud (2007) 656ndash578 See Friedlaumlnder and Kohn Maase Efod also Irene E Zwiep ldquoJewish scholarship and

Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia Profiat Duran and the art of memoryrdquo inHebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World (ed Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press 2001) 224ndash39

9 A Honorato de Bonafeacute served at the Aragonese court in May 1392 (which thereforewould be the terminus ante quem for his forced conversion) see Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 331ndash32 If this was indeed Duran it would fit well with his impressive knowledge of Christiantexts to which he would have had access more easily at the royal court of Aragon Juan I wasborn in 1350 in Perpignan which is also Profiat Duranrsquos hometown and it is at such at leastpossible that they were familiar with each other (Emery suggests Duran was born around1340ndash45) On Duranrsquos life and works see also Krauss and Horbury Controversy 210ndash12Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155ndash59 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of ProfiatDuranrdquo 1ndash36 Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Netanyahu Marranos

258 Chapter 7 Kelimmat ha-Goyim

well-known as the composer of the satirical epistle rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka (ldquoBenot like thy Fathersrdquo) which is an open letter written to Davi (David) BonetBonjorn Duranrsquos friend had been forcibly baptised but afterwards genuinelyconverted to Christianity under the tutelage of the prominent convert Pablo deSanta Mariacutea (Solomon ha-Levy) rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka is Duranrsquos attempt topersuade him to return10 For some time it was perhaps misunderstood by itsChristian readers as a polemic against Judaism when in fact it was a mostclever satire against Christianity11 More recently a third polemical workentitled Teshuvot bersquoAnshei rsquoAwen (ldquoResponses to Impious Menrdquo cf Job3436) has been related to Duran12

7 2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Profiat Duran was an associate of Ḥasdai Crescas the chief Rabbi of Zaragozaand official leader of the Jews of Aragon Crescas commissioned Duran toproduce a major polemical treatise primarily aimed at the conversos ldquoandmore particularly for those among them who were partly Christianizedrdquo13 Inresponse it would seem Duran composed Kelimmat ha-Goyim He writes inthe introductionOh Glory of the Rabbis and Crown of the Believers Your Highness has asked me to set outfor you in a (more) general manner about what has become clear to me concerning the inten-

84ndash94 221ndash23 Baer History 2150ndash58 Friedlaumlnder and Kohn Maase Efod 2ndash11 (Germanpart) Max Saenger ldquoUeber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes הכלימהס oder כלימתMGWJ 4 (1854) 320ndash27 5 (1855) 197ndash202 rdquoהגוים

10 See 63 and Roth Conversos 136ndash50 193ndash9411 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 211 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword

155ndash62 Rosenthal ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo 227ndash29 [1347ndash49] esp Talmage ldquoPolemical Writ-ingsrdquo 73ndash76 also Lasker ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemicsrdquo 90ndash91 The English translationof the letter has been made available by Franz Kobler ed Letters of Jews through the AgesFrom Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed 4 vols LondonArarat 1953) 1276ndash82 and also by Frank Talmage ed Disputation and Dialogue Read-ings in the Jewish Christian Encounter (New York Ktav 1975) 119ndash23 See also Eleazar(Eliezer) Gutwirth ldquoReligion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon An Aspect ofProfayt Duranrsquos Activitiesrdquo Michael 12 (1991) 142ndash45

12 Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes and Carlos del Valle have attributed this tract to Duran and pub-lished it in a critical edition Profiat Duraacuten Cinco Cuestiones Debatidas De Poleacutemica Ediacute-cion criacutetica bilingue con anotaciones de C del Valle (Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1999)The treatise is composed of five short chapters 1) A discussion of the nature of the promisesgiven in the Torah 2) the interpretation of Psalm 7217 3) the interpretation of Isaiah 714and 95 4) the interpretation of Psalm 1101 and 5) a discussion of the value of Jesusrsquo mira-cles as proofs for his divinity (giving the familiar argument that other biblical figures also per-formed miracles nevertheless are not divine the same occurs in Kelimmat ha-Goyim)

13 Netanyahu Marranos 86


tion of the alleged messiah and of his disciples or apostles and if they intended the destruc-tion of the divine Torah in its entirety or in part according to what was proclaimed and per-petuated by those who believe in him and (also) those who were drawn after him and(furthermore) what their intention was with this faith And (further) upon what basis the theo-logians (or preachers) of this nation who came after them build their faith and their opin-ion(s) (and) how they argue (for their opinions) from their (own) words and the words of theprophets of the truth peace be upon them and the divine Torah14

מכוונתלישנתבררמהעללהעמידךרוממותךשאלתניהמאמיניםונזרהרבניםתפארתאובכלהאלוהיתהתורהחריסתכיוונוואםכללדרךעלשלוחיואוותלמידיוהמדומההמשיחההיאבאמונהכוונתםאחריווהנמשכיםבוהמאמיניםאצלונמשךשנתפרסםמהכפיבחלקשיטענובמהאחריהםבאואשרההיאבאומההמדבריםודעתםאמונתםבנויסודאיזהועל

15האכוהית והתורה זל האמת נביאי ומדברי מדבריהם

Netanyahu has suggested that Crescas was perhaps not entirely satisfied withDuranrsquos work because it may have been too scholarly and hence proceeded tocompose his own polemical work Biṭṭul lsquoiqqare ha-Noṣrim (ldquoRefutation ofthe Christiansrsquo Principlesrdquo) originally written in either Catalan or Ara-gonese16 The writing of a polemical treatise in the vernacular is highly un-common but it shows Crescasrsquo determination to reach the larger conversocommunity17 In fact large numbers of Jews in Spain and Aragon hadconverted to Christianity18 and it is exactly this group which Crescas Duran(and also Shem Ṭov) ultimately seek to address19 Duran however held to themore traditional method of first addressing his treatise to Crescas and otherrabbinic leaders just as he had been asked It is therefore not quite fair tothink that Crescas felt that Kelimmat ha-Goyim was insufficient20 After all it

14 The English translations of Kelimmat ha-Goyim in this chapter are all my own thoughI have consulted Anne Berlinrsquos translation and at times followed her lead

15 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 316 See Daniel J Lasker The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas 2ndash

3 for the Hebrew text see R Ḥasdai Crescas Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim (ed Daniel JLasker Ramat-Gan Bar-Ilan University 1990) [Hebr] See also Krauss and Horbury Con-troversy 209ndash10 Baer History 2163ndash4 and Netanyahu Marranos 86ndash87

17 According to Netanyahy Marranos 86ndash87 This would also corroborate his (andNorman Rothrsquos) thesis that most conversions were voluntary for forced converts hardlywould need a tract composed in the local vernacular to convince them to not longer remain inthe Christian faith See also Laskerrsquos discussion of this issue The Refutation of the ChristianPrinciples 8ndash10

18 See the summary under 62 but also Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 3 and Netan-yahu Marranos 77ndash134 235ndash45

19 Since Duran was born around 1345 and probably died after 1414 he would have been acontemporary of Shem Ṭov ibn Shaprut and consequently alive at the time of the disputationat Tortosa See Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 333ndash34 and Baer History 2217 See also the discus-sion in 642

20 In particular when one considers the last lines of the introduction of Kelimmat ha-Goyim ldquoTherefore so as to fulfill your wish I have (effectively) declared to void my wishand I will write a little as is pleasing to you since I knew (that) with the breadth and hight of


is Duranrsquos explicit strategy to reach the larger Jewish and converso commu-nity through CrescasYour intention oh Glory of the Rabbis is to open the gate (and) if possible to answer (theopponents) from the speakersrsquo (own) words For this is the true(st) and (most) decisiveanswer when dealing with issues like these And although none of the predecessors (and)inheritors of truth cared to pass on the truth in these (matters) and to reveal it21 nor wanted towaste time with such matters however you Oh Glory of the Rabbis you saw the days of eviland wrath pour out over the exiles of Jerusalem which are in Spain and (how) the ones whoburst out (from us) (ie apostates)22 have multiplied those ldquowho are deeply hiding their coun-selrdquo (Isa 2915) to heap up a rampart against the wall of the Torah (cf Eze 2127) to make itldquolike a watchmanrsquos hut in a cucumber field like a besiegedrdquo and breached city (cf Isa 18)But you Oh Glory of the Rabbis are desiring to establish its fallen and destroyed hut (cfAmos 911) and also since the leprosy of heresy is blossoming on the foreheads of the people(cf Lev 1312) ldquoand all the people were arguingrdquo (2 Sam 1910) (over) the wood of the staffof wickedness and ldquoarrogance has blossomedrdquo (Eze 710 cf Num 17)

היאכיהאומרמאמרכפילהשיבאפשראםהשערלפתוחהרבניםתפארתממךהכוונההאמתנוחלימהקודמיםשאחדהיותועםהנושאיםבאלובכיוצאוהניצחתהאמיתיתהתשובה

אתההנהלזהבדומההזמןלבלותרצולאכיוגםולגלותוהאמתלפרסםבזההשגיחולאורבובספרדאשרירושליםגלותעלהשפוכהוהחימההרעהימיראיתהרבניםתפארת

אותהלתתהאלוהיתהתורהחומתעלסוללהלשפוךעצהלסתירוהמעמיקיםהמתפרציםהנופלתסוכתהלהקיםהרבניםתפארתאתהורוצהופרוצהנצורהכעירבמיקשהכמלונה

הרשעמטהעץנדוןהעםכלויהיפורחתהאנשיםבמצחותמינותצרעתכיוגםוהנהרסת23הזדון ופרח

It is evident from this introduction that Duranrsquos times were indeed dire notonly had many Jews chosen or been forced to convert some even had joinedthe ranks of the Christians in besieging Judaism24 Kelimmat ha-Goyim fulfillsas such a defensive but also offensive role in the polemical discourse as iteffectively attempts to break the metaphorical siege by turning the opponentsrsquoweaponry against them

Duranrsquos overall strategy was to answer the opponents from their own scrip-tures ( האומרמאמרכפי ) for he felt the Christian texts themselves were bestproof against the doctrines of Christianity ( והניצחתהאמיתיתהתשובההיאכי

your intelligence you will add to it (further) sophisticated remarksrdquo ( רצונךלעשותכןעלבותוסיףשכלךוגובהלבבךברוחבידעתייעןאצלךכנרצהמעטואכתוברצונילבטלהפצתי

מפולפלים דברים ) See also Lasker The Refutation of the Christian Principles 6ndash821 This shows that Crescas and Duran felt that the anti-Christian apologetic-polemical

writings they were familiar with where insufficient to deal with the situation in the latter 14thcentury

22 On this passage and on המתפרצים see Netanyahu Marranos 90ndash91 also nn 18ndash2023 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 324 This most likely referred to the group around the very prominent convert Alfonso de

Valladolid and Pablo de Santa Mariacutea see Netanyahu Marranos 90 nn 17 and 17a see alsothe discussion in 62


הנושאיםבאלובכיוצא )25 This of course implies that he had to read interpretand promulgate these texts in order to demonstrate that they contradictedChristian doctrine And with the increasing number of conversos and theirgrowing familiarity of Christian thought and scriptures cursory or merelypolemically expedient arguments were not sufficient anymore In-depthknowledge of Christianity became a necessity for the Jewish leaders of IberiaConsequently Duran had to systematically present and reproduce both theChristian Scriptures and the respective doctrines as accurately as possibleAlready the chapter headings of Kelimmat ha-Goyim reveal that it wasDuranrsquos intention to relate the actual content of Christian doctrine and to dis-prove and criticize these doctrines mostly from the New Testament Hedevotes three chapters to major Christian doctrines (Jesusrsquo divinity theTrinity the incarnation) two lengthy chapters to the topic of Jesusrsquo and theChristiansrsquo understanding of the Law two chapters on sacraments (theEucharist and Baptism) two chapters on minor doctrines (Mary and thePope) and the last three chapters on Christian errors and textual corruptionsin the New Testament

To bring proof based on the words of the speaker(s themselves) that it wasnot the intention of the alleged messiah nor the intention of his disciples (tosay) that he was God which is what those who came after them thought

Chapter 1

ולאהמדומההמשיחכוונתהייתהשלאהאומרמאמרכפיראיהלהביאאחריהם הבאים שחשבו מה כפי אלוה הוא שיהיה תלמידיו כוונת

To explain the matter of the Trinity in which they believe and the passageson which they base this belief

Chapter 2

זו באמונה עליהם יישענו אשר והמקומות יאמינוהו אשר השילוש עניין לבאר

To explain the matter of the incarnation in which they believe and the ulti-mate reason for it in regard to original sin which they call (peccatum) origi-nale and the passages on which they base this belief

Chapter 3

העווןבענייןשלההתכליתיתוהסיבהיאמינוהאשרההגשמהענייןלבארעליהם יישענו אשר והמקומות אוריגינאל קראו אשר השורשי

That Jesus never considered in this at all to disagree with the divine Torahinstead he very much wanted its establishment and its perpetuity Also hisstudents considered it eternal(ly binding) for the people which he (also)enjoined on them

Chapter 4

בקיומהרצהאבלהאלוהיתהתורהעללחלוקבזהישוחשבלאמעולםכיעליהם צוותה אשר לעם נצחית חשבוה תלמידיו וגם מאוד ונצחותה

25 See Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 288


How the ones who followed them who believed in Jesus thought up (amethod) to assist the (process) of dismantling the Torah and its destructionaccording to their understanding

Chapter 5

עלבחולקםבישוהמאמיניםאחריהםהבאיםבולהיעזרשחשבובמהדעתם לפי ובהריסתה התורה

Concerning the matter of the bread (and wine) of their god of which theythink that they shed their forms and assume the body of Jesus in the samequantity and quality and as when he was hung (on the cross) and the pas-sages on which they base this belief

Chapter 6

עלישוגוףויקבלוצורותיהםשיפשיטויחשבואשראלוהיהםלחםענייןעלזו באמונה עליהם שיישענו והמקומות בו שנתלה והאיכות הכמות אותה

Concerning the matter of baptism which they set down as one of the founda-tions of their religion and the passages on which they base this belief

Chapter 7

עליהםשיישענווהמקומותדתםמשורשיאחדיניחוהאשרהטבילהענייןעלזו באמונה

Concerning the matter of the Pope which they likewise set down as one ofthe foundations of their religion and the passages on which they base thisbelief

Chapter 8

והמקומותדתםמשורשיאחדכןגםהניחוהואשרהאפיפיורענייןעלזו באמונה עליהם שיישענו

Concerning the matter of Mary the mother of Jesus and other (related)foundational issues and articles of their religion

Chapter 9

בדתם יניחו וסעיפים משורשים אחרים ועניינים ישו אם מרים דבר על

On errors and mistakes which Jesus and his disciples set downChapter 10

ותלמידיו ישו הניחום אשר והשיבושין בתעויות

How they got confused about the issue of datingChapter 11

התאריך בעניין שהשתבשו במה

On the mistakes of Jerome ldquothe Confuserrdquo (and) on the bringing of proofthat what we have from the holy books is the exact truth

Chapter 12

הקודשמספריאצלנוהנמצאכיעלראיהבהבאתהמשבשגרוניםבשיבושיהמדוקדקת האמת הוא


Duran is well-informed both in terms of the New Testament and Christiandoctrine In fact no other Jewish author before him shows so much familiaritywith the New Testament Much of his insight is derived from Christiansources in particular Vincent of Beauvaisrsquo Speculum historiale26 PeterLombardrsquos fourth volume of Sententiae27 but most frequently he refers toNicholas de Lyrersquos Postillae perpetuae mentioning him thirteen times28 Healso criticizes Jeromersquos translation29 perhaps knew of Petrus Alfonsisrsquo (PedroAlfonso) polemic Dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo Peter Abelardrsquos Sic et non30

and seems to be aware of arguments from Thomas Aquinasrsquo Summatheologiae31

He was also familiar with the Western Schism the inner Christian criticismof the primacy of the pope and the apostolic succession essentially agreeingwith Jan Hus32 Also in his criticism of the Eucharist (chapter 6) Duranldquorejects the idea that the bread of the Eucharist could maintain its accidents(outward characteristics) while changing its substance mdash an argument putforth not long before by John Wyclifferdquo33 Whether Duran knew of Jan Hus

26 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 32 60ndash61 Duran also alludes to Augustinersquostheory of the three ages of the Torah see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 30 also n 2though Posnanski suggests that Duran came to know this through Speculum historiale 891see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 165 n 2

27 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 36 38 39 41 4828 Ibid 8 14 (2x) 16 28 32 50 53 55 56 57 58 (2x) It is quite evident that at least

some of Duranrsquos in-depth knowledge of interpretive and textual difficulties with the Christiantext were gleaned from the de Lyrersquos discussions On de Lyre see 31 but also KlausReinhardt ldquoDas Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanienrdquo Traditio 43(1987) 321ndash58 and Philip D W Krey and Lesley Smith eds Nicholas of Lyra The Sensesof Scripture (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 90 Leiden Brill 2000) 1ndash12 HisPostillae perpetuae in universam S Scripturam (or Postilla litteralis) appeared in 1331 andbecame the primary and extremely influential Bible commentary of the Late Middle ages DeLyre was well versed in Hebrew and relied heavily on Rashi Martinirsquos Pugio Fidei ThomasAquinas et al

29 He devotes chapter 12 to critique Jeromersquos translation see Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 64ndash66 but Jerome is also referred to elsewhere see ibid 8 29 31 50 52

30 See Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 9ndash10 17 also Talmage ldquoPolem-ical Writingsrdquo 79

31 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 33 34 but esp 7312 It is quite possible thatDuranrsquos knowledge of Aquinas came through de Lyrersquos Postillae

32 Duran argues in ch 8 that Jesus acc to Matt 1818 bestows on all of his disciples thesame authority he gave Peter in Matt 1613ndash20 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 45 alsoTalmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79ndash80 and Matthew Spinka John Husrsquo Concept of theChurch (Princeton Princeton University Press 1966) 27ndash29 263ndash64

33 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 17ndash18 see also Talmage ldquoPolemicalWritingsrdquo 78 Kelimmat ha-Goyim shows some similarities here to a section of Wycliffersquos Deeucharistia ldquoFor some argue that a hog a dog or a mouse can eat our God because it is thebody of Christ who is Godrdquo (Arguunt enim quod sus canis vel mus potest comedere Deum


and John Wycliffe is not clear but it is evident that Duran operated at theintellectual heights of his times and that the polemical literature of the perioddid not evolve in a vacuum34

7 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Already the first chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim is directed against Jesusrsquodivinity which Duran therefore may have seen as the most problematic of thevarious Christian views he argues against He makes a sophisticated andsustained argument against the divinity of Jesus which weaves togethervarious elements from the polemical stock he has inherited though he alsoadds his own observations He is not merely listing various points as some ofhis polemical predecessors but he has an overall theory about the develop-ment of Christology The following is a summary and discussion of the firstchapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

nostrum qui corpus Christi quod est Deus) see Iohannis Wyclif De eucharistia tractus major(ed John Loserth London Truumlbner 1892) x and 11 In Kelimmat ha-Goyim we find ldquo(hellip)if the pig or the mouse eat this body or this wine then they [accordingly would] eat Jesusrsquobody and blood (hellip)rdquo ( גוףהאוכליםהנםוהעצברהחזרהזההייןוישתוהזההלחםיאכלואם

ודמוישו ) see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 38 The similarity between Wycliffe andDuran probably derives from the fact that they both appear to extrapolate their respectiveanti-eucharist polemic from Lombardusrsquo Sententiae 4131 (72) which Duran explicitly men-tions in the same context (though only a mouse eating the host is discussed there) SeeKenneth B McFarlane John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (LondonEnglish Universities Press 1952) 93ndash95 131 and Gordon Leff Heresy in the Late MiddleAges (2 vols Manchester Manchester University Press 1967) 2553ndash57 also MatthewSpinka John Hus A Biography (Princeton Princeton University Press 1968) 38 65 71ndash72233 261ndash62

34 See Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 34ndash36 Cohen ldquoProfiat DuranrsquosThe Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76ndash78 but especially Baer History 2474ndash75 n 41 Baerremarks that the ldquoJews of Spain kept in touch with the contemporary Christian theologyrdquosuggesting as an example of how this may have occurred Magister Adam (Easton) who wrotehis Defensorium ecclesiae against Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham whilst beingassisted by a Jewish scholar for two years Likewise Alonso Fernaacutendez de Madrigal (ldquoElTostadordquo c 1400ndash55) may have been a source for Jewish scholars see Solomon Gaon TheInfluence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the Pentateuch Commentary ofIsaac Abravanel (New York Ktav 1993) 22ndash44 El Tostado also prepared a Matthew com-mentary in Latin which may or may not have been accessible to Jews though only theintroduction was finished see Joseacute Manuel Saacutenchez Caro Rosa Mariacutea Herrera Garciacutea andInmaculada Delgado Jara Alfonso de Madrigal el Tostado Introduccioacuten al evangelio seguacutenSan Mateo (Fuentes Documentales 3 Salamanca-Avila Universidad de Salamanca 2008) (Ithank David E C Ford for bringing this to my attention) Thus the close contact of conver-sos Jews and Christians in Spain would have provided ample opportunities for furtherexchange esp when conversos tried to convert Jews and Jews tried to reconvert conversos

73 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim 265

The short almost abstract like heading informs the reader of the purpose ofthe chapter and in some sense even the overarching intention of his polemicTo bring proof based on the words of the speaker(s themselves) that it was not the intentionof the alleged Messiah nor the intention of his disciples (to say) that he was God which iswhat those who came after them thought

שיהיהתלמידיוכוונתולאהמדומההמשיחכוונתהייתהשלאהאומרמאמרכפיראיהלהביא35אחריהם הבאים שחשבו מה כפי אלוה הוא

Duran starts by summarizing for Crescas his theory about Jesus and the firstChristians Jesus the disciples and apostles were people who were mistaken(טועים) although they themselves were not quite capable of deceiving others( זולתםאתשיטעואלמדרגתםהגיעהולאלבדהםשטעולפי ) However thosewho came after them ie the church fathers and theologians ( האומהמדברי

והפיקחיםהזאת ) they were the true deceivers 36(מטעים) capable of leadingmany astray by their teachings which they intermingled with that of theiropponents namely ideas gleaned from science logic and Judaism Thus theypreserved their faith by making a combination of ldquohoney and poisonrdquo ועשו)

והלענה מהדבש הרכבה )37

Profiat Duran is thus essentially arguing that Jesus and his first followerswere still ldquomarginal Jewsrdquo who still had a high view of the Torah though ulti-mately they were misguided Only those who came after them misunderstoodtheir teachings and Jesus and intentionally made him into a divinity ProfiatDuran therefore may be one of the first medieval interpreters of the NewTestament who explicitly conceptualizes the ldquohistorical Jesusrdquo different fromthe ldquoJesus of faithrdquo proclaimed by the church mdash and that hundreds of yearsbefore the ldquohistorical Jesus questsrdquo38

This analysis and interpretation of the New Testament evidence is alreadyvery different and more perceptive than in the other texts surveyed so far Itis also surprisingly enlightened and is still a common argument found in thepresent day

35 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 436 This view is similar to Porphyryrsquos who likewise had argued that the followers of Jesus

had corrupted his teaching and made him into a God see Robert L Wilken The Christians asthe Romans Saw Them (2nd ed New Haven Yale University Press 2003) 126ndash63 esp144ndash47 Also the Karaite Jacob Qirqisani had maintained that Paul had made Jesus into a div-inity ldquoThe Christian religion as practised now was invented and proclaimed by Pūluṣ it washe who ascribed divinity to Jesus and claimed to be himself the prophet of Jesus his LordrdquoChiesa and Lockwood Yalsquoqūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects 135

37 This is a similar assessment to that of Shem Ṭov who found Jesusrsquo teachings to beattractive because they had been taken from Jewish tradition See also Cohen ldquoProfiatDuranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 72ndash73

38 Shem Ṭov also has argued that Jesusrsquo teaching is more or less in line with the Torah


7 3 1 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament

Duran begins to lead the reader through the New Testament to demonstratethe veracity of his assessmentAnd so I am saying that when their statements are examined with absolute scrutiny free fromany habit and custom [ie prejudice] without any preconceived notions it will be apparentthat the alleged messiah never intended to make himself a god Likewise the ldquomistaken onesrdquo[ie the first followers of Jesus] did not intend this And in all what they wrote in the gospelsand the epistles and the rest there is not found (an instance) where they call him god ratherthey always were saying ldquoLord Jesusrdquo or ldquoour Lord Jesusrdquo or ldquoTeacherrdquo They never saidldquoour God Jesusrdquo rather they considered him as being chosen (from the) human race higherthan our teacher Moses peace be upon him And this is why he called himself and (why) hisdisciples called him ldquoSon of Godrdquo (so as) to indicate the superiority of his level and that ourteacher Moses peace be upon him according to their bogus reasonings is on the level ofldquoservantrdquo since he is called ldquomy servant Mosesrdquo (Num 127) ldquoMoses the servant of theLordrdquo (Josh 11) but Jesus is on the level of ldquothe beloved sonrdquo

משוללומנהגהרגלבזולתמוחלטבעיוןמאמריהםכשיושקפוכיאומראנוכיזהואחרלאהטועיםוגםאלוהעצמולעשותהמדומההמשיחכיווןלאמעולםכיייראהמהתואנה

אלוהאותושקראוזהוזולתוהפישטוליסבאונגיליששכתבומהבכלנמצאולאבזהכיוונוישואלוהינואמרולאומעולםמלמדאוישואדוננואוישוהאדוןאומרםיהיהתמידאבלעצמויקראולזההשלוםעליורבינוממשהלמעלההאנושיהמיןמבחרהיותוחשבואבל

לפיהשלוםעליורבינומשהוהיותמדרגתועליונותלהורותאלוהיםבןתלמידיוויקראוהוהבןבמדרגתוישוndashייעבדמשהמשהעבדישאמרכמוהעבדבמדרגתהמדומהסברתם39החביב

While Duran is certainly right in that there is evidently a reluctancy in theNew Testament to designate Jesus as God (especially without any furtherqualification) he fails to acknowledge the existence of various passages thatindeed relate the word ldquoGodrdquo (θεόςdeus) to Jesus in particular John 11 andJohn 2028 with which he is familiar40 Leon Modena another Jewish scholar

39 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 540 Duran discusses John 11ndash2 14 in the next chapter on the Trinity see Kelimmat ha-

Goyim (Talmage) 12 14 There he first entertains the notion that Jesus was a misguided(משובש) qabbalist which was suggested to him by an Ashkenazi Talmudic scholar (11) buthe then discards this view since that would attribute too much insight and understanding toJesus (13) He opts for a more traditional view of Jesus as magician who learnt his evil craftin Egypt (13) Duran then explains that John called Jesus only ldquothe Word of Godrdquo whichcould at most prove that John held to a duality (השינות) in God (and not the Trinity) espsince John does not mention the Spirit in John 1 (15) Duranrsquos views expressed in this chaptertherefore lessens the integrity of his argument in chapter 1 somewhat for if Jesus was a sim-pleton and an Egpytian trickster how could he be considered merely deceived (טועים) Cfalso pp 39 and 45 where Jesus is described as crazy and stupid Also Duran never reallyengages John 11 (or 14) for if John can be understood to express a duality in God then atleast this evangelist should have proclaimed Jesusrsquo divinity Duran therefore ought to haveargued for a ldquoparting of waysrdquo not after Paul and the evangelists but earlier Yet since herelied so heavily on John 10 in his argumentation (see 738) he could not do so


and polemicists essentially made the same argument some 250 years later inhis Magen wa-Ḥerev41

Duran then recalls Matt 1613ndash17 and Heb 35ndash6 to corroborate his view-point Peter esteems Jesus as superior to anyone else in Israelrsquos history andalso Paul (as the supposed author of Hebrews) affirms that Moses is a mereservant whereas Jesus is a son over Godrsquos house In other words the first fol-lowers of Jesus had an exalted view of Jesus and the use of the term ldquoSon ofGodrdquo has to be understood accordingly but they did not estimate him to beGod42

7 3 2 Jesusrsquo Temptation I Matt 41ndash11

Next Duran begins to present a sequence of passages to further demonstratethat Jesus was not divine He uses several well known pericopes and beginswith the temptation scene in Matthew 4 And there in Matthew chapter 4 it is said that Satan brought Jesus to the wilderness to temptand seduce him In another instance he brought him to Jerusalem and in another he led himon a high and steep mountain as it is mentioned there But all this is too far-fetched andimproper that it could be said about God And likewise when Satan asked ldquoIf you are thelsquoSon of Godrsquo throw down yourself from the high place where you are standing lsquofor he willcommand his angels concerning you to watch over you in all your waysrsquordquo (cf Psalm 9112)He answered ldquoThus it is written in the Law lsquoDo not test the Lord your Godrsquordquo (cf Mt 46ndash7)

אחרתופעםולהדיחולהסיתולמדברישוהביאשהשטןאמרלמטיבהרביעיבפרקוהנההואומגונהרחוקזהוכלשםכנזכרותלולגבוההרעלהוליכואחרתופעםלרושליםהביאו

הגבוהמהמקוםעצמךהשלךאתהאלוהיםבןאםהשטןכששאלוגםהאלוהעלשייאמרלאבתורהכתובאזהשיבדרכיךבכללשמרךלךיצוהמלאכיוכילמטהבועומדשאתה43אלהיכם יי את תנסו

Duran seeks to demonstrate that Jesus did not consider himself to be Godsince he countered Satanrsquos temptation by recalling that one (ie humans)ought not to try their God in this manner The fact that Satan attempts to causeJesus to sin itself is enough to show the improbability that Jesus is divine וכל)

האלוהעלשייאמרהואומגונהרחוקזה ) but also the use of the title ldquoSon ofGodrdquo in this context verifies that neither Jesus nor his contemporaries regard-

41 See Podet A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb 99ndash100 Abraham Farissol (1451ndash1528) went even further in Magen Avraham (ch 26) with his suggestion that Jesus may havebeen the Messiah for the Gentiles see David B Ruderman The World of a Renaissance JewThe Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Monographs of the Hebrew UnionCollege 6 Cincinnati Hebrew Union College Press 1981) 77ndash78 206 n 47

42 This is perhaps comparable to James Dunnrsquos view according to which high Christologyis a later (Johannine) development

43 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 5


ed the title as a claim to divinity Duran reproduces the polemical standardview of the passage though it is only one element in his larger argument44


From the temptation scene he moves straight to the cursing of the fig tree inMatt 21And in chapter 21 Matthew said that Jesus was hungry and went (over) to a fig tree to see iffigs could be found on it but he did not find any so he cursed the fig tree and it witheredand his disciples were amazed about this miracle (cf Matt 2120) But if they held him to begod there would not have been any place for surprise for them

תאניםבוימצאאםתאנהאילןלראותוהלךרעבהיהשישומטיבאמרואחדעשריםובפרקמחזיקיםהםהיוואםהזההפלאעלתלמידיוותמהווייבשהתאנהעץוקיללדברמצאולא45לתמהונם מקום היה לא באלוה אותו

It is quite evident that this argument is different from how the fig tree is usedin previous polemical texts46 Not Jesusrsquo ignorance about the availability offruit or his harshness in cursing the tree is made an issue although it wouldhave served Duranrsquos point here47 but the thrust of the argument rests on thedisciplesrsquo surprise about Jesusrsquo miracle power if they considered him to bedivine they should not have been surprised48 Duran quite ingeniously uses thedisciplesrsquo amazement as proof that they really held him to be human and notas evidence that he was more than a human And Duran might very well beright in his reading of Matthew here

The point that Jesus was just human is further sustained by mentioning thatMark (63) recalls Jesus to be a mere carpenter ( עציםחורש ) and likewise thathe did not have the ability to perform any miracles in Nazareth All this is tooimproper to be said about God ( אלוה על שייאמר מגונה וזה )

7 3 4 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21

Then Matthew 19 and the parallel passage in Mark 10 are mentioned to showthat Jesus did not consider himself to be God

44 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect142ndash145 Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) Nizzahon Vetus sect162 (see544) and Even Boḥan sect7 (see 645)

45 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 546 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410 and also 5410)

and Even Boḥan sect42 (6416)47 The ldquoclassicrdquo argument that Jesus was ignorant about the presence of figs occurs

already soon after see 736 However in Posnanskirsquos edition (and manuscripts) of Kelimmatha-Goyim it also appears right here see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 106

48 Cf here esp Even Boḥan sect37 (see 6414) which follows the same argumentativestrategy


And there in Matthew chapter 19 and (Mark) chapter 10 is is mentioned that a man came toJesus and said to him ldquoGood teacher what can I do that I might obtain eternal liferdquo Hereplied ldquoWhy do you call me good there is none good but Godrdquo If so he is not God

לוואמרישואלבאאחדשאדםשםאמרלנזכרעשיריובפרקלמטיבעשרהתשעהובפרקאלאטובואיןטובתקראנילמההשיבוהנצחייםהחייםשאשיגאעשהמהטובמלמד49האל אינו הוא כן אם האל

Again this is the standard reading of this passage and follows previousapologetic-polemical usage though Duran notes that it is both in Mark andMatthew50

7 3 5 Jesusrsquo Temptation II Matt 43ndash4

Then Duran returns to the temptation pericope to further corroborate thesame argument (as per Matt 1917) but also that he lacked divine powerAnd in chapter four of Matthew and Luke (it is written) that Satan said to Jesus ldquoNow if youare the lsquoSon of Godrsquo tell these stones that they should turn to breadrdquo He replied ldquoA mandoes not live by bread alone but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lordrdquo(Matt 43ndash4 Luke 43ndash4) And in chapter 10(35ndash40) of Mark (it is written) that his slow-witted disciples ask him who would sit to his right in the kingdom of heaven51 and he repliedthat this was not in his power [lit ldquohandsrdquo] to give to them If so he does not have the (same)ability as God

האלהלאבניםאמוראתהאלוהיםבןואםלישואמרהשטןכיולוקלמטיברביעיובפרקעשיריובפרקייפימוצאכלעלכיהאדםיחיהלבדוהלחםעללאהשיבולחםשישובולתתזהבידושאיןוהשיבושמייםבמלכותלימינושיושיבםהפתאיםתלמידיושאלוהולמרק52האל כמו יכולת לו אין כן אם להם

Although Duran earlier accepted at least for the sake of argument that Jesusas a human has the ability to curse a tree53 and thus can cause amazement henow emphasizes that Jesus is nevertheless clearly limited in his capabilitieswhich Jesus himself readily admits he is not able to nourish himself miracu-lously or to bestow heavenly favors on his disciples This again is simply thestandard polemical argument against the divinity of Jesus based on these tworespective passages

49 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 550 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514) See also Yosef ha-Meqanne sect33 (see 4516) and

Nizzahon Vetus (see 549) Interestingly Shem Ṭov did not comment on this passage51 This is interpretation is based on a paraphrase of Mark 1037 (par Matt 2021)52 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 553 In the next chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim Duran explains the common rabbinic view

(see b Sanh 107b) that the origins of Jesusrsquo miracle power was his familiarity with Egyptianmagic which he corroborates by referring to Matt 214ndash15 and 1224 thereby affirming theaccusation that Jesus worked by the demonic power of Beelzebub cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 13


7 3 6 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mark 1045 1113ndash14

Duran already appealed to the tempation account twice he now also re-usesthe fig tree pericope (see 733) in combination with a ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayingAnd there [in Mk 1045 par Mt 2028] he said ldquoFor the lsquoSon of Manrsquo did not come to beservedworshipped but to serveworship (someone) other than himselfrdquo And in chapter11(13ndash14) he cursed the fig tree because he did not find any figs on it But if he were Godwould he not have known before he walked there And there are many (instances) like these

עשרהאחדובפרקלזולתולעבודאםכילעבודאםכילהיעבדבאלאאדםבןכיאמרושםכמוורביםשםלכתוטרםידעוהלאאלוההיהואםתאניםבהמצאשלאעלהתאנהקילל54אלה

Not only is Jesus not able to nourish himself he cannot even see if any nour-ishment (fruit) is available to him Morover Jesus himself declares that he hascome to serve (or worship) others The implication again that this is notsomething that is proper to say of God and can only indicate that Jesus ishuman As seen both arguments are not novel55

7 3 7 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo John 530

Duran then quotes John 530 to illustrate that Jesus himself depended onGod and addsAnd always in all what he said he called himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo in the manner of Ezekiel Butthe deceivers said that ldquomanrdquo [Adam] is a name shared by both man and woman so as to pullthem after their creed belief (and justify) that Jesus was born by a virgin (and) without afather although Jesus (himself) did not mention this And by this then [the use of ldquoSon ofManrdquo] it can be seen that he did consider Joseph his physical father

אדםכייאמרוהמטעיםאבליחזקאלדרךעלאדםבןעצמוקוראהיהמאמריובכלותמידזההזכירשלאעםאבבלאמבתולהנולדכידעתםאחרלהימשכםולאשהלאדםמשותףשם56גשמי לאב יוסף חשב הוא כי ייראה ולזה ישו

Duran argues that by using the phrase ldquoSon of Manrdquo Jesus acknowledges thathe is biologically related to humanity but moreover that he implicitly recog-nizes Joseph as his physical father He thus offers two ways of understandingthe term ldquoSon of Manrdquo The first is that Jesus used the term like Ezekielpresumably indicating that Jesus saw himself as a human prophet57 which isperhaps the only time a Jewish polemicist entertains a different interpretationfor the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo The second way is that the term ldquoAdamrdquo (אדם)

54 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 555 Cf 733 Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) and Niz-

zahon Vetus sect188 (see 545)56 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 557 The phrase ldquoSon of Manrdquo ( אדםבן ) is used 93 times in Ezekiel always referring to the

prophet Ezekiel


actually refers to a male ie Joseph In Duranrsquos understanding the churchfathers and early theologians argued that ldquoAdamrdquo is inclusive and signifiesldquohumanityrdquo (and not just a male)58 in order to mitigate the fact that Jesus wasborn without the involvement of a male

7 3 8 Joseph is Jesusrsquo Father Matt 122ndash23

Having argued that Jesus recognized Joseph as his father59 it is only natural torecall nextLikewise also Mary his mother called Joseph ldquoyour fatherrdquo In the second chapter of Luke(241ndash48) (it is written) ldquoOne time they took him up to Jerusalem by foot but while they werewalking they lost him And the went on for a dayrsquos journey since they thought to themselveslsquoPerhaps he went with a group from their townrsquo But when they saw that he was not there theyreturned to Jerusalem and they found him in the temple with the elders And his mother saidto him lsquoMy son your father and I were sad and very worried about you because we did notknow where you werersquordquo However the evangelist [in Matt 122ndash23] clearly mentions that shewas a virgin when she gave birth to him

לרגללירושליםהעלוהואחתפעםללוקהשניבפרקיוסףעלאביךאמרהאמומריםוגםעירםבניחבורתעםהלךאוליבלבםאמרוכיאחדיוםמהלךלהםוהלכואבידוהוובלכתםואמרוהזקניםעםהמקדשבביתבירושליםאותוומצאולירושליםחזרושםאיננוכיובראותם

איומקומךיודעיםהיינולאכיעליךמאודודואגיםמתעצביםהיינוואניאביךבניאמולו60אותו בלדתה היתה בתולה כי בביאור זכר האונגילי אמנם

Thus having corroborated that Jesus had human parents and at the same timecasting doubt on the trustworthiness of the evangelist (or Maryrsquos virginity)Duran returns to his main point and brings further passages that challenge theclaim that Jesus is divine61 He recalls 1 John 412 where it is said that noman has ever seen God and then paraphrases 1 Cor 86 demonstrating theuniqueness and superiority of God the Father and his distinction to Jesus Hethen summarizes

58 Eg in Justin Dial 1003 Irenaeus Haer 4332 5211 Gregory of Nyssa Libricontra Eunomium 122 34 (NPFN2 563 145) and Ambrose Enarrat Ps 39 (CSEL64222) the latter occurring in a refutation of Apollinarianism See also Muumlller The Expres-sion lsquoSon of Manrsquo 9ndash31 53ndash80 81ndash92

59 Also briefly mentioned in chapter 9 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim 46ndash4760 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 5ndash661 Duran thereby shows he does not really trust Matthewrsquos account Beside the various

errors he sees (see 74) he also discusses Matthewrsquos genealogy and the difference to Lukersquosin chapter 10 concluding that ldquotheir purpose in telling these genealogies is (to show) that thedesignated (ie the true) messiah must be from the seed of David And they (also) thoughtthat since the groom (of Mary) is of the seed of David that his bride was likewise from thatseed But this is (only) their conjecture without any proof even from their own storiesrdquo( אחרכיוחשבודודמזרעשיהיהמחוייבהמיועדשהמשיחההםהתולדותבסיפורוכוונתם

מסיפוריםאףראיהבלאמהםסבראוזהההואמהזרעכןגםארוסתודודמזרעשהארוסsee Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 54 (שלהם


And so from all these proofs and the others (contained) in those stories it becomes apparentthat neither he or his disciples ever erred in this at all that they should think of him as God

כללבזהותלמידיוהואטעולאמעולםכיייראהההםבסיפוריםוזולתןהראיותאלוכלוהנה62הכל ובורא אלוה שיחשבוהו

Having argued that the first generation that is Jesus and his disciples (andeven Paul) did not consider Jesus to be divine and therefore cannot be under-stood as real deceivers Duran moves on to show from where the errors creptinAnd what caused the deceivers to err (that is) to think that he is God are a few sayings hesaid and (in addition those) which the erring ones said about him

63עליו הטועים ושאמרו הוא שאמר המאמרים קצת הוה אלוה לחשבו המטעים הטעה ואשר

In other words the first generation was not misguided themselves at least notabout Jesusrsquo divinity but they prepared the way for those after them Duranthen presents the New Testament passages that have been used to support theclaim that Jesus is divine John 1030 John 149 and John 1410 But in thesame way as with 1 Corinthians he explainsBut the truth is that by these sayings (which) he said (which made) them think he is God hemerely expressed closeness to him [God]

64מצורף אליו הקירבה אך האלוהות לו יחשבו הוא שאמר המאמרים באלו כיוצא כי והאמת

In fact contrasting these passages with John 1420 one would have to consid-er all of Jesusrsquo disciples as godsHe said to his disciples that he is in them and they are in him Yet (in) the (same) way hetalked about his father and if so then all his disciples would (likewise) be gods

תלמידיוכליהיוכןואםאביועלשאמרהדרךעלבווהםבהםהואכילתלמידיוהואאמר65אלוהות

Profiat Duran very perceptively relates Jesusrsquo sayings in John 1030 and 1420about his relationship with his father to similar sayings in the same contextthat attribute this relationship to the disciples Jesusrsquo sayings consequentlycannot speak about his divinity but only his humanity66 If one were to use

62 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 663 Ibid64 Ibid65 Ibid66 John 1030 and 149ndash10 also feature in Muslim polemics In fact the John 1030 argu-

ment Duran employs here appears also in Al-Ghazālīrsquos polemic on this see Sweetman Islamand Christian Theology Part 2 Volume 1 267ndash69 also 249 Further see Neal RobinsonChrist in Islam and Christianity The Representation of Jesus in the Qurrsquoān and the ClassicalMuslim Commentaries (Albany State University of New York Press 1991) 47ndash48 see alsoI Mark Beaumont Christology in Dialogue with Muslims A Critical Analysis of Christian


Jesusrsquo ldquoI am in the Father and the Father is in merdquo saying to argue for Jesusrsquodivinity the immediate context would demand that the disciples are in thesame manner divine that is ontologically (i e as members of the Trinity) Inpresenting this more contextual exegesis Duran offers a sensitive assessmentof the Johannine text

7 3 9 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2734

This is followed by recalling Jesusrsquo cry on the crossAnd here at the time of his hanging (on the cross) he cried (to God) but He did not answerhim He said ldquoMy God my God why have you left merdquo (Matt 2734) (So) he alreadyacknowledged with this exclamation that he did not make himself (out to be) God But Jesusalready settled all this in the chapter when he said ldquoWhy do you call me good For there isno one good except Godrdquo (Mark 1018 par Luke 1819)

לאכיזהבדיבורהודהכברעזבתנילמהאליאליאמרענהוולאקראותלייתבעתוהנהזולתטובואיןטובתקראתילמהבאמרוזהבכלהפסקישוהתירוכבראלוהעצמועשה67האל

Duran argues that Jesus more or less explicitly expressed that he did notconsider himself God His prayer on the cross which was seemingly unan-swered together with his reply in Mark 10 should clearly demonstrate thatJesus cannot be seen as God Again this simply repeats earlier arguments68

7 3 10 Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding John 1019ndash36

He then supplies a long paraphrase of John 1019ndash36 to definitively show thatJesus did not think of himself as God He subsequently arguesAnd although the premise (Jesus) used is false for it is not written in the Torah69 neverthe-less one can take from what he says a complete answer for all those who see in his saying(here) and (also) in the sayings of the mistaken ones that he is God himself For the intentionof all of what he is saying with this is (to give) a parable [or metaphor] (just) like in the pas-sage ldquoI said you are godsrdquo (Psalm 826) or this was said (perhaps as a means) to share in(and apply) the name (of god)70 not that he intended by this (to show that he should) be theFirst Cause the Creator of the universe

Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries (Regnum StudiesIn Mission Carlisle Paternoster 2005) 60ndash61

67 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 668 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) Nizzahon Vetus

sect145 and sect178 (see 5413) and Even Boḥan sect56 (see 6420)69 This refers to Jesusrsquo use of Psalm 826 in John 1034 which is evidently not in the

Torah but from the Psalms70 Talmage relates this to a passage by David Qimḥi where a similar symbolic identifica-

tion with God is used see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7 n 15


כוללתתשובהממאמרויילקחזהכלעםבתורהכתובשאיןכוזבתהקדמהשהקדיםהיותועםזהבכלהמכווןכיאלוהעצמועושההיותוהטועיםוממאמריממאמריושיראהמילכל

בשיתוףנאמרשהואאואתםאלהיםאמרתיאניבפסוקשהואכמוהמשלהואהמאמר71העולם בורא ראשונה עליה היות בזה כיוון לא השם

Earlier Duran remarked that Jesusrsquo teaching style is frequently figurative (cfJohn 106) not to be understood as literal ( שיריילימודהיהלימודוהאישזהכי

משליםממשלהיהותמיד )72 In like manner the rest of John 10 is to be appreci-ated Jesus is not literally saying that he is ldquoThe Son of Godrdquo (John 1036)since he uses Psalm 826 to deflect the accusation that he is making himselfequal to God The term ldquoSon of Godrdquo is thus to be understood as a figure ofspeech and Jesus only applies it to himself figuratively by no means is heidentical with the Creator73 Earlier Duran made a similar but also somewhatopposite argument about the use of the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo which he interpretsmore literally Accordingly Jesus used the title in the manner of Ezekiel (see737) Here he suggests Jesusrsquo self-understanding in using the concept ofsonship to God does not express his absolute identification with the Fatherthe Creator but perhaps is more of a metaphor to express his relationship toGod ( השםבשיתוףנאמרשהואאו ) Inasmuch as those to whom the word ofGod came are called ldquogodsrdquo (Psalm 826 John 1034) so Jesus who seeshimself as sent from God surely can be called a ldquoSon of Godrdquo (John 1035ndash36) without understanding this as a claim to divinity74 It is therefore amistake to think that the phrase means Jesus considered himself divine Alsoalready in the beginning of the chapter he stated that the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo

71 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 772 Ibid 6 The same point that Jesus speaks only figuratively is maintained in chapter

six on the Eucharist in the discussion of John 647ndash66 cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 3973 John 1035 (Psalm 826) is used in this manner already by Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova a

Muslim theologian (994ndash1064 CE) and one of the most famous authors of Al-Andalus seeTheodore Pulcini Exegesis of Polemical Discourse Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and ChristianScriptures (AAR The Religions 2 Atlanta Scholars Press 1998) 107 and Juan Pedro Mon-ferrer Sala ldquoIbn Ḥazmrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online 2012) Likewise Al-Ghazālī (1058ndash1111 CE) used this argument see Chidiac Une Reacutefutation excellente de ladiviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ 9 25 (ff 7rndash7v 20vndash21r) J Windrow Sweetman Islam andChristian Theology 21 267ndash69 Wilms AlndashGhazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu 63 79also Kenneth Cragg The Arab Christian A History im the Middle East (Louisville Westmin-ster John Knox 1991) 87ndash88 also 93ndash94 n 37

74 Compare this assessment to James F McGrath Johnrsquos Apologetic Christology Legiti-mation and Development in Johannine Christology (SNTSMS 111 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 2001) 117ndash30 esp 122ndash29 who summarizes that in John 1034ndash36 ldquoJesusdefends the legitimacy of the agent of God being called lsquoSon of Godrsquo or lsquoGodrsquo on the basis ofScripture If this applies to earthly agents (Adam and Israel) who ultimately failed to obeyGod how much more does it apply to Godrsquos heavenly agent now become flesh who alwaysobeys Godrdquo (129)


shows superiority of Jesus over Moses and that these sayings express merelycloseness to God ( מצורף אליו הקירבה אך )

Duran then continues to survey the passages that he thinks lead Christiansto believe in Jesusrsquo divinity He refers to Acts 2016ndash17 where Paul spoke tothe church in Ephesus on his way to JerusalemAnd he said to them amidst his words that God had appointed them as leaders [or bishops] tolead his congregation which he had bought with his blood that is by the shedding of hisblood (cf Acts 2028) Here then he said that the blood of God was shed

לומררוצהבדמוקנהאשרעדתולהנהיגהגמוניםאותםמינההאלכידבריובתוךלהםואמר75נקפך האל שדם שאמר הנה דמו בשפיכת

Duranrsquos comment implies that Christians in his time used Acts 2028 to arguethat Jesus is divine Accordingly the one who appointed leaders namely Goddid so by the shedding of His blood76 In like fashion he refers to (and quotes)Romans 95 1 John 31677 Col 28ndash9 Rev 117ndash18 51278 and Jude 14bndash579 Duran does not comment on any of these passage other than by giving asummaryThese are the verses which deceived the deceivers (misleading them) to attribute to him div-inity I mean the divinity attributed to the First Cause But by permitting the doubt80 which

75 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 776 The reading ldquoof Godrdquo (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Acts 2028 is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg

sy boms according to Nestle-Alandrsquos apparatus Other manuscripts have ldquoof the Lordrdquo (τοῦκυρίου) here so P74 A C D E Ψ 33 36 453 945 1739 1891 al gig p syhmg co while many ofthe minuscule fuse these two into ldquoof the Lord and Godrdquo (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ) Thefirst reading could consequently be used as a passage in support of Jesusrsquo divinity SeeCharles F DeVine ldquoThe Blood of God in Acts 2028rdquo CBQ 9 (1947) 381ndash408 and MurrayJ Harris Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (GrandRapids Baker Book House 1992) 131ndash41

77 He quotes the verse with an addition ldquoFor by this we know what the love of God is forhe put his soullife down for usrdquo ( בעדנונפשושםהואכיהאלאהאבתנכירבזהכי ) idemKelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7 emphasis mine

78 Duran quotes the verse ldquoWorthy is the lamb that was killed to receive strength and div-inity and wisdomhelliprdquo ( וחוכמהואלוהותגבוהלקחתהנהרגהשההואראוי ) cf the Vulgatefor Rev 512 dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere virtutem et divinitatem et sapientiamemphases mine

79 Duran understands the verse to say that ldquoJesus saved Israel from Egyptrdquo ( הושיעישוממצרים ישראל את ) Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7

80 That is by producing an alternative interpretation for the meaning of ldquoSon of GodrdquoJesus effectively did not claim the exclusive status of Creator Already the author of Vikkuaḥha-Radaq had observed that Jesus did not explicitly refer to himself has God ldquoFurther youshall be punished for believing in him as a deity for he never called himself divine You willnot find this written in any of your books either He called himself the son of God which hewas entitled to do for everyone who cleaves to the Lord and his Torah is fittingly called theson of Godrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 345 [f 17r] Likewise ldquoKnow that thatman (Jesus) never said any place that he was truly divine nor did he mention it in any of their


Jesus brought from ldquoI told you you are godsrdquo all this is resolved But if someone should wantto insist that the intention of these verses is to attribute to him divinity there is no doubt thatthey are missing Jesusrsquo intention clearly stated in his answer to those who disagreed with himin Jerusalem

לעילההמיוחסהאלוהותרצוניאלוהותאליולייחסהמטעיםשהטעוהמאמריםהםאלוואםזהכלהותראתםאלהיםאמרתיאנימפסוקישועשהאשרהספקובהיתרראשונה

שהםספקאיןהנהאלוהותלוליחסהמאמריםבאלהכוונתםכילהתעקשאחדירצה81בירושלים עליו חלקו לאשר בתשובתו המבוארת ישו כוונת מחטיאים

In other words Duranrsquos interpretation of Jesusrsquo saying in John 1034 over-rides essentially all other passags which may be used to argue for the divinityof Jesus Thus John 1034 functions as an overruling hermeneutical principleand Christians who seek to argue otherwise are ignorant of Jesusrsquo realintention

Duran then begins a new subsection in which he lists various passagesfrom the Hebrew Bible that Christians have uses to argue for Jesusrsquo divinity82

7 3 11 Matthewrsquos Intention with Isaiah 714 Matt 122ndash23

He begins with the Christian interpretation of Jer 236 which he cancels outby comparing it to Exod 175 and Gen 3320 Then he moves into a longdiscussion of Isa 714And Scripture further mislead them with the verse ldquoBehold the young woman shall shallconceive and she shall give birth to a son and call his name Immanuelrdquo (Isa 714) Now whyis it that they thought that his was said about the Messiah But they obtained from this tworoots for the roots of their faith 1) his being born without a father from a virgin and 2) beinggod on account of being called by the name ldquoImmanuelrdquo And Matthew brought forth thisteaching83 at the beginning of his gospel so as to bring from it proof about the virgin (cfMatt 122ndash23) But it is not hidden that (this comes) from an inferior (level of) proof andfrom a shortcoming (of understanding on the part of him) who brought (this) as proof for thismatter preceded Jesus by more than 500 years And thus what is said there ldquoBefore the boywill know enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will beforsakenrdquo (Isa 716) and likewise what is said (here) ldquoshe will conceive and will give birth toa sonrdquo (Isa 714) (this) relates to that time but their translator [Jerome] corrupted this Scrip-ture and made it future And thus they said (that) ldquoand she shall callrdquo (refers to) his mother

books He only said that he was the son of God and that God sent him [hellip] If he said he is theson of God perhaps he said it figuratively as in the other cases [He did not mean] that he isof the essence of God Heaven forbid for God is neither body nor a force in the bodyrdquo (348)[f 18v]

81 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7ndash882 Posnanski suggests here that Duranrsquos argument shows links to de Lyrersquos commentary

on Isaiah and Petrus Alfonsirsquos Duodecim dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo (PL 157619) seeKelmiat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 110 nn 2ndash3

83 Lit ldquoauthorityrdquo thereby implying that Matthew deliberately appealed to Isa 714 inorder to establish a basis for incarnational theology


[Mary] (who would be) calling him Immanuel But according to their opinion as written inthe gospel [of Luke] it is the angel who called him Immanuel (cf Luke 128)

ולמהעמנעלשמווקראתבןיולדתהרההעלמההנהבאמרוהכתובאותםהטעהועודהיותווהואndashאמונתםמשורשישורשיםשניממנווהוציאוהמשיהעלנאמרשזהבושחשבו

בראשמטיבהביאוהזהוהפיקודעמנואלהשםלקריאתאלוהוהיותומבתולהאבבלינולדמפחיתותשבזהמהייעלםולאהבתולהעלראיהממנולהביאראשוןפרקשלוהאונגילימהוכןשנהמאותמחמשיותרלישוקדםזהענייןכילראיהשהביאהמיומחסרוןהראיהשנימפניקץאתהאשרהאדמהתעזבבטובובחורברעמאסהנערידעבטתםשםשאמרהכתובשיבששלהםהמעתיקאבלההואהזמןעלשיורהבןוילדתהרהאמרווגםמלכיה

ככתובסברתםולפיעמנואלקראתושאמווקראתאמרווכןעתידאותוועשההזה84עמנואל קראו המלאך באונגילי

Duran mostly repeats earlier arguments here but he also suspects thatMatthew added Isa 714 in order to argue that Mary was a virgin85 Butothers those who subsequently read Matthew mistakenly argued that thismeant Jesus was divine thereby maintaining the distinction between Jesusrsquomisguided early followers and the later deceivers Duran does not considerMatthewrsquos use of Isa 714 sufficient proof however since in his view (andthat of many other Jewish exegetes) Isa 714 only can refer to the historicalcontext of the prophet Jerome however presumably deliberately altered thetext to redirect the historical fulfilment to the future and to Mary Accordingto Duranrsquos analysis by using Isaiah with its reference to Immanuel Matthewinadvertenly opened the path for other to understand Jesus to be divine

The discussion of Isaiah 7 then continues by referring to Nicholas de Lyrein particular that he admitted that the passages from the Hebrew Bible do notapply literally but are only parablesallegories (משל) for the coming of theMessiah86 Duran however emphasizes that God commonly gives signs to hispeople shortly before the actual event to confirm the veracity of his promise87

Therefore if Matthew was right the Christians would have to concedethat also a virgin in Ahazrsquo day gave birth to a son whose name was Immanuel and (conse-quently) the proof (here) would turn into faith entirely by which they (then) helped no-one atall

אמונההריאהותשובעמנואלשמושנקראבןבתולאהילדהאחזבזמןשגםיודוכןואם88כלום בה הועילו ולא מוחלטת

In other words if the passage as Matthew understood it were to be applied tothe contemporaries in the time of Ahaz one would have to surmise that at that

84 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 885 This understanding requires that Matthew understood Isa 714 to refer to a virgin and

not a young woman see below86 The same argument was made by Martin Luther and Isaac ben Abraham of Troki see

below 8387 Cf the similar argument in Even Boḥan sect24 (see 649)88 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 8ndash9


time likewise a virgin gave birth to a son named Immanuel and if so thiswould not be a sign that the child is divine In effect one could not allow forMatthewrsquos interpretation of Isaiah 7 since it would either leave Godrsquos promiseof a sign to Ahaz unfulfilled or would lead to the admission that a (divine)virgin-born child named Immanuel lived in the time of Ahaz In other wordsDuran requires one interpretation (and fulfillment) of the passage consistentwith the historical context of the contemporary recipients He effectivelyrejects at least here the use of two kinds of interpretative senses The impli-cation is that there is only one literal interpretation of Isaiah 7 and thatMatthewrsquos interpretation is simply wrong or at least ineffectual in terms of itsability to proof that Jesus is born of a virgin and divine on account of beingnamed Immanuel Matthewrsquos proof turns out to be simply a matter of unverifi-able faith ( מוחלטת אמונה הריאה ותשוב ) a rather enlightened conclusion

7 3 12 The Hypostatic Union and Jesusrsquo Death Matt 2746

Duran then turns to the interpretation of Isaiah 96 explaining how it refers toHezekiah and that the use of the names in the passage does not indicate thedivinity of the one who is called by them He finalizes his discussion ofpassages from the Hebrew Bible which Christians have used to validate theirbelief with an interesting assessment of ChristologyAnd it is possible that there are a few more passages found of this kind on which they basetheir belief For when their clever ones saw passages which they considered proof for the div-inity (of Jesus) and (also) passages which pointed without a doubt to his humanity and (that)these sayings contradicted each other they divided this messiah into two and made him intotwo aspects (בחינות) mdash one aspect by which he is God and one aspect by which he is ahuman (אדם) and what is written which points to his being a human they say is (part of) theaspect of his humanity (האנושות) and that which they consider an indicator to his divinity(האלוהות) they say (relates to the aspect) by which it speaks of (his) divinity89 And theythought this was a solid method to verify their opinion But it is not hidden what in this (rea-soning) comes from defect and weakness inasmuch as this messiah was not himself com-posed (מורכב) of these aspects rather they were united (התאחדו) in him (in) unity and pur-pose (that is) according to their opinion divinity and humanity And this one was (then) themessiah and this union (התאחדות) (in him) was (supposedly) stronger according to theiropinion than the union of body and soul that makes a human being

And just as the plant is composed (נשלם) out of the form (צורה) of the plant and the inan-imate which is its internal matter (חומר) and the animate (organism) is composed out of theform of the plant and the animate and the man (אדם) is composed out the form of humanityand life (החיות) thus (also) the essence 90(מהות) of the messiah is composed out of the divi-nity and the humanity

89 Which is precisely what eg Gregory of Nazianzus writes in Orat 291890 This word can be understood as being (Wesen) quidditas essentia or οὐσία see Jacob

Klatzkin Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris (4 volsBerlin Eschkol 1928 repr Hildesheim Olms 2004) 2156


And this (is supposedly so) because they say that they are two opposites and natures inone subject (נושא) (which) they call supposit(um)91 and they call these two natures thedivine nature and the human nature and they united into a perfect union תכלית)assumed humanity (האלוהות) and that this (happened) when the Divinity (ההתאחדות

And now this messiah just as he is in these two natures was hung (onto a cross) andkilled And with this it is (therefore) right (to say) that the Divinity was hung (on a cross) andwas killed although he was not killed on the side of the divine (nature) Just as it is with amurdering trader who will be punished by death For (they say) it is quite right that the tradershould be punished by death although he will not be punished on the side (ie on account) ofbeing a trader And thus it is (with Jesus) (that) after he was hung (on the cross) he calledout to God ldquoMy God my God why have you left merdquo (Matt 2746) although he would nothave said this on the side of the divine (nature) For (they think) it is quite right that God iscalling to God mdash but this is improper (to say about God) And therefore it would appear thatneither he [Jesus] nor his disciples in any way erred about this at all

פיקחיהםראווכידעתםבםשיקיימוהזההמיןמןמקומותקצתשיימצאעודואפשרספקבלאאנושותועלשיורווהמקומותהאלוהותעלראיהחשובוםאשרהמקומות

ndashבחינותבחינותממנוועשולשנייםהזההמשיחחילקואלואתאלוסותריםוהמאמריםאדםהיותועלשיורהשכתובומהאדםשהואמהמצדובחינהאלוהשהואמהמצדבחינהייאמרהאלוהותשמצדיאמרואלוהותעלמורההיותושיחשבוומההאנושותבבחינתיאמרו

שהמשיחלפיוהחולשההמוםמןשבזהמהייעלםולאסברתםלאמתחזקדרךזהוחשבוזהסברתםלפיהאחדותתכליתבוהתאחדואבלהבחינותמאלהמורכבעצמוהיהלאהזה

סברתםלפיחזקיותרהזהוההתאחדותהמשיחהואהזההאחדוהיהוהאנושותהאלוהותחומרהואאשרוהדומםהצומחשמצורתוכמוהאדםמהםלהיותוהנפשהגוףמהתאחדות

כןהאדםנשלםוהחיותהאנושותומצורתהחינשלםוהחיהצומחומצורתהצומחנשלםלהאחדבנושאוטבעיםהפכיםשנישהםאמרוכיוזההמשיחמהותנשלםוהאנושותמהאלוהות

תכליתוהתאחדוהאנושיוטבעאלוהיטבעהטבעיםאלהלשניוקוריןשופושיטלוקראואלהבשנישהואכמוהזההמשיחוהנההאנשושותאתהאלוהותכשקיבלוזהההתאחדות

מצדנהרגשלאהיותועםונהרגנתלהשהאלוהותבויצדקזהועםונהרגנתלההטבעיםשלאעםמיתהייענששהסוחריצדקכברהנההרוצחהסוחרמיתהייענשאםכמוהאלוהות

למאאליאלילאלוהקוראהיהתלייתושבשעתאחרכןגםוזהסוהרהיותומצדייענשוזהלאלוהקוראשהאלוהיצדקכברהנההאלוהותמצדזהייאמרשלאהיותעםעזבתני92כלל בזה תלמידיו ולא הוא טעה לא מעולם כי נראה כן על מגונה

Duran displays more insight here into christological thought than many otherJewish polemical writers93 His argument does not come from ignorance andafter having explained the hypostatic union at some length and by identifyinghow he thinks christological thought came about which in his view was to

91 This refers to the hypostatic union In Thomas Aquinasrsquo understanding suppositum isclosely related to the term hypostasis In this the suppositum underlies the general nature of asingle thing or being and as such it denotes the ontological reality of the two though also dis-tinct natures in Christ as one complete entity cf his Summa contra gentiles IV Q 34 Art29 IV Q 39 Art 1 But see especially also his Summa theologiae III Q 16 Art 4 and 5Q 19 Art 1 and Q 46 Art 12 Furthermore see also Summa theologiae I Q 3 Art 3 andIII Q 2

92 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 9ndash1093 Cf the understanding displayed in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Yosef ha-Meqanne

sect9 (see 4513) and Nizzahon Vetus sect181 et al (see 5410ndash13)


make sense of contradictory passages as referring to either the human anddivine nature of Christ94 he simply turns back to Matt 2746 In fact heessentially argues that the divine-human Christ as suppositum that is as oneontological entity could not have called out to God in this manner In thisDuran essentially disputes Aquinas who ascribed Jesusrsquo suffering only to theassumed human nature and not the the divine impassable nature95 That isDuran uses the hypostatic union to argue that the ldquoentityrdquo Jesus Christ who iscomposed of the divine nature in union with his human nature could not havecalled out to God with such a desperate request much less died96 In his esti-mation this is simply improper (מגונה) to say of God and if Jesus and hisdisciples were not mistaken about his human identity then it was the ldquocleveronesrdquo who clearly mislead all those after them

Finally based on Acts 3 and 4 he reiterates his view that the apostles anddisciples did not think of Jesus as divine even after his death ( שטענומהוכן

מותואחרבעדו ) In particular the quotation of Deut 1815 in Acts 322 (cfalso 734) shows that the disciples thought of Jesus as a prophet on a levelhigher than Moses ( ממשהעליונהיותרמדרגה )97 He also reminds his readersthat when Jesus calls himself ldquoSon of Godrdquo it is not to be understood as anindication that he is divine which he achieves by pointing to Deut 141 Rom814 and John 112 All passages refer to humans as ldquosons of Godrdquo conse-quently one cannot understand the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo as claim of divinity

7 4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

In chapter 10 of Kelimmat ha-Goyim various contradictions and corruptions inthe New Testament are discussed Duran starts with the Gospel of Matthew

94 With this he might be one of the first Jewish polemicists to implicitly recognize thatthere were passages in the New Testament that pointed to Jesusrsquo divine identity after all itrequired Christians to assign two aspects to Jesus though his argument also assumes thatChristian were wrong about this and ultimately read this into the text

95 On this see also Hans Kuumlng The Incarnation of God An Introduction to Hegelrsquos Theo-logical Thought as prolegomena to a future Christology (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1987) 531ndash32

96 Eberhard Juumlngel and Juumlrgen Moltmann essentially appeal to the same christologicalmechanism (communicatio idiomatumἀλλοίωσις) when they argued that the death of Christthat is at least in some sense means the death of God or to be more precise ldquodeath in GodrdquoSee Eberhard Juumlngel ldquoVom Tode des Lebendigen Gottesrdquo in Unterwegs zur Sache Theolo-gische Bemerkungen (ed E Juumlngel BEvT 61 Munich Kaiser 1988) 105ndash25 and JuumlrgenMoltmann The Crucified God The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Chris-tian Theology (trans RA Wilson and John Bowden London SCM 1974 repr 2001) esp206ndash88



sequentially going through the whole gospel pointing out various difficultieswith the text and then proceeds to do the same for Mark Luke JohnRomans Corinthians Hebrews Acts and James The discussion of theGospel of Matthew takes by far the most space He begins by restating hiscentral understanding of Jesus and the New TestamentThere is no doubt that Jesus and his disciples and his apostles were people of the land (ieunlearned peasants) and this is seen clearly from what proof they bring from the Scriptures toestablish the matter and also in (how) they err in (using) the stories of the Torah and theProphets

מהכתובראיהשיביאוממהבבירורזהוייראההיוהארץעםושלוחיוותלמידיוישוכיפסקאיןלאמזהשיאמרומהכיאניוחושבטועיםהיווהנבאיםהתורהבסיפוריוגםעניינובקיום

98הכתוב מתוך יאמרוהו

The textual difficulties he cites in this chapter therefore show that Jesusrsquodisciples and apostles were uneducated when it came to the Torah and theProphets and consequently also not trustworthy This general ad hominemargument is repeated in much of the chapter though it actually was thefailure of the ldquofoolish devoutrdquo ( השוטיםהחסידים ) who came after them andwho listened to them who fell into error99 Duran then goes on to list theseerrors in particular as they appear in the New TestamentNow see I am presenting in this chapter a few of their errors and mistakes (although) withthis (comes also) a loss of time and (having to deal with) words of foolishness for I know(that) the heirs of the religion of truth will delight in this in the gift of their portion of whichyou Oh Glory of the Rabbis are their head to this day And the superiority (or virtue) of thedivine Torah and its veracity will be proclaimed over (against) its opposite so as to separatebetween the holy and between the ordinary between the light and between the darkness

כיחבלבדבריזמןמאיבודשבזהעםושיבושיהםמטעיותיהםקצתהזהבפרקאביאוהנהכהיוםראשםהרבניםתפארתאתהאשרחלקםבמתנתהאמתדתנוחליבזהישמחוידעתיהקודשביןלהבדילזולתהעלויתרונהואמיתתההאלוהיתהתורהמעלתבוותתפרסםהזה100החושך ובין האור בין החול ובין

While Duran considers it a waste of time to scrutinize the New Testament inthis manner the recipient Ḥasdai Crescas and the rabbinic leaders with himare to use this chapter as a means to appreciate their own Scriptures in thatthey come to see some of the mistakes of the evangelists disciples andJesus mdash and conversely that of the conversos and the Christian campaign toproselytize Jews

98 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 4999 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) reads here מתמידיםהאלההשוטיםהחסידיםוהיו

שומעיםשהיובמהמשתבשיםהיוובחסרונםהדרשותלשמוע These ldquopious onesrdquo couldequally also refer here to the conversos

100 Ibid


Duran begins with the Gospel of Matthew mostly by pointing out thatMatthew andor Jesus ldquoerredrdquo in their understanding of the Hebrew Bible( בכתובטעה ) Often this may simply mean that the passage from the HebrewBible is not quoted precisely as it appears in the Hebrew text other times thismay point to other perceived contradictions and inconcistencies some ofwhich are well known

The following table lists and summarizes all the passages discussed in thismanner in Matthew

Passage Critique

Matt 122ndash23 99 Matthew erred about (= did not understand) Isaiah 714 whichis not surprising since he is just an uneducated tax collector

Matt 25ndash6 21ndash2 211 Matthew erred about Micah 51 his nativity account also does not mention any angels (as in Luke) it is also not explicitly mentioned that there were three magi

Matt 216ndash18 Matthew erred about Jer 3114 the passage is not about Rachelrsquos sons for Bethlehem is in Judah and it is anyway only speaking about the Babylonian exile

Matt 219ndash23 The prophecy about being called a Nazarene was explained by de Lyre with Isa 111 but in like manner Isa 1419 could be applied

Matt 47 10 Jesus erred about Deut 616 and Deut 613 [misquotation]

Matt 413ndash15 Jesus erred about Isa 823 [misquotation]

Matt 543 Jesusrsquo quote of hating ones enemy is not found in the Hebrew Bible (cf Lev 1918)

Matt 1110 (amp Mk 12) Jesus erred about Mal 31 by relating it to John the Baptist

Matt 1215ndash21 Jesus did not quote Isa 421ndash4 correctly

Matt 1313ndash15 Jesus erred about Isa 69ndash10 [misquotation]

Matt 157ndash9 (amp Mk 76ndash7) Jesus erred about Isa 2913 [misquotation]

Matt 193ndash5 (amp Mk 107) Jesus erred about Gen 224 [misquotation]

Matt 211ndash5 Jesus erred about Zech 99 [the quote was a composite of Zech99 and Isa 6211]

Matt 2115ndash16 Jesus erred about Psalm 83 [misquotation]

Matt 2241ndash45 Jesus uses Psalm 1101 and heretically applies it to himself101

101 This argument somewhat undermines Duranrsquos theory that Jesus did not make himselfdivine for if it is heretical (נתפקר) for Jesus to apply Psalm 1101 to himself than one ought


Passage Critique

Matt 2617ndash20 Jesus could not have been killed on Passover Also a capital punishment trial did not just take one day

Matt 2335 Jesus was wrong about Zechariah ldquothe son of Berachiahrdquo (cf 2Chron 2420ndash21)

Matt 2647ndash50 273ndash10 Matthew erred about his Jeremiah quote it is only found in Zech 1112ndash13 and Jerome and Nicholas de Lyre were aware of this error

Matt 2739ndash43 The people mocking Jesus had actually some good arguments

Matt 2751ndash53 The accounts of the miracles that happened after Jesusrsquo death are all a fabrication otherwise the Jews would have believed in Jesus

Matt 2738 Robbery was not punished by death in Israel

It is rather evident that the main intention is to show that the evangelist oreven Jesus did not properly understand the Hebrew Bible Their apparent lackof knowledge and their ignorance consequently casts doubt on the trustworthi-ness of Christian claims In his discussion of Matt 2751ndash53 Duran explicitlyemphasizes that the gospel accounts are to be considered partly fabricatedAnd this story (already) by itself (shows) that all this is an utter lie and all nonsense for thereis no doubt that if these signs and wonders had (indeed) been seen then the Jews (surely)would have been attracted to the faith in Jesus and repented for what they did

אזנראיםהיושאילוספקאיןכיהבליםוהכלגמורשקרזהשכללעצמועדהזההסיפורמהעלומתחרטיםישואמונתאחראזנמשכיםהיהודיםהיוהאלהוהמופתיםהאותות102שעשו

In like manner Duran also did not leave the contradictions among the variousgospels uncommented In the context of discussing the differing genealogieshe remarksAnd in many words the evangelists contradict this and that for they are all (like blind men)groping for a wall What is surprising in these stories is that each one of them tells of thedeed(s) of Jesus in a different manner from his compatriots for in the absence of eyes they(only) can grope

שכלמהסיפוריםוהתימהקירימששוכולםכיזהאתזהסותריםהאונגילישהרבהובדברים103יגששו עיניים ובאין מחבירו משונה באופן ישו מעשה מספר ואחד אחד

to question what Jesusrsquo self-understanding was see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 52102 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 53103 Ibid 54


Duranrsquos intention with this chapter is to show that the New Testament textsand their authors are not trustworthy and while he uses the same texts toshow that Jesus did not consider himself divine he also argues that the NewTestament writers were misguided and misguiding He therefore concludesthat(hellip) their (own) mouths condemn them (cf Job 920) they neither know or understand (cfPsalm 825) and they err in what even primary school children would not fail in so that theyappear this day (as those who are) ldquoall futile and the things they treasure can do no goodrdquo (cfIsa 449)

לארבןביתשלתינוקותשאפילובמהוטעההבינולאגםידעושלאהרשעיםפיהםהנה104יועילו בל וחמודיהם תוהו כולם כי הזה ביום הראות למען בו ייכשלו

7 5 Summary

Profiat Duranrsquos overall argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is impressive inparticular when compared to other polemical writings His arguments pre-dates the modern period nevertheless he is quite at home in much laterdiscussions Of course Duranrsquos uniqueness has not been overlooked andvarious scholars have already analyzed and acknowledged his work

Eleazar Gutwirth eg has seen Duranrsquos approach as originating in earlyhumanist currents He evaluates Duranrsquos work as an attempt to establish a laquoJesus strandraquo through philological method when for example he argues thatthe divinity of Jesus is a later addition to Christianity He looks at the New Testament usageof addressing Jesus and finds that he is not addressed as God105

Gutwirth highlights further aspects of this pre-modern critical methodologyin particular the usage of terminology considerations of the historical andstylistic context issues of dating and chronology identification of discrepan-cies source criticism and listing of variances between Jeromersquos translationand the Masoretic text

Likewise Netanyahu has appraised Duran as the first of a novel type ofpolemical writers with a ldquonew polemical approachrdquo106

Duran here followed the policy pursued by the Christians in their attacks against Judaism butwith other means and opposite objectives Just as the Christians tried to prove that ancientJewish literature contains acknowledgments by some of the Sages of the rightness of Chris-tianity so Duran tried to show that the early Christian writings and primarily Jesusrsquo sayingscontained an admission of the rightness of Judaism And just as the argument employed bythe Christians attempted to play upon Jesusrsquo faith in the wisdom and knowledge of their

104 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 59105 Eleazar (Eliezer) Gutwirth ldquoHistory and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish

thoughtrdquo Helmantica 35 (1984) 231ndash42 here 235106 Netanyahu Marranos 84 see also 93

75 Summary 285

Sages so must the argument followed by Duran have been aimed at those who recognized atleast to some extend the authority of Jesus107

This he suggests shows that Duran primarily wrote for marranos (or conver-sos)108 and he considers Kelimmat ha-Goyim to be ldquoan outright assault onChristianityrdquo which ldquowas penetrative and far-reaching to an extend neverbefore displayedrdquo109 Netanyahursquos focus on the marranos perhaps read toomuch into Duranrsquos intention for Kelimmat ha-Goyim in particular since heinitially wrote the treatise for Crescas but Duran (and also Shem Ṭov)certainly represent a new quality in polemical literature This ldquonew polemicalapproachrdquo is perhaps not as novel and uniquely offensive in character as somehave seen it especially when considering that for the most part Duran onlyrecycles older polemical arguments Nevertheless Duran clearly stands outbecause he is much better informed and confident in using Christian writingsand doctrine In fact no other polemical writer before him has used such awide spread of New Testament texts or shown such understanding of actualChristian doctrine Yet Kelimmat ha-Goyim still follows the trajectory ofearlier polemic in particular when it comes to reading and interpreting NewTestament passages from a non-christological vantage point Talmage in factinforms us that this approach was not new and that Duran potentially took itfrom the polemical tract ldquoLivyat Ḥen by Levi b Abraham b Hayyim(c 1245ndash1315) a work which he knew and which is mentioned in hisbookrdquo110 Cohen has also elaborated on this and seeks to show that Duranrsquosldquohistoricistrdquo approach has in fact both Jewish and Christian predecessors Hesug-gests that Duran is echoing the strategy of Raymund Martinirsquos PugioFidei111

Talmage has summarized Duranrsquos ldquohistoricist methodrdquo as an attempt ldquotodemonstrate that contemporary Christianity is the outcome of a long develop-ment and that (hellip) the heads of the Church (hellip) elaborated confused and fal-sified the intentions of the foundersrdquo112 And although Duran sees later Chris-tianity as ldquoa deviation from the intention of the founderrdquo he essentially didnot esteem the former any better for Duran ldquoprimitive Christianity was a con-fused and distorted version of Judaismrdquo113

107 Netanyahu Marranos 85ndash86108 Ibid 86109 Ibid 85 Though Duranrsquos reference to the Jews of his day as being ldquounder siegerdquo

points more to a defensive motivation for Kelimmat ha-Goyim110 Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79111 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76ndash84 As was mentioned

earlier there is also possible evidence that Duran relied on Even Boḥan in his reading ofMatthew see 642

112 Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79113 Ibid 81


Also Anne Berlin has provided an insightful analysis of Duranrsquos approachHe tried to show that the doctrines set forth by later Christian theologians had no foundationin the words of Christ the Apostles or the Gospel writers and that numerous New Testamentverses were actually inconsistent with later doctrine Further these doctrines were corrobo-rated by faulty translation of Hebrew Scripture and erroneous exegesis of Old Testament pas-sages by Christian theologians (hellip) Perhaps Duranrsquos approach could best described as histor-ical reconstruction (hellip) Essentially Duran tried to present the sense of the New Testamentverses as they would have been perceived in first century Israel He sought to show that thecircumstances of time place and nationality mandated that Jesus could only have meant cer-tain ideas by his statements and that these ideas were not equivalent to later beliefs whichwere invented by theologians in a different context ie the Trinity Incarnation Transubstan-tiation baptism the sacraments original sin clerical celibacy or the abrogation of the OldTestament (hellip) Appeal to contemporary testimony also formed the basis of Duranrsquos chal-lenge to the authority of Christ and the Apostles He uses the statements of the Gospel writersregarding Jewsrsquo adverse reaction to Jesus to show that Jesus did not command respect in histime Moreover Duran tries to show that Jesus did not deserve respect in his time mdash or at anylater time mdash because the New Testament documents his ignorance Duran cited numerouserrors which Jesus committed in citing the Old Testament For Duran this was proof enoughthat Jesus was a simpleton who did not even know the Law and customs of his own peopletherefore he was hardly deserving the authority with which the Christians credited him114

She makes much of Duranrsquos use of the sensus literalis of a given text egseen in the interpretation of the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo or the discussion whetherMary had ever intercourse with Joseph (Matt 125)115 But as alreadymentioned earlier the application of this literal interpretation is not slavishand Duran makes concessions for a more figurative interpretation of passagesaccording to the context as seen eg in the treatment of John 10 and 14

Duranrsquos thesis that neither Jesus nor his disciples considered him divine iscarefully sustained with evidence from the New Testament and the Gospel ofMatthew though he had to be selective to maintain this hypothesis Like hispredecessors he can only argue this by neglecting various passages in thegospels Yet in the discussion of John 1 (see 731) Duran comes close toargue that John may have been a dualist which undermines his general thesissomewhat And although Duran has a low view of Jesus he still appeals toJesusrsquo own statements116 to those of his disciples of the apostles117 and

114 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 11ndash12 (Introduction) Reproducedhere by courtesy of the Harvard University Archives

115 Ibid 10ndash11 13ndash15116 Matt 46ndash7 (God ought not be tempted) Matt 1917 (par Mark 1018 God alone is

good) Mark 1040 (Jesus has no authority to grant the disciplesrsquo request) Mark 1045 (Jesuscame to serve) John 530 (Jesus does not do his own will) John 1030 149 1410 1420(Jesus has a close relationship to the Father) Matt 2734 (Jesus is calling on God) John1019ndash36 (Jesus only uses the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo as a figure of speech cf also Rom 814 andJohn 112)

117 Matt 1613ndash17 (Peter thinks Jesus is higher than those before him) Heb 35ndash6 (Paul

75 Summary 287

finally also to contextual or ldquorationalrdquo evidence as proof for his assessmentthat the early followers of Jesus did not consider him to be God118

Through careful examination of of specific texts Duran concluded that when Jesus said heand his Father were one or called himself Son of God he meant to affirm nothing more than aspecial relationship with God not to describe himself as ldquothe First Cause and Creator of theworldrdquo119

Slightly counterproductive is the assertion Jesus was crazy which underminesthe argumentation to some extend However Duran must have thought thatthe evidence he found in the New Testament mandated this conclusion heobviously felt that Jesus was not in particular impressive as Cohen points outThe Reproach of the Gentiles confronts Jesus more as an object of pity than as a villainDescribed as a pious fool (ḥasid shoteh) as uncultured and as ignorant of religious tradition(lsquoam Harsquoareṣ) his biblical homilies were repeatedly flawed Ending a long list of faulty quo-tations from Scripture with Jesusrsquo incorrect rendition (Mark 1229ndash30) of Deuteronomy 64ndash5(lsquoHear O Israelrsquo) Duran concluded lsquoBehold this poor man did not even know ShemarsquoYisrarsquoel120

Duran also identifies the passages which he understood to be the basis of laterChristian confusion about Jesusrsquo divinity121 and while he leaves thesepassages largely uncommented in the light of his interpretation of Jesusrsquo ownstatements he asserts them to be misinterpretations of the original intention ofJesus

The next step was to juxtapose these statements with the doctrines them-selves which allowed Duran to question Christian doctrine its developmentthe representatives of this doctrine and also its sources Thus Duran couldessentially maintain that Christianity in his day had departed from the primitive Christianity of Jesus and the apos-tles constituting no less than a heretical distortion of thereof Not only from a Jewish stand-

thinks Jesus is above Moses) Matt 2120 (the disciples are surprised) Luke 248 (Mary statesthat Jesus has a human father but cf Matt 122ndash23) 1 John 412 (no one has seen God)1 Cor 86 (the Father is superior) Acts 322 (Jesus is a superior prophet)

118 Matt 41 5 8 (Jesus is lead by Satan) Mark 63 (Jesus is a simple carpenter and couldnot do miracles in Nazareth) Matt 43ndash4 (par Luke 43ndash4 Jesus lacks [divine] ability) Mark1113ndash14 (Jesus lacked knowledge) Matt 2746 (the supposit[um] of Jesus calls on God)

119 David Berger ldquoOn the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christian-ity The Quest for the Historical Jesusrdquo in Jewish History and Jewish Memory Essays inhonor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (ed Elisheva Carlebach John M Efron and David NMyers Hanover NH Brandeis University Press 1998) 25ndash39 the quote is from p 31

120 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 73 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 53

121 Acts 2016ndash17 Rom 95 1 John 316 Col 28ndash9 Rev 117ndash18 512 and Jude 14bndash5


point had Christianity erred but also from a truly Christian perspective medieval Catholicshad betrayed the legacy of the founders of their faith122

The Gospel of Matthew played in this discussion a significant role insofarmany of the passages come from Matthew and also from the Gospel of Johnthe two being the more dominant within church history Also in the otherchapters of Kelimmat ha-Goyim the Gospel of Matthew is frequently refer-enced In chapter 10 most of the passages in which Duran found errors arefrom Matthew The gospel text becomes thus a prime witness against theclaims of Christianity the statements of the protagonists their actions andalso their (or the evangelistsrsquo) use of scripture is seen as evidence of the mis-taken nature of Christianity both in its inception and also later development

What is perhaps most impressive in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is how Duran didnot shrink back from facing the relevant New Testament passages that Chris-tians have used to support their doctrine and faith He finds proof for the mis-apprehension of Jesusrsquo divinity in the very passages that Christians have usedto support Jesusrsquo divinity most clearly seen in his discussion of John 1019ndash36 which is a key text for Duran His exegesis of John but also Matt 46ndash7and Matt 1917 and the interpretation of Jesusrsquo intention is insightful andquite modern Also his explanations of Peterrsquos understanding of Jesus in Matt1613ndash17 and that of Paul in Heb 35ndash6 are noteworthy In particular the jux-taposition of Matt 2746 with the hypostatic union is impressive Jesus callingon God precisely when he is hanging on the cross touches the soft spot ofChristology And in this Duran is not operating from a point of ignorance heis familiar with the contemporary christologial concepts and the inherentparadox of the incarnation But and this is important he is not simply point-ing to the rational paradox he uses Matthewrsquos Gospel and Jesusrsquo own wordsto methodically question the possibility of Jesusrsquo divinity

Clearly Profiat Duran deserves to be better recognized especially by NewTestament scholars not the least since his view of Jesus and the developmentof Christian doctrine predates the later equivalent critical positions by severalhundred years

122 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76

75 Summary 289

Chapter 8

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inIsaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah

8 1 Introduction

Although written fairly late in 1593941 the last primary text to be consideredin this study is Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah2 In fact Rabbi Isaac ben AbrahamrsquosldquoStrengthening of the Faithrdquo historically has been one of the best knownJewish polemical works which has influenced so illustrious thinkers asVoltaire Baron drsquoHolbach and Hermann Samuel Reimarus3 Of all the

1 Marek Waysblum has argued for a different dating from what is commonly accepted hesuggests 1585 as composition date see idem ldquoIsaac of Troki and Christian Controversy inthe XVI Centuryrdquo JJS 3 (1952) 62ndash77 esp 72

2 For an introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah and the workrsquos Rezeptionsgeschichte seeAbraham Geiger ldquoIsaak Troki Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehntenJahrhundertsrdquo in Abraham Geigerrsquos Nachgelassene Schriften (ed Ludwig Geiger 5 volsBerlin Louis Gerschel 1876) 3178ndash223 Graetz Geschichte 9437ndash38 Leon NemoyldquoTroki Isaac Ben Abrahamrdquo EncJud (2007) 20155ndash56 Ernst Ludwig Dietrich ldquoDasjuumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlch am Ausgang des 16 Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuchdes R Isaak Trokirdquo Judaica 14 (1958) 1ndash38 Ananiasz Zajączkowski Karaims in PolandHistory Language Folklore Science (Warsaw Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1961)77ndash79 Frank Talmage review of Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Faith Strengthened JAAR 41(1973) 430ndash32 Rosemarie Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-juumldischenGespraumlch der Reformationszeit (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Muumlnsteraner Judais-tische Studien 17 Muumlnster Lit 2005) and also Richard H Popkin Disputing ChristianityThe 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Classic Arguments (NewYork Humanity Books 2007) 7ndash40

3 Ḥizzuq Emunah may have played a role in Reimarusrsquo quest for a new approach to thecritical study of the New Testament cf Hermann Samuel Reimarus Apologie oderSchutzschrift fuumlr die vernuumlnftigen Verehrer Gottes (ed Gerhard Alexander 2 vols FrankfurtInsel 1971) 2268 ldquoDer R Isaac in seinem Chissuk Emunah wirfft ihnen nicht allein uumlber-haupt vor daszlig sie die Spruumlche der Propheten wieder den wahren Verstand im NT miszlighan-delten indem man aus dem Vorhergehenden und Nachfolgenden leicht sehen koumlnnte daszligjene gar nicht an das gedacht haumltten was die Evangelisten und Apostel daraus beweisenwollten sondern er wiederlegt auch im zweyten Theil seines Werks alle Deutungen derbesonderen Stellen AT die man im Neuen angefuumlhrt findet als falsch und verkehrt undsoferne ist dieser Jude der gruumlndlichste und staumlrkste Wiedersacher des Christenthumsrdquo Trans-lation ldquoR Isaac accuses them in his Ḥizzuq Emunah not only of abusing the sayings of theprophets in the NT against true reason in that it is easily seen from what comes before and

Jewish polemical works Ḥizzuq Emunah may therefore have made thebiggest impact on modern Christianity which is why it needs to be includedhere

Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki was probably born born in 1533 anddied in 15934 He lived in the small Lithuanian town of Troki which is whyhe is often just referred to as ldquoRabbi Trokirdquo By the 16th century the town ofTroki (modern day Trakai close to Vilnius) had become a center of Karaismafter several hundred Crimean Karaites were settled in Lithuania under theprotection of Grand Duke Vytautas (Vitold) around the year 13975 RabbiTroki likewise was a follower of Karaism this peripheral denomination ofJudaism that rejects the dual Torah and various other rabbinic traditions andconsiders the Hebrew Bible in particular the Torah as primary authoritativebasis for Jewish faith and practice6

Lithuania and Poland which in 1569 had merged into effectively onecountry became a noteworthy counterpoint to the absolute monarchies ofEurope on the one side its political system of democratic election of themonarch albeit limited to nobility and on the other side the religious freedomand relative tolerance granted to its inhabitants was almost unprecedented inthe history of Europe7 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth subsequentlybecame an asylum and free-haven for the persecuted free-thinkers and fringereligions of Europe8

after that they did not think about the things the evangelists an apostles sought to prove withthem more so he also refutes in the second part of his work all interpretations of particularOT passages which are used in the NT as false and wrong and as such this Jew is the mostthorough and strongest opponent of Christendomrdquo

4 His work was published post-mortem by his student Joseph b Mordechai Malinovski5 Zajączkowski Karaims in Poland 646 Karaites have been considered heretical by mainstream Judaism and have been ostra-

cized since the eight and ninth centuries Abraham Geiger made a strong case that RabbiTroki was indeed a Karaite based on the content of Ḥizzuq Emunah and other evidence seeGeiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 187 213 esp 216ndash21 On the history of Karaism in Poland seeZajączkowski Karaims in Poland and Simon Szyszman ldquoDie Karaumler in Ost-MitteleuropardquoZeitschrift fuumlr Ostforschung 6 (1957) 24ndash54

7 See Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadzki A Concise History of Poland (2nd ed Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 2006) 83ndash94

8 Robert Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy first published in 1621 wrote thatldquoPoland is a receptacle of all religions where Samosetans Socinians Photinians [] AriansAnabaptists are to be foundrdquo he further remarked ldquoin Europe Poland and Amsterdam are thecommon sanctuaries [for Jews]rdquo idem The Anatomy of Melancholy (ed Democritus Junior 3vols New York A C Armstrong 1880) 3369 (Section IV Member I) 3435 (Section IVMember I Subsection V) Already before the time of the Commonwealth and the Union ofLublin the Jews of Poland had been granted special privileges under King Bolesław whichwere mostly continued and even expanded by his successors In 1441 King Casimir IV (Jag-ellonid) ldquogranted the Jews of Troki the Magdeburg law which long before had been granted

292 Chapter 8 Ḥizzuq Emunah

In this historical milieu Rabbi Troki was able to come in contact withmany liberal thinkers and varied forms of Christianity especially since thereligious scene in Poland and Lithuania was in great upheaval during the 16thcentury9 He explains in the introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah that his knowl-edge of Christianity came from friendly and respectful dialogues with Chris-tians In his youth he apparently even had access to the courts of nobilitywhere he was able to read and study Christian writings10 and he reports thathe recorded the arguments levelled against him and likewise his responses ofwhich some were his own and others were taken from Jewish scholars andtheir writings11

Rabbi Troki very frequently cites Szymon Budny12 who was a close asso-ciate of Faustus Socinus (Fausto Paolo Sozzin) a prominent leader of the anti-trinitarian movement of which many of its adherents were forced to flee toeastern Europe13 Thus at least some of the arguments in Ḥizzuq Emunah are

to the Christian inhabitants of that city as well as to the Jews of Wilna and Kovno Accordingto this law the Jews of Troki were subject to the jurisdiction of a Jewish bailiff elected by hiscoreligionists and confirmed for life by the kingrdquo Herman Rosenthal ldquoCasimir IV Jag-ellonrdquo JE (1901ndash1906) 3598ndash99 see also Zajączkowski Karaims in Poland 66ndash69 andGraetz Geschichte 9410ndash38

9 See James Miller ldquoThe Roots of Polish Arianismrdquo The Sixteenth Century Journal 16(1985) 229ndash56

10 See David Deutsch Sefer Khizzuk Emuna Befestigung im Glauben Von Rabbi JizchakSohn Abrahams (2nd ed Breslau H Skutsch 1873) 9

11 See Deutsch Befestigung 10 Rabbi Troki does not disclose all the sources he usedbut he refers eg to David Qimḥirsquos interpretation of Isaiah 7 and 8 (which he rejects ibid136ndash37) or also mentions Joseph ben Gorionrsquos book (Josippon) ibid 249 255 cf also 53318 Dietrich lists other sources in ldquoDas Juumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlchrdquo 9 For a fulllist of sources see Golda Akhiezer ldquoThe Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and hislsquoPolemics against the Rabbanitesrsquordquo in Tradition Heterodoxy and Religious Culture Judaismand Christianity in the Early Modern Period (ed Chanita Goodblatt and Howard Kreisel TheGoldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6 Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion University of theNegev Press 2006) 437ndash68 see 466ndash68 also Stefan Schreiner ldquoIsaac of Trokirsquos Studies ofRabbinic Literaturerdquo Polin 15 (2002) 65ndash76 Graetz likens Trokirsquos arguments to ProfiatDuranrsquos see Geschichte 9438 Waysblum in contrast only sees literary connections toKaraites in Constantinople ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 65

12 Deutsch Befestigung 50 91 106 131 241 253 259 265 267 271 283 300 301330 331 335 337 348 Budny (or Budneaus d after 1584) was a leading calvinist unitarianpastor who had translated the Old and New Testament into Polish with a commentary in1572 Graetz Geschichte 9435 Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 191ndash94 Cf also David A FrickPolish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Berkeley Universityof California Press 1989) and idem ldquoSzymon Budny and Sacred Philology Between Eastand Westrdquo in Biblia Slavica (Series II Polnische Bibeln Vol 3 Budny Part 2 [commen-tary] ed R Olesch and H Rothe Paderborn F Schoumlningh 1994) 232 309ndash49 (this is acommentary of Budnyrsquos translation)

13 See Popkin Disputing Christianity 14

81 Introduction 293

influenced by the same school of thought to which Faustus Socinus and alsoMichael Servetus belonged the latter having been burned for his teachings inGeneva in 155314 This anti-trinitarian influence is in particular evident in sect10of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah where Rabbi Troki specifically citesNiccolograve Parutarsquos tract De uno vero deo15 He also refers to two of MarcinCzechowicrsquos publications (in one case even with page numbers) as sources ofwhere one can find a discussion of many New Testament passages withldquostrong proofsrdquo ( עצומותבראייות ) that show that the Trinity is a falseconcept16 He is also quite aware of the different currents and positions on theChristian side(hellip) in our generation many of their wise men who in their language are called the sect of theEbionites (אביוניטי) and the sect of the Servetians (סרוציאנו) and the sect of the Arians(ארייני) split off from the two (larger) sects of the Catholics (הקרטאליש) and Lutheransteach (now) the oneness of God and refute the belief in the Trinity17 (לוטריש)

It is thus clear that Rabbi Troki draws to no small degree on non-Jewishsources and arguments although it must be said that these movements them-selves had been influenced by Jewish polemics18

In the same section Rabbi Troki outlines also his metaphysical convictionsdoubtlessly influenced by his own tradition and confirmed by the anti-trinitar-ian debate among the various Christian factions in Poland19

14 See Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki 116ndash2915 See Massimo Firpo Antitrinitari nellrsquoEuropa orientale del rsquo500 Nuovi testi di Szymon

Budny Niccolograve Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo (Florence La nuova Italia 1977) also GeigerldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 188 Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki 1ndash61

16 See Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 188ndash91 Rabbi Troki refers to Marcin Czechowicrsquos Trzechdni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie (ldquoA conversation of three days about an article of faithrdquo)and Rozmowy Christyanskie (ldquoChristian Dialoguesrdquo) published in 1575 of which part isdevoted to the refutation of Jewish objections against the Messiahsip of Jesus cf Befesti-gung 86 131 135 287 321 See Judah Rosenthal ldquoMarcin Czechowic and Jacob ofBełżyce Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th Century Polandrdquo PAAJR 34 (1966) 77ndash97 andStefan Fleischmann Szymon Budny Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weiszligrussischenHumanisten und Unitariers (ca 1530ndash1593) (Cologne Boumlhlau 2006) It is noteworthy thatRabbi Troki utilizes both Budnyrsquos and Czechowicrsquos works seizing on the inner-Christiandispute over trinitarianism

17 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 86 This and the following is my own translation18 See Robert Daacuten ldquoDas Problem des juumldischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewe-

gung des 16 Jahrhundertsrdquo in Der Einfluszlig der Unitarier auf die europaumlisch-amerikanischeGeistesgeschichte (ed W Deppert W Erdt and Aart de Groor Unitarismusforschung 1Frankfurt P Lang 1990) 19ndash32 and idem ldquoIsaac Troky and his lsquoAntitrinitarianrsquo Sourcesrdquoin Occident and Orient A tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber (ed R Daacuten LeidenBrill Budapest Akadeacutemia Kiadoacute 1988) 69ndash82

19 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 86 also Erwin Rosenthalrsquos treatment of ldquoTrokisAuseinandersetzung mit Christologie und Trinitaumltslehrerdquo in his article ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo234ndash37 [1354ndash57]


And also human reason compels (one to believe in) the true unity of Him may he be blessedwithout any plurality or division or change for after He may he be blesses created by Him-self all things found (in the world) and (considering) that everything other than Him was cre-ated therefore there is nothing like Him and nothing is similar to Him For how could thecreated be like Him who created it (hellip) And in like manner it is also with their belief that theCreator is composed of the divine and corporeal this also is something that is not possible tobelieve in regard to the Creator may he be blessed (hellip) God can also not be described (assomeone) who would be able to (re)compose (himself) and to lsquoincarnate himselfrsquo in likemanner He cannot be described as someone who is able to create afterwards (a being) like orsimilar to Him in every aspect mdash and this has nothing to do with a limitation to God far be itfrom Him may he be blessed mdash as this is a matter clear to the rational So thus even thephilosophers that do not have a religion confess the unity of God may he be blessed and dis-associate plurality and corporeality from Him in their reasonings for which there is no spaceto account for here

שהואאחרכיושנויוחלוקרבוישוםבלתייתלוהאמיתיתהאחדותמחייבהאנושיהשכלוגםאאכילודומהואיןכמוהואיןכאנבראיםהםשזולתומהוכלהנמצאיםכלבראיתלבדו

זהוגשמותמאלהותמורכבשהבוראמאמיניםשהםמהכןוכמו(hellip)לבוראוהנבראשידמהולהגשיםלהרכיביכולשיהיההאליתוארלאוגם(hellip)הבוראבחיקשיאמיןאשאממהכג

ליאותבזהואיןצדמכללודומהאוכמוהואחרלברואיכולבשהואיתוארשלאכמועצמואתדתלהםשאיןהפילוסופיםאפילווכןלמשכיליםמבוארהעניןזהכאשרלוחלילהיתבחוקו20לזכרם מקום כאן אין בראיות והגשמות הרבוי ממנו ומרחיקין ית האל באחדות מודים

It is thus evident that the encounter between Protestants free-thinkers andJews in the periphery created a unique exchange of ideas which allowedsuppressed undercurrents to re-emerge and flourish into its various religiousexpressions The fault lines between Christianity and Judaism became lessdistinct and it is particularly the literature of these more peripheral groupsthat appear to cross-pollinate each other from Protestant anti-trinitariansources that themselves were influenced by contacts with Jewish and Muslimthought to Ḥizzuq Emunah21 and from there back to both the Jewish andChristian ldquomainstreamrdquo

Rabbi Trokirsquos motive for writing is given in the introduction of ḤizzuqEmunahThus I told myself it is time to make to the honor of God a book small in size and great inquality with succinct and not lengthy words for weak people who have little and bad under-standing like me as a support called The Strenghtening of Faith in order to strengthen thehands of the feeble

20 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 83ndash8521 Michael Servetus who with the blessing of John Calvin was tried and burned at the

stake for heretical charges (anti-trinitarianism and objecting to infant baptism) in Geneva in1553 refers to the Qurrsquoān in his Christianismi Restitutio several times cf Peter HughesldquoServetus and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005) 55ndash70 idemldquoIn the footsteps of Servetus Biandrata David and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Univer-salist History 31 (2006) 57ndash63 The arguments that the anti-trinitarians used were certainlynot novel as many of them appear in much earlier sources

81 Introduction 295

בקוצרבודברייהיהביהאיכותורבהבמותמעטספרליילעשותעתבלביאניאמרתיכעקראתיוומשענהלמשעןכמוניהבינהוקצריהרעתחלושילאנאשיםולהיותבאריכותולא22רפות ידים להזק אמונה חוזק ספר

The authorrsquos intend was thus not to attack Christianity directly after all hewrote in Hebrew but like many of his polemical forbears to encourage andequip his fellow Jews to stand firm in an environment of religious upheavaland to hold on to their own faith23

His methodology is two-fold and similar to other polemical writers On theone side he seeks to use the Hebrew Bible to establish the truth of a matter( הדרושיםאמתתלהודיעhellipהוכחתי ) by which he means the refutation of themore significant Christian interpretations of passages from the HebrewBible24 On the other side he comments on the texts of the Christian canonmostly seeking to refute that Jesus is the Messiah and the Trinity both withstatements found in the gospels and epistles Both these strategies wereemployed already in Qiṣṣa and Milḥamot ha-Shem in fact many of the samearguments encountered in earlier sources are also found in Ḥizzuq Emunah

The structure and arrangement of the book likewise suggest that RabbiTroki envisioned Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah as a ldquohandbookrdquo for Jewish-Christianencounters For Christians who eventually would discover this internal apolo-getic and polemic it posed a most potent attack on their convictions specifi-cally the New Testament section which prompted them to publish a goodnumber of apologetical refutations of their own25

22 Deutsch Befestigung 823 In the wake of anti-Jewish legislation and reactions there were at least two waves of

conversions of Jews to Christianity in Lithuania in the late 15th and 16th century cf Ways-blum ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 72

24 Deutsch Befestigung 1025 Eg Johannes Muumlller Judaismus oder Juumldenthum das ist Ausfuumlhrlicher Bericht von

des juumldischen Volcks Unglauben Blindheit und Verstockung (1st ed 1644 2nd ed HamburgZ Haumlrtels 1707) Wagenseil Tela Ignea Satanae Jaques Gousset Controversiam adversusJudaeos ternio (Dordrecht Ex Officina Viduae Caspari amp Theodori Goris 1688) ibid JesuChristi Evangeliique veritas salutifera demonstrata in confutatione libi Chizzuk Emunah a RIsaaco scripti (ed Arnold Borst Amsterdam J Borstius 1712) Brandanus Henricus Geb-hardi Centum Loca Novi Testamenti quae R Isaac ben Abraham in suo אמונהחזוק ieMunimine Fidei depravaverat vindicata (Greifswald Litteris Danielis Benjaminis Starckii1699) Richard Kidder A Demonstration of the Messias In which the Truth of the ChristianReligion is defended especially against The Jews (3 vols London J H for W Rogers at theSun amp M Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1699) Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein-Her-schensohn אמתאמונתחזוק Befestigung im wahren Glauben an Jesum Christum den SohnGottes (Leipzig C W Vollrath 1879) [Hebr] and the rather thorough discussion of ALukyn Williams Christian Evidences for Jewish People (2 vols Cambridge W Heffer1911 repr Eugene Wipf and Stock 1998) Also Hermann Strack proposed to write a refuta-tion but this was never carried out cf his preface in Williams Christian Evidences vol 1xii


8 2 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah

Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah came to a wider (non-Jewish) audience by way of aLatin translation by Johann Christoph Wagenseil in 1681 who had discoveredthe text on an expedition in North Africa By then the text had already beenwidely circulated in Jewish communities which makes the history of the textcomplicated as it was also altered by its copyists26 A few non-Jews were ableto procure and read the work before Wagenseilrsquos publication but it wasspecifically Tela Ignea Satanea (ldquoSatanrsquos Fiery Dartsrdquo) that brought ḤizzuqEmunah together with a refutation to a wider Christian audience

Because Wagenseilrsquos textual Vorlage was found to be deficient somesought to republish the work with a more accurate manuscript as textual basisldquoIn 1715 a Christian pastor Christian Gottlieb Unger collated the printed textwith a reliable manuscript copy and correctly established the identity of itsauthor which had remained uncertain up to that timerdquo27 David Deutsch anotable orthodox rabbi in Germany republished a new translation of ḤizzuqEmunah into German together with a much revised Hebrew text based on thestudy of several manuscripts28 Deutschrsquos edition was first published privatelyin 1865 then in 1873 a second edition was printed that was made availableto a much larger readership It remains to this day the best available text andtranslation into a modern language Already in 1851 Moses Mocatta hadtranslated Ḥizzuq Emunah into English albeit in a modified and toned-downform under the title Faith Strengthened29 However ldquoDeutschrsquos translation isnearly twice as long as the abridged Mocatta text that remains the standardEnglish versionrdquo30 Consequently Deutschrsquos edition and his manuscriptreconstruction will be the basis for this chapter

8 3 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah

Rabbi Trokirsquos main argument addresses the Christian interpretation of theHebrew Bible seeking to show that Jesus was the expected Messiah He

26 Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 208ndash211 Deutsch Befestigung ix How much of the presenttext has been altered in its transmission is not certain Rabbi Trokirsquos correspondence showsthat he himself was familiar with rabbinic traditions references to Talmudic material shouldthus not necessarily be attributed to later interpolations see Waysblum ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 67

27 Popkin Disputing Christianity 28 see esp Deutsch Befestigung viindashix28 See Joseph Norden David Deutsch (1810ndash73) Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O-

S Ein Lebensbild (Myslowitz Verein fuumlr juumldische Geschichte und Litteratur 1902)29 Moses Mocatta אמונהחזוק or Faith Strengthened (London Wertheimer 1851 repr

New York Ktav 1970)30 Popkin Disputing Christianity 33


wishes to demonstrate that the Christian interpreters and New Testamentauthors contradict themselves the prophets and reason Accordingly Jesusdid not fulfill messianic prophecies and Christians simply do not understandthe texts of the Hebrew Bible properly A second large focus is the critique ofthe doctrine of the Trinity predominantly with passages from the New Testa-ment and in particular Jesusrsquo own statements A further topic is the Christianunderstanding of the Mosaic LawḤizzuq Emunah is presented as a two-partite work The first part is com-

posed of 50 chapters and is more apologetical in nature Christian argumentsare addressed by first presenting a Christian interpretation of a Hebrew Biblepassage to which then a Jewish response is supplied31 The first 43 chapters ofthis first part deal mostly with Christian arguments based on the HebrewBible although at times passages from the New Testament are treated aswell32 The last seven chapters of the first part present Jewish objectionsagainst Christianity by discussing contradictions in the New Testament HereChristians are directly addressed in the second person which may anticipatethat the arguments would be used in debates with Christians

These seven objections in fact give a kind of summary of many of thepoints raised in the second part of the book Christians are to be challengedwith a rational evaluation of the proofs that they cite to support their convic-tions especially the interpretations and use of the ldquoproof passagesrdquo from theHebrew Bible found in the New Testament and here in particular the Gospelof Matthew These are deemed arbitrary manipulated and simply not applica-ble In sect45 Rabbi Troki specifically emphasizes that the use and interpretationof the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament is misleading and often plainlywrong which is the premise for the entire first part of the work He then goesthrough some of the passages of the Gospel of Matthew and points out incon-sistencies starting with the genealogy He also rejects the use of Isaiah 714and other passages from the Hebrew Bible as prophetic ldquoproof-textsrdquo by refer-ring back to the discussion of the respective passages in the preceding chap-ters Rabbi Troki finishes this section by quoting both Martin Luther andSzymon Budny who both remarked that the New Testamentrsquos manner ofciting the Hebrew Bible is only for remembrance and not controversy Thus

31 In this first part Rabbi Troki devotes most pages to the refutation of the Christian inter-pretation of Isa 52ndash53 closely followed by Isa 7ndash9 In total seventeen pages on Isa 52ndash53(Deutsch Befestigung I sect22 145ndash62) and fourteen pages on Isa 714 and context (I sect21132ndash45) On Trokirsquos exegesis of Isaiah 53 see the important essay by Stefan SchreinerldquoIsaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (lsquoFaith Strenghtenedrsquo) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham ofTrokirdquo in The Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed BerndJanowski and Peter Stuhlmacher Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004) 418ndash61

32 Rabbi Troki also discusses the Hebrew Bible in the second ldquoNew Testamentrdquo part ofḤizzuq Emunah eg Paulrsquos use of Psalm 27 in Acts 1333 in II sect68 and II sect95


they agree with his view that in a debate with Jews these ldquoproof-textsrdquo wouldfail to convince because a person properly familiarized with the HebrewBible is able to discern that these passages do not apply which is exactly themethodology Ḥizzuq Emunah follows33

These seven intermediate chapters serve as a summary and preview of thesecond part of Ḥizzuq Emunah which is more polemical and attempts torefute the New Testament in 100 chaptersAnd the second part (contains) the interpretive (self-)negation and refutation of the gospeleither by the words of the prophets peace be on them or by judging from reason and therespective interpretations or by (comparing) some of the words of (their own) writers witheach other or (by comparing) the words of the Christians with their faith

השכלמשפיטתהןעההנביאיםמדבריהןהאגוסתירתביטולבהוראותהשניוהחלק34ואמונתם הנוצרים מדברי והן לקצתן ההם הכותבים קצת מדברי והן והוראותיו

This part is arranged according to the order of the New Testament canon andconsists of exegetical discussions and appeals to the readerrsquos common sense

8 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

Many of the Hebrew Bible passages discussed in Ḥizzuq Emunah are basedon Matthewrsquos fulfillment paradigm For the topic at hand following sectionsare relevant35

Part I Matthew Issue D Deutsch

sectsect9ndash1036 1232 On Genesis 11 and 26 and the Trinity pp 78ndash86

sect21 122ndash23 On Isa 7 and 9 and the Incarnation pp 132ndash45

sect28 217ndash18 On Jeremiah 3115 pp 186ndash90

sect33 26 On Mica 51 pp 202ndash208

sect35 214ndash5 1034 2028 On Zechariah 99 pp 213ndash21

sect39 117ndash15 1712ndash13 On Malachi 45ndash6 pp 230ndash32

sect40 2244 On Psalm 110 pp 232ndash37

sect41 2430 2664 On Daniel 713 pp 237ndash42

33 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect45 27134 Deutsch Befestigung 19 (content summary)35 Only the first two of these directly relate to Jesusrsquo divinity and the Gospel of Matthew36 The arguments here and in the following marked in bold are those discussed in this

study


Then in sectsect44ndash50 of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah Rabbi Troki brings awhole variety of common polemical arguments and Jewish objections thoughonly sect47 is relevant for this inquiry (see 843)

In the second part where the books of the New Testament are discussedsequentially the Gospel of Matthew is dealt with in sectsect1ndash27 which is listedbelow and of which ten will be briefly considered in the subsequent discus-sion (as usual in bold) The arguments are by now are familiar in fact it willbecome apparent that Rabbi Troki does not innovate on any of the medieval(and earlier) objections though that does not retract from the effect thesearguments had on Trokirsquos Christian readers

Part II Matthew Issue D Deutsch

sect1 ch 1 Jesusrsquo genealogy pp 285ndash87

sect2 122 Isa 714 and the Incarnation cf I sect21 pp 287

sect3 124ndash25 Mary was not a virgin (cf Matt 1355) and Jesus was not named Immanuel

p 288

sect4 214ndash15 Hosea 111 is misunderstood p 289

sect5 216ndash18 Jeremiah 3115 is misunderstood cf I sect28 p 289

sect6 223 Matthew had a ldquolying dreamrdquo pp 289ndash90

sect7 41ndash10 The temptation shows that Jesus is not God p 290

sect8 413ndash15 Isaiah 91 is misunderstood Matthewrsquos proofs were assembled to create the appearance of prophecy

pp 290ndash93

sect9 418ndash19 The gospels try to deceive and ldquocatchrdquo people p 293

sect10 517ndash19 Jesus upheld the Law cf I sect19 pp 293ndash94

sect11 543 Jesus is wrong about hating onersquos enemy p 294

sect12 819ndash20 Jesus calls himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo and claims to possess nothing

pp 294ndash95

sect13 1034ndash35 Jesus did not come to bring peace he thus cannot be the Messiah

p 295

sect14 1040 Jesusrsquo claim that he is one with the one who sent him cf John 1038 (sect52)

pp 295ndash96

sect15 1113ndash14 That the Law is valid up to the coming of John is contradicted by Matt 517ndash19 cf I sect19 also sect7 sect39

p 296

sect16 1232 Jesus is only a ldquoSon of Manrdquo p 297

sect17 1355ndash56 Mary is not a virgin Joseph is Jesusrsquo father p 297

sect18 151ndash21 Dietary laws are relevant even for the early Christianscf eg Acts 15 and I sect15

pp 297ndash98



sect19 1916ndash21 Jesus himself indicated that he is not God and he upheld the Law

pp 298ndash99

sect20 2023 The Son and the Father are not one since the Son lacksauthority

p 299

sect21 2028 Jesus as the ldquoSon of Manrdquo came to serve thus he cannot be God

p 300

sect22 2335 Matthew is wrong about Zechariah the son of Berechiah

pp 300ndash301

sect23 266 All four evangelists differ in their account of the woman anointing Jesus

p 301

sect24 2639 Jesus does not appear to accept his passion willingly cf Matt 2746 (sect26) Also the will of the Son and the Father are different cf I sect47

pp 301ndash302

sect25 279 Zechariah 1112ndash13 is misunderstood If the betrayal of Jesus happened according to Godrsquos will Jews should expect a reward37

pp 302ndash306

sect26 2746 Jesus shows himself to be merely human when he called on God in his time of need

p 306

sect27 2818 Jesus had to be given power pp 306ndash307

Then after sect27 other books of the New Testament are discussed in which afew parallel passages in Matthew are mentioned Most noteworthy is sect30(Mark 1112ndash14 par Matt 2118f) and sect31 (Mark 1332 par Matt 2436 [butnot cited]) Also in sect53 in the discussion of John 133 and 1615 Rabbi Trokicites Matt 2818 Matt 2023 and Matt 81938

The following discussion will present all the passages in the first andsecond part that deal with the divinity of Jesus in relation to Matthew In thefirst section these are sect10 sect21 and sect47 (841ndash3) and in the second part sect7sect12 sect14 sect16 sect19 sect20 sect21 sect24 sect26 sect27 (844ndash13) in addition to two pas-sages from Mark sect30 sect31 (8414ndash15)

In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah earlier arguments are revisited butalso expanded on Frequently the reader is deferred to a refutation in the firstpart in particular when dealing with the various passages from the Hebrew

37 This is similar to Even Boḥan sect53 (see 6419)38 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect168 and sect188 (see 545) also Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252)

Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452)


Bible Consistent with Rabbi Trokirsquos strategy many passages from the gospelsused to corroborate that Jesus was a man thus refuting belief in the divinity ofJesus and also in the Trinity In regard to the Gospel of Matthew Rabbi Trokipresents the full range of common Jewish polemic but is often more econom-ical than comparable polemics Since most of the arguments have alreadybeen encountered in the previous sources the discussion will be kept to aminimum First however the relevant sections from part one of the treatise

8 4 1 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo amp Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1232 (I sect10)

In the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah in sectsect9ndash10 Rabbi Troki is dealing with theChristian interpretation of Genesis 11 and 126ndash27 as proofs for the TrinityHe presents the Christian interpretation and subsequently refutes it by discus-sing and comparing it with passages in the Hebrew Bible39 Then he brieflyoutlines his metaphysical convictions arguing that trinitarian thought isagainst reason In the latter part of sect10 he cites passages from the New Testa-ment to show that Jesus himself did not hold to any trinitarian understandingThe arguments in this section appear to be especially influenced by hisreading of anti-trinitarian works

He begins his discussion of New Testament passages that contradict theTrinity with Matt 1232Matthew wrote in chapter 12 verse 32 ldquoWhoever speaks a word against the lsquoSon of Manrsquo itwill be forgiven him but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven himnot in this world nor the coming worldrdquo You can also find the same in Mark 328 and Luke1219 Now with this passage these men clearly confirm that the Holy Spirit and the Son arenot one thus it follows that the three (or Trinity) are not one and since Jesus is (called) theldquoSon of Manrdquo he then is not God according to their false belief which is obvious to theunderstanding

רוחנגדשידברמיאבללויכופראדםבןנגדדברשידברמילבפסוקיבבפמטיאשכתבפסוקפגבמרקוסהמאמרזהגכתמצאעכלבעהבולאבעהזלאלויכופרלאהקדשרוחשאיןבבירורהוכיחוהאלההאנשיםהמאמרבזההנהיטפסוקיבפובלוקשכח

כאשרהכוזבתאמונתםכפיאלקולאאדםבןהואישווכיאחדהגאיןאכאחדוהבןהקדש40למבינים ידוע זה

The argument is familiar the inequality of the ldquoSon of Manrdquo compared to theHoly Spirit together with Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo demonstratethat Jesus did not consider himself equal to God The use of ldquoSon of Manrdquo as

39 Cf Rabbi Trokirsquos explanation of Gen 126 (I sectsect9ndash10) to Saadia Gaon The Book ofBelief amp Opinions (ed Rosenblatt) 107 and Qirqisani see Daniel Frank Search ScriptureWell Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East(Leiden Brill 2004) 215ndash17

40 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 84ndash85 The use of ldquoSon of Manrdquo is also understood thisway in his comments on Matt 819ndash20 1232 Luke 957 1210 see ibid II sect12 and sect16294ndash295 297


an affirmation of Jesusrsquo humanity already appeared in Qiṣṣa there howeverbased on Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) which is discussed next in ḤizzuqEmunah41

Mark wrote in chapter 13 verse 32 ldquoIts sign and the day and that hour nobody knows not theangels in heaven nor the Son but only the Father alonerdquo This passage confirms as well thatthe Father and the Son are not one since the son does not know what the Father knows Andherein he (also) confirms that he is not God since he does not know the future

שבשמיםהמלאכיםלאשיודעמיאיןההיאוהשעההיוםאותולבפסוקיגבפמרקושכתבהבןשאיןאחדאינווהבןשהאבהוכיחהמאמרבזהגםהנהעכללבדוהאבאלאהבןולא42עתידות יודע שאין אחד אלק שאין יוכיח וכן יודע שהאב מה יודע

After pointing out that the New Testament does not contain any clear prooffor the Trinity Rabbi Troki takes up another argument also already encoun-tered in Qiṣṣa (see 2516) namely that Jesus considered himself as only sentby GodAnd we also do not find in any place that Jesus calls himself God but to the contrary heattributes divinity and strength and power to the (true) God may be he blessed (In fact) heonly called himself his messenger as it is written in a place in Matthew chapter 10 verse 40ldquoWhoever receives you receives me and whoever receives me receives him who sent merdquo

והיכולתוהכחהאלקיותמיחסהואאבלאלקאותויקראעצמושישומקוםבשוםמצינולאוכןמיזלמפסוקיפרקבמטיאשכדכתיבמקוםשלשלוחועצמואתקרארקיתהאלאל

43שלחני אשר אותו מקבל אותי שמקבל ומי אותי מקבל אתכם שמקבל

In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah (in II sect14) Rabbi Troki commentsabout the same verse that those who argue from this passage that Jesus wasone with God consequently should also believe that the disciples whom Jesussends are one with the Trinity44

Continuing in I sect10 he returns to discuss the use of the term ldquoSon ofManrdquo as expression of Jesusrsquo humanityAnd thus he says about himself that he is a man as it is written in John chapter 8 verse 40ldquoAnd now you seek to kill the man who has spoken to you a true wordrdquo And so said Paulabout him in what he wrote to the Romans chapter 5 verse 15 ldquoThrough the grace of oneman Jesus the Messiah the many were savedrdquo In a different place He calls himself ldquoSon of

41 Cf Qiṣṣa sect39 sect57 sect105 and sect150 (see 2511) See also Nizzahon Vetus sect177 (see5411) and Even Boḥan sect50 (see 6418)

42 The argument is repeated in part II see Deutsch Befestigung II sect31 and in II sect5343 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 85 The point is also repeated in the refutation of the

Christian interpretation of Isa 5213 in I sect22 146 ldquoJesus of Nazareth is not God neitheraccording to the gospel nor much less according to him since he did not call himself God inany place as shall be shown from the words that are written in the gospel every passage and(each) passage within its context in the second part of this bookrdquo ( אפילואלוהאינונוצריישו

עודוכשאריתבארמקוםבשוםאלוהעצמוקראלאשהואעצמולדעתוכשהאגלדעתהב בחלק במקומו ודבר דבר כל האג כותבי מדברי )

44 Cf the similar argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 738) see also 846


Manrdquo as it is written in Matthew chapter 20 verse 18 ldquoSee we are going up to Jerusalemand the lsquoSon of Manrsquo will be delivered to the priestsrdquo also there in verse 28 ldquoas the lsquoSon ofManrsquo did not come that he should be served but he came to serverdquo which is a matter that yetwill be clarified in another place

להמיתמבקשיםאתםועתהזלמפספחביאןכמשכאיששהואעצמועלאומרהואוכןזלטופסוקהפלרומייםבכתבופיולשעליואמרוכןאמיתידברלכםהמדברהאישאת

בןעצמואתקוראהואמקומותבאשרגםכןוכמולרביםהושפעוהמשיחישואישבחסדימסראדםובןלירושליםעוליםאנחנוהנהיחפסוקבפרקבמטיאששכתובכמואדם

זהעניןכאשרלעבודבאאלאלושיעבדואדםבןבאלאכאשרזלכחפסוקשםעודלכהנים45במקומו יתבאר

According to Paul and the other evangelists Jesus has to be understood as aman and Rabbi Troki essentially argues here along the same trajectoryalready seen in the previous sources Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquomust be understood as reference to Jesusrsquo exclusive humanity

The final refutation of the Trinity in this section is then given by means ofthe pater nosterAnd this matter is quite clear from the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples called in theirlanguage pater (noster) written in Matthew chapter 6 where he did not decree to pray to theTrinity only to one God and He is the God of heaven as it is written there called in theirlanguage pater ldquoOur Father in heaven (hellip)rdquo From this you can see that he did not instructthem to pray to himself who according to them is the Son and (also) not the the Holy Spiritbut only to his father in heaven to whom there is no equal

הכתובפאטרבלשונםהנקראלתלמידיוישוהורהאשרמהתפלההיטבמובןהעניןוכןזהושםכדכתיבהשמיםאלקיוהואאחדלאלרקהשילושאללהתפללגזרשלאופבמטיאשהבןשהואלעצמולהתפללהורהשלאראיתהנך(hellip)שבשמיםאבינופאטירבלשונםהנקרא

46מלבדו אין אשר שבשמים לאביו רק הקדש לרוח ולא כדבריהם

Consequently Jesusrsquo own teaching shows that one ought to pray to the Fatheralone By leaving the Holy Spirit and himself unmentioned he shows thattrinitarian thinking is foreign to him47

Thus in the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah sect10 we have a sequence of NewTestament passages arguing that belief in the Trinity is incongruent withJesusrsquo own statements48 Jesus as ldquoSon of Manrdquo considered himself to be dis-tinct from God (Matt 1232) and limited (Mark 1332) He furthermore

45 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 8546 Ibid I sect10 85ndash8647 However an argumentum e silentio can work both ways48 Rabbi Troki briefly summarizes this argument again in I sect49 Deutsch Befestigung

278 ldquoHe does not refer to himself by the name God in any place but rather refers to himselfby the name lsquoSon of Manrsquo and lsquohumanrsquo as is recounted in the gospel in many places but youascribe to him divinity and refer to him by the name of God something which he did notcommand you (to do)rdquo ( אתקוראאלאמקוםבשוםאלקיםבשםעצמואתקוראאינוהוא

אלקותלומיחסיםאתםאבלרביםבמקומותבאגכמוזכראישובשםאדםבןבשםעצמואתכם צוה שלא מה אלקים בשם אותו וקוראים )


acknowledged that he was only sent (Matt 1040) and that he is just a human(John 840) which also Paul confirms (Rom 515) This ldquoSon of Manrdquo cameto serve (Matt 2028) and instructed his followers to pray to the Father alone(Matt 69) It follows that Jesus must be understood a man and that exclu-sively so

8 4 2 Jesusrsquo Nativity and Isaiahrsquos Prophecies Matt 120ndash25 (I sect21)

The discussion of Jesusrsquo nativity and the beginning of Matthew begins with abrief presentation of Matthewrsquos use of Isa 714 (Matt 122ndash23) After quotingIsaiah Rabbi Troki writesAnd they bring proof for their faith from this passage by saying that the prophet here desig-nated that Jesus Christ was to be born by a young girl who was a virgin by one of the daugh-ters of Israel without the involvement of a man rather by the Holy Spirit according to what iswritten in the gospel of Matthew chapter 1

נולדנוצרישישוייעדהנביאהנהבאמרםהפסוקמזהאמונתםעלראייהשמביאיםומהבאגשכתובמהכפיהקדשברוחאלאהאנושיזיוגבלתיישראלבנימבנותבתולהמנערה

49פא במטיאש

Rabbi Troki answeres this with a lengthy in-depth discussion lasting fourteenpages in total50 He uses the context of Isaiah and many other passages fromthe Hebrew Bible to refute the idea that Jesus is the child over which Isaiahprophecies while echoing and answering several well known Christian objec-tions in the course of his exposition His exegesis is based on survey of theterm ldquovirginmaidenrdquo (עלמה) and the demand for a fulfillment of the prophecyin Isaiahrsquos historic context

In the course of the discussion he mentions a Christian objection whichposits that the name Immanuel is inappropriate for ordinary humans and thatit therefore can only refer to Jesus who was both human and divine RabbiTroki respondsBut that Jesus was called by the name Immanuel we do not find in any place in the gospelsonly that the angel in Matthew chapter 1 said to Joseph in his dream ldquolsquoDo not fear acceptMary your wife since she conceived by the Holy Spirit and she will give birth to a son andyou shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sinsrsquo All this (willhappen) so that the prophetrsquos saying shall come to take place lsquoBehold the young womanvirgin will conceive and she will give birth to a son and she will call his name Immanuelrsquordquo(Matt 120ndash23) And (further it is) said (that) ldquoJoseph took his wife and did not know (her)until she gave birth to his firstborn son and he called his name Jesusrdquo (Matt 124bndash25) Andthus it is also in Luke chapter 2 ldquoAnd when the eight day had come when the boy was to becircumcised he was named lsquoJesusrsquo according to what the angel had named him prior to the

49 Deutsch Befestigung I 13250 Ibid I 132ndash45 sect21


conceptionrdquo (Luke 221) Accordingly one can see from this that Immanuel is someone elseand not Jesus since Jesus is not called lsquoImmanuelrsquo in any place

שאמראפרקבמטיאשאומררקגבאמקוםבשוםמצינולאעמנואלבשםישושיקראאבלושתלדהקדשמרוחהרהשהיאלפיאשתךמריםאתמלקבלתיראאלבחלומוליוסףהמלאך

הנביאמאמרשיתקייםכדיזהוכלמעונותיועמואתיושיעהואכיישועשמואתותקראבןעדידעהולאאשתואתיוסףויקחואומרעמנואלשמווקראתבןויולדתהרההעלמההנההנערנמולימיםחובמלאותבפרקבלוקשוכןישועשמושיקראהבכורבנואתילדהאשרישוזולתהואשעמנואלמזהיראהכאההריוןקודםמהמלאךנקראכאשרישועשמוויקרא

51עמנואל מקום בשום ישו נקרא שלא לפי

Since Jesusrsquo name is actually not Immanuel the prophecy should not beapplicable to him This argument is not new52 though ignores that Matthewuses the names Immanuel and Jesus in the same context (Matt 123 and Matt125) In Matthewrsquos own understanding Isaiah 714 and the Immanuel-motifwas certainly applicable to Jesus53

Rabbi Troki addresses another Christian objection and argues against thenotion that the names and titles of the child in Isaiah 96 indicate divineidentity After showing that Hebrew names do not necessarily have to denoteidentity he writesIn fact that Jesus is designated God (with these names) as they say is not of the realm of thepossible For how can he be called ldquoWonderful Counsellorrdquo ( יועץפלא ) when Judas and hisstudents fooled him when he delivered him to his enemies And how can he be calledldquoMighty Godrdquo ( גבוראל ) when he was killed And also how can he be called ldquoPrince ofPeacerdquo when there was no peace in his days as he himself remarks ldquoI did not come to estab-lish peace on the earth but the swordrdquo (Matt 1034)

ויודעיועץפלאשמויקראאיךכיהאפשרמןאינוכדבריהםהשמותבאלוישושיקראאכןשריקראאיךוכןנהרגוהואגבוראליקראואיךלאויביומסרוכאשרעצתוסכלותלמדיו

אמכיבארץשלוםלשוםבאתילאבאמרומעירעצמוהואכאשרבימיושלוםהיהולאשלום54חרב

The verse taken from Matt 1034 together with the fact that Jesus wasbetrayed and killed is given as evidence that Jesus could not have been thechild mentioned in Isaiah 96 Ḥizzuq Emunah assumes here the position ofthe Christian interlocutor and applies Jesusrsquo portrayal in the New Testamentin a rather ldquocommon senserdquo fashion Jesus cannot be this supernatural divineperson since he was outwitted and lacked the power to prevent his own death

51 Deutsch Befestigung I 140ndash41 sect21 The text of Matt 125 seems to be related to theVulgate (or a translation thereof) ldquoet non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primo-genitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesumrdquo (emphasis mine) Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect163 (see 541)

52 See eg Yosef ha-Meqanne sect137 (see 452) and cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7311)53 See Luz Matthew 1ndash7 96ndash97 who points out that Matthewrsquos ldquoGod-with-usrdquo theme

links Matt 123 1717 1820 2629 and 2820 See also Kupp Matthewrsquos Emmanuel esp157ndash75

54 Deutsch Befestigung I 143 sect21 Cf also II sect13 295


Moreover he himself explained that he did not come to be a peace-bringer Inother words Jesusrsquo limitations both in life and death preclude him frombeing divine mdash which is the basic argument that was already encountered inQiṣṣa and in polemics from late antiquity and is repeated throughout thepolemical tradition

With this Rabbi Troki disqualifies Isaiah 714 and Isaiah 96 as Christianproof texts and casts doubt on the author of the nativity narrative both interms of supporting Jesusrsquo divinity and his messiahship The use of Isaiah714 by Matthew is therefore inadmissible proof for Jesusrsquo divinity as Isaiahonly speaks to his own historical context Jesusrsquo life as portrayed byMatthew furthermore shows that he cannot be considered divine in particularwhen considering Jesus in Gethsemane

8 4 3 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2636 2746 (I sect47)

Within the seven intermediate chapters before the second part Rabbi Trokiadds a well known argument based on Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane and hisdeath on the cross since God did not heed Jesusrsquo request and because Jesusexclaimed on the cross that God had left him it is evident that the Father andthe Son are not oneAnd this passage likewise proves that the Father is not one with Son since the will of theFather is not (equal to) the will of the Son And if the Christian should reply and say that itwas not according to his will but what they did to him was done by force then we say to himldquoIf this is the case how can you call him God since he suffered torments against his will thathe should not be able to safe himself from the hands of his enemies And how will he be ableto safe those who trust in himrdquo

ישיבואםהבןכרצוןהאברצוןשאיןאחראחדאינווהבןשהאבמוכיחגכהמאמרוזהקוראאתהאיךאכלונאמראזישעשומהלועשוכרחובעלאלאמרצונושלאויאמרהנוצריואיךאויביומידעצמולהציליכולשלאבהכרחיסוריםסובלשהואאחראלוקיםבשםאותו55בו הבוטחים יציל

This of course is the same argument already seen in QiṣṣaNestor and neednot be discussed again56

Rabbi Troki ends this chapter by wondering how someone could everascribe divinity to Jesus as nobody seemed to have shown him reverence wasafraid of him or was in any way hesitant about mistreating and killing him Inother words his contemporaries did not consider him divine In sect50 RabbiTroki concludes the first part of the book by stating that it was the Christians

55 Deutsch Befestigung I sect47 276 the argument is repeated in II sect24 301ndash302 56 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512) and sectsect140ndash141 See also Milḥamot ha-Shem (see

346) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20) Nizzahon Vetus sect145 sect176 and sect178(see 5412ndash13) and Even Boḥan sect53 (see 6418)


who invented the idea of the Trinity (and Jesusrsquo divinity) and who added itlater to the Bible57

8 4 4 Jesusrsquo Temptation Matt 41ndash10 (II sect7)

In sect7 of the second part Rabbi Troki raises a familiar argument namely thatthe temptation of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus is not God After citingMatthew 41ndash10 he asksLook from all these verses it is evident that Jesus was not God as their words say for howcould Satan tempt God And how is it that he [Satan] would not be afraid of his Creatorsince he was created (by him like any other) of his creations How could it be (ever) possiblethat the created should (be able to) coerce its Creator and lead him to a place against His willSuch matters reason cannot tolerate nor anyone with knowledge they are nothing but thefabrications of worthless and reckless men who have no wisdom whatsoever

ואיךלאלקיםינסההשטןאיךכיבדבריהםאלוקהיהלאשישויראההמאמריםאלומכלהנהאתגכיכריחשהנבראנכהאפשרמןיהיהאיךמנבראיונבראבהיותומבוראוייראלא

משכילשוםדעתולאהשכליסבלהולאהדברזהכרחועלירצהאשרלמקוויוליכהובוראו58כלל חכמה להם אין אשר ופוחזים רקים אנשים של מלבם בדויים דברי אמ כי זה ואין

The argument that people did not fear Jesus which Rabbi Troki deems to be aproper reaction to the presence of the Creator was already used in the firstpart towards the end of sect4759 Here it is expanded with the argument that thecreated viz Satan cannot ldquoman-handlerdquo the Creator This argument that ifJesus were God he could not be coerced is much older and was alreadyimplied in Qiṣṣa60 However Rabbi Troki unlike earlier polemicists leaves inno doubt what to think of this story they are but ldquofabrications of worthlessand reckless men who have no wisdom whatsoeverrdquo He does not use theaccount to re-emphasize Jesusrsquo humanity but outright rejects it as irrationaland unreasonable presumbaly because Jesus is understood as the Creator inthe plot or at least within the Christian preception Correspondingly theauthor of the Gospel of Matthew has to be seen in the same light essentially

57 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect50 280ndash8158 Deutsch Befestigung II sect7 29059 Ibid 276 ldquoAnd if there was such a great fright on account of Moses (cf Exodus

3430) (who was ldquoonlyrdquo) the servant of the Lord and his prophet there should have beeneven more fright on account of the one whom you call God and attribute with the name ofGod And even more so if he really was God as you say and believe how is it that thepeople did not fear him (at all) but even took a hold of him beat him and injured him untilhe was deadrdquo ( קוראיםשאתםלמיונביאוייעבדשהיהלמשהכזההגדולהמוראהיהואם

כמהאהתעלגדוליותרמוראלולהיותיתחייבאלוקיםשםלוומייחסיםאלקיםבשםאותובוהחזיקואבלממנויראולאאדםבניאיךואמונתכםדבריכםכפיאלקיםהואהיהאםוכמה

במיתה שהרגוהו עד ופצעוהו והכוהו )60 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect142ndash145 Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) Nizzahon Vetus sect162 (see

544) Even Boḥan sect7 (see 645) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 732)


he is ldquoworthlessrdquo and ldquorecklessrdquo for associating the Creator with the notionthat the created could exercise control over God Essentially it is an utterrejection of the Christian notion of incarnation

8 4 5 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 819ndash20 (II sect12)

In sect12 Rabbi Troki recalls Matthew 819ndash20 (par Luke 957) and argues thatalso this passage is a contradiction of their belief that he is God For if he were God as theysay why did he call himself a ldquoSon of Manrdquo But since he testifies about himself that he is aldquoSon of Manrdquo it is not right to trust in him as it is written in Psalm 146 ldquoDo not trust inprinces in the lsquoSon of Manrsquordquo and in Jeremiah (175) ldquoCursed is the man who trusts in manetcrdquo And likewise if he were God as they say why did he say he does not have a place tolay his head Is the whole world not his as is written in Psalm 24 ldquoThe earth is the Lordrsquosand all it contains the world and those who dwell in itrdquo

למהכדבריהםאלקיםהואהיהואםאלקיםשהואשמאמיניםאמונתםסותרהמאמרזהגםכדכתיבבולבטוחראויאיןאדםבןשהואעצמועלמעידשהואואחראדםבןעצמוקוראהיה

יבטחאשרהגברארורייאמרכהיזובירמיהאדםבבןבנדיביםתבטחואלקמותהיליםכלוהלאמקוםלושאיןמקוםלושאיןאמרלמהכדבריהםאלקיםהואאםוכןוגומרבאדם61בה ויושבי תבל ומלואה הארץ ליי כד תהילים כדכתיב הוא שלו העולם

Ḥizzuq Emmunah echoes the argument seen in Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizza-hon Vetus62 In fact the discussion of Matt 819ndash20 in conunction with Psalm24 may indicate that there are direct links to the arguments of the medievalFrench context

8 4 6 Jesus is Sent Matt 1040 (II sect14)

In sect14 Matt 1040 is used to once more demonstrate that Jesus saw himself asa messenger63

Based on this passage the Christians believe that Jesus is one substance (lit ldquolikenessrdquo) withthe one who has sent him And when they based on these (words) believe that the Trinity isone it should follow that they likewise (ought to) believe that Jesus and whom he sends out[the apostles] are one You will find a similar passage in John 1038

מאמיניםכברשהםואחראחדדמיוןשלוחיועםשישומאמיניםהמאמרמזההנוצריםהנהתמצאהענייןבזהוכיוצאאחדשהואהישועלכןכמושיאמינויתחייבאחדשהואהשילושאל

64עש לח פסוק י פרק ביאן

61 Deutsch Befestigung II sect12 29562 Cf Yosef ha-Meqanne sectsect26ndash27 and sect7 (see 456ndash7) Nizzahon Vetus sect168 (see 545)63 See Hizzuq Emunah I sect10 (see 841)64 Deutsch Befestigung II sect14 296 Another manuscript adds here that Christians

should consequently believe that God is fifteen that is the Trinity plus 12 apostles see thefootnote on p 296 the same occurs also in II sect52


Rabbi Troki assumes that Matt 1040 (cf Mark 937 Luke 1016 John 1320)is used by Christians to corroborate the Trinity and though that may havebeen the case in his experience Matt 1040 is not a classic text to argue forthe doctrine of the Trinity65 He makes the same argument based on John103866 and contends that if these verses speak of Jesusrsquo divine-ontologicalunion with God then this must also be extended to the disciples If Jesus isldquoone with the Fatherrdquo in an ontological sense then also the disciples must bereckoned as ldquoone with the Fatherrdquo that is they must be assumed to be integralmembers of the Trinity Since that is evidently not the case not even from aChristian point of view these passages cannot speak of the Trinity67

8 4 7 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1232 (II sect16)

Then in sect16 after quoting Matthew 1232 (par Lk 1210) the comment ismadeSee in this passage Matthew and Luke the two of them confirm that Jesus is a ldquoSon of Manrdquo(ie human) and not God They further confirm clearly that the son and the Holy Spirit arenot one And if so the three are not one as in their fabricated faith which is clear to theunderstanding

הוכיחווכןאלקיםולאאדםבןהואישוכיהוכיחושניהםולוקשמתיאשהמאמרבזההנהזהכאשרמלבםהבדוייהאמונתםכפיאחדהגאיןאכאחדהקדושורוחהבןשאיןבבירור

68למבינים ידוע

Two witnesses Matthew and Luke testify that Jesus calls himself a human( אדםבן ) and if that was not enough Jesus himself indicates that he is notequal to the Holy Spirit thereby undermining the whole of trinitarian thinkingand exposing it as a fabrication

8 4 8 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21 (II sect19)

In sect19 Jesusrsquo statement in Matthew 1916ndash21 (parr Mark 1017ndash21 Luke1818ndash22) is employed as proof that Jesus did not think that he was GodAnd from this you can see when he says ldquoWhy do you call me good nobody is (good) but forthe one Godrdquo by this saying then he shows that he is not God which is what they believe

65 Matt 1040 usually is used to corroborate the apostolic authority of the messengers orthe message see Luz Matthew 8ndash20 120 and Davies and Allison Matthew 8ndash18 226

66 See Deutsch Befestigung II sect52 324 where Rabbi Troki (again) comments thatChristians should therefore hold to a union of fifteen the Trinity plus twelve apostles

67 This argument is similar to Ibn Ḥazm see Sweetman Islam and Christian Theology21 249 267ndash69 and Pulcini Exegesis of Polemical Discourse 107 Cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim(see 7310)

68 Deutsch Befestigung II sect16 297


הוכיחהמאמרבזהאחדאלאלאטובאיןטובאותיקוראאתהלמהשאמרמהכירואההנך69מאמינים הם כאשר אלקים אינו שהוא

As already encountered several times this is the standard reading of thispassage and follows previous apologetic-polemical usage70

8 4 9 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Matt 2023 (II sect20)

In sect20 Rabbi Troki discusses Matthew 2023 (par Mk 1040) where Jesustells the sons of Zebedee that it is God who decides who sits to his right andleft Based on this (it is evident) there is no power or authority in the hands of the Son to do as hewishes but they are in the hands of the Father And if so he declares that the Father and theSon are not one as they say and (as such) those who trust in this one will be put to shame

האבשאיןמודיעאכלבדוהאבבידאלארצונולעשותהבןבידיורשותכחשאיןאחרהנה71בו הבוטחים יבושו ולזה כדבריהם אחד והבן

Since Jesus does not render a decision concerning the petition even explicitlydefers to the Father Jesus demonstrates that he had not supreme authorityand therefore he cannot be God The argument is not common but occurs inQiṣṣaNestor and Yosef ha-Meqanne72

8 4 10 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 2028 (II sect21)

Then in sect21 Rabbi Troki again refers to Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquoin Matthew 2028 (par Mark 1045)Here Jesus announces about himself that he is not God on account of two reason first he is aldquoSon of Manrdquo and second he is serving and not being served

ואינועובדשהואוהבאדםבןשהואהאסבותלבאלוקאינושהואעצמועלהודיעישוהנה73נעבד

When Jesus said that the ldquoSon of Manrdquo came to serve Rabbi Troki argues thathe must be understood here to affirm that he is not God This again is thestandard polemic attached to Matt 202874

69 Deutsch Befestigung sect19 29870 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514 also Yosef ha-Meqanne sect33 (see 4516) Nizzahon

Vetus (see 549) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 734)71 Deutsch Befestigung II sect20 299 The argument is repeated in II sect5372 See 252 and 451773 Deutsch Befestigung II sect21 30074 Cf Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) Nizzahon

Vetus sect188 (see 545) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 733 and 736)


8 4 11 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross Matt 2639 (II sect24)

In sect24 he recalls Matthew 2639 (par Mark 1235 Luke 2241) and finds thatalso this matter is the opposite of their belief that is that they believe that Jesus Christ gave(himself) willingly (over) to suffering and crucifixion for their sakes in order to atone fortheir souls And if it was (done) willingly as they say then why is he sad before he wasapprehended (And why) is he imploring God for the cup to pass and to be removed fromhim And likewise after he was apprehended he cried out with a loud voice and said ldquoMyGod my God why have you left merdquo as it is written there in Matthew 2746 And this pas-sage also proves that the Father and the Son are not one since the will of the Son is not likethe will of the Father We already have explained this issue in sect47 in the first part of thisbook

כדיבעדםולצליבהלענוינתןברצונוהנוצרישישומאמיניםשהםאמונתםהפךהדברזהגםומתחנןשנתפסקודםמתעצבהיהלמהאככדבריהםבכךרצונוהיהואםנפשותםעללכפרעזבתנילמהאליאליואמרגדולבקולצעקשנתפסאחרוכןממנוהכוסויסירשיעבירלאל

אהראחדאינווהבןשהאבגכהוכיהחהמאמרוזהמופסוקכזפרקבמטיאששםכדכתיב75הספר מזה הא מהחלק מו בפרק הענין בארנו וכבר האב כרצון הבן רצון שאין

8 4 12 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2746 (II sect26)

Not much further on Jesusrsquo cry on the cross in Matthew 2746 (par Mark1534) is once again referred to as admission of Jesusrsquo humanityAnd here also it is evident that he was not God rather he was a human (as those) who cry outto God in their time of distress

76צרתם בעת לאל הקוראים אדם בני כאשר היה אלא אליק היה לא שהוא הודיע פה גם והנה

Both arguments are familiar by now and so far have been encountered inevery other polemical source examined They represent as such one of themost common Jewish objections to Jesusrsquo divinity77

8 4 13 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Matt 2818 (II sect27)

Immediatley following in sect27 after quoting the first part of Matthew 2818Rabbi Troki returns again to the question of Jesusrsquo authorityAnd also here he made known that he was not God for he to whom authority has been givenby another is not God but rather the Creator alone has the kingdom and the authority He isthe giver without having received authority from another And if the Christian should saythat ldquoHis Father has given to him the authority and not anotherrdquo in this case they are two

75 Deutsch Befestigung II sect24 301ndash302 cf also 84376 Ibid II sect26 30677 See QiṣṣaNestor sect53 and sectsect139ndash141 (see 2515) Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346)

Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20) and Nizzahon Vetus sect176 sect178 and sect145(see 5412ndash13) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 739) Cf also Even Boḥan sect53 sect56 and sect58(see 6419ndash20)


that is one that gives and one that receives Yet they maintain that the Father and the Son areone

אבלאלוקאינומאחרלונתונהשממשלתומיכיאלוקהיהלאשהואהודיעפהגםוהנהיאמרואםמאחרהממשלהמקבלובלתיהנותןוהואוהממשלההממלכהלבדולוהבוראוהאחדנותןהאחדלרשניםיהיוכןאםלונשיבאחרולאהממשלהלונותןשאביוהנוצרי78אחד והבן שהאב אומרים הם אבל מקבל

It becomes quite evident here that Rabbi Troki argues by means of a verysimple and strict dichotomy giver and taker sender and sent God and manin which Jesus can only belong to ldquoone camprdquo This is similar to what otherpolemic authors have argued79

Having thus moved through the Gospel of Matthew and drawn out all thepassages which he felt contradicted trinitarian thought Rabbi Troki proceedsto Mark and the rest of the New Testament Two more passages need to bebriefly mentioned though their arguments are well-known

8 4 14 The Cursing the Fig Tree Mark 1112ndash40 (II sect30)

In sect30 the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 1112ndash40 (par Matt 2118ndash22) ispresented as one more proof that Jesus is not God and not surprisingly theargument is the same as in earlier texts80

Also this verse clearly proves that he is not God and even that there was never a divine Spiritin him for if he was God as they say or if there ever was a divine spirit in him how did henot know that there were no figs on the fig tree before he came to it In particular because itwas not the season for figs then (and) even the ordinary person would not walk up to a figtree and shame it for no reason for not having any use He should have decreed that the treebear figs for his (own) benefit and to satisfy his hunger (that is) if he had the power tochange nature according to his will which is what those who follow him believe

בוהיהולאבואיןאלקיםרוחושאפילוהואאלקיםשלאבבירורמוכיחהמאמרזהגםהנהשאיןיודעהיהלאאיךאלקיםרוחבוהיהאפילואםאודבריהםכפיאלקיםהואהיהכא

לאשבאנשיםהדיוטאפילותאניםזמןאזהיהשלאובפרטאצלהבואוקודםבתאנהתאניםלתאניםשיתהפךהאילןעללגזורלווהיהתועלתוללאבחנםלהובישההתאנהאלהולךהיה

שמאמיניםמהכפיכרצונוהטבעילשנותבידוכחהיהאםרעבונוולהשביעלתועלתו81אהריו הנמשכים

Rabbi Troki finishes his discussion of this pericope by refuting the Christianobjection that the passages has to be understood allegorically namely that thefig tree represents Israel by appealing to Joel 227 and 3182

78 Deutsch Befestigung II sect27 306ndash30779 Cf the similar discussions in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 348) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect30

(see 4522) and Nizzahon Vetus sect168 and sect182 (see 545 and 5414)80 See Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410 and also 5410)

Even Boḥan sect42 (6416) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (736) but cf 73381 Deutsch Befestigung II sect30 308ndash30982 Arguing that is not anticipated that Jews would reject the Messiah in the Messianic era


8 4 15 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mark 1332 (II sect31)

Then in sect31 Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) is cited as proof that Jesus did notknow the futureYou will see oh understanding (reader) how this here clearly proves that the Son is not Godbecause he does not know the future

83עתידות יודע שאינו כיון אלוק אינו שהבן בבירור בכאן הוכיח איך תראה המעיין אתה

This is again the standard polemic84 Finally in sect53 it is argued again thatJesus contradicts himself one the one side he asserts that God has given himall authority (John 133 1615 Matt 2818) yet Jesus did not know the future(Mark 1332) nor did he have the authority to give the sons of Zebedeeprominent positions in the kingdom (Matt 2023)85 neither has God given hima place on earth to call his own (Matt 820) In fact Jesus states that theFather is greater than him (John 1428) which shows that he is not of thesame greatness as God (Heb 27ndash8)

8 5 Summary

As was seen Rabbi Trokirsquos arguments are by no means novel Most if not allare known from much earlier polemical sources and his ldquoStrenghtening of theFaithrdquo can therefore only be deemed a more accessible collation of anti-Chris-tian arguments that had been used for centuries by Jews That Ḥizzuq Emunahbecame the channel by which these arguments came to the attention of theChristian mainstream was perhaps more of an accident of history neverthe-less the ldquoStrenghtening of the Faithrdquo became one of the most influentialJewish polemics which was partially determined by the historical context inwhich it was written In fact in the beginning of the 17th century we find asituation in eastern Europe where the differences between ldquoperipheralrdquoJudaism and ldquoperipheralrdquo Christianity were melting away and Christianbeliefs converged with long held Jewish non-trinitarianism This created asituation similar to that of the early centuries of Christianity when there was aspectrum of Jewish and Christian beliefs and where differences were not asdelineated doctrinally Rabbi Troki clearly identifies this situation as a dangerto his fellow Jews as he himself states in the introduction86 Especially the

83 Deutsch Befestigung II sect31 310 Rabbi Troki uses Mark 1322 also to contradictJohn 1030 see II sect50 321

84 See Qiṣṣa sect39 (see 2511) Nizzahon Vetus sect177 and sect194 (see 5411) and EvenBoḥan sect50 (see 6418)

85 Cf Deutsch Befestigung II sect20 29986 Ibid 8


availability of Polish Bible translations with anti-trinitarian commentary madeChristian religious convictions accessible and perhaps even attractive87 Sincehe and the anti-trinitarians converge in their view of the nature of God itbecame more important to highlight the differences And although RabbiTroki reaffirms anti-trinitarianism88 he makes a point of dispelling the notionthat Jesus could have been the Jewish Messiah Thus he emphazises thatJesus could not have been the Messiah due to his ancestry his deeds andbecause the messianic prophecies were not fulfilled during Jesusrsquo lifetime89

Also by further questioning the veracity of the New Testament he attemptsto critique the basis of Christianity as a whole In his assessment the gospelauthors are ignorant at best and wilfully deceptive at worst90

His view of Jesus (if he even had one) could be summarized as followsJesus is a man who erroneously thought he was the Messiah He understoodhimself sent by God as a servant authorized by God but he was clearlylimited in authority knowledge and ability He was also distinct from Godwhich he himself asserts since he identifies himself as a human (ldquoSon ofManrdquo) To believe that Jesus is God or that Jesus considered himself to beGod is therefore simply wrong and perilous Jesus cannot be divine becausehe has no authority or sufficient power eg to save himself He is also clearlynot omnipotent and he is passable in that he was tempted and coerced bySatan Based on his own statements Jesusrsquo will is distinct from Godrsquos willAccordingly Rabbi Troki argues that later Christians clearly contradictreason Jesus and the writers of the New Testament The incarnation there-fore must be understood as irrational and is a vestige of earlier pagan mytho-logical belief91 Likewise the belief in the Trinity is to be rejected which thereasonable among Christians have also concludedḤizzuq Emunah could perhaps be characterized as Rabbi Trokirsquos attempt to

reclaim anti-trinitarianism for Judaism and judging by the response it gener-ated from Christians he indeed may have succeed

87 Rabbi Troki uses at least three New Testament translations cf Deutsch BefestigungII sect63 330 cf also 337

88 Rabbi Troki adopts eg Marcin Czechowicrsquos interpretation of Jesusrsquo ldquooneness state-mentsrdquo see Deutsch Befestigung II sect50 321

89 Ibid II 30ndash3190 See ibid I sect6 6691 See Deutsch Befestigung 29

85 Summary 315

Chapter 9

Conclusion The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics

In the seven major sources we surveyed which roughly span a thousand yearperiod and which are written in the Middle East Southern Western andEastern Europe the Gospel of Matthew along with other New Testament textswas used by Jewish authors to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity (and other Chris-tian doctrines) Though this was a given from the outset of the study it is notimmediately self-evident that a Christian primary text could be used againstthe Christian interest or Christian doctrines in this manner1 To dispute withonersquos opponent on their home turf is a bold move and it prepared the way for

1 Incidentally this also puts the hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew is anti-semitic (oranti-JudaicJewish) into perspective as eg argued by Rosemary Ruether Faith and Fratri-cide The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Minneapolis Seabury 1974) 64ndash95 or SeacuteanFreyne ldquoVilifying the Other and Defining the Self Matthewrsquos and Johnrsquos Anti-JewishPolemic in Focusrdquo in ldquoTo See Ourselves as Others See Usrdquo Christians Jews ldquoOthersrdquo inLate Antiquity (ed Jacob Neusner and Ernest S Frerichs Chico Cal Scholar 1985) 117ndash43 To my knowledge not one of the Jewish apologists and polemicists surveyed here hasargued that Matthew is anti-Jewish or that this was the case for Jesus to the contrary This iseven more noteworthy since many of their Christian contemporaries were not particularlypositive minded towards Jews and the argument would have been easy to make especially ina genre of writings that for the most part was inaccessible to non-Jews Instead the Jewishreading often stressed that Jesus was (relatively) Jewish a monotheist (someone who prayedto God) upheld the Law (Matt 517ndash19) etc and that later Christians and church interpretersmoved away from these Jewish moorings which is also how Jules Isaac one of the seminalauthors on anti-Judaism in the New Testament has generally argued in Jesus and Israel(trans Sally Gran ed Claire Huchet Bishop New York Holt Rinehart amp Winston 1971)though Isaac has also put some of the blame on the New Testament in particular the Gospelof John and some passages in Matthew (esp 2725 see ibid 343ndash64) The literature on thequestion of anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew is extensive for a recent introduction intothe topic see Terrence L Donaldson Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament Decisionpoints and divergent interpretations (London SPCK 2010) 1ndash54 and for Matthew esp ScotMcKnight ldquoA Loyal Critic Matthewrsquos Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspectiverdquo inAnti-Semitism and Early Christianity Issues of Polemic and Faith (ed Craig A Evans andDonald A Hagner Minneapolis Fortress 1993) 55ndash79 and Hubert Frankenmoumllle ldquoAntiju-daismus im Matthaumlusevangelium Reflexionen zu einer angemessenen Auslegungrdquo inStudien zum juumldischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Theologie (Stuttgarter Biblische Auf-satzbaumlnde Neues Testament 37 Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk 2005) 168ndash98

the modern discussion that the Jesus of the gospels is different from the Jesusof Christian doctrine

This can be further enlarged with the additional observation that where theNew Testament was used in Jewish arguments passages from Matthew play acentral role While the other three evangelists are often known by name(occasionally also Paul) and various verses from these authors come intoplay the Gospel of Matthew receives most attention as is amply demonstratedin the previous chapters

That Matthew has such a foremost position in Jewish polemics is not acoincidence and not just predicated by the importance of Matthew for Chris-tians2 Historically the Gospel of Matthew functioned as bridge over whichthe Jewish-Christian discourse was mediated whether as avenue for respect-ful dialogue for playful parody or sharp polemical attack

Already in the early church the various Hebrew gospel versions can berelated to Matthew The so-called Gospel of the Hebrews the Gospel of theNazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites apparently exclusively used byvarious Jewish-Christian groups are perhaps three labels for only one under-lying proto-text written in Hebrew (ldquothe Hebrew Gospelrdquo) that was ascribedto Matthew3 But also the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew has been situ-ated at the intersection of Judaism and (Gentile) Christianity in more recentresearch especially by the assertion that the Matthean community was pre-

2 See the introduction (13ndash14)3 Edwards The Hebrew Gospel 118ndash24 argues for this point seemingly independent of

Ray A Pritz Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period untilits Dissapearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem Magnes 1988) 83ndash94 and also SimonClaude Mimouni Le judeacuteo-christianisme ancien Essais historiques (Patrimoines) (ParisCerf 1998) 215ndash25 (ldquolsquoLrsquoEacutevangile des Heacutebreuxrsquo ou lsquoEacutevangile des Nazareacuteensrsquordquo) who hold asimilar view (though Edwards did not recognize them in his study) However this compli-cated issue is not settled and leaves open how the canonical Gospel of Matthew was relatedto the ldquoHebrew Gospelrdquo cf eg Baltes Hebraumlisches Evangelium und synoptische Uumlberlie-ferung 144ndash45 590ndash99 For these texts see A F J Klijn Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition(VCSup 17 Leiden Brill 1992) and James K Elliott The Apocryphal New Testament ACollection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford OxfordUniversity Press 1993) 3ndash16 But even if one has to assume that there was more than onegospel written in Hebrew the proximity of the majority of the preserved fragments point to aMatthew-like gospel (the issue is that some of the remaining fragments are quite close toMatthew others esp those related to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not) For a list of schol-ars that see these gospels as two (or three) distinct compositions see Edwards The HebrewGospel 120 n 76 but esp Joumlrg Frey ldquoDie Scholien nach dem juumldischen Evangelium unddas sogenannte Nazoraumlerevangeliumrdquo ZNW 94 (2003) 122ndash37 and idem ldquoZur Vielgestaltig-keit judenchristlicher Evangelienuumlberlieferungenrdquo in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienuumlber-lieferungen (ed Joumlrg Frey and Jens Schroumlter WUNT I254 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010)93ndash137

318 Chapter 9 Conclusion

dominantly Jewish4 It could even be argued that Matthewrsquos fulfillment para-digm5 and use of typology which linked Jesus to Abraham Israel Moses andDavid establish this gospel probably intentionally as a bridge betweenJewish and (Gentile) Christian identities6 Even its canonical position as thefirst New Testament book visibly manifests this link between the HebrewBible Godrsquos covenant story with his people Israel and the arrival of thekingdom of God with the proclamation and ministry of Jesus This is certainlytrue for modern printed bibles where Matthew follows Malachi but alreadyin the great codices of the 4th and 5th centuries Matthew always appears asthe first New Testament book7

Even nowadays the Jewish-Christian dialogue continues to be mediated toa large extend by the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew which in partic-ular is focused on the Jewish context of the book and its author8 And like in

4 As argued by J Andrew Overman Anthony J Saldarini and David C Sim et al seeRoland Deines ldquoNot the Law but the Messiah Law and Righteousness in the Gospel ofMatthew mdash An Ongoing Debaterdquo in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of Matthew(ed Daniel M Gurtner and J Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) 53ndash84 esp 53ndash54

5 Which Matthew clearly uses to identify Jesus as Messiah the one in whom all promisesand prophecies were to be fulfilled see the disucssion in 13

6 Even if the gospel was written for a predominantly Jewish-Christian community andadvocated fidelity to the Mosaic Law which is still a fairly recent and contested hypothesis itwas certainly not received in this manner If the gospel indeed promoted adherence to theMosaic Law it would have been thoroughly misunderstood by its immediate recipients andby a vast majority of its audience ever since See Deines Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora imReich des Messias 24ndash27

7 In Codex Sinaticus the Gospel of Matthew (ff 200rndash217r) follows Job (ff 185vndash199v)Also in Codex Alexandrinus Matthew is the first New Testament book (following TheWisdom of Jesus ben Sirach) likewise in Codex Vaticanus (following Daniel) CodexEphraemi Rescriptus Codex Bezae and Codex WashingtonianusFreerianus cf Kurt andBarbara Aland The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed trans Erroll F Rhodes GrandRapids Eerdmans 1989) 109ndash10 113 Also in the Muratorian fragment (either 2nd or 4thcentury) Matthew most probably appeared as the first New Testament book see Bruce MMetzger The Canon of the New Testament Its Origin Development and Significance(Oxford Oxford University Press 1987) 195 On the dating of the fragment see esp Geof-frey Mark Hahneman The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (OxfordTheological Monographs Oxford Oxford University Press 1992) who has argued for a late4th c origin On the position of Matthew in other canon lists see ibid 133ndash34

8 If Matthew is interpreted as a law-abiding Jew addressing equally law-abiding JewishChristians then Matthew represents an inner-Jewish dialogue The difference betweenldquoChristianityrdquo and ldquoJudaismrdquo can thus be minimized and the embarrassment of Matthewrsquossharp anti-Pharasaic polemic avoided which is perhaps one of the motivations for this partic-ular position see Deines ldquoNot the Law but the Messiahrdquo 55ndash56 However this essentiallywould mean that the development of historical Christianity is largely at odds with the inten-tion of the Gospel of Matthew On the other hand if Matthew is understood to establishldquoChristianityrdquo as a new antinomian entity in opposition to Judaism then the disparity betweenthe two is obviously much greater and potentially more adverse see ibid 55ndash57 and also

85 Summary 319

the past not only Christian voices are heard in this discussion9 especiallyafter the third Jesus quest which has so strongly affirmed Jesusrsquo Jewishidentity It is thus likely that the Gospel of Matthew continue to play a dom-inant role in negotiating the relationship between Judaism and Christianity

9 1 Synopsis of Finds

This study has shown that the Gospel of Matthew is used selectively andrepeatedly in Jewish polemics and that a large and diverse number of pas-sages from the New Testament came to be employed in such texts (911)However the Jewish arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity and the texts used intheir support do not change much often are only repeated and effectivelystand in a trajectory with polemical arguments seen in much earlier Christiansources (912) though they often did not engage the Christian understandingof Jesusrsquo divinity and the finer points of Christian doctrine (913)

Donaldson Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament 53ndash54 Roland Deines seeks toavoid both extremes and advocates neither a straightforward supersessionist (potentially anti-Jewish) nor a law-adhering ldquoJewish-Christianrdquo understanding of the Gospel of MatthewInstead Matthew seeks to demonstrate that in the arrival of the messianic kingdom adherenceto the Mosaic code is not appropriate anymore which is not because the Law was bad abro-gated or ceased to be valid but because Jesus has fulfilled all righteousness (Matt 315) andthe ldquolaw and the prophetsrdquo (Matt 517) which has to be understood as an exclusively christo-logical task which ultimately only God could accomplish (which is why Matthew identifiedJesus as ldquoGod with usrdquo) This righteousness which was the expectation of the Law is nowldquoJesus-righteoussnessrdquo a righteoussness that without Jesus would be impossible Matthew istherefore not advocating in 517ndash20 that Jewish or Gentile Christians had to adhere to Torahbut that an eschatological paradigm shift had occured in Jesus the Law was finally fulfilledThe Law is still a valid expression of Godrsquos will but the disciples as those ldquoblessed onesrdquonow have a share in the new reality of eschatological Jesus-righteousness through their rela-tionship with the God-sent Messiah who came to ldquosave his people from their sinrdquo (Matt121) see his Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias 643ndash51 also his ldquoNot theLaw but the Messiahrdquo 71ndash84

9 See eg Lapide Hebrew in the Church 204 David Flusser Jesus (3d ed JerusalemMagnes 2001) Samuel Sandmel A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (3d edWoodstock Vt Jewish Lights Publishing 2008) 136ndash68 Amy-Jill Levine and Marc ZBrettler eds The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New York Oxford University Press2011) 1ndash54 (the Gospel of Matthew was annotated by Aaron M Gale) Especially the latteris noteworthy The annotations summarize the more recent scholarly views on Matthew in avery accessible informative and fairly neutral manner yet they also point out that Luke andMatthew have ldquoinconsistentrdquo genealogies (3) give a highlighted excursus discussing thevirgin birth and Isa 714 (4) mention that Matt 125 does not preclude subsequent sexual rela-tions between Joseph and Mary (5) and that ldquoMatthew upholds Torahrdquo (10) With this TheJewish Annotated New Testament effectively stands consciously or unconsciously in thesame trajectory as Even Boḥan and its predecessors


9 1 1 Selectivity of Readings

One of the most clearly observable features of the use of the Gospel ofMatthew by Jewish polemicists and apologists is that passages from Mattheware used selectively In texts of the apologetical or polemical genre this is ofcourse what one would expect

A set of core pericopes is frequently employed to show Jesusrsquo exclusiveand limited humanity Jesusrsquo genealogy (Matt 11ndash16 18ndash25) the flight toEgypt (Matt 21ndash22) his baptism (Matt 313ndash17) the temptation (Matt 41ndash11a) the cursing of the fig tree (Matt 2118ndash19) his prayer in Gethsemane(Matt 2638ndash46) and his words on the cross (Matt 2746)10 Amongst Jesusrsquosayings his exchange with the so-called ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo is typically men-tioned (Matt 1916ndash21) but also a selection of his ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayings(Matt 819ndash20 96 2028) his prayer to the Father (Matt 1125ndash27) that hereceived authority from God (Matt 2816ndash20a) and especially Jesusrsquo dis-course on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 1230ndash32) In particu-lar the latter and Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane play prominent roles in most ofthe surveyed texts11 Thus Jewish polemicists used the depictions of Jesusrsquodeeds as strong indications that he is exclusively human whereas Jesusrsquosayings demonstrate that he understood himself to be a mere human who isdistinct from God12

10 Interestingly Jewish polemic focuses more on Jesusrsquo desperation in Gethsemane andhis prayer on the cross rather than on the fact that he died the greater emphasis being on suf-fering (passability) Also noteworthy is that Jesusrsquo resurrection is hardly discussed Perhapsthe topic of resurrection was too contested within the Jewish community (in the Maimonideancontroversy) and it would have been unwise to weave it into a text that ultimately was meantto strenghten Jewish identity (rather than to further aggravate it)

11 I wonder if it is a coincidence that the Gospel of Matthew differs from Mark in some ofthose pericopes that also feature in Jewish and pagan objections cf Mark 19 and Matt 314ndash15 (Jesusrsquo baptism) cf Mark 1035 and Matt 2020 (sons of Zebedee) Mark 1018 and Matt1917 (ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo) also Matt 2652ndash54 (twelve legions of angels at Jesusrsquo dis-posal) Matt 2762ndash66 (soldiers guarding the tomb) and esp Matt 2811ndash15 (Jewish rumors)On the differences between Mark and Matthew see Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runessoneds Mark and Matthew I Comparative Readings Understanding the Earliest Gospels intheir First Century Settings (WUNT I271 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011) KlostermannMatthaumlusevangelium 19ndash21 and Willoughby C Allen A Critical and Exegetical Commen-tary on the Gospel according to S Matthew (ICC 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT Clark 1907)xiiindashxl If these pericopes were already felt to be problematic in the canonical Matthew is itthen not possible that the same arguments we encounter in the second century sources werealready voiced in the first century and is it then not also possible that they may have beenpart of the reason why the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first place In this regardDavid C Sim recently has speculated that Matthew may have purposely written his gospel inorder to supplement Mark see ldquoMatthewrsquos Use of Mark Did Matthew Intend to Supplementor to Replace His Primary Sourcerdquo NTS 57 (2011) 176ndash92

12 This strategy is also used by modern Jewish tractates see eg Berger and Wyschogrod


It is further evident that this selection was to some extend predeterminedthrough what was handed down as polemical tradition as most arguments areusually only repeated This does not preclude that at some point this chain ofreferences was started eg Milḥamot ha-Shem clearly exerted a lot of influ-ence on subsequent compositions nor does it mean that the respective argu-ments were not further refined and modified But it is very likely that not allcommentators had access to the Gospel of Matthew and therefore had to workon the basis of the received tradition which effectively resulted in a collectionof passages that were used according to their polemical expediency13 Thusthe various arguments that utilize the Gospel of Matthew are frequently repe-titions which for the most part recycle traditional debate points Individualarguments hardly change instead they are abridged or expanded on and attimes were even misunderstood which is eg noticeable in the frequentreoccurence of arguments from Milḥamot ha-Shem in later sources This repe-tition of individual arguments does not necessarily mean that there are directlinks between eg Nestor and later texts this must be established case bycase as between Milḥamot ha-Shem and Even Boḥan But it is neverthelessnoteworthy that Qiṣṣa via Nestor is an important conveyor of much earlierarguments14 whereas Ḥizzuq Emunah via Wagenseilrsquos Tela Ignea Satanaelikewise acts as a bridge which made this long tradition of arguments avail-able to the modern religious consciousness

Not only the presentation of various New Testament passages is selectiveequally the interpretation of such passages is often determined by polemicalexpediency Thus the overall polemical or apologetical purpose determinedconsciously or unconsciously the interpretation of a given passage inMatthew This is most clearly seen in the use and interpretation of the termldquoSon of Manrdquo which almost axiomatically is understood as an expression that

Jews and lsquoJewish Christiansrsquo 30 which likewise appeals to Luke 1818ndash19 (ldquoRich YoungRulerrdquo) Matt 1232 (Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) and Mark 1332 (Jesusrsquo Ignorance)to argue that Jesus did not think of himself as divine

13 Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ may have realized that this strategy was insufficient and there-fore published the whole of the Gospel of Matthew This brings up the question of how thevarious arguments that used the New Testament actually functioned in practice Although it isunlikely that the intended (Jewish) audience could detect if the text given in an argumentactually concurred with the New Testament we nevertheless have quite a lot of argumentsthat show the desire to carefully quote New Testament passages (even in Latin) sometimes atlength and then to base more or less penetrating arguments based on these texts This wouldsuggest that the polemicists clearly felt that the actual content of the Gospel of Matthew wasa challenge for Christian convictions Already in QiṣṣaNestor Milḥamot ha-Shem MSRome Milḥemet Miṣvah and Nizzahon Vetus we find sections that systematically deal withthe New Testament and this may therefore also indicate that Matthewrsquos gospel may havebeen employed in actual debates with Christians

14 See Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo 62


denotes Jesusrsquo exclusive and mere humanity15 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayings thatreinforce this view are repeatedly appealed to whereas those that do not fitthis mold are left unmentioned (eg Matt 1341 1627 179 1928 24302531 2664) The result of this selectivity is that an author as eg seen inSefer Yosef ha-Meqanne can use Matthew to prove Jesusrsquo exclusive humanitywithout having to engage with the passages that clearly stand in tension withthis argument (at least within the literary horizon of the Gospel of Matthew)16

This is then perhaps comparable to the discussion of proof passages from theHebrew Bible which for the most part are wranglings over the need to inter-pret a given passage ldquoliterallyrdquo (viz only applying to its historical context) orldquoallegoricallyrdquo (viz as Messianic prophecy) with the Jewish and Christianpositions usually arguing for the diametrically opposed modes of interpreta-tion for a given verse17

15 Although it must be said that this understanding of the ldquoSon of Manrdquo follows that ofmany of the church fathers who likewise took the term to denote Jesusrsquo human nature (but notexclusively so) see Muumlller The Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo 9ndash80 and Burkett The Son of ManDebate 7ndash9 also 13ndash21 See eg Justin Dial 1003ndash4 Irenaeus Haer 3102 163 167171 183ndash4 191ndash2 Tertullian Marc 410 Carn Chr 5

16 In fact without this selectivity it cannot be shown that Matthewrsquos use of the term ldquoSonof Manrdquo denotes Jesusrsquo mere humanity

17 Eg Jewish exegesis often painstakingly analyzes Isa 714 and its context usuallyarguing that is has to be understood as a prophecy that exlusively refers to its historicalcontext whereas Christians maintained that the historic-contextual interpetation was insuffi-cient and that there are deeper and greater referents namely Mary and Jesus Both the Chris-tian and Jewish sides are of course aware that there are several modes of interpretation Eachdistinguish at least four types of interpretive methods medieval Christians recognized theliteralhistorical and spiritual sense of a given passage of Scripture the latter being furtherdivided into the allegorical moraltropological and anagogical sense whereas medieval Jewsdistinguish the peshat (ldquoplainrdquo) remez (ldquohiddenrdquo allegorical) derash (ldquohomileticrdquo) and thesod (ldquomysticalrdquosymbolic) Doctrinal preconceptions prevented either side from admittingthat the opposing argument had (at least in some respect) validity See Henri de LubacMedieval Exegesis The Four Senses of Scripture (3 vols Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1998ndash2009) 11ndash14 Wilhelm Bacher Die exegetische Terminologie der juumldischen Tradtionslitera-ture (2 vols Leipzig J C Hinrichs 1899 1905) 125ndash27 241ndash43 173 208ndash11 136 146also Rimon Kasher ldquoThe Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literaturerdquo in Mikra TextTranslation Reading amp Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism amp EarlyChristianity (ed Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling Compendia rerum iudaicarum adNovum Testamentum 21 Assen Van Gorcum 1988 repr Peabody Hendrickson 2004)547ndash94 Avraham Grossman ldquoThe Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis inthe Twelfth-Century Francerdquo [ בצרפתלמקראהיהודיתוהפרשנותהיהודי־הנוצריהפולמוס

)הפולמוסאלקרארישלזיקתולפרשת(יבבמאה ] Zion 51 (1986) 29ndash60 [Hebr] andesp the essays in Magne Saeligboslash ed Hebrew BibleOld Testament I From the Beginnings tothe Middle Ages (Until 1300) Part 2 The Middle Ages (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht 2000)


The result of this selection is a rather atomistic exegesis and the preventionof any real engagement with Matthewrsquos intention his depiciton of Jesus orhis overall purpose since the immediate or greater context of Matthew israrely taken into account mdash nor was that necessarily a concern for the Jewishpolemicists There is consequently no real attempt to understand the Gospelof Matthew in its own right though this may not even have been possibledepending on the availability of the gospel text Only Profiat Duran perhapsinfluenced and enabled by his reading of Even Boḥan went further andadvanced the theory that Matthew was deceived about Jesus and that he in hisignorance paved the way for later deception ie the belief that Jesus isdivine18

Yet although a clear selection of passages is evident the large number ofpassages used remains impressive19 And this remains to be the case evenwhen one sees these exegetical arguments based on New Testament writingsin the context of the much larger polemical and apologetical enterprise whichincluded the refutation of the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible andphilosophical metaphysical social and rational argumentation There is stilla sizable array and discussion of New Testament passages even if they oftenonly appear as an addendum to a more extensive discussion of interpretationsof the Hebrew Bible20 That the intended audience who first and foremostmust have been Jewish religious leaders was presented with passages fromthe New Testament at all let alone with such a diverse corpus of varied argu-ments warrants further investigation21 At the very least it shows that the

18 This notion that the New Testament writers were wrong about Jesus was of course notnew already Celsus had argued that Matthew invented the virgin birth see Origen Cels137 Yet Profiat Duran formulates this argument coherently and sustains it with readingsfrom the New Testament

19 This study already reduced the number New Testament passages by focusing on theseven more important primary sources the use of the Gospel of Matthew and by only survey-ing the discussion of the divinity of Jesus Yet even after this three-fold limitation thereremains a good number of arguments and passages from the New Testament

20 The first of these appended New Testament discussions appears in Jacob ben ReubenrsquosMilḥamot ha-Shem the same is true for Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Nizzahon Vetus LipmannMuumlhlhausenrsquos Niṣṣaḥon Even Boḥan Kelimmat ha-Goyim and Ḥizzuq Emunah et al AlsoSimeon ben Zemah Duranrsquos Qeshet u-Magen was originally part of Magen Avot

21 A few attempts have been made in this direction most notably the already mentionedbut unpublished study by Joel E Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo David Berger though without discussing the use of the New Testamenthas argued in ldquoMission to the Jewsrdquo that the Jewish debaters were not merely in the defen-sive but also initiated religious debates with Christians which resulted in the increasedproduction of Adversus Judaos literature The use of the New Testament therefore may notmerely have been so extensively collated for defensive or internal purposes especially sinceit is often presented in dialogue form and primed with instructions to ask specific questions ofChristian opponents


close proximity of Jews and Christians in medieval Europe and Christianattempts of converting Jews created a situation in which it was deemed highlynecessary to collect and present strong arguments to keep the Jewish congre-gations steadfast and convinced of the truth of Judaism By fending off Christ-ian ideas with Christian texts some of which may have been attractive andpersuasive ldquoJewishnessrdquo could be reinforced and ldquoJewish doctrinerdquo promotedas rational and consistent In other words anti-Christian polemics were a wayof providing internal pro-Jewish apologetics which is of course also howanti-Jewish Christian apologetics function The Christian attempt to prosely-tize Jews and the newer strategies used to accomplish this in particular theuse of the Talmud championed by Nicholas Donin and the emergence ofcapable Christian apologists such as Pablo Christiani Nicholas de LyreRaymond Martini or Pablo de Santa Mariacutea was apparently so effective or atleast deemed so worrisome that it warranted an extensive response anddefense22 In this the Jewish polemicists attempted to reassure the Jewishcommunity that the Christian advance as forceful oppressive or attractive itmay have seemed was ultimately based on a flawed understanding of theirown tradition be it in the realms of reason or scriptural exegesis23

It is however also clear from the surveyed texts that the Jewish readers ofthe New Testament (or portions thereof) felt that the passages themselves con-stituted strong proofs and support for their rejection of the claim that Jesus isdivine (or other Christian doctrines) especially where they were read in isola-tion from the overall Matthean context The selection of these arguments istherefore comparable to the use of passages from the Talmud eg in PugioFidei which Christians had felt provided formidable support for their asser-tion that Jesus was indeed the Messiah

22 After all many of the dominant figures who actively promoted Christianity whereJewish converts themselves a fact that must have been extremely unsettling to their Jewishcommunities which is perhaps often underestimated When in 839 CE the relatively unim-portant royal deacon Bodo converted to Judaism it created significant ripples in medievalChristendom see Allen Cabaniss ldquoBodo-Eleazar A Famous Jewish Convertrdquo JQR 43(1953) 313ndash28 Correspondingly when various Jews and Rabbis turned to Christianity andsome subsequently even joined the clerus and missionary orders so much so that at least oneeven became a bishop (Pablo de Santa Mariacutea) then it is perhaps not too far fetched to positthat at least some Jewish communities had been shaken to the core Reassurance was badlyneeded

23 This had also the added effect that those versed in this type of apologetic-polemical tra-dition could present themselves as capable and erudite leaders of their flock confidently dis-played in their familiarity of Christian doctrine and New Testament passage in Latin (orGreek) their use of reason and exegetical aptitude See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor thePriest 132 ldquoThe various authors must have felt that a gloss of the opponentsrsquo own languagelent a degree of verisimilitude to their work as well as helping them avoid charges offorgeryrdquo Or to quote Shem Ṭov ldquothrough this (endeavor) praise will come to the Jew whodebates with them and catches them in their own traprdquo


9 1 2 Continuity with Earlier Polemics

As already noted the general strategy of collecting and repeating a number ofset arguments effectively created a polemical tradition based on the NewTestament24 This however should not be taken as an innovative strategy butrather as a continuation of an existing trajectory The study has shown that thearguments of this polemical tradition show significant paralles with those ofmuch earlier periods which is clearly evident when one compares passageseg with Celsus Porphyry and Julian ldquothe Apostaterdquo25 Since the Jewisharguments used in the medieval period stand in a trajectory with early objec-tions to orthodox Christian thought26 there is a higher probability that thearguments ascribed to Jews in Christian commentaries and apologetical litera-ture are genuinely Jewish (rather than being merely ldquostraw-menrdquo on which acounter-argument is propped up)27 Besides the references provided a fewfurther examples will suffice to corroborate this observation

24 This has also been noticed by Rembaum see ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval JewishAnti-Christian Polemicsrdquo xi

25 This was already noted by Bernhard Blumenkranz ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnde imReligionsgespraumlch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis11 Jahrhundertsrdquo TZ 4 (1948) 119ndash47 repr in Juifs et Chreacutetiens Patristique et Moyen Agechapter XIX (no pagination) ldquoDer Groszligteil der juumldischerseits im Mittelalter verwendetenArgumente ist uns schon aus dem Altertum bekanntrdquo (146) Rembaum ldquoThe New Testamentin Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo xvii 17ndash61 suggested that the similaritybetween the pagan and Jewish arguments ldquocould be the result of two processes operatingindependently or together 1) Jews in the Middle Ages had access to the ancient polemicaltraditions 2) Jews in the Middle Ages employed a critical methodology which was similar tothat used in antiquity As we shall see both factors were probably operativerdquo (17) I wouldadd to this a third process which I consider more probable (though without denying thatmedieval Jews may have learnt some anti-Christian arguments from Christian sources andproselytes) which is that from very early on various anti-Christian arguments had formed akind of (Jewish) polemical tradition (which also informed pagan polemics) and that this tra-dition was retained either orally or in written form by Jews and Christians (Rembaum hints atthis 60ndash61) As long as Jews and Christians were in some kind of personal contact as wasthe case throughout late antiquity in many regions of the Roman Empire there would havebeen at least a faint need for religious polemics and apologetics if not for debate then at leastfor personal assurance It is implausible that the more potent polemical arguments would havebeen so easily forgotten only to be rediscovered by the reading of pagan and Christian sources(esp when one considers how Qiṣṣa functions as a literary bridge into the early medievalperiod)

26 However to fully evaluate this further study is necessary27 On this see esp Blumenkranz ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnderdquo Carlton Paget Jews

Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity 274ndash79 and Amos Funkenstein ldquoPolemicsResponses and Self-Reflectionrdquo in Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley University ofCalifornia Press 1993) 170ndash219 esp 173ndash75 Still instructive is Amos B Hulen ldquoThe lsquoDia-logues with the Jewsrsquo as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianityrdquo JBL 51(1932) 58ndash70


In the second century in Justin Martyrrsquos well known Dialogue with Tryphothe Jewish party articulates among many other questions which bear similari-ties to medieval debate literature the underlying issue which is the basis forthe entire medieval discussionYou are attempting to prove what is incredible and practically impossible namely that Goddeigned to be born and to become man28

It is hardly coincidental that also Celsus put some of the various objections toChristianity into the mouth of a Jew who is in an imaginary dialogue withJesus especially when one considers the various arguments more closelyLet us imagine what a Jew mdash let alone a philosopher mdash might put to Jesus ldquoIs it not truegood sir that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumours about thetrue and unsavory circumstances of your origins Is it not the case that far from being born inroyal Davidrsquos city of Bethlehem you were born in a poor country town and of a woman whoearned her living by spinning Is it not the case that when her deceit was discovered to witthat she was pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera she was driven away by her hus-band mdash the carpenter mdash and convicted of adultery Indeed is it not so that in her disgracewandering far from home she gave birth to a male child in silence and humiliation Whatmore Is it not so that you hired yourself out as a workman in Egypt learned magical craftsand gained something of a name for yourself which now you flaunt among your kinsmenrdquoWhat absurdity Clearly the Christians have used the myth of Danae and Melanippe or ofAuge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesusrsquo virgin birth A beautiful woman musthis mother have been that this Most High God should want to have intercourse with her Aninteresting point in itself since if as their philosophers (copying ours) say God by naturedoes not love corruptible bodies he cannot love a woman Are we to think that this high Godwould have fallen in love with a woman of no breeding mdash one unknown and unregarded evenby her neighbors29

28 Dial 681 cited from St Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (trans T B Falls) 10529 As reconstructed by R Joseph Hoffmann Celsus On the True Doctrine (New York

Oxford University Press 1987) 57ndash58 (cf Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum 28ndash38) CfOrigen Cels 128 It has often been discussed if the Jew in Contra Celsum is real or only fic-titious see Ernst Bammel ldquoDer Jude des Celsusrdquo in Judaica Kleine Schriften I 265ndash83also Horacio E Lona Die raquoWahre Lehre des Kelsoslaquo Uumlbersetzt und erklaumlrt von Horacio ELona (KfA Freiburg Herder 2005) 172ndash75 It also has long been recognized that some ofthe points raised by Celsus are similar to elements found in Toledot Yeshu and the Talmudeg that Jesusrsquos mother was a spinner that his true father was called Panthera [Pandira] thathe learned Egyptian magic see eg Schaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud esp 18ndash24 150ndash53 Butsee also Cook The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism esp 27ndash28 and Marc Lods ldquoEtude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chre-tiensrdquo Revue drsquohistoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941) 1ndash33 Already a cursoryglance at Cookrsquos outline of New Testament passages discussed by Celsus shows significantthematic parallels to those in later medieval Jewish sources (eg Jesusrsquo genealogy the flightto Egypt his baptism Gethsemane Jesusrsquo miracles) and this also rings true for Porphyry andJulian see ibid ix xi xiv passim


It is further noteworthy that the New Testament passages utilized in thesemuch earlier texts are often the same that appear in later medieval Jewishpolemics eg Jesusrsquo genealogy or his prayer in Gethsemane In EmperorJulianrsquos polemic we read for instanceBut it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus for he is not even fromJudah How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the HolySpirit For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah you could not inventeven this plausibly For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree con-cerning his genealogy30

Also in Porphyryrsquos critique of Christianity we find the following argumentbased on the Gethsemane pericopeAnd yet he being in torment and anticipating the expectation of horrible things asked inprayer that his passion pass from him And he said to his closest friends lsquoWatch and pray thatthe temptation pass awayrsquo (Matt 2641 Mk 1438 Lk 2246) Now these sayings are notworthy of Godrsquos Son not even of a wise man who despises death31

Likewise the ontological argument that underlies the later medieval debate isencountered in much earlier sources eg in the sixth century Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila which in terms of time and space cannot be too far offfrom the sources of Qiṣṣa Timothy representing the Jewish side asks inchapter 512ndash18For concerning this Jesus as his memoirs contain in those books you call the gospels we findfrom where he comes and his parents with him so how is this one God Does God suck milkand grow and become strong And I will tell what Luke says about him For the present dis-cussion is about this one is that he also fled when John was beheaded by Herod and then wasbetrayed by his own disciples and bound and mocked and flogged and spit on and crucifiedand buried But prior to that he hungered and thirsted and was tempted by Satan Then doesGod submit to these things done by men And who is able to see God Not to mention that hewas seized and suffered so many things which is indeed impossible for God to suffer But hewas also given sour wine to drink and was fed gall And he was struck with a reed on his headand crowned with thorns And finally he was condemned and crucified with bandits I am

30 In Against the Galileans see The Works of the Emperor Julian 3395ndash97 See also3188ndash89 (God in a womb) 378ndash79 (Mary registered in the census) 398ndash99 (Isa 714 andMary as mother of God) In fact so many similarities and in depth knowledge of scripturaldebates appear in Julianrsquos writings that possible links should be further investigated It hasbeen recognized that Julianrsquos anti-Christian zeal lead him to favor Jewish interests and themutual influence of arguments from anti-Christian Jews to Julian and vice versa might there-fore be a distinct possibility see Michael Adler ldquoThe Emperor Julian and the Jewsrdquo JQR 5(1893) 591ndash651 esp 609ndash10 who remarks about Julian that ldquoin his war against Christianityhe is at one with Jewish theologians and arms himself with the same weapons importinghowever into the contest a virulence and bitterness towards the creed of the lsquoGalileanrsquo thatare a blot upon his manly and upright characterrdquo (610 emphasis mine)

31 See Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect175 198 (Macarius Magnesrsquo Apokri-tikos 32)


shocked How is it that you are not ashamed to say that God himself entered into a womanrsquoswomb and was born For if he was born then he was not eternal and also now where is heWhat will you say to these things Answer me32

The similarity between much later Jewish arguments is thus evident33

Whether this implies a direct continuity with early arguments cannot beconclusively established with this study but further comparison with patristic(and pagan) texts should be much more convenient now

What stands out is that the New Testament passages that are used in Jewishpolemics are also those that have attracted a lot of discussion in much earlierdoctrinal debates within Christianity34 At times the argument in the Jewishsources has therefore a distinct ldquoheterodox flavorrdquo and it stands to reason thatvarious heterodox ideas were originally Jewish or became part of the Jewishpolemical tradition through personal exchanges or conversions to Judaismfrom individuals familiar with such arguments35 As was already seen various

32 Varner Dialogues 150ndash51 (512ndash18) Lawrence Lahey argued that the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila reflects a real Jewish-Christian debate The similarity to the arguments inQiṣṣaNestor might support this cf Lawrence L Lahey ldquoThe Dialogue of Timothy andAquila Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduc-tion including a Source-critical Studyrdquo (PhD diss University of Cambridge 2000) idemldquoJewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine JewishndashChristian Debate in the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquilardquo JJS 51 (2000) 281ndash96 In a sense the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilais almost an ldquoanti-Nestorrdquo Timothy at the end of the debate becomes converted andordained both as deacon and presbyter whereas the narrative framework of QiṣṣaNestorpresents the author as a former Christian priest who has convert to Judaism

33 Of course the earliest traces of objections against Jesusrsquo divinity can already be foundin the New Testament itself see eg Mark 63 (par Matt 1355ndash56) John 1033 (cf Mark1464) and 1 John 42ndash3

34 See esp Kevin Madiganrsquos study The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought AnEssay on Christological Development (Oxford Oxford University Press 2007) who showshow early and late church interpreters struggled against Arian (and their own) interpretationsof Jesusrsquo ignorance the Gethsemane pericope (pp 62ndash72) or Jesusrsquo prayer on the cross (73ndash90) et al See also Paul Gondreau The Passions of Christrsquos Soul in the Theology of StThomas Aquinas (Muumlnster Aschendorff 2002 repr Scranton Scranton Press 2008)

35 In fact the Jewish arguments (and the respective NT passages used) are so similar towhat is known from the Arian controversy that one is tempted to assume a literary link cfesp Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God 106ndash22 Arians used the theexchange with the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo (Matt 1018) the ignorance logion (Mark 1432 parMatt 2436) that he was afraid (Matt 2639) and pointed to Jesusrsquo words on the cross (Matt2746) They likewise stresses that Jesus prayed to the Father was hungry subject to bodilyneeds and that he suffered Even more remarkable is that they argued for the Jesusrsquo inferior-ity to the Father based on the notion that Jesus was indwelled by the logos instead by a humansoul see ibid 110 cf Epiphanius Panarion 69 In this Arians had a distinct logos-sarxunderstanding that they advanced to argue for the ldquocreatednessrdquo of the (nevertheless divine)logos


discussions in Ephremrsquos Diatessaron commentary engage precisely the argu-ments used in much later Jewish objections36

But perhaps surprisingly the Jewish arguments do not just recall hetero-dox arguments they can also use very orthodox ideas For example in thefourth century and with that still before the Council of Chalcedon the Christ-ian poet Prudentius37 argues in his Apotheosis against the notion that theFather can suffer (Patripassianism) His arguments which reflect an inner-Christian debate over the Trinity and Christology echo many of the mainlines of later medieval Jewish argumentationVery many teachings there are but of few shall I tell lest misguided utterance of unspeakabledoctrines stain an orthodox tongue Yonder is one who banishing the Father from his thronethrusts Him into the narrow vesture of a manrsquos body and fears not to subject the Father todeath and fasten him to a cruel cross Can God suffer His shape and form no man has everseen () He is the Father whom no eye ever had force to reach by looking from without withkeen flashing vision and who does not put on the form of man nor qualify the infinity of hisGodhead by assuming countenance or mode Either thou blasphemer must thou reject thefaithfulness of the gospel-book or else the intangible being of the blessed Father whichcannot mingle with mortality has never been seen () [The spirit of the Father] therefore noscourges cut nor spitting defiles nor hand hurts with buffeting nor nail-pierced wounds fas-tened upon a cross It was the flesh of man that felt these things flesh of a woman with childbrought forth according to the law of birth without the law of wedlock He it is that suffershunger that drinks the gall and drains the vinegar He it is that fears the shape of death andtrembles at the pain Tell me ye blasphemous teachers who maintained that the supremeFather abandoned his throne at the time when God entered into a mortal body was it theFather then who suffered What would not evil error dare Was the Father himself conceivedand did He grow from a maidrsquos blood Did He himself swell a modest virginrsquos womb Anddoes the page of the holy book lie then when it says that the Word passed into the form ofthe flesh38

36 See 2514 343ndash7 and 5410 Recently Elena Narinskaya has explored similaritiesbetween Ephrem and Jewish exegetical traditions which might suggest that he was aquaintedwith Jewish thought (and anti-Christian arguments) see Ephrem a lsquoJewishrsquo Sage A Com-parison of the Exegetical Writings of St Ephrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions (StudiaTraditionis Theologiae 7 Turnhout Brepols 2010)

37 Born 348 CE he lived perhaps in north-eastern Iberia in Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza)where he became twice the provincial governor see Karla Pollmann ldquoPrudentiusrdquo BrillrsquosNew Pauly (Brill Online 2012) and Prudentius (trans H J Thomson Loeb ClassicalLibrary 2 vols London W Heinemann 1949) 1viindashviii

38 Prudentius (trans H J Thomson) 1121ndash29 Of course this is an inner Christian debateover the Trinity arguing against Patripassianism but it is still significant how many of thearguments are eg found in Qiṣṣa It is thus somewhat ironic how similar Prudentiusrsquo anti-monarchic arguments are compared to those found in later anti-Christian medieval Jewishsources esp since they even come to be used in the same geographic region only roughly amillennium later Whereas Prudentius under the premise that Jesus was divine used theimpassibility of God to argue for a trinity of persons the very same arguments he employswere used to dispute the notion that Jesus was divine


The medieval Jewish arguments that use the New Testament stand thus notonly in a trajectory with earlier arguments but likewise can be shown to havea long pre-history in traditional debate literature In some sense they may noteven be anti-Christian (depending on how and what one judges to be orthodoxand heterodox in Christianity) This suggests that the actual use of thesepolemical arguments by various Jews but also others may have been whatcontinually prompted the production of Adversus Judaeos literature Part ofthe incentive for composing such literature may have been the awareness thata set of polemical arguments is remembered collated and not infrequentlyutilized by those who are antagonistic towards central Christian claims andthat these arguments have a certain inherent force The importance of theChristian beliefs eg the divinity of Christ and the persistent continuation ofarguments that would dispute them made it simply necessary to repeatedlyconfront and dispel them not least to affirm and explicate the paradoxicalclaim of Jesusrsquo identity to Christians39

9 1 3 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement

In the surveyed texts the polemicists largely argue against the simplisticnotion that ldquoJesus is Godrdquo rather than against the doctrine of the two naturesof Christ as understood by the church This may be a reflection of the popularChristian understanding which reckoned Jesus to be God without any furtherqualification or may have been part of the argumentative strategy whichdeliberately sidelines the more complicated doctrinal deliberations40 TheJewish polemicists are aware that Christians differentiate between the twonatures of Christ at least various arguments that address this differentiationare part of the polemical repertoire However the christological understandingreflected in these arguments is not necessarily reciprocating the doctrinalunderstanding of (Western) medieval Christendom The Jewish understandingseen in most texts if one were to classify them in Christian terms would have

39 With this I do not seek to dispute or corroborate Miriam S Taylorrsquos study Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Studia Post-Biblica 46 Leiden Brill 1995) nor do I wish to enter that discussion though the consid-erable similarity to medieval Jewish polemical arguments suggest that the Jewish argumentsin Adversus Judaos literature are not only ldquosymbolicrdquo and concerned with theological self-definition (cf ibid 127ndash87) They could very well represent a recollection of the argumentsJews actually have made (eg in debates) at least where it pertains to the divinity of Jesusand the Gospel of Matthew For a comprehensive critique of Taylorrsquos study see CarltonPaget Jews Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity 43ndash76

40 The respective Jewish scholars may very well have known the more intricate aspects ofChristian doctrine but may have deemed them too cumbersome or unhelpful for their pur-poses (that is in exegetical arguments that use the New Testament)


to be called the ldquoApollinarianrdquo or the logos-sarx view of Jesus41 The notionthat Jesusrsquo soul is the locus of his divinity which is ldquodressedrdquo in human natureis repeatedly encountered in particular in discussions of the Gethsemane peri-cope42 One should assume that at least some of the Jewish commentatorswere familiar with the more differentiated ldquoorthodoxrdquo view of Christology43

but it appears that the polemical tradition that used Jesusrsquo anguish in Gethse-mane (ldquomy soul is deeply distressedrdquo Matt 2638) may have prompted andgiven preference to this particular understanding The fact that Jesus said hissoul the ldquospiritual sourcerdquo and center of his being was distressed couldconveniently be used to attack the argument that only Jesusrsquo human that isthe ldquophysicalrdquo side was perturbed This then lead back to the underlyingargument that God is impassable Profiat Duran appears to have noticed thatthis view was not in line with the contemporary Christian understanding ofJesus and therefore abandoned this argument replacing it with something farmore perceptive and potent44 This particular logos-sarx understandingexpressed in most of the Jewish sources would probably not trouble amedieval church theologian too much precisely because this christologicalissue had been dealt with hundreds of years earlier However on a popularlevel eg in dialogue with lower clergy or a with regular member of theJewish community these arguments were probably effective

41 This is not to say that this was actually the understanding of the polemicists TheJewish argument in fact disputes this ldquoApollinarian viewrdquo of Jesus by appealing to the Geth-semane pericope a passage which also the church fathers used to emphasizes the full human-ity of Jesus against Docetistic tendencies However the similarity of argumentation endshere since the Jewish position unerstands herein the clear negation of the full divinity ofJesus In this the Jewish position categorically rules out the possibility of incarnation andparadoxically only allows for a Docetist Christology All comparisons between Moses andJesus eg point to this Effectively Jesus cannot be superior to Moses because Jesus isessentially more human than Moses (who fasts longer who was not in need of nourishmentdid not have to defecate etc) In other words the underlying assumption is that as closerhumans would be to God as less human they are and a man indwelled by God even ldquoGodwith usrdquo could therefore effectively only be human in appearance if at all Christian ortho-doxy in contrast has consistently maintained that only in Christ men really see what it meansto be truly human (and also what it means to be truly divine) cf Col 115 29 Rom 515 1Cor 1545ndash49

42 In Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect5 and sect9 (see 4513ndash14) andNizzahon Vetus sect176 sect178 and sect181 (see 5410 12 13)

43 Certainly Profiat Duran (see 7312) Of course this study only examined exegeticalarguments to the exclusion of the philosophical and metaphysical discussions an area whereJewish scholars often exhibited superior understanding see Lasker Jewish PhilosophicalPolemics also Sarah Stroumsa Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣrsquos lsquoTwenty Chaptersrsquo(lsquoIshrūn Maqala) (Leiden Brill 1989) 156ndash60 218ndash20

44 See 7312


9 2 Evaluation of Finds

The two main arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity consistently encountered inthe surveyed sources are that 1) Jesus is distinctly and exclusively humanseen in either his limitations or his own statements reported in the Gospelsand 2) that it is unthinkable that God could be or become human These twoessential lines of argumentation stay more or less constant from QiṣṣaNestorthrough to Ḥizzuq Emunah though Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut and Profiat Duranadd a few new impulses to the debate45 With this the Jewish objections toJesusrsquo divinity firmly rest on the ontological assumption that there is anunbridgeable divinehuman dichotomy the Creator cannot become created(921) Thus all of the surveyed polemicists can use depictions of Jesusrsquohumanity in the Gospel of Matthew as evidence of his exclusive humanityThat Jesus is a human can thus be relentlessly stressed because the force ofthe argument always rests on the foundational assumption of human anddivine exclusivity Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus (922)

9 2 1 The DivineHuman Dichotomy

In most if not all of the arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity the underlyingontological presupposition is that God is too other to become human Thisunderlying premise is rarely discussed in these exegetical arguments (at mostmerely stated) Yet the argument of the impropriety of ascribing human limi-tations to God often by pointing to the absurdity of seeing God sleeping or tothe taboo of associating God with physical (ldquomammalianrdquo) birth this is onlypossible if the divine and the human are understood to exist in distinct modesof being which excludes any commonality or analogy between God andman46 The metaphysical assumption that emerges here is the Aristoteliannotion that humanity and divinity exist in a dialectically opposed unbridge-able dichotomy so that God cannot be or become man47 Humanity is passibleand limited God is impassible unlimited in ability knowledge and might

45 The latter explicitly mentions that the polemical stock he inherited was insufficient todeal with the converso situation he and Ḥasdai Crescas faced Also only with these two dowe find attempts to understand the origin of Christianity and Jesusrsquo intention Thus theirrespective arguments (and reading of Matthew) become more original and esp ProfiatDuranrsquos argument (though it also can be found in earlier sources but perhaps not as explicit)is surprisingly modern and even can be found with contemporary interpreters

46 On this see also Kuumlng The Incarnation of God 519ndash2047 David B Burrell has shown how interconnected the philosophical assumptions of the

principal theologians of the medival period were see his Knowing the Unknowable God Ibn-Sina Maimonides Aquinas (Notre Dame University of Notre Dame Press 1986)


Therefore the argument over Jesusrsquo divinity is essentially an argument aboutthe nature and proper worship of God48

In order to maintain and differentiate the Jewish view from the Christianunderstanding the Jewish apologists effectively promoted this strictdichotomy which was further reinforced by the reading of Christian texts andengagment with the Christian tradition for to dissolve the divinehumandivide automatically would move one closer to Christianity If it was openlyaccepted that God was ldquoanthropomorphicrdquo could become incarnate or that aman could be divine in some way then Christianity would be at least theoreti-cally viable The Jewish apologist was therefore almost forced into a moreanti-anthropomorphist and monolithic view of God which in this stringencywas foreign to Biblical (or ldquoformativerdquo) Judaism49

In response to this more philosophical understanding of God MichaelWyschogrod has convincingly argued on biblical grounds that a certain senseof incarnation is not foreign to biblical JudaismIn any case it must be emphasized that the Jewish objection to an incarnational theologycannot be based on a priori grounds as if something in the nature of the Jewish concept ofGod made his appearance in the form of humanity a rational impossibility (hellip) If we candetermine a priori that God could not appear in the form of a man or to put it in moreDocetistic terms that there could not be a being who is both fully God and fully man then weare substituting a philosophical scheme for the sovereignty of God50

With this view becoming more popular Daniel Boyarin has essentially madea similar argument in that he argues for the ldquoSon of Manrdquo to be understood as

48 See Maccoby Judaism on Trial 54 ldquoThe worship of Jesus as the Incarnation of Godwas to the Jews a clear infringment of the First Commandmentrdquo

49 As eg argued by Jacob Neusner The Incarnation of God ix 4ndash6 MichaelWyschogrod ldquoIncarnation and Godrsquos Indwelling Israelrdquo in Abrahamrsquos Promise Judaismand Jewish-Christian Relations (ed R Kendall Soulen Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004)165ndash78 or Esther J Hamori When Gods where Men The Embodied God in Biblical andNear Eastern Literature (BZAW 384 Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2008) 150ndash55 The rela-tionship of these exegetical anti-Christian arguments to the debate over anthropomorphism inthe so-called Maimonidean controversy cannot be further investigated here but one wouldexpect that the anti-Christian polemics which essentially expounded the utter distinction ofthe human and divine would have had some influence on this issue (esp in the discussions ofGen 18) Maimonidesrsquo son Abraham b Moses b Maimon eg accuses his Jewish opponentsof being like (anthropomorphic) Christians ldquoThese perplexed Jews were not guided Oneshould not be surprised at the fact that these heretics who serve idols pay no heed to TorahBehold the Christians interpreted the words of the prophets literally and made a son for theCreator in their well-known theology Whoever denies this belief and claims that AlmightyGod is corporeal and has form like the form of a human being (hellip) is as if he denies the Torah(hellip)rdquo Fred Rosner ed Abraham Maimonidesrsquo Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Con-troversy (Haifa The Maimonides Research Institute 2000) 362ndash63 see also 92

50 Wyschogrod ldquoA Jewish Perspective on Incarnationrdquo 204


a form of divine incarnation (following others who have argued thus)51 itwould stand to reason that the Jewish-Christian debate over Jesusrsquo divinity isnowhere close to being over

9 2 2 Jesus is Vere Homo Only

In light of the assumed divinehuman dichotomy the Jewish argument againstthe divinity of Jesus by means of the Gospel of Matthew focuses on depic-tions of Jesus human limitations emphasizing his ignorance need to sleep(Matt 821ndash25) display of fear hunger distress and his prayer activity all inorder to argue for the exclusively human nature of Jesus With this the view isadvanced that Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus As alreadymentioned this reading of Matthew has as its starting point in a very basicand undifferentiated albeit Christian view of Jesus He is simply understoodas God ie ldquoJesus is Godrdquo (see 913) and this reduction of the more complexChristian view empowers the overall polemical argument

Passages that would interfere with the view that Jesus was merely ahuman such as his claim to be able to forgive sins (Matt 92ndash8) walking onwater (Matt 1425ndash33)52 his transfiguration (Matt 171ndash8)53 or the resurrec-tion are hardly mentioned at all passages which Christian exegesis hasstressed as pointing to Jesusrsquo divinity54 On the other hand the issue of Jesusrsquo

51 See Daniel Boyarin ldquoHow Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesusrdquo Early Christianity 2(2011) 51ndash76 and idem Jewish Gospels 31ndash101 Others who see Jesusrsquo divinity as congru-ent with Jewish thinking are eg the late John OrsquoNeill Simon Gathercole Crispin H TFletcher-Louis or William Horbury see also Adele Yarbro Collins and John J Collins Kingand Messiah as Son of God Divine Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical andRelated Literature (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) On this see the summary by WilliamHorbury ldquoDie juumldischen Wurzeln der Christologierdquo Early Christianity 12 (2011) 5ndash21 esp15ndash21

52 But see Even Boḥan sect33 (MS Plut 217 f 148r) where Shem Ṭov emphasizes thatPeter believed Jesus was an apparition of Satan (his translation of Matt 1426 reads שד ldquoademonrdquo ldquoevil spiritrdquo or ldquodevilrdquo in place of φάντασμά ldquo a ghost phantom apparitionrdquo)

53 But see Even Boḥan sect38 (see 6415)54 On Jesusrsquo forgiving sins as divine prerogative see Grindheim Godrsquos Equal 60ndash76

also Otfried Hofius ldquoJesu Zuspruch der Suumlndenvergebung Exegetische Erwaumlgungen zu Mk25brdquo in Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT I132 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000) 38ndash56On the transfiguration see Andrew Louth ldquoFrom Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ StMaximus he Confessor on the Transfiguration of Christrdquo in In the Shadow of the IncarnationEssays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E Daley SJ (ed Peter WMartens Notre Dame University of Notre Dame 2008) 260ndash75 and John A McGuckinThe Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Studies in the Bible amp Early Chris-tianity 9 Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1986) For the interpretation of the trans-figuration in the Eastern church and the relationship to hesychasm see Zoltaacuten DoumlrnyeildquoTransfiguration Beauty and Biblical Interpretationrdquo (MA diss University of Nottingham2011) esp 50ndash58 and 141ndash46 and Solrunn Nes The Uncreated Light An Iconographical


miracle activity which many Christian intepreters advance in support forJesusrsquo divinity was not disregarded by Jewish commentators to the contraryMost polemicists frequently explained Jesusrsquo miracles with his familiaritywith Egyptian magic and further minimized the individual miracle accountsby pointing to characters in the Hebrew Bible who equally performed mira-cles and greater ones at that who were nevertheless not considerd divine55

What emerges is not a ldquobalancedrdquo interpretation which gives equal weightto Matthewrsquos account of Jesus nor acknowledges the more sophisticatedChristian view By exclusively focusing on Jesusrsquo human limitations and bynot taking into account Matthewrsquos more exalted descriptions of Jesus56 it wascomparably easy for the Jewish polemicists to argue that he was merelyhuman and that the ldquoreal Jesusrdquo was different from what Christians believedhim to be

9 3 Epilogue The Central Paradox

Jewish polemicists although not openly addressing the Christian dogmaticintricacies in their exegetical discussion of Jesus clearly perceived and identi-fied the central theological paradox of Christology namely the assertion thatGod became man in Christ and suffered This paradox is not only seen in themetaphysical realm but also as a contradiction between Christian Scriptureand Christian belief canon and creed are thus seen to be in significanttension57 The passages in the Gospel of Matthew (and the other Synoptic

Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church (trans Arlyne Moi Grand Rapids Eerd-mans 2007) In regard to Jesus walking on water in the Eastern tradition far greater emphasiswas put on Peterrsquos ability to walk on water thereby illustrating the possibility of deification(theosis) see Rachel Nicholls Walking on the Water Reading Mt 1422ndash33 in the Light ofits Wirkungsgeschichte (Biblical Interpretation Series 90 Leiden Brill 2008) 127ndash74

55 Interestingly nowhere do the Jewish polemicist surveyed in this study ever argue thatJesus was a charlatan or that his miracles were not ldquogenuinerdquo This is simply accepted not theleast because the Jewish sages affirm that Jesus did miracles (though through illicit means)

56 Ironically Matthew is not really depicting the more obvious aspects of Jesusrsquo humanityat all In fact none of the evangelists give a description of Jesusrsquo stature or facial features eyecolor his complexion his hair length or whether he had a beard nor do they ever mentioneg his need to relieve himself Jesus is also only once potrayed as sleeping (Matt 824 Mark438 Luke 823) Considering the high christological understanding of Jesus in the earlychurch which very quickly (over)emphasized his divinity it should be more surprising thathe continuted to be proclaimed as vere homo at all And again ironically even with theirsparing potrayal of Jesusrsquo humanity it was nevertheless the Gospels that safeguarded theassertion that Jesus was truly human which hardly would have been possible with only thePauline corpus

57 Due to the selectivity of the polemical tradition this tension must have felt strongerthan if the entire Christian canon or at least all of Matthew had been considered


Gospels) that clearly depict Jesus as a human (who has to sleep is hungryignorant limited etc) and as someone who understands himself as distinctfrom God (Father Son) are thus emphazised and advanced as core pericopesthat address the underlying enigma of the Christian dogma

This tension was also clearly felt within the Christian tradition from theearliest times onward58 Some of those who were committed to a very highChristology made attempts to minimize disregard or explain these passagesaway59 However the dispute with Docetism prevented that these pericopesbecame too quickly eclipsed by the grandeur of proclaiming Jesusrsquo divinityalthough a general tendency towards this is quite noticeable in many patristicinterpreters60 In particular those of the Eastern tradition tended to embracethe paradox of ontological divine-human union in Christ in fact it becameabsolutely integral to soteriology in the notion of deification (theosis)61 Thishowever in some sense heightened the paradox And although the affirma-tion that Jesus was fully human and fully divine was mitigated with the teach-ing of the two natures of Christ in the Council of Chalcedon62 this onlydeferred the paradox to the mystery of the hypostatic union with the adverbsinconfuse immutabiliter indivise and inseparabiliter63 For most Jews (andChristians) this was too intangible and Jewish scholars could continue topoint to the obvious discrepancies between the gospel texts and the underlyingphilosophical assumptions which they shared with their Christian opponentsEspecially the (frequently unguarded) undifferentiated Christian assertion thatldquoJesus is Godrdquo which in this form hardly appears in the New Testament64

58 See eg 1 John 42 2 John 7 cf also 1 Cor 86 Phil 25ndash11 Col 113ndash2059 Seen in the apocryphal nativity accounts that replaced the more shocking implications

of human birth and affirmed Maryrsquos perpetual virginity see 25360 So Moltmann The Crucified God 23561 See Vladimir Lossky ldquoRedemption and Deificationrdquo in In the Image and Likeness of

God (ed John H Erickson and Thomas E Bird Crestwood NJ St Vladimirrsquos SeminaryPress 1974) 97ndash110

62 As essentially argued by Profiat Duran see 731263 Or rather ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως ἀδιαιρέτως and ἀχωρίστως negative qualifiers

which are a concession to the inability to coherently describe the ldquolsquohowrsquo of the divine and thehuman existence coexisted in the same personrdquo Vladimir Lossky ldquoChristological Dogmardquo inOrthodox Theology An Introduction (trans Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson CrestwoodNY St Vladimirrsquos Seminary Press 1978) 95ndash118 here 99

64 Even John 11 and 2028 are further qualified cf also 1 Cor 86 This however doesnot mean that the New Testament has a low view of Jesus to the contrary see Robert MBowman and J Ed Komoszewski Putting Jesus in His Place The Case for the Deity ofChrist (Grand Rapids Kregel 2007) also Bauckham Jesus and the God of Israel Gather-cole The Pre-existent Son Grindheim Godrsquos Equal Martin Hengel The Son of God TheOrigin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans John BowdenLondon SCM 1976) Horbury Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ and Hurtado LordJesus Christ On the other hand Dunnrsquos objections should not be dismissed either the New


would have fueled the Jewish (and Muslim) objections and reinforced thevalidity of the use of the New Testament against this view

What is common to both sides of the debate which also made the Jewishargument potent is that Jews and Christians essentially shared the same basicconcept of a strict divinehuman dichotomy When encountering the passagesthat depict Jesusrsquo humanity this shared philosophical assumption led theJewish apologists effectively to nurture a more impassable and monolithicview of God than the Hebrew Bible itself advocated (and many contemporaryJews themselves could accept) and Christians who should have been forcedto take on a more dynamic (or anthropomorphic) view of God retained thenotion that the divine aspect of Christ was completely undisturbed by theincarnation65 That this was the case can only be attributed to Christian fidelityto the same metaphysical axiom that makes the Jewish argument relevantThus both Christians and Jews ultimately operated (and argued) within theAristotelian matrix (at least in the West) rather than from that of their respec-tive Scriptures

And so it would perhaps be more beneficial for the Jewish-Christiandebate to not merely use Scripture to corroborate or confound (metaphysical)beliefs but to argue truly from Scripture For the Christian this would meanthat the paradox of Jesusrsquo identity ought to be held within the horizon ofScripture rather than the horizon of metaphysics as helpful and necessary itmay be for further conceptualization The objection that Christians are incon-sistent would then not immediately necessitate more delicate doctrinal exposi-tions and revolve around explicating arguing and defending the intricacies ofwhat the Christian tradition ultimately has acknowledged to be an impenetra-ble mystery but instead would be based on the Christiansrsquo commitment toScripture Jews conversely would not have to assume a metaphysical posi-tion which ultimately is incompatible with the Hebrew Bible thereby havingto define Judaism against its own sacred Scriptures or the Christian tradition66

Testament carefully differentiates between Jesus (Christ Son) on the one hand and God(Creator Father God) on the other

65 Of course the Trinity is essentially a more ldquodynamicrdquo redefinition of the concept ofGod nevertheless when it comes to Dyophysitism where the passible human nature ofChrist is affirmed as co-joined to the divine nature the divine aspect of Jesus is shielded fromany association with human limitations by consistently asserting that this union is kept incon-fuse and immutabiliter The divine aspect (and essence) is as such untouched by any of theexperiences of the ldquohuman siderdquo and still can be affirmed as ldquoun-dynamicrdquo ie as impassibleand omnipotent etc It is then not surprising that Profiat Duran can argue that the union (assuppositum) of the two natures nevertheless means that also the divinity in the one divine-human person Jesus suffered and experienced change (despite the assertion that this unionwas achieved inconfusedly) see 7312

66 Wyschogrod is helpful here ldquo(hellip) too often rationalistically minded Jewish theologianshave made it appear that Judaism resists incarnation on some a priori grounds as if the Jewish


While it perhaps opens the Christian (or Jewish) side to be perceived as naiveor unsophisticated it would liberate the entire interfaith dialogue A personrsquosfidelity to divine Scripture whether that is perceived to be the Christian Biblethe (dual) Torah or the Qursquorān surely is less contentious than compliance toAristotle kalam or reason At least it should be easier to respect since loyaltyto sacred Scripture lies mostly in the realm of personal convictions and cer-tainly is something every party can understand and appreciate67 Any religiousdiscussion therefore would need to be based on an honest reading and inter-pretation of that Scripture rather than what is perceived to be a threat to onersquosown beliefs Of course while a committed Christian could never read theQursquorān as a committed Muslim or a committed Jew appreciate the New Tes-tament as a committed Christian at least they would have to try to come to afairer understanding of the other68 The parties involved in such a debatewould perhaps be able to respect the belief of the other more easily as ldquoscrip-turalrdquo rather than having to define their own view in response to the otherrsquosdefinition which essentially just is an attempt to carve out an area of meta-physics for onersquos religious persuasion

However this scriptural reading cannot and should not exclude creedal anddoctrinal considerations mdash for the simple reason that Scripture is intrinsicallydefined by tradition and vice versa69 More significantly the deliberations

philosopher can somehow determine ahead of time what God can or cannot do what is or isnot possible for him what his dignity does not allow (hellip) If Judaism cannot accept incarna-tion it is because it does not hear this story because the Word of God as it hears it does nottell it and because Jewish faith does not testify to it And if the Church does accept incarna-tion it is not because it somehow discovered that such an event had to occur given the natureof God or of being reality or anything else but because it hears that this was Godrsquos free andgracious decision a decision not predictable by humankindrdquo idem ldquoWhy is the Theology ofKarl Barth of Interest to a Jewish Theologianrdquo in Abrahamrsquos Promise 211ndash24 here 214ndash16

67 This suggestion is similar to Peter Ochsrsquo (to whom this author is not related) David FFordrsquos and Daniel W Hardyrsquos ldquoscriptural reasoningrdquo approach see David F Ford ldquoAn Inter-faith Wisdom Scriptural Reasoning between Jews Christians and Muslimsrdquo Modern Theol-ogy 22 (2006) 345ndash66 and Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene eds Textual Reasonings JewishPhilosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids Eerdmans2003)

68 For instance the claim that Godrsquos logos took on flesh in Maryrsquos womb (Matt 120 23John 114) is primarily felt to be absurd and inappropriate because of the objectorrsquos precon-ceptions and not because it is necessarily something inherently un-scriptural In fact withinthe biblical tradition whether in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament God is not por-trayed as so utterly ldquootherrdquo and transcendent that He should completely dissociate himselffrom humanity to the contrary He tabernacled amongst us (Exod 4034 John 114)

69 Marius Reiser has aptly critiqued the notion that a sola scriptura interpretation is inde-pendent from tradition as Scripture and the canon are essentially products of tradition (whichis true not just for Christians) see his Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift 39ndash62


that lead to creedal definitions were direct outcomes from what was clearlyperceived as paradoxical statements in the sacred texts Without the paradoxof believing that the man Jesus was divine which to no insignificant partstemmed from the understanding that Scripture itself revealed this to be sofurther metaphysical deliberations and doctrinal fights would have beenunnecessary In fact the Christian creedal positions themselves had beenshaped by precisely the kind of questions medieval Jews raised concerning theChristian text For the most part their objections regarding the identity ofJesus had already been addressed in the inner-Christian debates of the firstcenturies after Christ

After all is said and done and despite the general misunderstanding ofeach other the fact remains that the overall discussion of the divinity of Jesusis concerned with a common shared appreciation for a very high view ofScripture and the nature of God who committed himself to be involved inhuman affairs by electing Israel as his people and who sent his Son to be hispeoplersquos promised Messiah

If the study has shown anything it is that Christians and Jews have debatedeach other precisely in those areas where they have most in common


Appendix I

Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet MiṣvaReason 11 of the 15 Reasons

Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus1

לאקטניםכשארכשנולדקטןשהיהגשמיותהנהגותכלבגופושנמצאהואעשרהאחדונוצרוהחלאההדם3במסגדחדשיםט2נסגדוהנההילדיםשארוביןבינוהפרטבגופונראהואכלונעורוישןושחקובכהולהניקלרחוץוהוצרךוהנדותהשתןבמעברתעברוכשנולדשם

ונבאשותרעותורוחותהרעיםומיםמבאישמגופורעיויצאותלמידיוהואונרעבושתהנקביו דרך מלמטה

שתהלאומיםאכללאלחםלילהוארבעיםיוםארבעיםשעמדעהבמשהמצאנווהנההוצרךשלאלהאמיןבאמתשיששכןכלעליושורההיתההקדשרוחבעודבהרכשהיהלאכולהוצרךאיךבוהיההאלהותשעצםאמתהיהאםוזהנבאשיםאחריםולדבריםלנקביו

הגוף צרכי ושאר ולשתות

מפנילמצריםלהבריחושהוצרךועודlsquoישראלשומרישןולאינוםלאrsquoכתובוהנהשישןועודשגדלאחראףרבותפעמיםנטמןהיהגםהמלךאימתמפנישגדלעדשםועמדהמלךפחדאמרוזלורבותינוותחבולותמופתיםידיעלאליםבבןעצמומחזיקוהיהישראללארץושב

אותותכשפיםידיעלעושהוהיהשבתבמכתהבונהבפרקממצריםכשפיםהוציאשהואהשדיםבשדיעושהשהיהאמרוהפרושיםכיכתובגיליוןובעוןהעמיםלהמוןמראהשהיהלהסירהבוראלפנינתפללגםזהעל4שיהרגונויראתומפניונפחדנזדעזערבותופעמיםענינושתמצאכמוהיראהמפניומכחשלבומכסההיהגםתפלתונתקבלהולאהמותכוסממנו

עלוגוlsquoלךיבאמלכךהנהrsquoבושכתובהמקראשהביאמלךעצמוקראשהואשלובספרוגםהיראהמפנילושראוימהלקיסרשינתןואמרלקיסרהמלכותהודהאחרובמקוםעצמולאיעבדוהוגויםכלשהריהמשיחמלךשכןכלמלךמעשהזהואיןלמוכסיםהמכסנתן

מהם יראתו מפני ויברח להם הוא שיעבד

שהואאמתהיהלאזהוהנהבאתלמהאוהבילוואמראוהביאסקיריוטהליהודהשקראוגםאויבושהיהיודעהיהולאבאלמהיודעהיהשלאהנההיאבעתלמוסרוובאשונאוהיה

לומרלוהיהיהודהאוהבהיהשהואתאמרואםלבבותובוחןיודעיתברךוהקלרעתוומבקשלאrsquoבתורהכתוב5ועברלמותמסרווהואאותואוהבהיהשיהודהמשמעאוהבוכיאהובי

1 See the discussion under 15 The Hebrew text is taken from William K HerskowitzldquoJudeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R Meir HaMeilirdquo(PhD diss Yeshiva University 1974) 68ndash69 [Hebrew section] which is a transcription ofBiblioteca Palatina Parma MS 2746 (De Rossi 155) ff 26vndash27v The translation is my ownRobert Chazan has partially translated several of the fifteen reasons given in MilḥemetMiṣvah see Daggers of Faith 55ndash66 This appendix essentially gives most Jewish argumentsagainst the divinity of Jesus and serves as a kind of summary

2 Read נסגר in place of נסגד3 Read במסגר in place of במסגד4 Read יהרגוהו in place of יהרגונו5 Read ועוד in place of ועבר

lsquoעזבתנילמהקליקליrsquoואמרבמותולהבכאבשצעקועודlsquoויתנחםאדםובןויכזבקלאיששאינונמצאlsquoנעזבצדיקראיתילאrsquoדכתובצדיקהיהלאשאףנמצאנעזבעצמושקראהרי

צדיק

אםלומריתכןלאגםאומרוםשהםכמוברצונוהיהולאהמיתהבקבלתשהוכרחנראהגםהצלהצריךואינוומצילשמירהצריךואינוהכלאתשומריתברךהקלכישיעזבבוהאלהות

שכתבתיכמותראההלאשכתבנוכמוהגוףמצרכישארוכלולשתותלאכולצריךואינוהיוולאלעליוניםדומיםהיומתנוססתבהםהקדשרוחשהיהבעודהנביאיםאףכילמעלהלילהומיוםמעמדומצותהתורהלקחתבהרבעמדומשהשהריהגוףמצרכילאחרצריכים

כתובובאליהוהנבאשיםהצרכיםלשארהוצרךשלאשכןכלשתהלאומיםאכללאלחםונוחבוהדבקבעתהנביאיםמןלאחדיקראכךואםlsquoיוםארבעיםההיאהאכילהבכחוילךrsquo

מהלכלהוצרךשלאאלעצמוהואוהיההאלהותבזהדבוקהיהאםשכןכלהרוחעליושכתבנו

[Reason] eleven is that all characteristics of corporeality were found in his body He [Jesus]was little when he was born like [all] other little ones There was not seen anything [special]in his body that was different between him and other children For nine months he wasenclosed in the prison of blood and refuse and there he was made6 When he was born hepassed through the passageway of urin and menstruation blood and [consequently] needed tobe washed and needed to nurse He [also] cried played slept awoke ate drank washungry mdash he and his disciples [Also] out of his body came foul smelly things [ie he defe-cated] and foul waters [ie he urinated] and foul odious winds [ie he flatulated] frombelow by way of his external organs [lit ldquoholesrdquo]7

Now look with Moses peace be upon him we find that he stayed forty days and fortynights he did not eat bread and he did not drink water while he was on the mountain Fur-thermore the Holy Spirit was a row [of protection and comfort] over him All the more so[we can] safely believe that he [Moses] was in no need of [using] his external organs or otherobjectionable odious matters As to this one [Jesus] if it were true that the Divinity werewithin him how was he in need of eating and drinking and all the other bodily necessities

Moreover he slept but look it is written ldquoThe Guardian of Israel neither slumbers norsleepsrdquo (Psalm 1214) Moreover they needed to smuggle him into Egypt out of fear of theking (Matt 214) and he stayed there until he grew up out of the terror of the king (Matt216ndash20) He was also hidden many times even after he had grown up and had returned to theland of Israel (cf Matt 412 1215 1413 1521) And he asserted himself to be the Son ofGod on account of miracles and tricks Our rabbis of blessed memory said that he broughtmagic from Egypt in Pereq Boneh [ch 12] in Tractate Shabbat [104b] and that he was doingsigns by means of magic which he showed to the crowds of people And in the gospel [alsquowongilion] it is written that the Pharisees said that he was doing his business by means of thechief of demons (Matt 934 1224 Mark 322 Luke 1115 cf John 720) And many timeshe was shacken and afraid for fear they would kill him for this8 He also prayed before theCreator to remove from him the cup of death (Matt 2639 Mark 1436 Luke 2242) but hisprayer was not received Also his heart was covered [ie he was self-deceived] and [then] hedenied [it] out of fear as you will find in his book that he called himself a king when he cited

6 This is similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 3427 Cf here the similar QiṣṣaNestor sect28 sect59 sect74 sect82 (see 253)8 This is again similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo

344 Herskowitz (n 108 p 85 [Hebrew section]) also sees a connection to Toledot Yeshu cfJudah D Eisenstein ויכוחיםאוצר Polemics and Disputations (New York J D Eisenstein1928) 230

342 Appendix I Milḥemet Miẓva

about himself the Scripture ldquoBehold your king is coming to yourdquo (Zech 99 Matt 214ndash5)9But [then] in another place he acknowledged that the kingdom belonged to Caesar [when] hesaid that it should be given to Caesar what is proper to him (cf Matt 2221 Mark 1217)(which he did) out of fear He also gave the tax to the tax collectors (cf Matt 1727) But thisis not a deed [worthy] of a king all the more so for the King-Messiah for it is clear that allthe nations will serve him not that he should serve them and run away out of his fear ofthem

And also that he called Judas Iscariot ldquomy loverrdquo [ie friend] when he said to him ldquoMylover why have you comerdquo (cf Matt 2650)10 But look this is not true for he hated himand at that time came to hand him over Look he was not someone who knew why he cameand neither was he someone who knew that he was his enemy seeking his evil mdash but Godblessed be He is the knower and tester of hearts And if you should say that he loved Judashe should have said ldquomy belovedrdquo for ldquomy loverrdquo means that Judas was the one loving himyet he is the one who handed him over to death11

And furthermore it is written in the Torah ldquoGod is not a man that He should lie nor ason of man that He should change his mindrdquo (Num 2319) Moreover he cried out in pain toGod during his death and said ldquoMy God my God why have you forsaken merdquo (Psalm221 Matt 2746 Mark 1534) It is thus clear that he called himself forsaken [by God] andwe [further] find that he was no even righteous as it is written ldquoI have not seen the righteousforsakenrdquo (Psalm 3725) [thus] we find that he is not a righteous person

It is also appears that he was coerced when he received his death [sentence] and that[this] was not according to his will as they are saying (cf Matt 2629 John 1017ndash18) It isalso not possible to say that he could be forsaken if the Divinity is in him for God blessed beHe is a guardian of all and he does not need a protector or rescuer and neither does he needrescuing12 And he [also] does not need to eat or drink or all the other bodily necessities aswe have written Do you not see as I have written above that even the prophets while theHoly Spirit blew in them that they were like heavenly beings and were not needing [tofollow] one of the bodily necessities For it is clear that Moses while he stayed on the moun-tain to receive the Torah and commandments [that] he stayed forty days and forty nights hedid not eat bread he did not drink water mdash all the more so [we can likewise affirm that] theprophets did not need [to follow] the other [bodily] necessities In Elijah it is written ldquoand he

9 This is similar to Toledoth Yeshu see Krauss Leben Jesu 78 (104) [MS Vindobona]10 Four arguments are exclusivey based on the Gospel of Matthew which are the flight to

Egypt (Matt 214ndash20) the paying of taxes (Matt 1727) the use of Zech 99 in the entry ofJerusalem (Matt 214ndash5) and Jesusrsquo question addressed to Judas (Matt 2650) Especially thegrammatical argument based on the latter (see below) would suggest that the author of thisargument had access to a Hebrew portion of the Gospel of Matthew (the difference betweenthe active and passive participle cannot be based on the Latin for the Vulgate reads ldquoamice adquod venisti tunc accesseruntrdquo here)

11 In Even Boḥan Matt 2650 is עשיתמהאהובי thereby giving the passive participleldquomy belovedrdquo and avoiding the ldquoWhyrdquo question see Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew137 (likewise MS Plutei 217 and MS British Library 26964) It is tempting to posit that thistranslation was motivated by the critique raised in Milḥemet Miṣvah (which then could poten-tially be used to further locate the translation in Even Boḥan) Du Tillet (1555) and MS ParisHeb 132 read באתלמהאהובי and Muumlnsterrsquo text (1537 and 1551) reads באתמהעלרעהhere

12 A similar argument is in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Trea-tiserdquo 338

Reason 11 Why Jews cannot believe in Jesus 343

went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nightsrdquo (1 Kings 198) And if it is thussaid about one of the prophets at the time of being joined [with the Spirit] and the Spirit rest-ing on him all the more so if the Divinity was joined with this one [Jesus] and he were him-self God mdash then he [surely] had no need for all the things we have written here13

13 This kind of a minore ad maius argument is noteworthy for based on Jesusrsquo allegeddivinity and in comparison with Moses and Elijah it is argued that Jesus ought to be lesssubject to bodily functions (if at all) This effectively only allows for a Docetist Christology


Appendix II

Index amp Overview ofCommon Polemical Arguments

Page numbers in italics indicate primary source quotations

1 Incarnation (birth and nativity) ishellip

Unbecoming (God in the womb) 5 6 21 30ndash31 39 40 48 53 56 77 7880 81 81ndash82 83ndash84 85ndash86 90 99104ndash105 118 184 204 232ndash34296 328ndash29 330 341ndash45

Impossible for God 5 21 44 50 5684 190 204 330 333ndash35

2 Jesus is distinctly and exclusively human sincehellip

Jesus had a human father (genealogy) 4849 51 71ndash89 72ndash73 74ndash75 77 90103 125 143 177 176 181182ndash83 184 220 cf 223ndash24 255 271 272 300 cf 328

Jesus experienced bodily functions 7983 85 341ndash45

Jesus was afraid 40 47 50 85 114ndash15124 145ndash46 162 163 178 179184 191 199ndash200 201 202 220 222 227 248 249ndash50 328 341ndash45

Jesus was baptized 50 51 77 103108 185 186 220 227

Jesus was tempted 51 103 110 178188 190 220 228ndash29 268 300308 328

Jesus had to sleepgrew weary 6 40 4749 79 85 148 152 163 179 191 341ndash45

Jesus was hungry and ate food 6 47 4979 83ndash85 110 119 124 155 163178 179 188 190 191 197 201220 221 228ndash29 246 328 341ndash45

Jesus was ignorant 111 112 118 119124 165 179 197 198 199 221222 238ndash39 245 246 248 251ndash52271 303 313 314 341ndash45

Jesus was inconsistentcontradicted himselfchanged his mind 79 103 104 119ndash20

121 123 142 144 151 158ndash59179 180 192 197 200 202 203 221 222 248 274 283ndash84 300314 341ndash45

Jesus lacked of divine abilityattributes 117 140 143 160 161 162 177179 190 200 202 220 222228ndash29 249ndash50 270 301 307 314

Jesus suffered andor died (God cannot die)6 40 79 80 144 155 192 252ndash53280 301 328 330

Other gospel figures did not think him to be God 48 49 69 72 76 221 236ndash37

239 242 244 247 269 307

Jesus prayed to God (generally) 46 51103 111 112 124ndash25 145 160 178 180 194

Jesus prayed to God on the Cross 56 62 163 177 179 191 202 203 205 222 252ndash53 254 274 280 301 312 341ndash45

Jesus prayed to God in Gethsemane 4656 67 67 85 103 113f 114 116117ndash18 125 144 156 162 179199ndash200 201 249ndash50 307 312328 341ndash45

Jesus did not intend to be understood as divine 266 267 274ndash75 276ndash77

279ndash80 281 304

3 Jesusrsquo self understanding is exclusively human seen inhellip

Jesusrsquo use of the term lsquoSon of Manrsquo 56 57ff 58ndash59 60ndash61 149 150ndash51178 180 191 192 193 271 287300 302 303ndash304 309 311 323

Jesusrsquo affirmation that Godrsquos will and his are different (Jesus submitsdefers to God) 68 117ndash18 144 147 192 200

201 202 222 249ndash50 252ndash53 301307 312 314

Jesus considering himself as sentservant (prophet) 45 46 56 60ndash61 68ff 69 77

103 104 180 192 195ndash96 277 303 309 311

Jesusrsquo affirmation that God gave to himhe received from God 120 164 179 194

206 221 238ndash39 301 312ndash13

Jesusrsquo affirmation that the Spirit is ldquomore holyrdquo (Blasphemy against the Spirit) 103

121 157ndash58 180 194 221 241ndash42302 310

Jesusrsquo saying to the Rich Young Ruler 56 65 65ndash66 159 179 cf 196 270 274 310ndash11

Jesusrsquo saying to the sons of Zebedee 4977 78 160 311

4 Jesus was morally questionablebecausehellip

Jesus was a liar 49 50 142 144 151 152 192 193

Jesus was an evil magician 137 238ndash39 227 236 267 327 336

Jesus was in need of purification (baptism)50 79 108f 110 178 185 186 220

Jesus was cruel (in cursing the fig tree)119ndash20 179 197 201 207 221 246

Matthew implies Jesus is flawed (women in the genealogy) 104ndash105 220 223ndash24

Jesus was cursedforsaken through crucifixion 49 203 203ndash204

Jesus was drunka glutton 49 53 55 79155

Jesus did not adhere to Jewish custom 49148 178 179

Jesus admits he was a sinner 177 203

Jesus was a thief 50 79

Jesus was nursed by a harlot 79 83

Jesus was kissed by a harlot 79

Jesus was uncleandefiled 152

Jesus was rebellious 180

5 Miscellaneous Arguments

On the abrogation of and adherence to Torah 21 22 44 45 47 50 51 99

100 103 104 124 159 177 178 179 180 181 197 214 219 236262 263 300

There are others who are better candidates for divinity 40ndash41 80 138 142 188

202 204 205 220 221 230 231 232ndash34 247 341ndash45

Jesus failed as Messiah 142 143 179

On textual contradictions 48 50 51226 236ndash37 243ndash44 251 263 281ndash85 328

On the Virgin Birth 10ndash11 21 98 220224 232ndash34 272 277 cf 328

346 Appendix II

On the perpetual virginity of Mary 87ndash89 128 140 143 154 178 182 214 220224 233ndash34 300

Mary (amp Jesus) not being of Davidic lineage 74 107 177 178 182ndash83 184

223ndash24 272

On the Trinity 37 42 63ndash64 98 99 100101 108ndash109 112 117 120 121123ndash25 128 141 145 147 157ndash58162 163 164 165 179ndash80 184 191ndash92 194 198 203ndash204 221 227 238 241ndash42 254 262 267 274 294 296 299 302ndash304 309 310 330

On the Hypostatic Union 44 103279ndash80 279ndash80 289

On the veneration of Mary 21 262 263

On Original Sin 21 85 106 262 287

On Eucharist (sacrament) 262ndash64

On Baptism (sacrament) 262ndash63

On the papacy 262

Jews not culpable for Jesusrsquo death 249ndash50 251

Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments 347

Bibliography

Primary Sources and Text Editions

1 Jewish

Bacher Wilhlem ldquoInedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassirsquos lsquoEshkol Hakkoferrsquordquo Jewish Quar-terly Review 8 (1896) 431ndash44

Ben Reuben Jacob Milḥamot ha-Shem [ השםמלחמותראובןבןיעקוב ] Edited by Judah MRosenthal Jerusalem Mossad Ha-Rav Kook 1963 [Hebrew]

Berger David The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages A Critical Edition ofNizzahon Vetus Northvale N J J Aronson 1996

mdash ldquoThe Nizzahon Vetus A Critical Edition with a Translation and Commentary on the FirstPartrdquo PhD diss Columbia University 1970

Berlin Anne D ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran A Fourteenth-Century JewishPolemic Against Christianityrdquo BA thesis Cambridge Mass Radcliffe College HarvardUniversity 1987

Braude William G trans Pesikta Rabbati Discourses for Feasts Fasts and Special Sab-baths Yale Judaica Series 2 vols New Haven Yale University Press 1968

Breuer Mordecai Sefer Niẓẓaḥon Yashan (Niẓẓahon Vetus) mdash A Book of Jewish-ChristianPolemic [ ישן נצחון ספר ] Ramat Gan Bar-Ilan University 1978 [Hebrew]

Chiesa Bruno and Wilfrid Lockwood Yalsquoqūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects and Christia-nity A translation of lsquoKitāb al-anwārrsquo Book I with two introductory essays Judentumund Umwelt 10 Frankfurt P Lang 1984

Crescas R Ḥasdai Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim Edited by Daniel J Lasker Ramat-GanBar-Ilan University 1990 [Hebrew]

Deutsch David Sefer Khizzuk Emuna Befestigung im Glauben Von Rabbi Jizchak SohnAbrahams 2nd ed Breslau H Skutsch 1873

Eisenstein Judah D ויכוחיםאוצר Polemics and Disputations New York J D Eisenstein1928

Friedlaumlnder Jonathan and Jakob Kohn Maase Efod Einleitung in das Studium der Hebrauml-ischen Sprache von Profiat Duran [ אפד מעשה ] Vienna Holzwarth 1865

Garshowitz Libby ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone) chapters2ndash10 based on MS Plutei 217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with colla-tions from other manuscriptsrdquo 2 vols PhD diss University of Toronto 1974

Gaon Saadia The Book of Beliefs and Opinions Translated from the Arabic and the Hebrewby Samuel Rosenblatt Edited by Samuel Rosenblatt Yale Judaica Series 1 New HavenYale University Press 1948 Repr 1976

Herskowitz William K ldquoJudeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in MilhemetMitzva of R Meir HaMeilirdquo PhD diss Yeshiva University 1974

Howard George Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Macon Ga Mercer University Press 1995

mdash The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text Macon Ga Mercer Uni-versity Press 1987

Korobkin N Daniel The Kuzari In Defense of the Despised Faith Northvale NJ J Aron-son 1998

Krauss Samuel Das Leben Jesu nach juumldischen Quellen Berlin Calvary 1902Lasker Daniel J The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas Albany

NY State University of New York Press 1992Lasker Daniel J and Sarah Stroumsa The Polemic of Nestor the Priest Qiṣṣat Mujādalat

Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomer 2 vols Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study ofJewish Communities in the East 1996

Levy Joshua ldquoSefer Milhamot Hashem Chapter Eleven The Earliest Jewish Critique of theNew Testamentrdquo PhD diss New York University 2004

Limor Ora and Israel I Yuval Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen ACritical Edition Forthcoming

Mocatta Moses אמונהחזוק or Faith Strengthened London Wertheimer 1851 Repr NewYork Ktav 1970

Murciano Prosper ldquoSimon ben Zemah Duran Keshet u-Magen A Critical Editionrdquo PhDdiss New York University 1975

Nicloacutes (Albarraciacuten) Joseacute-Vicente and Carlos del Valle Rodriacuteguez Profiat Duraacuten CincoCuestiones Debatidas de Poleacutemica Ediacutecion criacutetica bilingue con anotaciones de C delValle Espantildea Judiacuteca ndash Serie II Autores Judiacuteos de Cataluntildea Poleacutemica JudeocristianaMadrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1999

Perlmann Moshe Ibn Kammūnarsquos Examination of the Three Faiths A thirteenth-century Es-say in the comparative Study of Religion Berkeley University of California Press 1971

Posnanski Adolf ldquoThe Reproach of the Gentiles The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran ofPerpignan in the year 1397rdquo [ דוראןפרופייטמאישטרוחיבורוהגויםכלימתספר

הקנזבשנתמפירפינייאנו ] Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914) 99ndash113 143ndash804 (1915) 37ndash48 81ndash96 115ndash23 [Hebrew]

Rosenthal Judah M ldquoWords of Debate from Sefer HaMeqannerdquo [ ספרמתךויכחדבריQobez al Yad 8 (1975) 295ndash323 [Hebrew] [המקנה

mdash ldquoA Religious Debate between a Sage named Menahem and the Dominican friar PabloChristianirdquo [ פאבלוהדומיניקאניוהנזירהמומרוביןמנחםבשםחכםביןדתיויכח[כריסטיאני Pages 61ndash74 in vol 3 of Hebrew Contemplation in America Studies on Jew-ish Themes Vol 3 [ באמריקהעבריתהגות ] Edited by Menahem Zohori Tel AvivYavneh 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoSections of a Debaterdquo [ ויכוחפרקי ] Pages 353ndash95 in vol 3 of Shalom BaronSaloWittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume mdash Hebrew Section [ ndashבארוןשלוםלכבודהיובלספר

עבריחלק ] Edited by S Lieberman and A Hyman Jerusalem American Academy forJewish Research 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoA Jewish Criticism of the New Testament from the Thirteenth Centuryrdquo [ יהודיתבקורתהיגהמאהמןהחדשההבריתשל ] Pages 123ndash39 [Hebrew section] in Studies in Jewish

Bibliography History and Literature in honor of I Edward Kiev Edited by C BerlinNew York Ktav 1971 [Hebrew]

mdash Sepher Joseph Hamekane ndash Auctore R Joseph b R Nathan Official (saec XIII) Ex manuscriptis edidit et notis instruxit Judah Rosenthal [ המקנאיוסףספר ] Jerusalem MeqiṣeNirdamim 1970 [Hebrew]

Simon Stanislaus Moses ben Salomon von Salerno und seine philosophische Auseinander-setzung mit den Lehren des Christentums Ohlau i Schl H Eschenhagen 1931

Stroumsa Sarah Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣrsquos lsquoTwenty Chaptersrsquo (lsquoIshrūn Maqala)Leiden Brill 1989

350 Bibliography

Talmage Frank E ed The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran The Reproach of the Gen-tiles and lsquoBe not like unto thy Fathersrsquo [ ואיגרתהגויםכלימתדוראןלפרופיטפולמוסכתבי

באבותיךתהיאל ] ldquoKuntresimrdquo Texts and Studies 55 Jerusalem The Zalman ShazarCenter and The Dinur Center 1981 [Hebrew]

mdash The Book of the Covenant and other Writings [ הנצרותעםרדקוויכוחיהבריתספר ]Jerusalem Bialik Institute 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimhi Toronto Pontifical Institute of MediaevalStudies 1972

mdash ldquoAn Hebrew Polemical Treatise Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodoxrdquo Harvard TheologicalReview 60 (1967) 323ndash48

2 Muslim

Al-Jāḥiẓ lsquoAmr b Baṛ ldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā al-naṣārārdquo Pages 10ndash38 in Thalāth Rasārsquoil mdash ThreeEssays of Abū lsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ Edited by Joshua Finkel Cairo Al-Mat-baʻah al-Salafīyah 1926 Repr 1962 [Arabic]

Chidiac Robert Al Ghazali Une Reacutefutation excellente de la diviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ drsquoapregravesles Egravevangile Bibliothegraveque de lrsquoEcole des Hautes Eacutetudes Sciences religieuses 54 ParisLeroux 1939

Fletcher Charles D ldquoAnti-Christian polemic in early Islam A translation and analysis ofAbūlsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓrsquos risāla Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā (A reply to the Christ-ians)rdquo MA thesis Montreal McGill University 2002

Ibn al-Layth ldquoRisālat Abī Rabīlsquo Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā ilā Qusṭanṭīn malikal-Rūmrdquo Pages 252ndash324 in vol 3 of Jamharat rasārsquoil al-lsquoArab fī lsquouṣūr al-lsquoarabiyyal-zāhira Al-lsquoaṣr al-lsquoAbbāsī l-awwal Edited by Aḥmad Zakī Ṣafwat 4 vols CairoMuṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī 1937 [Arabic]

Sourdel Dominique ldquoUn pamplet musulman anonyme drsquoeacutepoque lsquoabbāside contre chreacutetiensrdquoRevue des eacutetudes islamiques 34 (1966) 1ndash33

Wilms Franz-Elmar AlndashGhazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu Leiden Brill 1966

3 Pagan

Berchman Robert M Porphyry Against the Christians Ancient Mediterranean And MedievalTexts and Contexts 1 Leiden Brill 2005

De Lacy Phillip Galen On Semen Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 531 Berlin AkademieVerlag 1992

Julian Against the Galileans Pages 319ndash427 in vol 3 of The Works of the Emperor JulianTranslated by Wilmer C Wright Loeb Classical Library 3 vols London W Heinemann1923

mdash To Photinus Pages 187ndash90 in vol 3 of The Works of the Emperor Julian Translated byWilmer C Wright Loeb Classical Library 3 vols London William Heinemann 1923

Hoffmann R Joseph Julianrsquos ldquoAgainst the Galileansrdquo Amherst NY Prometheus Books2004

mdash Celsus On the True Doctrine New York Oxford University Press 1987Lona Horacio E Die raquoWahre Lehre des Kelsoslaquo Uumlbersetzt und erklaumlrt von Horacio E Lona

Kommentar zu fruumlhchristlichen Apologeten Ergaumlnzungsband 1 Freiburg Herder 2005

Bibliography 351

4 Christian

Alfonsi Petrus Dialogue against the Jews Translated by Irven M Resnick Fathers of theChurch Medieval Continuation 8 Washington DC Catholic University Press 2006

Aquinas Thomas Summa theologiae Translated by the Fathers of the English DominicanProvince New York Benziger Bros 1947

mdash Catena Aurea Commentary on the Four Gospels mdash Vol I Part II 2nd ed Edited by JohnHenry (Newman) and James Parker Oxford JGF amp J Rivington 1864

Beeson Charles H Hegemonius Acta Archelai Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten drei Jahrhunderte 16 Leipzig J C Hinrichs 1906

Bezold Carl Kebra Nagast Die Herrlichkeit der Koumlnige Koumlnigliche Bayerische Akademieder Wissenschaften Abhandlungen Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 231 MunichG Franz 1909

Bliemetzrieder Franz Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen Muumlnster Aschendorff-sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1919

Chadwick Henry Origen Contra Celsum Translated with an Introduction and Notes byHenry Chadwick Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1953

Crispin Gilbert The Works of Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster Edited by Anna SapirAbulafia and G R Evans Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8 London British AcademyOxford University Press 1986

De Lagarde Paul Aegyptiaca Goumlttingen D A Hoyer 1883 Repr Osnabruumlck O Zeller1972

De Lyre Nicolas Postillae perpetuae in universam S Scripturam 1331 First printed inRome Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz 1470

Driver Godfrey R and Leonard Hodgson Nestorius The Bazaar of Heracleides OxfordClarendon 1925

Epiphanius The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book 1 (Sects 1ndash46) 2nd rev ed Trans-lated by Frank Williams Leiden Brill 2009

Evans Ernest Q Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De Carne Christi Liber Tertullianrsquos Treatiseon the Incarnation London SPCK 1956

Harvey W Wigan Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Luodunensis Libros quinque adversus Haereses2 vols Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1857

Gregory of Nazianzus On God and Christ The Five Theological Orations and Two Lettersto Cledonius Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham Popular PatristicsSeries 23 Crestwood NY St Vladimirrsquos Seminary Press 2002

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Edited by Michael Slusser Translated by Thomas BFalls Rev by Thomas P Halton Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3 Washing-ton DC Catholic University Press 2003

Lahey Lawrence L ldquoThe Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila Critical Greek Text and EnglishTranslation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-criticalStudyrdquo PhD diss University of Cambridge 2000

Loofs Friedrich Nestoriana Die Fragmente des Nestorius Halle M Niemeyer 1905McCarthy Carmel St Ephremrsquos Commentary on the Diatessaron Journal of Semitic Studies

Supplement 2 Oxford Oxford University Press 1993Prudentius Prudentius with an English Translation by H J Thomson Loeb Classical

Library 2 vols London William Heinemann 1949Rabanus Maurus Expositio in Matthaeum (IndashIV) Edited by Bengt Loumlfstedt Corpus Chris-

tianorum Continuatio mediaevalis 174 Turnhout Brepols 2000

352 Bibliography

Resnick Irvin M On Original Sin and a Disputation with the Jew Leo Concerning the Ad-vent of Christ the Son of God Theologiocal Treatises Odo of Tournai Philadelphia Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press 1994

Robinson Forbes Coptic Apocryphal Gospels Texts and Studies 42 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 1896

Steenberg Irenaeus M C and Dominic J Unger St Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies(Book 3) Ancient Christian Writers 64 Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2012

Varner William Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues Athansius and Zacchaeus Simon andTheophilus Timothy and Aquila Introduction Texts and Translations Lewiston NYThe Edwin Mellen Press 2004

Vermes Mark J Hegemonius Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelai) Manichaean Studies 4Turnhout Brepols 2001

Wagenseil Johann C Tela Ignea Satanae Altdorf Joh Henricus Schoumlnnerstaeligdt 1681Repr Jerusalem Akademon 1965 1968 Farnborough Gregg 1970 Jerusalem LAchim 2001

Wycliffe John De eucharistia tractus major Edited by John Loserth London Truumlbner1892

Secondary Literature

Accad Martin ldquoThe Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Cen-tury An exegetical inventoryrdquo Islam and Christian Relations 14 (2003) 67ndash91 205ndash20337ndash52 459ndash79

Abramowski Luise and Alan E Goodman A Nestorian Collection of Christological TextsVolume II Introduction Translation Indexes Cambridge Cambridge University Press1972

Abulafia Anna Sapir ChristianndashJewish Relations 1000ndash1300 Harlow Pearsons 2011mdash Religious Violence between Christians and Jews Medieval Roots Modern Perspectives

New York Palgrave 2002mdash Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance London Routledge 1995Adler Michael ldquoThe Emperor Julian and the Jewsrdquo Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 591ndash

651Akhiezer Golda ldquoThe Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and his lsquoPolemics against the

Rabbanitesrsquordquo Pages 437ndash68 in Tradition Heterodoxy and Religious Culture Judaism andChristianity in the Early Modern Period Edited by Chanita Goodblatt and HowardKreisel The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6 Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion Uni-versity of the Negev Press 2006

Aland Kurt and Barbara The Text of the New Testament 2nd ed Translated by Erroll FRhodes Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1989

Allen Willoughby C A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according toS Matthew The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old andNew Testaments 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT Clark 1907

Allison Dale C The New Moses A Matthean Typology Edinburgh TampT Clark 1993Al-Makarim Abu The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Coun-

tries attributed to Abucirc Ṣacircliḥ the Armenian Edited and translated by BTA Evetts Anec-toda Oxoniensa Oxford Clarendon 1895

Bibliography 353

Alexander Philip ldquoThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debaterdquo Pages 137ndash58 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited byPeter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in Ancient Juda-ism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Aranda Peacuterez Gonzalo ldquoGabriel Archangelrdquo Pages 1135andash1137b in vol 4 of the CopticEncyclopedia 8 vols New York Macmillan 1991

Atiya Aziz Suryal ldquoAbu al-Marakimrdquo Pages 123andash23b in vol 1 of the Coptic Encyclope-dia 8 vols New York Macmillan 1991

Avneri Zvi ldquoAbner of Burgosrdquo Pages 264ndash65 in vol 1 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd edEdited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash Ed Germania Judaica Band II Von 1238 bis zur Mitte des 14 Jahrhunderts 3 volsTuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1968

Bacher Wilhelm Die exegetische Terminologie der juumldischen Tradtionsliterature 2 volsLeipzig J C Hinrichs 1899 1905

Baer Yitzhak A History of the Jews in Christian Spain 2 vols Philadelphia Jewish Publica-tion Society of America 1971

Baltes Guido Hebraumlisches Evangelium und synoptische Uumlberlieferung Untersuchungen zumhebraumlischen Hintergrund der Evangelien Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament II312 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Bammel Ernst ldquoDer Jude des Celsusrdquo Pages 265ndash83 in Judaica Kleine Schriften IWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck1986

mdash ldquoExcerpts from a new Gospelrdquo Novum Testamentum 10 (1968) 1ndash9 Repr pages 239ndash46 in Judaica Kleine Schriften I Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa-ment I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1986

mdash ldquoJesus und ein andererrdquo Pages 157ndash74 in Judaica Kleine Schriften I WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1986

mdash ldquoDie Versuchung Jesu nach einer juumldischen Quellerdquo Pages 253ndash56 in Judaica KleineSchriften I Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1986

Banitt Menahem Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter Tel Aviv Tel Aviv University1985

Bar-Ilan Meir ldquoThe Hand of God A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphismrdquo Pages 321ndash35 in Rashi 1040ndash1990 Hommage agrave Ephraiumlm E Urbach Congregraves Europeacuteen des eacutetudesjuives Edited by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna Paris Cerf 1993

Bat Yersquoor (Gisegravele Littman) The Dhimmi Jews and Christians under Islam Rev and enlEnglish ed Cranbury NJ Associated University Press 1985

Battenberg Friedrich Das Europaumlische Zeitalter der Juden Von den Anfaumlngen bis 1650 2nded 2 vols Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2000

Batto Bernard F ldquoThe Sleeping God An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sover-eigntyrdquo Biblica 68 (1987) 153ndash77

Bauckham Richard Jesus and the God of Israel God Crucified and Other Studies on theNew Testamentrsquos Christology of Divine Identity Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

mdash Gospel Women Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels Grand Rapids Eerdmans2002

Bauer Walter Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1909 Repr Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967

Beaumont I Mark Christology in Dialogue with Muslims A Critical Analysis of ChristianPresentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries RegnumStudies In Mission Carlisle Paternoster 2005

354 Bibliography

Becker Eve-Marie and Anders Runesson eds Mark and Matthew I Comparative ReadingsUnderstanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I271 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Becker Hans-Juumlrgen ldquoMatthew the Rabbis and Billerbeck on the Kingdom of HeavenrdquoPages 57ndash69 in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting Edited by Hans-JuumlrgenBecker and Serge Ruzer Paris Gabalda 2005

mdash Review of Daniel J Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa ldquoThe Polemic of Nestor the Priest QiṣṣatMujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomerrdquo Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-laumlndischen Gesellschaft 148 (1998) 406ndash409

Beinart Haim and Zvi Avneri ldquoFerrer Vicenterdquo Page 764 in vol 6 of EncyclopaediaJudaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan2007

Bekkum W Jac van ldquoAnti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (piyyuṭ) of theSixth and Seventh Centuriesrdquo Pages 297ndash308 in Early Christian Poetry A Collection ofEssays Edited by J den Boeft and A Hilthorst Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 22Leiden Brill 1993

Ben-Sasson Haim H A History of the Jewish People Cambridge Mass Harvard UniversityPress 1976

Ben-Sasson Haim H Yehuda Slutsky and Dina Porat ldquoBlood Libelrdquo Pages 774ndash89 invol 3 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skol-nik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Ben-Shalom Ram ldquoBetween Official and Private Dispute The Case of Christian Spain andProvence in the Late Middle Agesrdquo Association for Jewish Studies Review (2003) 23ndash71

Berger David Persecution Polemic and Dialogue Essays in Jewish-Christian RelationsBoston Academic Studies Press 2010

mdash ldquoJewish-Christian Polemicsrdquo Pages 7230ndash36 in vol 11 of The Encyclopedia of Religion2nd ed 15 vols Edited by Lindsay Jones Detroit Macmillan Reference USA 2005

mdash ldquoOn the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity The Quest forthe Historical Jesusrdquo Pages 25ndash39 in Jewish History and Jewish Memory Essays in hon-or of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi Edited by Elisheva Carlebach John M Efron and DavidN Myers Hanover NH Brandeis University Press 1998

mdash ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of theHigh Middle Agesrdquo American Historical Review 91 (1986) 576ndash91

mdash ldquoChristian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo HarvardTheological Review 68 (1975) 287ndash303

mdash ldquoGilbert Crispin Alan of Lille and Jacob ben Reuben A Study in Transmission ofMedieval Polemicrdquo Speculum 49 (1974) 34ndash47

Berger David and Michael Wyschogrod Jews and ldquoJewish Christianityrdquo New York Ktav1978 Repr 2002

Berger Samuel ldquoNouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provenccedilales et catalanesrdquo Romania 19(1890) 505ndash61

Biale David ldquoCounter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity The Sefer ToldotYeshu and the Sefer Zerubavelrdquo Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999) 130ndash45

Bindley T Herbert and F W Green The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith 4th ed Lon-don Methuen 1950

Biscioni Antonio Maria Bibliotheca Ebraicae Graecae Florentinae sive BibliothecaeMediceo-Laurentianae Catalogus 2 vols Florence Ex Caesareo Typographio 1757

mdash Bibliotheca Medio-Laurentiana Catalogus Tomus Primus Codices Orientales FlorenceEx imperiali typographio 1752

Bibliography 355

Blastenbrei Peter Johann Christoph Wagenseil und seine Stellung zum Judentum ErlangenH Fischer 2004

Blau Joshua The Emergence and linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic A Study of theOrigins of Middle-Arabic 2nd ed Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of JewishCommunities in the East 1981

Bloch Reneacutee ldquoQuelques aspects de la figure de Moiumlse dans la tradition rabbiniquerdquo Pages93ndash167 in Moiumlse lrsquohomme de lrsquoalliancy Edited by H Cazelles Tournai Descleacutee deBrouwer 1955

Blumenkranz Bernhard ldquoDauphineacuterdquo Pages 441ndash43 in vol 5 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nded Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoFrancerdquo Pages 146ndash70 in vol 7 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by MichaelBerenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoNicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reubenrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965) 47ndash51Repr in Juifs et Chreacutetiens Patristique et Moyen Age London Variorum 1977 ChapterXVII (no pagination)

mdash Les Auteurs Chreacutetiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaiumlsme Eacutetudes Juives 4Paris Mouton 1963

mdash Juifs et chreacutetiens dans le monde occidental 430ndash1096 Eacutetudes juives 2 Paris Mouton1960 Repr Leuven Peeters 2006

mdash ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnde im Religionsgespraumlch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis 11 Jahrhundertsrdquo Theologische Zeitschrift 4(1948) 119ndash47 Repr in chapter XIX (no pagination) in Les Auteurs Chreacutetiens Latins duMoyen Age sur les juifs et le judaiumlsme Eacutetudes Juives 4 Paris Mouton 1963

Bockmuehl Markus Jewish Law in Gentile Churches Halakha and the Beginning of Chris-tian Public Ethics Edinburgh TampT Clark 2000

Bobichon Philippe ldquoLa Bible dans les œuvres de controverse judeacuteo-chreacutetienne (IIe-XVIIIesiegravecles) entre texte reacuteveacuteleacute et litteacuteraturerdquo Pages 69ndash97 in De la Bible agrave la litteacuteratureEdited by Jean-Christophe Attias and Pierre Gisel Religions en perspective 15 GenevaLabor et Fides 2003

Bowman Robert M and J Ed Komoszewski Putting Jesus in His Place The Case for theDeity of Christ Grand Rapids Kregel 2007

Boyarin Daniel Jewish Gospels The Story of the Jewish Christ New York The New Press2012

mdash ldquoHow Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesusrdquo Early Christianity 2 (2011) 51ndash76Brayer Menachem M The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature A Psychological Perspec-

tive New York Ktav 1986Briggman Anthony Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Oxford Early

Christian Studies Oxford Oxford University Press 2012Broydeacute Isaac ldquoNathan ben Joseph Officialrdquo Pages 269ndash270 in vol 7 of The Jewish Ency-

clopedia A Descriptive Record of the History Religion Literature and Customs of theJewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day Edited by Isidore Singer12 vols New York Ktav London Funk Wagnalls 1901ndash1906

Brown Raymond E An Introduction to New Testament Christology Mahwah NJ PaulistPress 1994

mdash The Birth of the Messiah Updated ed Yale Yale University Press 1993mdash Jesus God and Man New York Macmillian 1967Budny Syzmon and Marcin Czechowic Trzech dni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie Łosk

1578Burkett Delbert R The Son of Man Debate A History of Evaluation Society for New Testa-

ment Studies Monograph Series 107 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1999

356 Bibliography

Burnett Stephen G ldquoLater Christian Hebraistsrdquo Pages 785ndash801 in Hebrew BibleOld Testa-ment II From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment Edited by Magne Saeligboslash GoumlttingenVandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2008

Burrell David B Knowing the Unknowable God Ibn-Sina Maimonides Aquinas NotreDame University of Notre Dame Press 1986

Burton Robert The Anatomy of Melancholy Edited by Democritus Junior 3 vols NewYork A C Armstrong 1880

Bynum Caroline W The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity 200ndash1336 NewYork Columbia University Press 1995

mdash ldquoImages of the Resurrection Body in the Theology of Late Antiquityrdquo Catholic HistoricalReview 80 (1994) 215ndash37

Cabaniss Allen ldquoBodo-Eleazar A Famous Jewish Convertrdquo Jewish Quarterly Review 43(1953) 313ndash28

Capua Angelo di ldquoCatalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuelerdquo InCataloghi dei Codici Orientali di alcune Biblioteche drsquoItalia Vol 1 Florence 1878

Carlton Paget James C Jews Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity Wissen-schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I251 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010

mdash ldquoThe Four among the Jewsrdquo Pages 267ndash86 in Jews Christians and Jewish Christians inAntiquity Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I251 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 2010 First published in pages 205ndash21 in The Written Gospel Edited byMarkus N A Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner Cambridge University Press Cambridge2005

Casey Maurice The Solution to the Son of Man Problem Library of New Testament Studies343 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2007

Chapman David W Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of CrucifixionWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II244 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 2008 Grand Rapids Baker 2010

Chazan Robert Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe Cambridge University Press2010

mdash The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000ndash1500 Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press 2006

mdash Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 2004

mdash Barcelona and Beyond The Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath Berkeley Universityof California Press 1992

mdash ldquoJoseph Kimhirsquos lsquoSefer Ha-Beritrsquo Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologeticsrdquo HarvardTheological Review 85 (1992) 417ndash32

mdash Daggers of Faith Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish ResponseBerkeley University of California Press 1989

mdash ldquoThe Christian Position in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milhamot Ha-Shemrdquo Pages 151ndash70 invol 2 of From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox Editedby Jacob Neusner Ernest S Frerichs Nahum M Sarna Atlanta Scholars Press 1989

mdash ldquoThe Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239ndash1248)rdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy for Jewish Research 55 (1988) 11ndash30

mdash ldquoPolemical Themes in the Milḥemet Miẓvahrdquo Pages 169ndash84 in Les Juifs au regard delrsquohistoire Meacutelange en lrsquohonneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz Edited by Gilbert DahanParis Picard 1985

mdash Alfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizingrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 143 (1984)83ndash94

Bibliography 357

mdash ldquoA Medieval Hebrew Polemical Melangerdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980) 89ndash110

mdash ldquoConfrontation in the Synagogue of Narbonne A Christian Sermon and a Jewish ReplyrdquoHarvard Theological Review 67 (1974) 437ndash57

mdash ldquoAnti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the Jewish Responserdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 4142 (1973ndash1974) 45ndash67

mdash Medieval Jewry in Northern France A Political and Social History Baltimore The JohnHopkins University Press 1973

mdash ldquo1007ndash1012 Initial Crisis for Northern European Jewryrdquo Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy for Jewish Research 3839 (1970) 101ndash117

mdash ldquoThe Blois Incident of 1171 A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organizationrdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968) 13ndash31

Chernus Ira Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism Berlin Walter de Gruyter 1982Chester Andrew ldquoHigh Christology mdash Whence When and Whyrdquo Early Christianity 2

(2011) 22ndash50Chilton Bruce D ldquoThe Transfiguration Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Visionrdquo New

Testament Studies 27 (1981) 115ndash24Chokr Melhem Zandaqa et zindīqs en Islām au second siegravecle de lrsquoheacutegire Damascus Institut

Franccedilais des Eacutetudes Arabes de Damas 1993Christensen Michael J and Jeffery A Wittung Partakers of the Divine Nature The History

and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Tradition Madison NJ FairleighDickinson University Press 2007

Cohen Jeremy Christ Killers The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big ScreenNew York Oxford University Press 2007

mdash Sanctifying the Name of God Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First CrusadePhiladelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 2004

mdash Living Letters of the Law Ideas of the Jew in medieval Christianity Berkeley Universityof California Press 1999

mdash ldquoMedieval Jews on Christianity Polemical Strategies and Theological Defenserdquo Pages77ndash89 in Interwoven Destinies Jews and Christians through the Ages Edited by EugeneJ Fischer Studies in Judaism and Christianity Mahwah NJ Stimulus FoundationPaulist Press 1993

mdash ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Chris-tian Polemicrdquo Pages 71ndash84 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume Studies on the Historyof the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period Edited by Daniel Carpi et alJerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen 1993

mdash ldquoToward a Functional Classification of Jewish Anti-Christian Poelmic in the High MiddleAgesrdquo Pages 93ndash114 in Religionsgespraumlche im Mittelalte Edited by Bernhard Lewis andFriedrich Niewoumlhner Wolfenbuumltteler Mittelalter-Studien 4 Wiesbaden Harrassowitz1992

mdash Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict From Late Antiquity to the Re-formation New York New York University Press 1991

mdash The Friars and the Jews The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism 2nd ed Ithaca NYCornell University Press 1983

mdash ldquoThe Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition from Augustine to the FriarsrdquoTraditio 39 (1983) 1ndash27

Cohen Mark R Under Crescent and Cross The Jews in the Middle Ages Princeton Prince-ton University Press 1994

358 Bibliography

Cohen Shaye J D ldquoDoes Rashirsquos Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity A Compari-son of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shorrdquo Pages 249ndash72 in The Idea of BiblicalInterpretation Essays in Honor of James L Kugel Edited by Hindy Najman and JudithH Newman Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism 83 Leiden Brill 2004

mdash Review of George Howard The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive HebrewText Bible Review 4 (June 1988) 8ndash9

Collins Adele Yarbro and John J Collins King and Messiah as Son of God Divine Humanand Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature Grand Rapids Eerd-mans 2008

Cook John G The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism Studienund Texte zu Antiken und Christentum 3 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000 ReprPeabody Hendrickson 2002

Cotton Hannah M ldquoThe Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and theEgyptian κατrsquo οἰκίαν ἁπογραφήrdquo Pages 105ndash22 in Semitic Papyrology in Context AClimate of Creativity Papers from a New York University Conference Marking theRetirement of Baruch A Levine Edited by L H Schiffman Leiden Brill 2003

Courbage Youssef and Philippe Fargues Christians and Jews under Islam London I BTauris 1997

Cragg Kenneth The Arab Christian A History im the Middle East Louisville WestminsterJohn Knox 1991

Cramer Peter Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages c 200ndash1150 CambridgeStudies in Medieval Life amp Thought Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993

Czechowic Marcin Rozmowy Christyanskie Roku Alexius Rodeck 1575Daacuten Robert ldquoDas Problem des juumldischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewegung des

16 Jahrhundertsrdquo Pages 19ndash32 in Der Einfluszlig der Unitarier auf die europaumlisch-amerikanische Geistesgeschichte Edited by W Deppert W Erdt and Aart de GroorUnitarismusforschung 1 Frankfurt P Lang 1990

mdash ldquoIsaac Troky and his lsquoAntitrinitarianrsquo Sourcesrdquo Pages 69ndash82 in Occident and Orient Atribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber Edited by R Daacuten Leiden Brill BudapestAkadeacutemia Kiadoacute 1988

Dapaah Daniel S The Relationship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth ACritical Study Lanham Md University Press of America 2005

Davies William D and Dale C Allison The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume IIntroduction and Commentary on Matthew IndashVII The International Critical Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

mdash The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume II Introduction and Commentary onMatthew VIIIndashXVIII The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of theOld and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

mdash The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume III Commentary on Matthew TheGospel According to Saint Matthew XIXndashXXVIII The International Critical Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Edinburgh TampT Clark 1997

De Lange Nicholas ldquoOrigins of Anti-Semitismrdquo Pages 21ndash37 in Anti Semitism in Times ofCrisis Edited by Sander L Gilman and Steven T Katz New York New York UniversityPress 1991

mdash ldquoA Fragment of Byzantine AntindashChristian Polemicrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990)92ndash100

De Lubac Henri Medieval Exegesis The Four Senses of Scripture 3 vols Grand RapidsEerdmans 1998ndash2009

Bibliography 359

Deines Roland ldquoCan the lsquoRealrsquo Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus A Review ofthe Popersquos Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debaterdquo Pages 199ndash232 inThe Pope and Jesus of Nazareth Christ Scripture and the Church Edited by AdrianPabst and Angus Paddison London SCM 2009 A longer version of this article is pub-lished in Didaskalia 39 (2009) 11ndash46

mdash ldquoDas Erkennen von Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte bei Matthaumlusrdquo Pages 403ndash441 inHeil und Geschichte Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heils-geschichte in der biblischen Tradition und in der theologischen Deutung Edited by JoumlrgFrey Stefan Krauter and Hermann Lichtenberger Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I248 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2009

mdash ldquoDie Verwendung der Bergpredigt im aumlltesten erhaltenen Text der juumldischen Adversus-Christianos-Literaturrdquo Pages 372ndash400 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche WissenschaftStandorte mdash Grenzen mdash Beziehungen Edited by Lutz Doering Hans-Guumlnther Waubkeand Florian Wilk Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-ments 226 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2008

mdash ldquoNot the Law but the Messiah Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew mdash AnOngoing Debaterdquo Pages 53ndash84 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of MatthewEdited by Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

mdash Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I177 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2004

Denzinger Heinrich and Adolf Schoumlnmetzer Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum etdeclarationum de rebus fidei et morum 35th ed Freiburg Herder 1973

DeVine Charles F ldquoThe Blood of God in Acts 2028rdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947)381ndash408

Dietrich Ernst Ludwig ldquoDas juumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlch am Ausgang des 16Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuch des R Isaak Trokirdquo Judaica 14 (1958) 1ndash38

Donaldson Terrence L Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament Decision Points andDivergent Interpretations London SPCK 2010

Doumlrnyei Zoltaacuten ldquoTransfiguration Beauty and Biblical Interpretationrdquo MA diss Universityof Nottingham 2011

Dudenberg Ismo ldquoThe School of Valentinusrdquo Pages 64ndash99 in A Companion to Second-Cen-tury Christian lsquoHereticsrsquo Edited by Anti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen Leiden Brill2008

Dunn Geoffrey D Tertullian The Early Church Fathers London Routledge 2004Dunn James D G Did the first Christians worship Jesus The New Testament Evidence

London SPCK 2010mdash Jesus Remembered Christianity in the Making 1 Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2002mdash Christology in the Making A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of

the Incarnation 2nd ed London SCM 1989Edwards James R The Hebrew Gospel amp The Development of the Synoptic Tradition Grand

Rapids Eerdmans 2009Edwards John ldquoNew Light on the Converso Debate The Jewish Christianity of Alfonso de

Cartagena and Juan de Torquemadardquo Pages 311ndash26 in Cross Crescent and ConversionEdited by Simon Barton and Peter Linehan The Medieval Mediterranean 73 LeidenBrill 2008

Ehrman Albert ldquoWhen Was the lsquoSefer Nitzakhonrsquo Writtenrdquo Harvard Theological Review71 (1978) 154ndash57

mdash ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahon A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaismrdquo PhD diss New YorkUniversity 1974

360 Bibliography

Eidelberg Shlomo The Jews and the Crusaders The Hebrew Chronicles of the First andSecond Crusade Madison The University of Wisconsin 1977

El Kaisy-Friemuth Maha ldquoAl-Ghazālīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Bibliographical His-tory Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Online

mdash ldquoAl-Radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat ʿĪsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīlrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Biblio-graphical History Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Online

mdash ldquoAl-radd al-jamīl Ghazālīrsquos or pseudo Ghazālīrsquosrdquo Pages 275ndash95 in The Bible in ArabChristianity Edited by David Thomas Leiden Brill 2007

Elliott James K The Apocryphal New Testament A Collection of Apocryphal ChristianLiterature in an English Translation Oxford Oxford University Press 1993

Emery Richard W ldquoNew Light on Profayt Duran lsquoThe Efodirsquordquo Jewish Quarterly Review 58(1968) 328ndash37

mdash Heresy and Inquisition in Narbonne New York Columbia University Press 1941 ReprNew York AMS 1967

Esbroeck Michel van ldquoLe manuscript heacutebreux Paris 755 et lrsquohistoire des martyrs deNedjranrdquo Pages 25ndash30 in La Syrie de Byzance agrave Islam VIIe ndash VIIIe sieacutecles Actes ducolloque international ldquoDe Byzance agrave lislamrdquo Edited by P Canvivet and J-P Rey-Co-quais Damas Institut franccedilais de Damas 1992

mdash ldquoDer von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Ver-folgung von seiten Dū Nuwāsrdquo Pages 105ndash15 in Ausgewaumlhlte Vortraumlge XXIV DeutscherOrientalistentag Edited by Werner Diem and Abdoldjavad Falaturi Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenlaumlndischen Gesellschaft Supplementband 8 Stuttgart F Steiner 1990

Evans Craig A ldquoJewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew Observations on three recentPublicationsrdquo Mishkan 38 (2003) 70ndash79

Fassler Margoth E Gothic Song Victorine Sequences and Augustine Reform in twelfth-cen-tury Paris Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993

Feldmeier Reinhard Die Krisis des Gottessohnes Die Gethsemaneerzaumlhlung als Schluumlsselder Markuspassion Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II21Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1987

Ferguson Everett Baptism in the Early Church History Theology and Liturgy in the FirstFive Centuries Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2009

Firpo Massimo Antitrinitari nellrsquoEuropa orientale del rsquo500 Nuovi testi di Szymon BudnyNiccolograve Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo Florence La nuova Italia 1977

Fisher JDC Christian Initiation Baptism in the Medieval West Alcuin Club Collections47 London SPCK 1965

Fleischer Heinrich L ldquoUumlber eine juumldisch-arabische Streitschrift gegen das ChristentumrdquoBerichte uumlber die Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 34(1882) 57ndash75 Repr pages 167ndash86 in Kleinere Schriften Vol 3 Leipzig S Hirzel 1883

Fleischmann Stefan Szymon Budny Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weiszligrussischenHumanisten und Unitariers (ca 1530ndash1593) Cologne Boumlhlau 2006

Flusser David Jesus 3d ed Jerusalem Magnes 2001Ford David F ldquoAn Interfaith Wisdom Scriptural Reasoning between Jews Christians and

Muslimsrdquo Modern Theology 22 (2006) 345ndash66Fossum Jarl E ldquoAscensio Metamorphosis The lsquoTransfigurationrsquo of Jesus in the Synoptic

Gospelsrdquo Pages 71ndash94 in The Image of the Invisible God Essays on the Influence of Jew-ish Mysticism on Early Christology Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus 30 GoumlttingenVandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995

Frank Daniel Search Scripture Well Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish BibleCommentary in the Islamic East Leiden Brill 2004

Bibliography 361

Frankenmoumllle Hubert ldquoAntijudaismus im Matthaumlusevangelium Reflexionen zu einer an-gemessenen Auslegungrdquo Pages 168ndash98 in Studien zum juumldischen Kontext neutesta-mentlicher Theologie Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbaumlnde Neues Testament 37 StuttgartKatholisches Bibelwerk 2005

Frey Joumlrg ldquoZur Vielgestaltigkeit judenchristlicher Evangelienuumlberlieferungenrdquo Pages 93ndash137 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienuumlberlieferungen Edited by Joumlrg Frey and JensSchroumlter Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testamen I254 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 2010

mdash ldquoDie Scholien nach dem juumldischen Evangelium und das sogenannte Nazo-raumlerevangeli-umrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der aumllteren Kirche94 (2003) 122ndash37

Freyne Seacutean ldquoVilifying the Other and Defining the Self Matthewrsquos and Johnrsquos Anti-JewishPolemic in Focusrdquo Pages 117ndash43 in ldquoTo See Ourselves as Others See Usrdquo ChristiansJews ldquoOthersrdquo in Late Antiquity Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S Frerichs ChicoCal Scholar 1985

Frick David A ldquoSzymon Budny and Sacred Philology Between East and Westrdquo Pages 309ndash49 in Vol 3 of Biblia Slavica Series II Polnische Bibeln Vol 3 Budny Part 2 (com-mentary) Edited by R Olesch and H Rothe Paderborn F Schoumlningh 1994

mdash Polish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation Berkeley Univer-sity of California Press 1989

Frimer Norman (Nachman) E and Dov Schwartz The Life and Thought of Shem Ṭov IbnShaprut [ שפרוטאבןטובשםרשלהגותוכתביודמותוהאימהבצלהגות ] JerusalemBen-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East 1992 [Hebrew]

Funkenstein Amos ldquoPolemics Responses and Self-Reflectionrdquo Pages 170ndash219 in Percep-tions of Jewish History (Berkeley University of California Press 1993

mdash ldquoReflections on Anti-Judaism 3 Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewis Polemics in the LateMiddle Agesrdquo Viator 2 (1972) 373ndash82

mdash ldquoChanges in Patterns of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Centuryrdquo[ היבבמאהלנוצריםיהודיםשביןהדתבווכוחהתמורות ] Zion 33 (1968) 125ndash44[Hebrew]

Gadamer Hans-Georg Truth and Method 2nd ed Translated by Joel Weinsheimer andDonald G Marshall London Sheed amp Ward 1989

Gager John G ldquoDid Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islamrdquo Pages 361ndash72 in The Waysthat Never Parted Edited by Adam H Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed Texts and Stud-ies in Ancient Judaism 95 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2003

mdash The Roots of Anti Semitism Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian AntiquityOxford Oxford University Press 1983

Garshowitz Libby Review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ ldquoLa Piedra deToquerdquo (Eben Bohan) Una Obra de Controversia Judeo-Cristiana Jewish Quarterly Re-view 90 (2000) 457ndash65

mdash ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo Pages 299ndash306 in vol 1 of TheFrank Talmage Memorial Volume Edited by Barry Walfish Jewish History 6 HaifaHaifa University Press 1993

mdash ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone) chapters 2ndash10 based onMS Plutei 217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from othermanuscriptsrdquo 2 vols PhD diss University of Toronto 1974

Gaon Solomon The Influence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the PentateuchCommentary of Isaac Abravanel New York Ktav 1993

Gathercole Simon J The Pre-existent Son Recovering the Christologies of Matthew Markand Luke Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2006

362 Bibliography

Gaudeul Jean-Marie Encounters and Clashes Islam and Christianity in History 2 vols Stu-di arabo-islamici del PISAI 15 Rome Pontificio istituto di studi arabici e islamici 2000

Gebhardi Brandanus Henricus Centum Loca Novi Testamenti quae R Isaac ben Abrahamin suo אמונהחזוק ie Munimine Fidei depravaverat vindicata Greifswald LitterisDanielis Benjaminis Starckii 1699

Geiger Abraham ldquoIsaak Troki Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehntenJahrhundertsrdquo Pages 178ndash223 in vol 3 of Abraham Geigerrsquos Nachgelassene SchriftenEdited by Ludwig Geiger 5 vols Berlin Louis Gerschel 1876

Gero Stephen ldquoThe Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth Yeshurdquo Oriens christianus 59 (1975)108ndash20

Gloumlckner Richard Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der WundertatenGottes in den Psalmen Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Verwandtschaft zwi-schen neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen Walberberger Studien der Al-bertus-Magnus-Akademie Theologische Reihe 13 Mainz Matthias-Gruumlnewald 1983

Golb Norman The Jews in Medieval Normandy A social and intellectual history Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 1998

mdash Jewish Proselytism A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early Medieval EuropeThe Tenth Annual Robbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture Cincinnati Judaic StudiesProgram University of Cincinnati 1987

mdash ldquoNew Light on the Persecution of French Jews at the Time of the First Crusaderdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 34 (1966) 1ndash63

Goldstein Morris Jesus in the Jewish Tradition New York Macmillan 1950Gondreau Paul The Passions of Christrsquos Soul in the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas

Muumlnster Aschendorff 2002 Repr Scranton Scranton Press 2008Gousset Jaques Jesu Christi Evangeliique veritas salutifera demonstrata in confutatione libi

Chizzuk Emunah a R Isaaco scripti Edited by Arnold Borst Amsterdam J Borstius1712

mdash Controversiam adversus Judaeos ternio Dordrecht Ex Officina Viduae Caspari ampTheodori Goris 1688

Graetz Heinrich Geschichte der Juden Von den aumlltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart4th ed 11 vols Leipzig Oskar Leiner 1897 Repr Darmstadt WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft 1998

Grayzel Solomon The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1198ndash1254 Vol 1Philadelphia Dropsie College Press 1933

mdash ldquoThe Papal bull Sicut Iudeisrdquo Pages 243ndash80 in Studies and Essays in Honor of AbrahamA Neumann Edited by Meir Ben-Horin Bernard D Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin Lei-den Brill Philadelphia Dropsie College Press 1962

Grayzel Solomon and Kenneth Stow The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1254ndash1314 Vol 2 New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1989

Grillmeier Aloys Christ in Christian Tradition Volume 2 mdash From the Council of Chalcedon(451) to Gregory the Great (590ndash604) Part Four Translated by OC Dean LondonMowbray 1996

mdash [Alois] Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Band 1 mdash Von der Apostolischen Zeitbis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451) 3d ed Freiburg Herder 1990

mdash Christ in Christian Tradition From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) Translated byJohn S Bowden London Mowbray 1965

Grindheim Sigurd Godrsquos Equal What Can We Know About Jesusrsquo Self-UnderstandingLibrary of New Testament Studies 446 London TampT Clark 2011

Gross Heinrich Gallia Judaica Dictionnaire geacuteographique de la France drsquoapregraves les sourcesrabbiniques Paris L Cerf 1897

Bibliography 363

Grossman Avraham ldquoThe Commentary of Rashi on Isaiah and the Jewish-Christian DebaterdquoPages 47ndash62 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History Festschrift inHonor of Robert Chazan Edited by David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman and Eliot RWolfson Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15 Leiden Brill2012

mdash ldquoThe Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis in the Twelfth-CenturyFrancerdquo [ לפרשת(יבבמאהבצרפתלמקראהיהודיתוהפרשנותהיהודי־הנוצריהפולמוס

)הפולמוס אל קרא רי של זיקתו ] Zion 51 (1986) 29ndash60 [Hebrew]Gundry Robert H The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthewrsquos Gospel With Special

Reference to the Messianic Hope Leiden Brill 1967Gutwirth Eleazar (Eliezer) ldquoConversions to Christianity amongst fifteenth-century Spanish

Jews An alternative Explanationrdquo Pages 97ndash121 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee VolumeStudies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period Edited byDaniel Capri et al Jerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen 1993

mdash ldquoReligion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon An Aspect of Profayt DuranrsquosActivitiesrdquo Michael 12 (1991) 142ndash45

mdash ldquoHistory and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish thoughtrdquo Helmantica 35(1984) 231ndash42

Hagner Donald A The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus An analysis amp critique of the modernJewish study of Jesus Eugene Or Wipf amp Stock 1997

Hahneman Geoffrey Mark The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the CanonOxford Theological Monographs Oxford Oxford University Press 1992

Halkin Abraham Solomon ldquoSaadiah (ben Joseph) Gaonrdquo Pages 606ndash14 in vol 17 of Ency-clopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik DetroitMacmillan 2007

Hamilton Jr James M ldquolsquoThe Virgin Will Conceiversquo Typological Fulfillment in Matthew118ndash23rdquo Pages 228ndash47 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of Matthew Editedby Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

Hamori Esther J When Gods where Men The Embodied God in Biblical and Near EasternLiterature Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuumlr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384 BerlinWalter de Gruyter 2008

Hannah Darrell D Michael and Christ Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II109 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1999

Hanson Richard P C The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God The Arian Controversy318ndash381 Edinburgh TampT Clark 1988

Harnack Adolf ldquoGeschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth 517) in der aumlltestenKirche Eine Skizzerdquo Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften(1912) 184ndash207

Harris Murray J Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to JesusGrand Rapids Baker Book House 1992

Hengel Martin Die Zeloten Untersuchungen zur juumldischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeitvon Herodes I bis 70 n Chr Leiden Brill 1961 2nd rev ed 1976 3rd rev and repub-lished ed by Roland Deines and Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-gen zum Neuen Testament I283 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

mdash ldquolsquoSetze dich zu meiner Rechtenrsquo Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm1101rdquo Pages 281ndash367 in Studien zur Christologie Kleine Schriften IV Edited by Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I201 Tuuml-bingen Mohr Siebeck 2006

364 Bibliography

mdash ldquoDie ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelienrdquo Pages 99ndash117 in Beim Wortnehmen mdash die Schrift als Zentrum fuumlr kirchliches Reden und Gestalten Friedrich Milden-berger zum 75 Geburtstag Edited by Michael Krug Ruth Loumldel and Johannes RehmStuttgart Kohlhammer 2004 Repr pages 702ndash724 in Jesus und die Evangelien KleineSchriften V Edited by Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zumNeuen Testament I211 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007

mdash ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israel The Debate about the lsquoMessianic Missionrsquo of Jesusrdquo Pages323ndash49 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig AEvans Leiden Brill 1999

mdash ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israelrdquo Pages 1ndash72 in Studies in Early Christology EdinburghTampT Clark 1995

mdash ldquolsquoSit at my right handrsquordquo Pages 119ndash225 in Studies in Early Christology Edinburgh TampTClark 1995

mdash The Zealots Investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period from Herod Iuntil 70 AD Translated by David Smith Edinburgh TampT Clark 1989

mdash ldquolsquoChristosrsquo in Paulrdquo Pages 65ndash77 and 179ndash88 in Between Jesus and Paul Studies inEarliest Christology London SCM 1983

mdash The Son of God The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic ReligionTranslated by John Bowden London SCM 1976

Herford R Travers Christianity in Talmud and Midrash London Williams amp Norgate1903

Heer Joseph M Die Stammbaumlume Jesu nach Matthaumlus und Lukas Biblische Studien 1512Freiburg Herder 1910

Herbst Adolf Des Shemtob ben Schaprut hebraeische Uumlbersetzung des Evangliums Matthaeinach den Drucken des S Muumlnster und J Du Tillet-Mercier neu herausgegeben Goumlttin-gen Dietrich 1879

Hofius Otfried ldquoJesu Zuspruch der Suumlndenvergebung Exegetische Erwaumlgungen zuMk 25brdquo Pages 38ndash56 in Neutestamentliche Studien Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I132 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000

mdash ldquoGesetz und Evangelium nach 2 Korinther 3 Hartmut Gese zum 60 Geburtstagrdquo Pages75ndash120 in Paulusstudien Band I 2nd ed Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament I51 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1994

Holmeacuten Tom ldquoJesusrsquo Inverse Strategy of Ritual (Im)purity and the Ritual Purity of EarlyChristiansrdquo Pages 15ndash32 in Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient ContextPapers from the EABS-Meeting in PiliscsabaBudapest Edited by Michael Labahn andOuti Lehtipuu Contributions to Biblical Exegesis amp Theology 54 Leuven Peeters 2010

Hood Jason B The Messiah His Brothers and the Nations (Matt 11ndash17) Library of NewTestament Studies 441 New York TampT Clark 2011

Hood John Y B Aquinas and the Jews Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press1995

Horbury William ldquoThe Strasbourg Text of the Toledoth Yeshurdquo Pages 49ndash59 in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited by Peter SchaumlferMichael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

mdash ldquoDie juumldischen Wurzeln der Christologierdquo Early Christianity 2 (2011) 5ndash21mdash ldquoThe Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Boḥanrdquo Pages 729ndash38 in

Matthew 19ndash28 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to SaintMatthew by W Davies and Dale C Allison The International Critical Commentary onthe Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

Bibliography 365

mdash Hebrew apologetic and polemical literaturerdquo Pages 189ndash209 in Hebrew Scholarship andthe Medieval World Edited by Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 2001

mdash ldquoThe Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Studyrdquo Pages 106ndash31 in Hebrew Study From Ezra toBen-Yehuda Edinburgh TampT Clark 1999

mdash Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ London SCM 1998mdash ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983) 497ndash514 Repr and rev

in pages 243ndash261 in Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy Edinburgh TampTClark 1998

mdash ldquoThe Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Bohanrdquo Sefarad 43 (1983) 221ndash37mdash Review of David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages Journal

of Theological Studies 34 (1983) 329ndash37mdash ldquoThe Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian Controversyrdquo Journal of

Theological Studies 33 (1982) 19ndash61mdash ldquoThe Trial of Jesus in Jewish Traditionrdquo Pages 103ndash121 in The Trial of Jesus Cambridge

Studies in honour of CFD Moule Edited by Ernst Bammel Studies in Biblical Theology213 London SCM 1970

mdash ldquoA Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshurdquo PhD diss University of Cambridge1970

Horowitz Elliot ldquolsquoAnd It is Turned Aroundrsquo Jews against their Enemies in the Festivities ofPurimrdquo [ הפוריםבחגיגותשונאיהםמוליהודיםהואנוהפוך ] Zion 59 (1994) 129ndash68[Hebrew]

Horst Pieter Willem van der ldquoBirkat ha-Minim in recent researchrdquo Pages 113ndash24 in Hel-lenism-Judaism-Christianity Essays on Their Interaction 2nd ed Contributions to Bibli-cal Exegesis and Theology 8 Kampen Kok Pharos 1994 First published in The Exposi-tory Times 105 (1993ndash94) 363ndash68

Howard George ldquoShem Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthew A Literary Textual and Theological Pro-filerdquo Pages 177ndash234 in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Macon Ga Mercer UniversityPress 1995

mdash ldquoThe Textual Nature of Shem-Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthewrdquo Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989) 239ndash57

mdash ldquoThe Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthewrdquo Journal of Biblical Litera-ture 105 (1986) 49ndash63

Hughes Peter ldquoIn the footsteps of Servetus Biandrata David and the Quranrdquo Journal ofUnitarian Universalist History 31 (2006) 57ndash63

mdash ldquoServetus and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005) 55ndash70Hulen Amos B ldquoThe lsquoDialogues with the Jewsrsquo as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument

against Christianityrdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932) 58ndash70Hurtado Larry W How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God Historical Questions about

Earliest Devotion to Jesus Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2005mdash Lord Jesus Christ mdash Devotion in Earliest Christianity Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2003Hurtado Larry W and Paul L Owen lsquoWho is this son of manrsquo The Latest Scholarship on

a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus Library of New Testament Studies 390Edinburgh TampT Clark 2011

Instone-Brewer David ldquoBalaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotations inMatthew 2rdquo Pages 207ndash37 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of MatthewEdited by Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

Isaac Jules Jesus and Israel Translated by Sally Gran Edited by Claire Huchet BishopNew York Holt Rinehart amp Winston 1971

366 Bibliography

Jacob Irving The Midrashic Process Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic JudaismCambridge Cambridge University Press 1995

Jastrow Marcus A Dictionary of Targumim Talmud and Midrashic Literature London WC Luzac 1886ndash1903 Repr Peabody Hendrickson 2005

Johansson Daniel ldquoJesus and God in the Gospel of Mark Unity and Distinctionrdquo PhDdiss University of Edinburgh 2012

Johnson Marshall D The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special Reference to theSetting of the Genealogies of Jesus Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series8 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1969

Jordan William C The French Monarchy and the Jews From Philip August to the LastCapetians Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 1989

Jouassard Georges ldquoLrsquoabandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition Greque des IV et Vsiegraveclesrdquo Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925) 609ndash33

mdash ldquoLrsquoabandon du Christ drsquoapregraves saint Augustinrdquo Revue des sciences philosophiques ettheacuteologiques 13 (1923) 310ndash26

Juel Donald Messianic Exegesis Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in EarlyChristianity Philadelphia Fortress 1988

Juumlngel Eberhard ldquoVom Tode des Lebendigen Gottesrdquo Pages 105ndash25 in Unterwegs zurSache Theologische Bemerkungen Beitraumlge zur evangelischen Theologie 61 MunichKaiser 1988

Kahn Zadoc ldquoEacutetude sur le livre de Joseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 1 (1880)222ndash46 3 (1881) 1ndash38

Kamen Henry The Spanish Inquisition An Historical Revision New Haven Yale Uni-veristy Press 1998

Kannengisser Charles Arius and Athanasius Two Alexandrian Theologians CollectedStudies 353 Aldershot Variorum 1991

mdash ldquoAthanasius of Alexandria vs Arius The Alexandrian Crisisrdquo Pages 204ndash15 in The Rootsof Egyptian Christianity Edited by Birger A Pearson and James E Goehring Philadel-phia Fortress 1986 Repr in Arius and Athanasius Two Alexandrian Theologians Col-lected Studies 353 Aldershot Variorum 1991

Kaplan Joseph ldquoPablo de Santa Mariardquo Pages 563ndash63 in vol 15 of Encyclopaedia Judaica2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Kasher Rimon ldquoThe Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literaturerdquo Pages 547ndash94 inMikra Text Translation Reading amp Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Juda-ism amp Early Christianity Edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling Compendia re-rum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 21 Assen Van Gorcum 1988 Repr PeabodyHendrickson 2004

Katz Jacob Exclusiveness and Tolerance Oxford Oxford University Press 1961Kealy Seaacuten P Matthewrsquos Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation Book 1 Mellen

Biblical Press Series 55a Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1997Kehrer Hugo Die Heiligen drei Koumlnige in Literatur und Kunst Erster Teil Leizpig

E A Seeman 1908Kelly John N D Early Christian Doctrines 5th rev and repr ed London Continuum 2011mdash Early Christian Creeds 3d ed London Longman 1972Kesich Veselin ldquoThe Antiocheans and the Temptation Storyrdquo Studia Patristica 7 (1966)

496ndash502mdash ldquoHypostatic and Prosopic Union in the Exegesis of Christrsquos Temptationrdquo St Vladimirrsquos

Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965) 118ndash37Kessler Edward An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations Cambridge Cambridge Uni-

versity Press 2010

Bibliography 367

Kessler Gwynn Conceiving Israel The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives Philadelphia Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press 2009

Kidder Richard A Demonstration of the Messias In which the Truth of the Christian Reli-gion is defended especially against The Jews 3 vols London J H for W Rogers at theSun amp M Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1699

Kingsbury Jack D Matthew Structure Christology Kingdom Philadelphia Fortress 1976Kisch Guido The Jews in Medieval Germany A Study of their Legal and Social Status

Chicago The University of Chicago Press 1949Kissinger Warren S The Sermon on the Mount A History of Interpretation and Bibliogra-

phy Metuchen NJ Scarecrow 1975Klatzkin Jacob Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris 4 vols

Berlin Eschkol 1928 Repr Hildesheim Olms 2004Klauck Hans-Josef Apocryphal Gospels An Introduction Translated by Brian McNeil Lon-

don TampT Clark 2003Klijn A F J Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 17

Leiden Brill 1992Klostermann Erich Das Matthaumlusevangelium 4th ed Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 4

Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971Kobler Franz ed Letters of Jews through the Ages From Biblical Times to the Middle of the

Eighteenth Century 2nd ed 4 vols London Ararat 1953Koumlhler Wolf-Dietrich Die Rezeption des Matthaumlusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaumlus

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II24 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck1987

Koumlppen Klaus Peter Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter Besonderer Beruumlck-sichtigung der alten Kirche Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 4 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1961

Krauss Samuel ldquoUn Fragement poleacutemique del la Guenizardquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 63(1912) 63ndash74

Krauss Samuel and William Horbury The Jewish-Christian Controversy From the EarliestTimes to 1789 mdash Volume I History Edited and rev by William Horbury Texts and Stud-ies in Ancient Judaism 56 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1995

Krey Philip D W and Lesley Smith eds Nicholas of Lyra The Senses of Scripture Studiesin the History of Christian Thought 90 Leiden Brill 2000

Kupp David D Matthewrsquos Emmanuel Divine Presence and Godrsquos People in the FirstGospel Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 90 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 1996

Labarge Margaret Wade Saint Louis Louis IX Most Christian King of France Boston Lit-tle Brown 1968

Lagrange Marie-Joseph Eacutevangile selon Saint Luc Eacutetudes Bibliques Paris V Lecoffre1921

Lahey Lawrence L ldquoJewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine JewishndashChristian Debate inthe Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilardquo Journal of Jewish Studies 51 (2000) 281ndash96

Langmuir Gavin I ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian ContactsScholarship and In-tolerance in the Medieval Academy Commentrdquo American Historical Review 91 (1986)614ndash24

Lapide Pinchas E Hebrew in the Church Foundations of Jewish Christian Dialogue GrandRapids Eerdmans 1984

mdash ldquoDer laquoPruumlfsteinraquo aus Spanien Die einzige rabbinische Hebraisierung des Mt-Evangeli-umsrdquo Sefarad 34 (1974) 227ndash72

368 Bibliography

Lasker Daniel J ldquoJewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Cen-turiesrdquo Pages 97ndash109 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History Fest-schrift in Honor of Robert Chazan Edited by David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman andEliot R Wolfson Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15Leiden Brill 2012

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianity In Search of a New Narrativerdquo Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 6 (2011) 1ndash9

mdash Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages 2nd ed OxfordThe Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2007

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Christian Debate in Transition From the Lands of Ishmael to the Lands ofEdomrdquo Pages 53ndash65 in Judaism and Islam Boundaries Communication and Interac-tion mdash Essays in Honor of William M Brinner Edited by Benjamin H Hary John LHayes and Fred Astren Jewish Studies 27 Leiden Brill 2000

mdash ldquoMajor Themes of the Jewish-Christian Debate God Humanity Messiahrdquo Pages 107ndash130 in The Solomon Goldman Lectures Perspectives in Jewish Learning mdash Vol 7 Editedby Dean Phillip Bell Chicago Spertus College of Judaica 1999

mdash Popular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christi-antyrdquo Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999) 243ndash59

mdash ldquoTeaching Christianity to Jews The Case of Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian PolemicsrdquoPages 73ndash86 in Judaism and Education Essays in Honor of Walter I Ackerman Editedby Haim Marantz Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press 1998

mdash ldquoJewish Polemics against Christianity in Thirteenth-Century Italyrdquo Pages 251ndash63 in Ḥa-zon Naḥum Studies in Jewish Law Thought and History Edited by Yaakov Elman andJeffrey S Gurock New York Yeshiva University Press 1997

mdash ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemic in Ashkenazrdquo Pages 195ndash214 in Contra Iudaeos Ancientand Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews Edited by Ora Limor and GuyStroumsa Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 1996

mdash ldquoJewish-Christian Polemics at the Turning Point Jewish Evidence from the Twelfth Cen-turyrdquo Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996) 161ndash73

mdash ldquoJudeo-Christian Polemics and Their Origins in Muslim Countriesrdquo הפולמוס]האסלאם בארצות ומקורוריו היהודי־נוצרי ] Pelsquoamim 57 (1993) 4ndash16 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer The Earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jew-ish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo Pages 112ndash18 in Genizah Research After Ninety Years TheCase of Judaeo-Arabic Papers read at the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Ara-bic Studies Edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C Reif Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 1992

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianity under Islam in the Middle Agesrdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Jewish Research 57 (1990ndash1991) 121ndash53

Lauterbach Jacob Z ldquoSubstitutes for the Tetragrammatonrdquo Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy of Jewish Research 2 (1930) 39ndash67

Le Jeune Martin Evangelium Matthaei ex Hebraeo fideliter redditum Translated into Latinby Jean Mercier Paris 1555

Leff Gordon Heresy in the Late Middle Ages 2 vols Manchester Manchester UniversityPress 1967

Leford Louis-Theacuteophil ldquoAgrave propos de lsquoLrsquoHistoire de Joseph le Charpentierrdquo Le Museacuteon 66(1953) 201ndash23

Levine Amy-Jill and Marc Z Brettler eds The Jewish Annotated New Testament NewYork Oxford University Press 2011

Bibliography 369

Levinger Jacob S and Irene Garbell ldquoDuran Profiatrdquo Pages 56ndash57 in vol 6 of Encyclopae-dia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan2007

Levy B BarryldquoWhy Bar-nash Does Not Mean lsquoIrsquordquo Pages 85ndash101 in vol 1 of The FrankTalmage Memorial Volume Edited by Barry Walfish Jewish History 6 Haifa Haifa Uni-versity Press 1993

Lewis Bernhard The Jews of Islam Princeton Princeton University Press 1984Lichtenstein-Herschensohn Yechiel Tzvi אמתאמונתחזוק Befestigung im wahren Glauben

an Jesum Christum den Sohn Gottes Leipzig C W Vollrath 1879 [Hebrew]Limor Ora ldquoJudaism examines Christianity The Polemic of Nestor the Priest and Sefer

Toledot Yeshurdquo [ ישותולדותוספרהכומרנסתורפולמוסבנצרותמתבוננתיהודות ]Pelsquoamim 75 (1998) 109ndash28 [Hebrew]

mdash Ed Jews and Christians in Western Europe Encounter between Cultures in the MiddleAges and the Renaissance [ ראשיתעדאירופהבמערבונוצריםיהודיםלנוצריםיהודיםבין

החדשה העת ] 5 vols Tel Aviv The Open University of Israel 1993ndash98 [Hebrew]Limor Ora and Israel I Yuval ldquoJudas Iscariot Revealer of the Hidden Truthrdquo Pages 197ndash

220 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Editedby Peter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Lindars Barnabas New Testament Apologetic The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testa-ment Quotations London SCM 1961

Lods Marc ldquoEtude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chretiensrdquoRevue drsquohistoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941) 1ndash33

Loeb Isodore ldquoPoleacutemistes Chreacutetiens et Juifs en France et en Espagnerdquo Revue des eacutetudesjuives 18 (1889) 43ndash70 219ndash42

mdash ldquoLa Controverse religieuse entre les Chreacutetiens et les Juifs au moyen acircge en France et enEspagnerdquo Revue de lrsquohistoire des religions 17 (1888) 311ndash37 18 (1888) 133ndash56

mdash ldquoLa controverse de 1240 sur le Talmudrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 1 (1880) 247ndash61 2(1881) 248ndash70 3 (1881) 39ndash57

Loewe Raphael ldquoHebraists Christianrdquo Pages 510ndash551 in vol 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoThe Medieval History of the Latin Vulgaterdquo Pages 102ndash54 in The Cambridge History ofthe Bible Volume 2 mdash The West From the Fathers to the Reformation Edited by GWHLampe Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1969

Longegravere Jean ldquoRaymond of Pentildeafortrdquo Pages 1213ndash14 in vol 2 of Encyclopedia of the Mid-dle Ages Edited by Andreacute Vauchez Barrie Dobson and Michael Lapidge J Clarke2000

Lossky Vladimir ldquoChristological Dogmardquo Pages 95ndash118 in Orthodox Theology An Intro-duction Translated by Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson Crestwood NY St VladimirrsquosSeminary Press 1978

mdash ldquoRedemption and Deificationrdquo Pages 97ndash110 in In the Image and Likeness of God Editedby John H Erickson and Thomas E Bird Crestwood NY St Vladimirrsquos SeminaryPress 1974

Lotter Friedrich ldquoGermanyrdquo Pages 293ndash304 of Medieval Jewish Civilization An Encyclope-dia Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages Edited by Norman Roth New YorkRoutledge 2002

mdash ldquoHostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfaumllschung bei den Juden-verfolgungen von 1298(lsquoRintfleischrsquo) und 1336ndash1338 (lsquoArmlederrsquo)rdquo Pages 533ndash83 in vol 5 of Faumllschungen imMittelalter Teil V Fingierte Briefe Froumlmmigkeit und Faumllschung Realienfaumllschungen6 vols Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 33V Hannover Hahn 1988

370 Bibliography

Louth Andrew ldquoFrom Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ St Maximus he Confessor on theTransfiguration of Christrdquo Pages 260ndash75 in In the Shadow of the Incarnation Essays onJesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E Daley SJ Edited by Peter WMartens Notre Dame University of Notre Dame 2008

Lukaszewski Albert L ldquoIssues Concerning the Aramiac Behind ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ACritical Review of Scholarshiprdquo Pages 1ndash27 in lsquoWho is this son of manrsquo The LatestScholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus Edited by Larry W Hurtadoand Paul L Owen Library of New Testament Studies 390 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2011

Lukowski Jerzy and Hubert Zawadzki A Concise History of Poland 2nd ed CambridgeCambridge University Press 2006

Luther Martin ldquoProtokoll und handschrifliche Eintraumlge Psalm CXXVIIrdquo Page 574 in vol 3of D Martin Luthers Werke Kritische Gesammtausgabe Die Deutsche Bibel WeimarH Boumlhlaus Nachfolger 1911

Luz Ulrich Matthew 1ndash8 Hermeneia Rev ed Minneapolis Fortress 2007mdash Matthew 8ndash20 Hermeneia Minneapolis Fortress 2001mdash Matthew 21ndash28 Hermeneia Minneapolis Fortress 2005mdash The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1995Maccoby Hyam Judaism on Trial Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages Lon-

don Associated University Presses 1982Mackintosh Hugh R The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT

Clark 1956Madigan Kevin The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought An Essay on Christo-

logical Development Oxford Oxford University Press 2007mdash ldquolsquoChristus Nesciensrsquo Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment Arian and Orthodox

Interpretation of Mark 1332 in the Ancient Latin Westrdquo Harvard Theological Review 96(2003) 255ndash78

Maier Johann Juumldische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike Ertraumlge derForschung 117 Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982

Mangenot Eugegravene ldquoBlasphegraveme contre le Saint-Espritrdquo Pages 910ndash16 in vol 2 of Diction-naire de theacuteologie catholique 18 vols Edited by Alfred Vacant and Eugegravene MangenotParis Letouzey at Aneacute 1905

Marx Alexander ldquoThe Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish TheologicalSeminary of America with Appendices on the Eben Bohan and on the Earlier HebrewTranslations of Matthewrdquo Pages 247ndash73 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and RelatedSubjects In memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus 1867ndash1923 late Chief of the JewishDivision New York Public Library New York The Alexander Kohut Memorial Founda-tion 1929 Repr pages 444ndash71 in Bibliographical Studies and Notes on Rare Books andManuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Edited byMenahem H Schmelzer New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1977

Massaux Eacutedouard The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Be-fore Saint Irenaeus 3 vols New Gospel Studies 51ndash3 Edited by Arthur J BellinzoniTranslated by Norman J Beval and Suzanne Hecht Macon Ga Mercer University Press1990ndash1993

McAfee Moss Carlene The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew Beihefte zurZeitschrift fuumlr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156 Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2008

McCulloh John M ldquoJewish Ritual Murder William of Norwich Thomas of Monmouth andthe Early Dissemination of the Mythrdquo Speculum 72 (1997) 698ndash740

McFarlane Kenneth B John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity LondonEnglish Universities Press 1952

Bibliography 371

McGrath James F ldquoJesus as False Prophetrdquo Pages 95ndash110 in Who do my opponents say thatI am An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus Edited by ScotMcKnight and Joseph B Modica Library of New Testament Studies 327 New YorkTampT Clark 2008

mdash Johnrsquos Apologetic Christology Legitimation and Development in Johannine ChristologySociety for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 111 Cambridge Cambridge Uni-versity Press 2001

McGrath James F and Jerry Truex ldquolsquoTwo Powersrsquo and Early Jewish and ChristianMonotheismrdquo Journal of Biblical Studies (2004) 43ndash71

McGuckin John A The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition Studies in theBible amp Early Christianity 9 Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1986

McKnight Scot ldquoA Loyal Critic Matthewrsquos Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspec-tiverdquo Pages 55ndash79 in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity Issues of Polemic and FaithEdited by Craig A Evans and Donald A Hagner Minneapolis Fortress 1993

McVey Kathleen E Ephrem the Syrian Hymns Mahwah NJ Paulist Press 1989Meerson Michael ldquoMeaningful Nonsense A Study if Details in Toledot Yesurdquo Pages 181ndash

96 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited byPeter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Menocal Mariacutea Rosa The Ornament of the World How Muslims Jews and Christians cre-ated a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain Boston Little Brown amp Company 2002

Merḥavia Ḥaim M Christianityrsquos Image of the Talmud The Attitude to the post-biblical Lit-erature of Israel in the Christian World of the Middle Ages (500ndash1248) [ בראיהתלמוד

)1248ndash500(בימי־הבינייםהנוצריבעולםהמקראשלאחרישראללספרותהיחסהנצרות ]Jerusalem Bialik 1970 [Hebrew]

Merkel Helmut Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien ihre polemische und apologe-tische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-gen zum Neuen Testament I13 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971

Metzger Bruce M The Canon of the New Testament Its Origin Development and Signifi-cance Oxford Oxford University Press 1987

Miller James ldquoThe Roots of Polish Arianismrdquo The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985)229ndash56

Mimouni Simon Claude Le judeacuteo-christianisme ancien Essais historiques (Patrimoines)Paris Cerf 1998

Mitchell Leonel L Baptismal Anointing ACC 48 London SPCK 1966Modica Joseph B ldquoJesus as Glutton and Drunkardrdquo Pages 50ndash75 in Who do my opponents

say that I am An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus Edited byScot McKnight and Joseph B Modica Library of New Testament Studies 327 NewYork TampT Clark 2008

Moltmann Juumlrgen The Crucified God The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticismof Christian Theology Translated by RA Wilson and John Bowden London SCM1974 Repr 2001

Moses A D A Matthewrsquos Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 122 Sheffield Sheffield Academ-ic Press 1996

Moyise Steven Old Testament in the New London TampT Clark 2001Muller Earl ldquoA lsquoSubordinationistrsquo Text in Origenrsquos De Principiisrdquo Studia Patristica 41

(2006) 207ndash12

372 Bibliography

Muumlller Johannes Judaismus oder Juumldenthum das ist Ausfuumlhrlicher Bericht von des juumldis-chen Volcks Unglauben Blindheit und Verstockung 1st ed 1644 2nd ed HamburgZ Haumlrtels 1707

Muumlller Mogens The Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo and the Development of Christology A His-tory of Interpretation Sheffield Equinox 2008

Muumlnster Sebastian Evangelium secundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica cum vesioneLatina atque succinctis annotationibus [ המשיח תורת ] Basle 1537

Mutius Hans-Georg von Die christlich-juumldische Zwangsdisputation zu Barcelona Judentumund Umwelt 5 Frankfurt P Lang 1982

mdash ldquoEin Beitrag zur polemischen juumldischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im MittelalterrdquoZeitschrift fuumlr Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980) 232ndash40

mdash ldquoDie Beurteilung Jesu und des Neuen Testamentes beim spanisch-juumldischen Religions-philosphen Josef Albordquo Freiburger Zeitschrift fuumlr Philosophie und Theologie 27 (1980)457ndash64

Najman Hindy Seconding Sinai The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second TempleJudaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77 Leiden Brill 2003

Narinskaya Elena Ephrem a lsquoJewishrsquo Sage A Comparison of the Exegetical Writings of StEphrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions Studia Traditionis Theologiae 7 TurnhoutBrepols 2010

Nemoy Leon ldquoTroki Isaac Ben Abrahamrdquo Pages 155ndash56 in vol 20 of Encyclopaedia Juda-ica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Nes Solrunn The Uncreated Light An Iconographical Study of the Transfiguration in theEastern Church Translated by Arlyne Moi Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2007

Netanyahu Benzion The Marranos of Spain From the late XIVth to the early XVIth centuryaccording to contemporary Hebrew sources New York American Academy for JewishResearch 1966

Neubauer Adolf S R Driver and E B Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah accordingto the Jewish Interpreters 2 vols Oxford and London James Parker 1876ndash77

Neusner Jacob A Rabbi Talks with Jesus 2nd ed Montreal McGill-Queenrsquos UniversityPress 2000

mdash The Incarnation of God The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism PhiladelphiaFortress 1988

Newman Hillel I ldquoThe Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literaturerdquo Journal of Theolo-gical Studies 50 (1999) 59ndash79

Nicholls Rachel Walking on the Water Reading Mt 1422ndash33 in the Light of its Wirkungs-geschichte Biblical Interpretation Series 90 Leiden Brill 2008

Nicloacutes (Albarraciacuten) Joseacute-Vicente ldquoLa disputa religiosa de D Pedro de Luna con el Judiacuteo deTudela D Shem Tob ibn Shaprut en Pamplona (1379) El contexto en la vida y la predi-cacioacuten de Vicente Ferrerrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 160 (2001) 409ndash33

mdash ldquoLrsquoEacutevangile en Heacutebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut Une traduction drsquoorigine judeacuteondashcata-lane due agrave converti replaceacutee dans son Sitz im Lebenrdquo Revue biblique 106 (1999) 358ndash407

Nirenberg David Review of Israel Jacob Yuval Two Nations in Your Womb American His-torical Review 112 (2007) 562ndash64

Norden Joseph David Deutsch (1810ndash73) Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O-S EinLebensbild Myslowitz Verein fuumlr juumldische Geschichte und Litteratur 1902

OrsquoCallaghan Joseph F Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain Philadelphia Universityof Pennsylvania Press 2004

Ochs Peter and Nancy Levene eds Textual Reasonings Jewish Philosophy and Text Studyat the End of the Twentieth Century Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2003

Bibliography 373

OrsquoCollins Gerald Christology A Biblical Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus 2nd edOxford Oxford University Press 2009

Osborne Thomas P ldquoLes femmes de la geacuteneacutealogie de Jeacutesus dans lrsquoevangile de Matthieu etlrsquoapplication de la Torahrdquo Revue theacuteologique de Louvain 41 (2010) 243ndash58

Osburn Caroll D ldquoThe Greek Lectionaries of the New Testamentrdquo Pages 61ndash74 in The Textof the New Testament in Contemporary Research Essays on the Status Questionis Editedby Bart D Ehrman and Michael W Holmes Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1995

Ostmeyer Karl-Heinrich ldquoDer Stammbaum des Verheiszligenen Theologische Implikationender Namen und Zahlen in Mt 11ndash17rdquo New Testament Studies 46 (2000) 175ndash92

Otto Randall ldquoDealing with Delay A Critique of Christian Copingrdquo Biblical TheologyBulletin 34 (2004) 150ndash60

Pahl Theodor Quellenstudien zu Luthers Psalmenuumlbersetzung Weimar H Boumllaus Nachfol-ger 1931

Parkes James W The Jew in the Medieval Community A Study of his political and economicSituation 2nd ed Judaic Studies Library New York Hermon 1976

mdash Conflict of Church and Synagogue A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism London Son-cino 1934

Pennells Stephen ldquoThe Spear Thrust (Matt 2749b vl Jn 1934)rdquo Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 19 (1983) 99ndash115

Petersen William L ldquoThe Vorlage of Shem-Tobrsquos lsquoHebrew Matthewrsquordquo New Testament Stud-ies 44 (1998) 490ndash512

mdash Tatianrsquos Diatessaron Its Creation Dissemination Significance amp History in ScholarshipLeiden Brill 1994

Pines Shlomo ldquoJudeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatiserdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Jewish Research 35 (1967) 187ndash217

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New SourcerdquoProceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 213 (1966) 1ndash73

Podet Alan H A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb by Leon Modena 1571ndash1648 Lewis-ton NY The Edwin Mellen Press 2001

Pollmann Karla ldquoPrudentiusrdquo Brillrsquos New Pauly Leiden Brill 2012 Brill OnlinePopkin Richard H Disputing Christianity The 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben

Abraham of Trokirsquos Classic Arguments New York Humanity Books 2007Porter Stanley E ed The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments Grand Rapids Eerdmans

2007mdash Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2006Posnanski Adolf Schiloh ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre Erster Teil mdash Die

Auslegung von Genesis 4910 im Altertume bis zu Ende des Mittelalters Leipzig J CHinrichs 1904

Pritz Ray A Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period untilits Dissapearance in the Fourth Century Jerusalem Magnes 1988

Przybilski Martin Kulturtransfer zwischen Juden und Christen in der deutschen Literaturdes Mittelalters Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 61 (295)Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2010

Puig i Tagraverrech Armand Jesus An Uncommon Journey Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament II288 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010

Pulcini Theodore Exegesis of Polemical Discourse Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and ChristianScriptures American Academy of Religion The Religions 2 Atlanta Scholars Press1998

Rankin Oliver S Jewish Religious Polemic Edinburgh TampT Clark 1956 Repr New YorkKtav 1970

374 Bibliography

Ratzinger Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI) Jesus of Nazareth From the Baptism in the Jordanto the Transfiguration Translated by Adrian J Walker New York Doubleday 2007

Ray Jonathan S The Sephardic Frontier The Reconquista and the Jewish Community inMedieval Iberia Ithaca NY Cornell University Press 2006

Reacutegneacute Jean ldquoEacutetude sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du Ve aux XIVe siegraveclerdquo Revue deseacutetudes juives 55 (1908) 1ndash36 221ndash43 58 (1909) 75ndash105 200ndash25 59 (1910) 58ndash89 61(1911) 1ndash27 248ndash66 63 (1912) 75ndash99

Reimarus Hermann Samuel Apologie oder Schutzschrift fuumlr die vernuumlnftigen VerehrerGottes Edited by Gerhard Alexander 2 vols Frankfurt Insel 1971

Reinhardt Klaus ldquoDas Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanienrdquo Traditio43 (1987) 321ndash58

Reinke Laurenz Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und von Immanuel Jes 714ndash16Muumlnster Coppenrath 1848

Reiser Marius ldquoAufruhr um Isenbiehl oder Was hat Jes 714 mit Jesus und Maria zu tunrdquoPages 277ndash330 in Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift Beitraumlge zur Geschichteder biblischen Exegese und Hermeneutik Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament I217 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007

Rembaum Joel E ldquoMedieval Jewish Criticism of the Christian Doctrine of Original SinrdquoAssociation for Jewish Studies Review 78 (198283) 353ndash82

mdash ldquoA Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscriptrdquo Association for Jewish StudiesReview 5 (1980) 81ndash99

mdash ldquoThe Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemicsrdquo Proceedings ofthe American Academy of Jewish Research 45 (1978) 156ndash85

mdash ldquoThe New Testament in medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemicsrdquo PhD diss Universityof California 1975

Rengstord Karl Heinrich and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch eds Kirche und Synagoge Hand-buch zur Geschichte von Christen mit Juden 2 vols Stuttgart Klett 1968 Repr Munichdtv 1988

Renoux Athanase ldquoLe Codex Armeacutenien Jeacuterusalem 121rdquo In Patrologia Orientalis 351 and362 (1969ndash1971)

Robinson Neal Christ in Islam and Christianity The Representation of Jesus in the Qurrsquoānand the Classical Muslim Commentaries Albany State University of New York Press1991

Rosen Klaus ldquoJesu Geburtsdatum der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldische Steuer-erklaumlrung aus dem Jahr 127 nCrdquo Jahrbuch fuumlr Antike und Christentum 38 (1995) 5ndash15

mdash ldquoZur Diskussion um Jesu Geburtsdatum Der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldischeSteuererklaumlrung aus dem Jahr 127 nCrdquo Pages 41ndash58 in Qumran und die EvangelienGeschichte oder Geschichten Edited by Walter Brandmuumlller Aachen MM Verlag 1994

Rosenkranz Simone Die juumldisch-christliche Auseinandersetzung unter islamischer Herr-schaft (7ndash10 Jahrhundert) Judaica et Christiana 21 Bern P Lang 2004

Rosenthal Erwin I J ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo Pages 307ndash62 of vol 1 of Kirche und SynagogeEdited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch 2 vols Stuttgart Klett1968 Repr Munich dtv 1988 Also pages 187ndash242 in Studia Semitica Volume 1 Jew-ish Themes Edited by Erwin I J Rosenthal Cambridge Cambridge University Press1971

mdash ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentariesrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 11(1960) 115ndash35 Repr pages 165ndash85 in Studia Semitica Volume 1 Jewish Themes Editedby Erwin I J Rosenthal Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1971)

Bibliography 375

Rosenthal Herman ldquoCasimir IV Jagellonrdquo Pages 598ndash99 in vol 3 of The Jewish Ency-clopedia A Descriptive Record of the History Religion Literature and Customs of theJewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day Edited by Isidore Singer12 vols New York Ktav London Funk Wagnalls 1901ndash1906

Rosenthal Judah M ldquoOn lsquoSefer Yosef HaMeqanersquo with the Publication of a New CriticalEditionrdquo Immanuel 2 (1973) 68ndash72

mdash ldquoMarcin Czechowic and Jacob of Bełżyce Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th CenturyPolandrdquo Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 34 (1966) 77ndash97

mdash ldquoThe Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reubenrdquo [ שלתרגוםראובןבןליעקבמתיעל־פיהבשורה ] Tarbiṣ 32 (196263) 48ndash66 [Hebrew] Repr pages

123ndash39 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography History and Literature in Honor of I EdwardKiev Edited by Charles Berlin New York Ktav 1971

mdash ldquoThe Anti-Christian Polemical Literature to the End of the Eighteenth Centuryrdquo ספרות]השמונה־עשרההמאהסוףעדהאנטי־נוצריתהיווכוח ] Areshet 2 (1960) 130ndash79 3

(1961) 433ndash39 [Hebrew]mdash ldquoProlegomena to a critical edition of Milḥamot Adonai of Jacob ben Reubenrdquo Proceed-

ings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 26 (1957) 127ndash37mdash ldquoThe Talmud on Trial The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240rdquo Jewish Quarterly

Review 47 (1956) 58ndash76 145ndash169Rosner Fred ed Abraham Maimonidesrsquo Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Contro-

versy Haifa The Maimonides Research Institute 2000Roth Cecil ldquoThe Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accustationrdquo Speculum 8

(1933) 520ndash26Roth Norman Conversos Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain Madison

University of Wisconsin Press 2002mdash ldquoNew Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledordquo Association for Jewish Studies Review 11

(1986) 189ndash220Rothfuchs Wilhelm Die Erfuumlllungszitate des Matthaumlus-Evangeliums Eine biblisch-theolo-

gische Untersuchung Beitraumlge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 58(88) Stuttgart Kohlhammer 1969

Rowland Christopher and Christopher R A Morray-Jones The Mystery of God Early Jew-ish Mysticism and the New Testament Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testa-mentum 12 Leiden Brill 2009

Rubin Miri Gentile Tales The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews New Haven YaleUniversity Press 1999

mdash ldquoDesecration of the Host The Birth of an Accusationrdquo Pages 169ndash85 in Christianity andJudaism Papers read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of theEcclesiastical History Society Edited by Diana Wood Studies in Church History 29Oxford Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society 1992

Ruderman David B The World of a Renaissance Jew The Life and Thought of Abraham benMordecai Farissol Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 6 Cincinnati HebrewUnion College Press 1981

Russell Norman The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition OxfordOxford University Press 2004

Ruether Rosemary Faith and Fratricide The Theological Roots of Anti-SemitismMinneapolis Seabury 1974

Saacutenchez Caro Joseacute Manuel Rosa Mariacutea Herrera Garciacutea and Inmaculada Delgado Jara Al-fonso de Madrigal el Tostado Introduccioacuten al evangelio seguacuten San Mateo Fuentes Doc-umentales 3 Aacutevila Institucioacuten Gran Duque de Alba Salamanca Universidad Pontificia deSalamanca 2008

376 Bibliography

Sandmel Samuel A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament 3d ed Woodstock VtJewish Lights Publishing 2008

Saeligboslash Magne ed Hebrew BibleOld Testament I From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages(Until 1300) Part 2 The Middle Ages Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2000

Saenger Max ldquoUeber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes הכלימהס oder כלימתrdquoהגוים Monatsschrift fuumlr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 4 (1854) 320ndash275 (1855) 197ndash202

Sanz Artibucilla Joseacute Mariacutea ldquoLos Judios En Aragoacuten y Navarra Nuevos datos biograacuteficosrelativos a Sem Tob ben Ishaq Saprutrdquo Sefarad 5 (1945) 337ndash66

Schaumlfer Peter ldquoThe Jew who whould be Godrdquo (review of Daniel Boyarin Jewish GospelsThe Story of the Jewish Christ) The New Republic (May 18 2012) Online httpwwwtnrcomprintarticle103373books-and-artsmagazinejewish-gospels-christ-boyarin

mdash Jesus in the Talmud Princeton Princeton University Press 2007Schaumlfer Peter Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch eds Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of

Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Schaller Berndt ldquoPaul Billerbecks Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch Wege und Abwege Leistung und Fehlleistung christlicher Judaistikrdquo Pages149ndash74 in Zwischen Zensur und Selbstbesinnung Christliche Rezeptionen des JudentumsEdited by Christfried Boumlttrich Judith Thomanek and Thomas Willi Greifswalder theo-logische Forschungen 17 Frankfurt P Lang 2009

Schlichting Guumlnter Ein juumldisches Leben Jesu Die verschollene Toledot-Jeschu-FassungTam ū-mūrsquoād Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I24 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1982

Schlosberg Leacuteon אלאסקףמגאדלהקצה Controverse drsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee agrave un deses colleacutegues vers lrsquoan 514 texte arabe Vienna Chez lrsquoeacutediteur 1880

mdash Controverse drsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee a un de ses collegravegues vers lrsquoan 514 Traduite enfranccedilais du texte arabe Publieacutee drsquoapregraves un ancien Manuscrit de la Bibliotheacuteque Natio-nale de Paris (No 755 du Catalogue) Versailles F Vieweg 1888

Schmitz Rolf ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten y su obra Milḥamot ha-Šemrdquo Pages 45ndash58 in PoleacutemicaJudeo-Cristiana Estudios Edited by Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle RodriacuteguezIberia judaica 1 Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1992

Schoeps Hans-Joachim The Jewish-Christian Argument A History of Theological ConflictTranslated by David E Green London Faber amp Faber 1963

Schonfield Hugh J According to the Hebrews a new translation of the Jewish life of Jesus(the Toldoth Jeshu) London Duckworth 1937

mdash An Old Hebrew Text of St Matthewrsquos Gospel Translated with an Introduction Notes andAppendices Edinburgh TampT Clark 1927

Schreckenberg Heinz Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und his-torisches Umfeld (1ndash11 Jh) Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 172 Frank-furt P Lang 1982 Repr and rev 4th ed 1999

mdash Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) Mit einer Ikonographie des Juden-themas bis zum 4 Laterankonzil Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 335Frankfurt P Lang 1988 Repr and rev 3d ed 1997

mdash Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld(13ndash20 Jh) Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 497 Frankfurt P Lang1994

Bibliography 377

Schreiner Stefan ldquolsquoEin Zerstoumlrer des Judentumsrsquo Mose ben Maimon uumlber den his-torischen Jesusrdquo Pages 323ndash45 in Trias of Maimonides Jewish Arabic and Ancient Cul-ture of Knowledge Edited by Georges Tamer Studia Judaica Berlin Walter de Gruyter2005

mdash ldquoIsaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (lsquoFaith Strenghtenedrsquo) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham ofTrokirdquo Pages 418ndash461 in The Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and ChristianSources Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher Grand Rapids Eerdmans2004

mdash ldquoIsaac of Trokirsquos Studies of Rabbinic Literaturerdquo Polin 15 (2002) 65ndash76mdash ldquoIbn Kammucircnas Verteidigung des historischen Jesus gegen den paulinischen Christusrdquo

Pages 453ndash479 in Geschichte mdash Tradition mdash Reflexion Volume 1 Judentum Festschriftfuumlr Martin Hengel zum 70 Geburtstag Edited by Hubert Cancik Hermann Lichtenbergerand Peter Schaumlfer Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1996

Schubert Kurt ldquoDas christlich-juumldische Religionsgespraumlch im 12 und 13 JahrhundertrdquoKairos 19 (1977) 161ndash86

Shatzmiller Joseph ldquoJewish Converts to Christianity in Medieval Europe 1200ndash1500rdquoPages 297ndash318 in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period Essays Pre-sented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday Edited by Michael Goodich SophiaMenache and Sylvia Schein New York P Lang 1995

Segal Alan F Two Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnos-ticism Leiden Brill 1977

Shereshevsky Esra Rashi the Man and his World New York Sepher-Hermon Press 1982Repr Northvale NJ J Aronson 1996

Shmuel (Kaufman) Yehuda Even Sermons of Redemption The Chapters of Jewish Apoca-lypse from the Finalization of the Talmud to the Beginning of the Sixth Century מדרשי]

הששיהאלףראשיתועדהבבליהתלמודמחתימתהיהודיתהאפוקליפסהפרקיגאולה ]Tel Aviv Bialik Institute Massada 1943 Repr 1953 1968 [Hebrew]

Siegfried Carl ldquoRaschirsquos Einfluss auf Nicolaus von Lira und Luther in der Auslegung derGenesisrdquo Archiv fuumlr Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1869 (1869)428ndash45 2 (1871) 39ndash65

Sievert Rosemarie Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-juumldischen Gespraumlch der Re-formationszeit Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Muumlnsteraner Judaistische Studien17 Muumlnster Lit 2005

Sim David C ldquoMatthewrsquos Use of Mark Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to ReplaceHis Primary Sourcerdquo New Testament Studies 57 (2011) 176ndash92

Simon Marcel ldquoChristian Anti Semitismrdquo Pages 202ndash33 in Verus Israel A Study of the Re-lations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire Oxford Oxford UniversityPress 1986 Repr pages 131ndash73 in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Con-flict From Late Antiquity to the Reformation Edited by Jeremy Cohen New York NewYork University Press 1991

Simonson David ldquoEine Sammlung polemischer und apologetischer Literaturrdquo 14ndash20in Festschrift fuumlr Aron Freimann zum 60 Geburtstage Edited by Alexander Marx andHerrmann Meyer Berlin Soncino-Gesellschaft der Freunde des juumldischen Buches eV1935

Siqueira Reinaldo ldquoThe Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretationrdquo Kerygma 3 (2011)23ndash42

Sivan Hagith ldquoFrom Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Chris-tian Polemicsrdquo Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000) 277ndash306

Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Believers in Jesus The Early Centuries Peabody Hendrickson2007

378 Bibliography

Smith R Payne A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St Luke Part II OxfordOxford University Press 1859

Specht Walter F ldquoChapter and Verse Divisionsrdquo Pages 105ndash107 in The Oxford Companionto the Bible Edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan Oxford Oxford Uni-versity Press 1993

Spinka Matthew Matthew Spinka John Hus A Biography Princeton Princeton UniversityPress 1968

mdash John Husrsquo Concept of the Church Princeton Princeton University Press 1966Spinks Bryan D Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism From the New

Testament to the Council of Trent Aldershot Ashgate 2006Stacey Robert C ldquoFrom Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration Jews and the Body of

Christrdquo Jewish History 12 (1998) 11ndash28Stein Siegfried Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth Century Narbonne London

University College London H K Lewis 1969mdash ldquoA Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Mersquoir b Simeonrsquos

Milḥemet Miṣwah (Narbonne 13th Cent)rdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959) 45ndash61Steinsaltz Adin The Talmud mdash The Steinsaltz Edition A Reference Guide New York Ran-

dom House 1989Steinschneider Moritz Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwis-

chen Muslimen Christen und Juden Kunde des Morgenlandes 63 Leipzig Brockhaus1877

mdash Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century With an Introduction on Tal-mud and Midrash mdash A historical essay from the German of M Steinschneider LondonLongman Brown Green Longmans amp Roberts 1857

Stillman Norman A The Jews of Arab Lands A History and a Source Book PhiladelphiaThe Jewish Publication Society 1979

Stow Kenneth R Jewish Dogs An Image and Its Interpreters mdash Continuity in theCatholic-Jewish Encounter Stanford Stanford University Press 2006

mdash Popes Church and Jews in the Middle Ages Confrontation and Response AldershotAshgate Publishing 2007

Strack Hermann L and Paul Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud unMidrash 6 vols Munich C H Beck 1922ndash61

Strecker Georg ldquoThe Problem of Jewish Christianityrdquo Pages 241ndash85 in Orthodoxy andHeresy in Earliest Christianity Second German edition with added appendicies by GeorgStrecker by Walter Bauer Edited by Robert A Kraft and Gehard Krodel PhiladelpiaFortess 1971

Stroumsa Sarah ldquoJewish Polemics Against Islam and Christianity In the Light of Judaeo-Arabic Textsrdquo Pages 241ndash50 in Judaeo-Arabic Studies Proceedings of the FoundingConference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies Edited by Norman Golb Studies inMuslim-Jewish Relations 3 Amsterdam Overseas Publishers Association 1997

mdash ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf A case study in polemical literaturerdquo Pages 155ndash59 inGenizah Research After Ninety Years The Case of Judaeo-Arabic Papers read at theThird Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies Edited by Joshua Blau andStefan C Reif Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1992

Suciu Alin ldquoNew Fragments form the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi FabriLignariirdquo Le Museacuteon 122 (2009) 279ndash89

Suler Bernard ldquoMartini Raymondrdquo Pages 584ndash85 in vol 13 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nded Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Szyszman Simon ldquoDie Karaumler in Ost-Mitteleuropardquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Ostforschung 6 (1957)24ndash54

Bibliography 379

Swartz Michael D Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism An analysis of Maʻaseh MerkavahTexte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 28 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1992

Sweetman J Windrow Islam and Christian Theology A Study of the Interpretation of Theo-logical Ideas in the two Religions Part 2 Volume 1 mdash The Mediaeval Developmentssignificant for comparative Study Historical Survey of the Second Period London Lut-terworth 1955

Swenson Kristin M ldquoPsalm 2217 Circling around the Problem Againrdquo Journal of BiblicalLiterature 123 (2004) 637ndash48

Synan Edward A The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages New York Macmillan 1965Talmage Frank E Introduction to Sefer HaNizzahon Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen ldquoKun-

tresimrdquo Texts and Studies 59ndash60 Jerusalem Hebrew University Dinur Center 1983ndash84[Hebrew]

mdash ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Immanuel 13 (1981) 69ndash85 Repr pages281ndash97 Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver Studies in Medieval Jewish Exegesis andPolemics Edited by Barry Dov Walfish Papers in Medieval Studies 14 Toronto Pontifi-cal Institute of Medieval Studies 1999

mdash Ed Disputation and Dialogue Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter New YorkKtav 1975

mdash Review of Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Faith Strengthened Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion 41 (1973) 430ndash32

Tanner Norman P Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 2 vols London Sheed amp Ward1990

Taylor Miriam S Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity A Critique of the ScholarlyConsensus Studia Post-Biblica 46 Leiden Brill 1995

Thiselton Anthony C Hermeneutics of Doctrine Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2007Thomas David ldquoAbū l-Ḥasan lsquoAlī ibn Sahl Rabban al-Ṭabarīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations

A Bibliographical History Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Onlinemdash ldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā l-Naṣārārdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Bibliographical History Leiden

Brill 2012 Brill Onlinemdash Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology History of Christian-Muslim Relations Leiden

Brill 2008mdash Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity Abū ʻĪsaacute al-Warrāqrsquos lsquoAgainst the Incarna-

tionrsquo Oriental Publication 59 Cambridge University of Cambridge Press 1996Thomas David Barbara Roggema and Alex Malett Christian-Muslim Relations A Biblio-

graphical History 3 vols Leiden Brill 2009ndash2011Torrance Thomas F Incarnation The Person and Life of Christ Edited by Robert T Walk-

er Downers Grove IVP amp Paternoster 2008Trautner-Kromann Hanne Shield and Sword Jewish Polemics Against Christianity and the

Christians in France and Spain from 1100ndash1500 Texts and Studies in Medieval and EarlyModern Judaism 8 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1993

Tuckett Christopher M Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition Synoptic Tradition in theNag Hammadi Library Studies of the New Testament and Its World EdinburghTampT Clark 1986

Trench Richard C Sacred Latin Poetry Chiefly Lyrical selected and arranged for use withnotes and introduction 3d rev ed London Macmillan 1874

Unterseher Lisa A The Mark of Cain and the Jews Augustinersquos Theology of Jews andJudaism Gorgias Dissertations 39 Early Christian Studies 9 Piscataway NJ Gorgias2009

Urbach Ephraim E ldquoEacutetude sur la litteacuterature poleacutemique au moyen-agerdquo Revue des eacutetudesjuives 100 (1935) 49ndash77

380 Bibliography

Vall Gregory ldquoPsalm 2217B lsquoThe Old Guessrsquordquo Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997)45ndash56

Valle Rodriacuteguez Carlos del ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten de Huesca Polemista Su patria y su eacutepocardquoPages 59ndash65 in Poleacutemica Judeo-Cristiana Estudios Edited by Johann Maier and Carlosdel Valle Rodriacuteguez Iberia judaica 1 Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1992

Vermes Geza Jesus the Jew A Historianrsquos Reading of the Gospels New York Macmillan1974

Visotzky Burton L Golden Bells and Pomegranates Studies in Midrash Leviticus RabbahTexte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 94 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2003

mdash ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbahrdquo Proceedings of the American Academy ofJewish Research 56 (1990) 83ndash100

Vogt Peter Der Stammbaum bei den Heiligen Evangelisten Matthaumlus Biblische Studien123 Freiburg Herder 1907

Vose Robin Dominicans Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon CambridgeStudies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth Series 74 Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press 2009

Waysblum Marek ldquoIsaac of Troki and Christian Controversy in the XVI Centuryrdquo Journalof Jewish Studies 3 (1952) 62ndash77

Webb Robert L ldquoJohn the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesusrdquo Pages 179ndash230 in Studyingthe Historical Jesus Evaluations of the State of Current Research Edited by BruceChilton and Craig A Evans Leiden Brill 1994

Weinandy Thomas G In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh An Essay on the Humanity of ChristLondon TampT Clark 1993

Wilken Robert L The Christians as the Romans Saw Them 2nd ed New Haven Yale Uni-versity Press 2003

mdash ldquoThe Baptism of Jesus in the Late Fathersrdquo Studia Patristica 11 (1972) 268ndash77Willi-Plein Ina and Thomas Willi Glaubensdolch und Messiasbeweis Die Begegnung von

Judentum Christentum und Islam im 13 Jahrhundert in Spanien Forschungen zumJuumldisch-Christlichen Dialog 2 Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag 1980

Williams A Lukyn Adversus Judaeos A Birdrsquos-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until theRenaissance Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1935 Repr 2012

mdash Christian Evidences for Jewish People 2 vols Cambridge W Heffer 1911 Repr Eu-gene Wipf and Stock 1998

Williams Jacqueline A Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from NagHammadi Atlanta Scholar Press 1988

Williams Rowan Arius Heresy and Tradition 2nd ed London SCM 2001Wolfson Harry A ldquoAn Unknown Splinter Group of Nestoriansrdquo Revue drsquoeacutetudes augustini-

ennes et patristiques 6 (1960) 249ndash53mdash ldquoMore about the Unknown Splinter group of Nestoriansrdquo Revue drsquoeacutetudes augustiniennes

et patristiques 11 (1965) 217ndash22Wright N T ldquoJesusrsquo Self-Understandingrdquo Pages 47ndash61 in The Incarnation An Interdiscipli-

nary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God Edited by Stephen T Davis DanielKendall and Gerald OrsquoCollins Oxford Oxford University Press 2002

mdash ldquoForeword to the New Editionrdquo Pages ixndashxxvi in Conflict Holiness and Politics in theTeachings of Jesus by Marcus J Borg 2nd ed London Continuum 1989

Wyschogrod Michael ldquoIncarnation and Godrsquos Indwelling Israelrdquo Pages 165ndash78 in Abra-hamrsquos Promise Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations Edited by R Kendall SoulenGrand Rapids Eerdmans 2004

Bibliography 381

mdash ldquoWhy is the Theology of Karl Barh of Interest to a Jewish Theologianrdquo Pages 211ndash24 inAbrahamrsquos Promise Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations Edited by R KendallSoulen Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004

mdash ldquoA Jewish Perspective on Incarnationrdquo Modern Theology 12 (1996) 195ndash209Yarbro Collins Adela and John Joseph Collins King and Messiah as Son of God Divine

Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature Grand RapidsEerdmans 2008

Yuval Israel Jacob Two Nations in Your Womb Perceptions of Jews and Christians in LateAntiquity and the Middle Ages Berkeley University of California Press 2006

Zajączkowski Ananiasz Karaims in Poland History Language Folklore Science WarsawPaństwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1961

Zellentin Holger M Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature Texte undStudien zum Antiken Judentum 139 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Zunz Leopold Zur Geschichte und Literatur Erster Band Berlin Veit 1845Zwiep Irene E ldquoJewish scholarship and Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia Profiat

Duran and the art of memoryrdquo Pages 224ndash39 in Hebrew Scholarship and the MedievalWorld Edited by Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2001

382 Bibliography

Index of Literature

Hebrew Bible

Genesis11 299 302126 205 299126ndash27 302128 8022ndash3 7127 80 232224 283411 1461911 1451917 1463320 2774910 3

Exodus41 110422 2321025 2471313 1951516 243175 277193 2332011 712012 1482312 713311ndash23 1123320 50 833428 1883429ndash35 2283430 140 3084034 339

Leviticus1312 261199ndash10 1201918 236 2832523 193

Numbers121ndash8 112127 2671422 22817 2612319 60 144 192 343369 107 223365ndash9 107

Deuteronomy424 82434 82436 49 82 233512ndash15 71516 148521 23664 6564ndash5 288613 229 283616 28383 188 190 228817 22893 48 8299 188911 188918 188925 1881010 188131ndash5 2411315ndash17 139141 2811815 2811815ndash17 139 1432223ndash24 1432319 1442319ndash20 1332419ndash20 120349ndash12 112

Joshua11 2671012ndash15 232

Judges637 110639 110

2 Samuel1910 261

1 Kings134 1451717ndash24 231 2321722 2321824 110 2321836ndash38 232198 344

2 Kings48ndash38 23158 110 228510 230 232514 232618 1451321 232

Isaiah18 26169ndash10 2837 2997ndash9 10 298711 228712 228713 228714 7 8 10 11 12 22 53

72 106 143 144 154 224 235 259 277 278 283 298 300 305 306 307 320 323 328

716 27783 283823 2839 29991 30095 25996 279 306 30711 49111ndash3 183 2831419 283

296 822913 2832915 261387ndash8 2324114 253421ndash4 61 68 196 283449 2854413 234491ndash15 46519ndash11 75213 298 303601 2476010ndash12 247628 2436211 283

Jeremiah175 192 236 309236 2773114 2833115 299 3003227 61

Ezekiel710 2612127 261371ndash14 231 233

Hosea85 153111 300

Joel227 31331 313

Amos37 221 237ndash38911 261

Micah51 283 29952 225 226

Zechariah213 7199 283 299 3431112ndash13 284 301147 59

384 Index of Literature

Malachi31 283310 110 22845ndash6 299

Psalms2 56 6322 46 6326ndash7 45 68 29828 12137 7148 7176 7186 7919 71177 2431713 7122 63 203ndash204 253221(2) 53 115 205 206 253

254 343222 253226 2532216 2532220 253 254241 193 309316 200339 161352 713522ndash23 71373 2363725 203 343444 2434423 714426 715113 2045522 236

594ndash5 71681 717217 2597422 71825 285826 274 275828 719112 268110 7 46 56 64 2991101 7 46 63ndash65 28311611 1921214 49 71 148 179 34213213ndash14 711356 16113812 851463 192 309

Proverbs2027 162268 236

Job920 2851118ndash19 711617 2462228 114 199256 2533723 249

Daniel31ndash30 119327 202713 57 299

2 Chronicles2420ndash21 284

Inter-Testamental Writings

2 Baruch218 59

JosephusAntiquitates judaicae4325ndash26 235

Targum Ruth315 105

Philo of AlexandriaDe vita Mosis1158 235

De plantatione50 243

Wisdom of Solomon71 232


New Testament

Matthew1 30011 1 24011ndash16 48 53 103 104 124

178 220 223 32111ndash17 181ndash8211ndash223 712ndash16 17713 18215 18216 182115ndash16 182116 106 137 139 142 143

178 183117 1 177 223118 7 139 142 183118ndash24 7118ndash25 235 321119 144120 7 48 49 73 339120ndash23 1 106 305120ndash25 305121 139 142 320122 7 9 300122ndash23 7 53 72 272 277

283 288 299123 1 7 11 140 143 144

306 339124 7124ndash25 178 300 305125 7 51 76 139 143 181

183 287 306 32021ndash2 28321ndash12 22521ndash22 49 23125 22525ndash6 9 28326 225 299211 283213 145213ndash14 139 145 178 184213ndash15 220 227214 145 342214ndash15 270 300214ndash20 343215 9 227216ndash18 283 300

216ndash20 342217 9217ndash18 299219ndash23 283222ndash23 7223 9 30033 935ndash6 178311 236313 178 185313ndash17 103 104 108 124 186

220 227 321314ndash15 109 186 321315 1 186 320316ndash17 178 185317 50 63 23741 28841ndash10 300 30841ndash11 51 103 104 110 124

178 188 220 222 228 255 268 321

42 50 18043 111 189 191 22843ndash4 270 28845 28846 111 189 191 22846ndash7 268 287 28847 28348 288410 283411 111 230412 342413ndash15 283 300414 9418ndash19 293423 18051ndash84 219517 11 12 178 320517ndash18 180517ndash19 22 43 177 300 318517ndash30 320518 178520ndash24 236527 236533ndash39 103533ndash42 236538 44


539 181539ndash40 103543 283 300543ndash48 236543ndash44 103543ndash47 44544 12061ndash4 23665ndash15 23669 304 305618ndash19 245619ndash23 236624ndash34 236625ndash26 140 146 14776ndash12 236716 112720 112724ndash29 21981ndash4 103 139 141 147 178

220 230819 301817 9818 149818ndash20 139 147 149 150 178819 301819ndash20 300 302 309 321820 138 147 150 191ndash93

314821ndash22 179 191821ndash25 139 147 148 335822 148823ndash25 49823ndash26 179 191823ndash27 71824 79 336824ndash25 179 191828ndash36 103829 189830 5791ndash5 14792ndash8 33596 57 139 147 149 150

151 178 191ndash93 32198 4199 28399ndash13 219911 177913 139 143 147918ndash26 220 231920 139 147 152

932ndash38 220 222 231 255923 240934 342101 140 165109ndash10 140 1651018 3291023 571025 2401032 103

1034 177 299 3061034ndash35 3001037 491040 68 300 303 305 309

3101041 68112ndash6 18117ndash15 299119 681110 2831111 138 153 237ndash381111ndash15 221 236 2551113ndash14 3001114ndash15 2371116ndash19 1551119 53 57 138 1551125ndash27 103 104 111 124 125

3211125ndash30 112 178 193 221 238

246 2551127 59 112 238 24412 122121ndash7 179121ndash8 18 103 219128 571210ndash12 1791215 3421215ndash21 2831217ndash21 91218 46 56 61 68 180 195

1961222ndash23 1231222ndash29 221 239 2551224 240 270 3421227 2401230ndash32 103 104 121 122 125

3211230ndash37 221 2411231 123


1231ndash32 138 140 141 155 157158 166 180 194ndash95 244

1232 57 299 300 302 305 310 322

1238 2431238ndash45 221 240 2421240 57 1801246 1791246ndash50 2401247ndash1318 179131ndash4 179138ndash13 1791310 103 1211310ndash13 1231310ndash15 2401312ndash15 103 1211313ndash15 2831314ndash15 1791314ndash16 91316 1791335 91337 57 139 158ndash1591341 57 243 245 3231343 2451353ndash58 137 178 2351354 49 691354ndash57 46 68 691355 48 3001355ndash56 51 76 300 3291357 50 68 180 195141ndash2 49141ndash12 240145 68148ndash10 501413 3421419ndash20 1801425 1801425ndash33 3351432ndash41 1241433 244 2451435 112151ndash10 219151ndash21 300157ndash9 2831517 79 1391521 3421521ndash25 103 1211521ndash28 1791521ndash29 240

1524 68 1231529ndash38 221 2421531 411539ndash1612 2361613 57 2451613ndash17 268 287 2881613ndash20 221 243 255 2641616 189 240 243 2451617 2451620 180 1951620ndash21 1951621 2401627 323171ndash8 221 245 335172 189172ndash3 189175 63 189 246179 57 3231712 57 1121712ndash13 2991714ndash17 1651717 3061720 49 1801722 571724ndash27 501727 3431811 571811ndash13 103 1211818 2641818ndash20 81820 306193ndash5 2831913ndash16 2191916ndash17 46 65 661916ndash21 140 179 196 269 301

310 3211917 270 287 288 3211922 1791928 57 3232018 57 3042020 3212020ndash23 49 77 782021 2702022 1602022ndash23 139 1602023 78 160 301 311 3142028 49 57 68 140 143

144 145 178 191 192 271 299 301 304 305 311 321


211ndash5 50 283214ndash5 9 299 3432110ndash22 221 2462111 682115ndashiexcl5 2832117ndash19 179 1972118f 3012118ndash19 103 104 119 124 125

3212118ndash21 2692118ndash22 3132120 269 2882137 1892146 682215ndash22 222 246 2472221 3432223ndash2425 2192241ndash45 2832241ndash46 63ndash642244 7 2992323ndash24 1812335 284 3012337 138 161243 1802415 92424 592427 572427ndash36 222 2482429ndash33 179 1982430 57 60 299 3232434 2482436 57 59 60 179 180 198

301 303 314 3292437 572439 57 602444 46 57 602531 57 323262 57266 3012617ndash20 2842621 180 1952624 572629 306 3432631ndash44 222 248 2552636 3072636ndash40 103 104 113 1242636ndash45 1242636ndash46 67 179 1992638 50 116 138 157

161ndash62 332

2638ndash39 1662638ndash42 512638ndash46 3212639 46 113 116 138 140

143 144 162 178 192 301 312 329 342

2641 68 118 138 161ndash62 249 328

2645 57 103 113 124 180 193

2647ndash50 235 2842647 2842652ndash54 2312650 3432654 2502663 1892664 7 57 299 323273ndash10 284279 301279ndash10 92711 682711ndash13 752725 1462727ndash66 222 2512734 274 2872738 2842739ndash43 2842741ndash42 682742ndash43 2002745ndash46 179 2022746 46 61 140 163 177

179 191 203 205 206 254 279 280 281 288 301 307 312 321 329 343

2749 812751ndash53 2842754 812762ndash66 2312811ndash15 2312816ndash19 103 104 125 137 141

164 1652816ndash20 106 120 139 164 179

206 222 3212818 178 193 206 301 312

3142818ndash19 1252818ndash29 1652819 2402820 7 206 306


Mark11ndash3 1012 28315 13919 32119ndash11 186112ndash13 51111 50210ndash11 1503 223322 342327 139328 302328ndash29 121435ndash43 71438 49 79 336519ndash20 10361ndash4 46 6963 48 76 269 288 32964 50 68615 6876ndash7 283719 18831ndash33 24993ndash4 189914f 140914ndash17 165914ndash20 165917 159919 165919f 140919ndash20 165921 159937 68 310107 2831017ndash18 66 2701017ndash19 461017ndash21 140 159 179 196

3101018 70 274 287 321

1035 3211035ndash40 49 77 78 2701037 2701038 1601038ndash40 781040 160 287 3111045 68 271 287 311111ndash6 501111ndash14 179 189 197

1112 1191112ndash14 3011112ndash40 3131113ndash14 271 288127 3431229ndash30 2881232 1221235 3121235ndash37 641236 7 46134 180 1991324ndash34 179 1981326 57 601332 46 59 60 70 180 198

199 301 303 305 314 322 329

1432ndash34 681432ndash37 103 1131432ndash38 511432ndash42 67 179 1991433 113 1141434 50 116 2001435 1131435ndash36 461436 144 192 3421438 68 118 3281440 1141440ndash41 104 1131441 180 1931462 7 57 2351464 329151 68152 681531 2001531ndash32 681533ndash34 179 2021534 46 61 254 312 3431539 811619 7 235

Luke126ndash28 80128 276130 48134ndash35 721ndash5 75221 306221ndash35 49241ndash48 272243ndash48 181


248 49 288321ndash22 51 76 178 186321ndash31 182322 50 77 323ndash25 220 223328ndash38 51331ndash32 220 22341ndash2 5041ndash3 5141ndash13 5143ndash4 270 288421 10422ndash24 69424 46 68524 150627ndash89 1987 79714ndash15 180716 68726 68 70734 53739 68823 79 336823ndash24 49823ndash27 71929ndash30 189932 189952ndash53 178957 302 3091016 3101022 591115 3421210 121 180 194ndash95 302

3101219 3021222ndash24 140 146 1471331ndash33 46 681333 68 701818ndash19 46 3221818ndash20 661818ndash22 3101819 2741843 411928ndash35 501937 412041ndash44 642042 462042ndash43 72127 572231ndash32 46 180 195

2233 2352239ndash46 502240ndash46 672241 3122242 3422244 50 2492246 68 3282269 72270 752334 1402335 2002346 2002347 812419 68 702444 10

John11 267 33811ndash2 26715 85112 281 287114 267 339117 189129ndash34 186145ndash46 178 18321 15421ndash4 14021ndash11 4922ndash4 13823 15423ndash4 15424 15427ndash9 18029 155335 7045ndash7 179 19147 15247ndash9 14047ndash15 138419 68422 181423 138525ndash30 140526ndash27 70530 147 271 287530ndash31 180530ndash32 46536ndash38 46 68537 46 68614 68


720 342740 68752 6883ndash11 144826 140826ndash17 46840 303 305854 139 158ndash59917 68929 18910 267106 2751017 691017ndash18 249 3431019ndash36 274 287 2881029 701030 2731033 181 3291034 274 275 2771034ndash36 2751035 2751035ndash36 2751036 2751038 120 309 310114 411144 1801214ndash15 501238 101249 1951249ndash50 46 68131ndash11 68133 301 314135ndash20 491316 701320 310147ndash10 120148ndash10 50149 50 77 78 273 2871410 273 2871413ndash14 1381420 273 2871423ndash24 1801428 70 3141522 1421615 301 31417 561725ndash26 461910 2491926 1541934 81

2017 462028 267

Acts116 10233 235233ndash35 73ndash4 281322 143 281 288323 68413 233531 7 235734 281737 68 143755ndash56 71327 101333 63 29815 3002016ndash17 276 2882028 276 338

Romans512ndash14 80515 303 305 332814 281 287834 795 276 288

1 Corinthians123 184ndash6 7086 272 288 337 338153 101525 71525ndash28 641528 701535ndash57 641545ndash49 80 332

2 Corinthians37ndash18 189

Galatians52ndash12 18

Ephesians120 7120ndash22 23526 745 186


Philippians25ndash11 337

Colossians113ndash20 337115 332116 43117 4328ndash9 276 28829 33231 7

1 Thessalonians215ndash16 146

Hebrews11ndash3 18913 7 23515 65113 727ndash8 31431ndash6 18935ndash6 268 287 28855 6381 7

107ndash9 701012ndash13 7121 71229 82

1 Peter322 7 235

1 John316 276 28842 33742ndash3 329412 272 288

2 John7 337

Jude14ndash5 276 288

Revelation117ndash18 276 288321 7512 276 288

Rabbinic Scriptures

MishnaPersquoah11 148

Ketubbot111 148

Avot311 236

Talmud BabliBerakhot24b 236

Shabbat 31a 23688b 236104b 342116a 12 195116b 12

Yoma4a 23521b 8237andashb 236

Rosh ha-Shana6b 192Sotah47a 240

Qiddushin28a 23649b 250

Bava Metzirsquoa85a 236

Bava Batra11a 236


Sanhedrin37a 23638a 24343andashb 240104b 240107b 240 270

Hullin133a 236

Niddah31a 232

Talmud YerushalmiTarsquoanit65b [2124] 60

Hagiga77d [227] 75

Sanhedrin23c [694] 75

MidrashimTanḥuma Yitro16 82

Tehillim49 105

Prsquosikta Rabbati11 82

Bereshit Rabbah65 232810 71319 232

Vayyiqra Rabbah156 232

Muslim Scriptures

Qurān297 72355 53359 41358ndash59 804157 53

575 5316102 721930 531933ndash34 534359 53

Christian Writings

1 Early Christian

Acts of Nicodemus Acts of Pilate16 81

Apostolic Constitutions 625 164

Barnabas129b 61

Dialogue of Athanasius amp Zacchaeus1 4022 7828ndash34 1130ndash34 5343 76

Dialogue of Simon amp Theophilus12ndash14 11312ndash13 53


Dialogue of Timothy amp Aquila512ndash18 328ndash2985ndash6 11 53186ndash10 11186ndash30 53266 11 533414ndash20 11 53

Gospel of Thomas44 122 123

History of Joseph the Carpenter2 767 749 7611 7673ndash74 7377 7378 7379 7399 73

Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew13 233

Infancy Gospel of Thomas15 47

Shepherd of Hermas565 108

Protoevangelium of James 92 891414ndash21 233171ndash2 89181 8920 79 89

Vita Sylvestry (Donation of Constantine)2 18

Kebra Nagast96 83

2 Patristic

Ambrose of MilanDe fide ad Gratianum55 160516 595139 59

Expositio Ev sec Lucam10 [317] 105865ndash67 6788 [1210] 122

Enarrationes in XII Psalmos39 272

AthanasiusDe decretis23 83

De incarnatione546 65

Epistulae festales 6 146

Orationes contra Arianos271 243342ndash50 59343 60 66

AugustinContra Faustum Manichaeum1211 146

De symbolo ad chatechumenos8 83

De Trinitate112 59123 59

Sermones7114 157

Basil of CaesareaEpistulae236 59


BedeExp in Ev S Matthaei24 5927 (28) 164

ChrysostomHomiliae in Matthaeum41 122631 67

Clement of AlexandriaStromata3593 79

CyprianAd Quirinum testimonia adv Jud24 243

Cyril of AlexandriaCommentarii in Lucam 122ndash23 67

Homiliae paschales173 83

Quod unus est Christus83

Cyril of JerusalemCatechesis36 154

EphremCom Diatessaron (ed McCarthy) 4 sect7 110ndash1115 sectsect1ndash11 6716 sect1 119 12016 sect3 11916 sectsect2ndash5 119 12020 sect1 116ndash117

EpiphaniusPanarion2994 215303 713037 21530131ndash224 21569(19) 160 3296958 16078 (58) 89

EusebiusHistoria ecclesiastica1717 1073246 2153255 2153273 21533916 2155103 2156254 215

Gregory of NazianzusOratio in laudam Basilii2918 59 279

Gregory of NyssaLibri contra Eunomium122 27234 272

HegemoniusActa Archelai59 109

Hilary of PoitiersIn Ev Matthaei Com86 151264 59

IgnatiusEpist ad Phld 3 11

IrenaeusAdversus haereses1261 712286 60311 21539 11 109392 753102 3233163 75 3233167 3233168 643171 3233183ndash4 323319 113191ndash2 3233193 8ndash9321 11322 75


3222 1174123 67423 114332 2725 655211 2725212 1885283 243531 64

JeromeAdv Helvidium de Mariae virg perp14 89

Adversus Pelagianos 32 109 215

Com in Matthaeum 125 2251211 22521111 15421213 21531917 6742436 59

De viris illustribus3 215

Epistulae205 2151208 215

Homiliae in psalmos108 146

John of DamascusDe fide orthodoxa38 83

Justin MartyrApologia I133 7032ndash35 113538 253

Dialogus cum Tryphone43 1145 7548ndash49 72

54 1159ndash60 8361 8363 1166ndash68 1166ndash69 5367 72681 327688 10697 240713 1077 1184 11841ndash3 10842 8884 109952ndash4 25197 25399 199992 117100 751003 2721003ndash4 3231011ndash2 661023 1461038 117104 253127ndash28 83128 83

LactantiusDivinae Institutiones422 6252 23353 41

Macarius MagnesApokritikos32 32834 66422 87

Nestoriusfrag24 110

OrigenHomiliae Genesium 143 226


Comm in ev Matthaei1510ndash11 6755 60

Contra Celsum16 240128 240 327131 249133ndash35 11134 53137 324161 146162 233166 146 184 227169 87170 18929 117211 249224 115232 75234 249236 81246 23333 41322 41336 41473 249442 41520 41669 156673 86ndash87

Frag ex comm in ev Matthaei487 59

Homiliae Lucam144 109

PrudentiusApotheosis (ed Thomson)pp 121ndash29 330

Pseudo-ClementHomiliae1811ndash3 67

Recognitiones1601ndash3 153

TertullianAdversus Judaeos9 1192 9 226

Adversus Marcionem3101 79312ndash13 113132 226410 323

Adversus Praxeam8 83

Apologeticus21 832115 3

De carne Christi4 875 32317ndash23 8718 61

De idololatria91 226

De resurrectione carnis51 64

Theodore of MopsuestiaIn ev Lucae com frg4 111

Hom catech1525 110


3 Anti-Christian Polemics

Julian ldquothe ApostaterdquoContra Galileos213A 73209Df 328253Ef 328262Cf 53 328

Photinus55 87 328

Porphyry (ed Berchman)sect28 11sect57 62sect62 41sect73 11sect96 79sect166 66sect175 68 328sect208 87

4 Medieval

Alcuin of YorkDe symbolo 509 (41) 155

Anselm of LaonEnarrationes in Mattheaum11 154

Sententiefol 86d 156

Isidore of SevilleEtymologiae7223 243

Petrus AlfonsiDialog cum Moyse judaeo8 277

Peter LombardSententiae4 264473 (45) 1874131 (72) 265

StraboGlossa Ordinaria Evang Matt2436 59

Thomas AquinasCatena AureaMatt 1111 154

Summa contra gentiles43429 2804391 280

Summa theologiae133 2803164ndash5 2803191 28034612 280

Vincent of BeauvaisSpeculum historiale891 264


Index of Modern Authors

Abramowski Luise 62Abulafia Anna Sapir 93 94 129

131ndash33Accad Martin 32 122Adler Michael 328Akhiezer Golda 293Aland Barbar 319Aland Kurt 319Allen W C 321Alexander Gerhard 291Alexander Philip 33 54Allison Dale 59 106 109 112 122

148 153 188 189 248 310Atiya Aziz 72Avneri Zvi 98 173 174 210

Bacher Wilhelm 17 25 323Baer Yitzhak 94 97 211 257 259

260 265Baltes Guido 215 318Bammel Ernst 42 47 54 81 327Banitt Menahem 129Bar-Ilan Meir 243Bat Yersquoor 35Battenberg Friedrich 171 174Batto Bernhard 71Bauckham Richard 4 233 337Bauer Walter 42 64 75 81 214Beaumont Mark 273Becker Eve-Marie 321Becker Hans-Juumlrgen 20 34Bedenbender A 20Beeson Charles 109Beinart Haim 210 211Ben-Chorin Shalom 17Benedict XVI 17Ben-Sasson Haim 169ndash71Ben-Shalom Ram 172Berchman Robert 11 41 62 66 68 79

87 328

Berger David 6 16 20 42 88 91 9293 94 136 137 144 149 150 156 163 167ndash206 288 321 324

Berger Samuel 213Berlin Anne 257 258 260 264 265

287Bezold Carl 83Biale David 11Biere Christina 20Billerbeck Paul 20 75 236Bindley Herbert 5Biscioni Antonio 216Blastenbrei Peter 174Blau Joshua 32Bliemetzrieder Franz 156Bloch Reneacutee 235Blumenkranz B 14 18 93 94 129

130 134 146 171 326Bobinchon P 2 26Bockmuehl Markus 148Borg Marcus 231Bowman Robert 337Boyarin Daniel 4 158 335Braude William 82Brayer Menachem 232Brettler Marc 320Breuer Mordecai 175 176 188 192Briggman Anthony 243Brown Raymond 60 75 76 106Broydeacute Isaac 127Burnett Stephen 17Burkett Delbert 57 323Burrell David 333Burton Robert 292Bynum Caroline 64

Cabaniss Allen 325Carlton Paget James 12 326 331Casey Maurice 57Chadwick Henry 75 87 115 146 327

Chapman David 252Chazan Robert 5 24 25 54 85 91 92

94 96ndash99 101 102 105 111123124 129ndash35 137 171 172 173 212341

Chernus Ira 189Chester Andrew 4Chidiac Robert 113 119 275Chiesa Bruno 25 266Chilton Bruce 189Chokr Melhem 32Christensen Michael 65Cohen Jeremy 21 93 94 96 97 134

146 170 172 173 207 251 258265 266 286 288 289

Cohen Mark 94 95Cohen Shaye 23 215Collins John 57 335Cook John G 2 327Cotton Hannah 75Courbage Youssef 35Cragg Kenneth 275Cramer Peter 187

Daacuten Robert 294Dapaah Daniel 238Davies William 59 106 109 112 122

148 153 188 248 310Deines Roland 1 10 17 44 47 186

247 319ndash20De Lacy Phillip 232De Lagarde Paul 74De Lange Nicholas 2 29 146De Lubac Henri 323Delegado Jara I 265Denzinger H 5 60Deutsch David 293ndash315Deutsch Yaacov 12DeVine Charles 276Di Capua Angelo 136Dietrich Ernst Ludwig 291Donaldson Terrence 317 320Doumlrnyei Zoltaacuten 335Driver Godfrey 83Driver S R 3Dunn James 4 63 70 196 268 337Dudenberg Ismo 79

Edwards James 215 318Edwards John 212

Ehrman Albert 137 167 169 175Eidelberg Shlomo 173Eisenstein Judah 6 342El Kaisy-Friemuth M 113Elliott James 318Emery Richard 173 257 258 260Evans Craig 19Evans Ernest 87Evetts B T A 72

Falls T B 327Fargues Philippe 35Fassler Margoth 154Feldmeier Reinhard 68Ferguson Everett 109 187Finkel Joshua 41Firpo Massimo 294Fisher J D C 187Fleischer Heinrich 31Fleischmann Stefan 294Fletcher Charles 41Fletcher-Louis Crispin 335Flusser David 17 320Ford David E C 265Ford David F 339Fossum Jarl 189Frank Daniel 302Frankenmoumllle H 317Frey Joumlrg 318Frick David 293Friedlaumlnder Jonathan 257ndash59Frimer N 209 211 216Freyne Seacutean 317Funkenstein Amos 21 326

Gadamer H-G 2Gager John 54 146Gale Aaron 320Gaon Solomon 265Garbell Irene 258Garshowitz Libby 209ndash219 227 235

252ndash55Gathercole Simon 8 70 335Gaudeul Jean-Marie 98Gebhardi B H 296Geiger Abraham 6 291 292ndash94 297Gero Stephen 30Gloumlckner Richard 71Golb Norman 34 130Goldstein Morris 12 20

402 Index of Modern Authors

Gondreau Paul 329Goodman Alan 63Gousset Jaques 296Graetz Heinrich 127 128 171 174

291 293Grayzel Solomon 94 97 134 173Green F W 5Grillmeier A 5 61 68 82Grindheim Sigurd 196 335 337Gross Heinrich 92Grossmann A 23 323Gundry Robert 9Gutwirth E 211 259 285

Hagner Donald 22Hahneman Ge H 319Halkin Abraham 100Hamilton James 10Hamori Eshter 334Hannah Darrell 72Hanson Richard 5 70 156 329Harnack Adolf 22Harris Murray 276Heer Joseph 76Hengel Martin 3 4 7 23 63 148 247

337Herbst Adolf 214Herford Travers 75Herrera Garciacutea R 265Herskowitz William 25 341ndash42Hebwitt James 215Hodgson Leonard 83Hoffmann Joseph 11 327Hofius Otfried 189 335Holmeacuten Tom 231Hood Jason 106Hood John 96 97 146Horbury William 4 14 15 16 18

23ndash26 29ndash31 91 105 127 128132 134 135 145 151 157 167168 170 175ndash76 192 209 210213ndash216 258ndash60 335 337

Horowitz Elliot 171Hovorun Cyril 249Howard George 214 215 216 219

239 246Hughes Peter 295Hulen Amos 326Hurtado Larry 4 57 337

Instone-Brewer D 9 225Isaac Jules 317

Jacob Irving 114Jastrow Marcus 158Johansson Daniel 71Johnson Marshall 106Jordan William 129 132 133 171 172Jouassard Georges 203Juel Donald 10Juumlngel Eberhard 281

Kahn Zadoc 127 128 137 141Kamen Henry 212Kannengiesser Ch 70Kaplan Joseph 212Katz Jacob 16Kasher Rimon 323Kaufman Y 23Kealy Seaacuten 13 23Kehrer Hugo 226Kelly John 7 38 115Kesich Veselin 111Kessler Edward 20Kessler Gwynn 232Kidder Richard 296Kingsbury Jack 8Kisch Guido 174Klatzkin Jacob 279Klauck Hans-Josef 89Klausner Joseph 17Klijn A F J 318Klostermann Erich 68 321Kobler Frany 259Koumlhler W-D 23Kohn Jakob 257ndash59Komoszewski Ed 337Koumlppen Klaus Peter 111Korobkin Daniel 25Kuumlng Hans 281 333Krauss Samuel 11 14 15 18 23ndash26 29

31 74 76 91 127 128 132134135 167 168 175 209 240 258ndash60

Krey Philip 264Kupp David 8 306

Lagrange M-J 75Lahey Lawrence 329Langmuir Gavin 16


Lapide Pinchas 17 91 127 128 136138 140 141 156 214 215 217 320

Lasker Daniel J 2 3 6 14ndash15 16 1720 21 25 26 29ndash86 92 98 110118 122 140 147 148 150 153168 172 182 199 249 251 258ndash61 325 332

Leff Gordon 265Leford Louis 74Levene Nancy 339Levinger Jacob 258Levine Amy-Jill 17 320Levy Barry 57Levy Joshua 94 101ndash125 143 144 161

182 185 186 196 213 220 224227 230 246 250

Lewis Bernhard 35 95Lichtenstein-H Y 296Limor Ora 14 26 34 36 55 89 168

176Lindars Barnabas 63Littman Gisegravele 35Lockwood W 25 266Lods Marc 327Loeb Isodore 92 134 169 209Loewe Raphael 18 244Loumlfstedt Bengt 154Lona Horacio 327Longegravere Jean 97Loofs Friedrich 39Loserth John 265Lossky Vladimir 337Lotter Friedrich 172ndash74Louth Andrew 335Lukaszewski A 57Lukowski Jerzy 292Luz Ulrich 22 57 59 60 67 106 111

119 148 151 160 161 164 189203 248 306 310

Maccoby Hyam 97 127 134 135 211334

Mackintosh Hugh 38Madigan Kevin 59 329Maier Johann 12Malett Alex 35Mangenot Eugegravene 122Maumlnnchen Julia 20Marx Alexander 214Massaux Eacutedouard 13 23

McAfee Moss C 9McCarthy Carmel 67 109ndash111 116ndash17

119 120McCulloh John 171McDaniel Thomas 215McFarlane Kenneth 265McGrath James 70 158 275McGuckin John 335McKnight Scott 317McVey Kathleen 88Meerson Michael 12 252Menocal Mariacutea Rosa 95Merḥavia Haim 134Merkel Helmut 75Metzger Bruce 319 Miller James 293Mimouni Simon 318Mitchell Leonel 187Mocatta Moses 297Modica Joseph 53Moltmann Juumlrgen 281 337Monferrer Sala J P 275Montefiore Claude 17Morray-Jones C 82Moses A D A 189Moyise Steven 10Muller Earl 70Muumlller Johannes 296Muumlller Mogens 57 151 272 323Murciano Prosper 26 34 226

Najman Hindy 235Narinskaya Elena 330Nemoy Leon 291Nes Solrunn 335Netanyahu Benzion 91 211 257ndash61

285 286Neubauer Adolf 3Neusner Jacob 17 71 334Newman Hillel 252Newman John Henry 154Nicholls Rachel 336Nicloacutes A Joseacute-Vicente 209 210 213

215 218 255 259Nirenberg David 171Nolan Mark 17Norden Joseph 297

OrsquoCallaghan Joseph 95OrsquoCollins Gerald 38


OrsquoNeill John 335Ochs Peter 339Osborne Thomas 106Osburn Caroll 13Ostmeyer K-H 222Otto Randall 248Overman Andrew 319

Pahl Theodor 20Parkes James 79 82 133 146Pennells Stephen 81Peacuterez Gonzalo 72Perlmann Moshe 25 58Petersen William 12 215Pines Shlomo 54 160Podet Allen 26 268Pollmann Karla 330Popkin Richard 291 293 297Porat Dina 171Porter Stanley 10Posnanski Adolf 3 91 92 93 127 175

188 226 257 258 264 269 277Pritz Ray 318Przybilski Martin 129Puig i Tagraverrech Armand 89Pulcini Theodore 275 310Pusey E B 3

Rankin Oliver 167Ratzinger Joseph 17Ray Jonathan 96Reacutegneacute Jean 132Reimarus Hermann 291Reinhardt Klaus 264Reinke Laurenz 8Reiser Marius 8 339Rembaum Joel 2 20 30 31 36 81 91

92 106 122 137 147 167 206 322324 326

Rengstorf K-H 127 130Renoux Athanase 13Resnick Irvin 85 93Robinson Forbes 74Robinson Neal 273Rodriacuteguez Carlos 91 92 259Roggema Barbara 35Rosen Klaus 75ndash76Rosenblatt Samuel 100 115 302Rosenkranz Simone 30ndash36 42 43 79

82

Rosenthal Erwin 23 127 135 258 259 294

Rosenthal Herman 293Rosenthal Judah M 14 91ndash94 100 102

114 118 128 134 136ndash65 169 181 182 185 192 194 206 251 253 294

Rosner Fred 334Roth Cecil 171Roth Norman 3 94 95 96 97 98 210

211 212 217 247 251 257 259Rothfuchs W 9Rowland Christopher 82Rubin Miri 171Ruderman David 268Ruether Rosemary 317Runesson Anders 321Rushdie Salman 102Russell Norman 65

Saeligboslash Magne 323Saenger Max 259Saldarini Antjony 319Saacutenchez Caro J M 265Sanders E P 148Sandmel Samuel 17 320Sanz Joseacute Mariacutea A 211Schaller Bernd 20Schaumlfer Peter 4 11 12 60 110 240 327Schubert Kurt 139Shatzmiller Joseph 34Schlichting Guumlnter 11Schlosberg Leacuteon 31Schmitz Rolf 91Schoeps H-J 20Schonfield Hugh 12 214Schoumlnmetzer A 5 60Schreckenberg H 14 85 91 96 98Schreiner Stefan 24 25 293 298Schwartz Dov 209 211 216Segal Alan 158Shedinger Robert 215Shereshevsky Esra 129Siegfried Carl 19ndash20Sievert Rosemarie 291 294Sim David 319 321Simon Marcel 146Simon Stanislaus 168Simonson David 175Siqueira Reinaldo 248Sivan Hagith 23 29


Skarsaune Oskar 54Slutsky Yehuda 171Smith Lesley 264Smith Payne 67Sourdel Dominique 32Specht Walter 244Spinka Matthew 264 265Spinks Bryan 187Stacey Robert 171Stein Siegfried 25 172Steinsalz Adin 192Steinschneider Moritz 35 167Stillman Norman 95Stoumlkl Ben Ezra D 13Stow Kenneth 94 134 171 173Strack Hermann 20 75 296Strecker Georg 72Stroumsa Sara 29ndash86 110 122 140 147

148 150 182 199 251 325 332Suciu Alin 74Suler Bernard 98Swartz Michael 82Sweetman Windrow 113 119 274 275

310Swenson Kristin 253Synan Edward 94Syszman Simon 292

Talmage Frank 24 74 83ndash84 115ndash116 121 168 226 237 240 251 257ndash59 262 264 266ndash86 288 291 342

Tanner Norman 39Taylor Miriam 331Thiselton Anthony 1 4Thomas David 35 55 98 201Thomson H J 330Thornton C-J 247Torrance Thomas 38Trautner-Kromann H 25 91 92 99 127

128 129 132 135 169 170 172 173 175 209 258 259

Trench Richard 154Truex Jerry 158Tuckett Christopher 13

Unger Christian 297Unterseher Lisa 146Urbach Ephraim 127 136 137 169

175ndash76

Vall Gregory 253Van Bekkum W J 23Van der Horst P J 23Van Esbroeck M 31Varner William 11 40 53 76 87 329Vermes Geza 17 57Vermes Mark 109Visi Tamaacutes 26Visotzky Burton 23Vogt Peter 76Von Kortzfleisch S 127 130Von Mutius H-G 18ndash19 25 97 101

105 107 125Vose Robin 172

Wade Labarge M 133Wagenseil J C 6 174ndash76 196 197

296 297 322Waysblum Marek 291 293Webb Robert 238Weinandy Thomas 38Wickham L 59Wilken Robert 109 266Willi Thomas 222Willi-Plein Ina 222Williams A Lukyn 6 14 93 98 109

115 122 146 212 296Williams F 59Williams Frank 72 160Williams Jacqueline 13Williams Rowen 70Wilms Franz-Elmar 113 119 275Wittung Jeffery 65Wight N T 196 231Wright Wilmer 53Wolfson Harry 30Wyschogrod M 5 6 321 334 338ndash39

Yarbro Collins Adela 57 335Yuval Israel 26 168 171 173 240

Zajączkowski Ananiasz 291ndash93Zawadzki Hubert 292Zellentin Holger 12 153Zunz Leopold 169Zwiep Irene 258


Index of Persons amp Subjects

Abelard Peter 97 135 146 156 264Abner of Burgos 93 210 212 217 255

261Abrogation of Torah s Appendix IIAbū Bakr 32Adam of St Victor 154Adversus Christianos 11 14 15 17 19

29Agobard of Lyon 146Alcuin of York 156Alfonsus Petrus 93 264 277Al-Ghazālī 113 119 273 275Al-Jāḥiẓ 41Al-Makarim Abu 72Al-Muqamaṣ D 30 42 62 332Al-Qirqīsānī Yarsquoqūb 25 42 266 302Al-Ṭabarī lsquoAli 32 55rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka 259Albo Josef 25Amiel Pierre 173Anti-Semitism 146 212 317Anselm of Laon 154 156Apocrypha 30 32 48 51 55 72ndash74

76 81 88ndash89 110 144 233 318Apollinarius of Laodicea 115Apollinarian-ism 38 115ndash16 156

162 166 198 202 204 207 272 329 332

Arian-ism 55 67 88 155 160ndash61166 305 329

Aquinas Thomas 67 97 122ndash23154 264 280 281 329 333

Basle Nizzahon 151 168 170 192Ben Abraham of Troki Isaac 15 174

278 291ndash315Ben Hayyim Levi b Abraham 286Ben Isaac of Troyes S [Rashi] 10 19

23 129 130 243 264Ben Meshullam Nathan 128 131

Ben Maimon Abraham b Moses 334Ben Naḥman Moses 97Ben Reuben Jacob 15 24 29 36

91ndash126 128 186 194 210 212 213219 222 224 225 227 250 255

Ben Simon Mersquoir 25 84 124 168 172 173 341ndash44

Ben Solomon Moses 168Ben Solomon Samuel 135Benedict XIII 210Bernard of Clairvaux 130 156Biṭṭul lsquoiqqare ha-Noṣrim 25 260Bodo-Eleazar 325Boleslaw 292Bonet Bonjorn Davi 259Budny Szymon 293 294 298Burton Robert 292

Callixtus II 156Casimir IV 292Cedrenus Gregorius 109Celsus 11 41 53 75 81 86 115 117

146 184 233 240 249 324 327Christiani Pablo 97 325Converts 30ndash31 32 34 55 175ndash76

211ndash13 218 259ndash60 325 329Cornutus Walter 135Crispin Gilbert 92ndash93 118Creed Athanasian et al 4ndash5 7 136

155ndash57 161ndash62 271Crescas Ḥasdai 25 249 259ndash61 266

282 286 333Crusades 35 95 96 130ndash34 173Cur Deus homo 100 118Cyril of Alexandria 39 67 83 154 164Czechowic Marcin 294 315

De Lille Alan 97 135De Lyre Nicholas 19ndash20 93ndash94 102

122 264 277 278 283 284 325

De Madrigal Alonso (Tostado) 265De Pentildeafort R 96ndash98De Santa Mariacutea Pablo 98 212 217 259

261 325De Valladolid Alfonso 93 210 212 217

255 261Debates religious 15 25 85 97 127ndash28

132 134ndash135 172ndash73 210ndash11 259ndash60 293ndash94

Dhimmi 35 94Donin Nicholas 135 325Du Tillet Jean 214 218 343Duran Profiat (Efodi) 15 17 19 22 24

211 212 219 225ndash27 257ndash89 293324 332 333 337 338

Duran Simeon b Zemah 16 25 26 34

Eisenmenger J A 6Emunoth ve-Delsquooth 100 115 302Ephrem the Syrian 67 88 109 110 116

119 120 198 330Eshkol ha-Kofer 25Even Boḥan 6 17 22 24 26 93 108

123 209ndash256 269 274 278 286301 303 307 308 312 313 314335 343

lsquoEzer ha-Emunah 25

Farissol Abraham 268Ferrer Vicente 210 211

Gabriel the angel 48 49 51 72 73 7680

Galen 232Gregory I the Great 60Gregory IX 96 135Gregory X 128

Hadassi Judah 25Ḥizzuq Emunah 24 56 68 113 123 174

291ndash315 322 324 333Hus Jan 264Hypostatic Union 17 44 103 279ndash81

289 337ndash38 see also Appendix II

Ibn al-Layth 32 41Ibn Ezra Abraham 11Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova 275 310Ibn Kammūna 24ndash25 58Ibn Musa Hayyim 16

Incarnation s Appendix IIInfancy Gospels 30 32 73ndash74 76 79

88ndash89 144 233Innocent III 96Innocent IV 135

Jaime I 97Jerome 11 34 59 67 79 89 109 122

146 154 203 215 225 226 263264 277 278 284 285

Juan I 258Judah ha-Levi 25Judah of Melun 135Judas Iscariot 51 240 306 343Julian Emperor 11 53 74 75 87

326ndash28

Karaism 292Kelimmath ha-Goyim 19 22 24 26 68

117 219 226 245 249 257ndash89 303 306 308 310 311 312 313 324

Kitāb al-anwār 25

Lateran Council fourth 96 128 134Lectionary 13 52Le Jeune Martin 214Lipmann Muumlhlhausen Y T 26 167 168

324Livyat Ḥen 286Logos-sarx 115ndash16 156 198 204 207

329 332Lombard Peter 187 264ndash65Louis VII 146Louis VIII 131ndash32Louis IX 97 131ndash35Luther Martin 19ndash20 278 298

Magen Avot 26 324Magen va-Ḥerev 16 26 268Magen ve-Romaḥ 16Maimonides 334Marsilius of Padua 265 Martini Raymond 98 214 222 264 286

325Mary s Appendix IIMatthew Gospel ofmdash Hebrew translations 213ndash15 218ndash19

225ndash26 318Milḥamot ha-Shem 19 24 26 29 36 68

91ndash126 141ndash44 147 156ndash58 174

408 Index of Persons amp Subjects

162 164ndash68 182ndash88 194 196ndash202204 206 213 220 224 228 230 269 280 296 307 308 312 313322 324 332

Milḥemet Miṣvah 25 84ndash85 124 137168 172ndash73 185 200 202 204 322341ndash44

Modena Leon 16 26 267Moses of Coucy 135Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas 25 93MS Rome (Or 53) 24 136ndash137 147

149ndash51 154 163 168ndash70 175 176181 182 185 192 193 194 197199 206 322

Muumlnster Sebastian 6 175 214 218343

Nachmanides 97Nestor ha-Komer 23ndash24 29ndash90 99 102

103 106 107 110 113 115 121 122 125 140 142 147ndash50 159ndash65 168176 182 184 186 191ndash200 203 206224 231 250 251 269 270 274 307 308 311 312 322 325 329 333 342

Nestorius of Adiabene 30Nestorius of Constantinople 30 31 39 62

83 110Nicholas III 173Nicholas IV 173Nizzahon Vetus 17 24 26 27 68 109

113 115 119 123 137 143 144 146 147 149ndash52 156 160 163ndash166 167ndash207 224 225 227230 238 242 246 248 250 253269 270 274 280 301 303 306ndash14 322 324 332

Odo of Tournai 85 118

Pedro IV 210Pedro de Luna 210Philip II Augustus 131 171Philip IV 131 170 172Polemicsmdash Christian 11 14 40 53 71 75 76

87 89 115 146 160 327ndash29mdash classification 21mdash definition 14mdash Jewish 35 see Appendix IImdash function 14 18

mdash Muslim 32ndash33 41 55 113 119 273275 310

mdash pagan 2 11 41 53 62 64 66 68 7475 79 81 86 87 115 117 266 146184 233 240 249 324 326ndash28

Postilla perpetua 19 264Porphyry 11 41 62 66 68 79 87 266

326ndash28Pugio Fidei 98 214 222 264 286 325

Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf 23ndash2429ndash9099 102 103 106 107 110 113 115 121 122 125 140 142 147ndash50 159ndash65 168 176 182 184 186191ndash200 203 206 224 231 250 251 269 270 274 307 308 311 312 322 325 329 333 342

Qeshet u-Magen 16 25ndash26 34 226 324Qimhi David 11 19 24 274 293Qimhi Joseph 24 83 93 116 212 213Qirqisani Jacob 25 42 266 302

Rabanus Maurus 154Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā 41 55 62Rambam 334Ramban 97Rashi 10 19 23 129 130 243 264Reimarus Hermann 24 291

Saadia Gaon 42 100 115 302Sefer ha-Berit 24 83ndash84 92 115 116

212 251Sefer ha-lsquoIqqarim 25Sefer ha-Niṣṣaḥon 26 167 168 324Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 24 27 68 78 97

113 115 123 128ndash66 167ndash69 173176 182ndash85 191ndash207 227 236 242 250 270 271 274 280 301 306 307309 311ndash13 323ndash24 332

Servetus Michael 294 295Socinus Faustus 293 294Solomon ha-Levy 212 217 259 261 325ldquoSon of Manrdquo 19 57ndash61 114 139 144

149ndash52 158ndash59 271ndash72 178 180 191ndash93 199 207 221 243 244 253 271ndash72 275 287 300ndash305 309 311 315 322ndash323 334ndash35

suppositum 280ndash81 338


Talsquoanot 168 188 192 199Talmud 12 50 97 110 134ndash35Tanqīḥ 24ndash25 58Tela Ignea Satanae 174ndash75 177 197 296

297 322Teshuvot bersquoAnshei rsquoAwen 259Toledoth Yeshu 11ndash12 15 22 29 30 33

34 48 50 51 54 74 76 105 110145 181 240 252 327 342 343

Trinity s Appendix IIldquoTwo Natures of Christrdquo 5 15 60 111

112 117 125 201 246 249 254 280331 337ndash38

ldquoTwo Powers in Heavenrdquo 99 157ndash58203ndash204

Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq 24 41 74 116 121237 240 276 342 343

Vincent of Beauvais 264Virgin Birth s Appendix IIVoltaire 291

Wagenseil J C 6 174ndash76 196 197296 297 322

Whitehands William 131William of Champeaux 156William of Ockham 265Wycliffe John 264ndash65


Cover13

Preface

List of Contents

Abbreviations

Chapter 1 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus

11 Introduction

12 The Divinity of Jesus

13 The Gospel of Matthew

14 Jewish Polemics

15 Methodology amp Presentation

Chapter 2 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer

21 Introduction

22 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa

23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor

231 The Narrative Setting (sectsect1ndash8)

232 Better Candidates for Divinity (sectsect9ndash24)

233 Theological Issues with the Trinity (sectsect25ndash32)

234 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (sectsect33ndash37)

235 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (sectsect38ndash57)

236 The Law Jesusrsquo Humanity and his Divinity (sectsect58ndash71)

237 The Life of Jesusrsquo Reveals his Utter Humanity (sectsect72ndash109)

238 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (sectsect110ndash138)

239 Arguments from a Different Gospel Sequence (sectsect139ndash158)

24 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor

25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor

251 Jesusrsquo Distinctiveness

2511 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2436 1218 (sect39 sect57)

2512 Jesusrsquo Prayer at the Cross Mt 2746 (sect45)

2513 The Use of ldquoMessianic Psalmsrdquo Mt 2241ndash46 (sect50)

2514 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916f (sect51)

2515 Jesusrsquo Prayer in Gethsemane Mt 2636ndash46 (sect53)

2516 Jesusrsquo Statements of Being Sent Mt 1354ndash57 (sect55)

252 Jesusrsquo Human Origins (sect78 sect77 sect80 sect150 sect97)

253 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (sect74 sect76 sect82 sect111)

26 Summary

Chapter 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem

31 Introduction

32 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem

33 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem

34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

341 Outline of Chapter 11

342 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16

343 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17

344 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a

345 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash27

346 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash37a 40bndash41 par Mt 2636ndash40a 45

347 Jesusrsquo Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash19

348 Jesus on the Kingdom and Authority Mt 2816ndash20a

349 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1230ndash32

35 Summary

Chapter 4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Joseph ben Nathanrsquos Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

41 Introduction

42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

43 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

44 Overview of the Use of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

451 Jesusrsquo Mission Mt 116 18 21 (sect16)

452 Jesusrsquo Birth Mt 123 2639 and 2028 (sect37)

453 Jesusrsquo Flight to Egypt Mt 213ndash14 (sect22)

454 Jesusrsquo God-given Judgment Lk 1222ndash24 par Mt 625ndash26 (sect24)

455 Jesus was Sleeping Mt 821ndash25 (sect29)

456 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 818ndash20 (sectsect26ndash27)

457 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 (sect7

458 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 96 (sect25)


4510 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman Mt 920 (sect12)

4511 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111a (sect1)

4512 Jesus on Gluttony Mt 1119a (sect4)

4513 Quicunque Vult and Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1231ndash32 (sect9)

4514 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1231ndash32 (sect41)


4516 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 par Mt 1916f (sect33)

4517 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2022ndash23 (sect15)

4518 Jesusrsquo Lament over Jerusalem Mt 2337 (sect3)

4519 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2638 41 (sect6)

4520 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2639 (sect10)

4521 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2746 (sect38)

4522 Jesus Commissions his Disciples Mt 2816ndash20 (sect30)

46 Summary

Chapter 5 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Nizzahon Vetus

51 Introduction

52 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus

53 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus

54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

541 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash17 25 (sect154 sect88 sect28 sect72)


543 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313 16ndash17 (sect160)

544 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a (sect162)

545 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 96 2028 (sect188 sect168 sect215)

546 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash30 (sect170)

547 Blasphemy against the Spirit Lk 1210 par Mt 1231ndash32 (sect223)

548 Jesusrsquo Statement of Being Sent Mt 1357 and Mt 1218 (sect207)

549 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 par Mt 1916ndash21 (sect184)

5410 Cursing the Fig Tree Mk 1111ndash14a par Mt 2117ndash19a (sect181)

5411 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1324ndash34a par Mt 2429ndash33 36 (sect177 sect194)

5412 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash42 par Mt 2636ndash46 (sect176)

5413 Jesus on the Cross Mk 1533ndash34 par Mt 2745ndash46 (sect178 sect145)


55 Summary

Chapter 6 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Even Boḥan

61 Introduction

62 The Historial Context of Even Boḥan (and Kelimmat ha-Goyim)

63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

64 The Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

641 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16 (sect1)

642 Bethlehem Ephratah Mt 21ndash12 (sect3)


644 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17 (sect6)

645 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11 (sect7)

646 Jesusrsquo Healings Mt 81ndash4 (sect18)

647 Jesusrsquo Raising of the Dead Mt 918ndash26 (sect22)

648 Jesusrsquo Miracles Mt 932ndash38 (sect23)

649 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111ndash15 (sect24)


6411 Jesusrsquo Exorcisms Mt 1222ndash29 (sect28)


6413 Jesusrsquo Signs Mt 1238ndash45 (sect30)

6414 Peterrsquos Confessions Mt 1613ndash20 (sect37)

6415 The Transfiguration Mt 171ndash8 (sect38)

6416 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2110ndash22 (sect42)

6417 Paying Taxes to Caesar Mt 2215ndash22 (sect44)

6418 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mt 2427ndash36 (sect50)

6419 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2631ndash44 (sect53)

6420 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2727ndash66 (sect56)

65 Summary

Chapter 7 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Profiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim

71 Introduction

72 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

73 The Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

731 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament

732 Jesusrsquo Temptation I Mt 41ndash11

733 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash21

734 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21

745 Jesusrsquo Temptation II Mt 43ndash4

736 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo Mk 1045 1113ndash14

737 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo John 530

738 Joseph is Jesusrsquo Father Mt 122ndash23

739 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2734

7310 Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding John 1019ndash36

7311 Matthewrsquos Intention with Isa 714 Mt 122ndash23

7312 The Hypostatic Union and Jesusrsquo Death Mt 2746

74 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

75 Summary

Chapter 8 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Isaac b Abraham of Trokirsquos Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah

81 Introduction

82 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah

83 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah

84 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

841 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo and Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (I sect10)

842 Jesusrsquo Nativity and Isaiahrsquos Prophecy Mt 120ndash25 (I sect21)

843 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2636 2746 (I sect47)

844 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash10 (II sect7)

845 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 819ndash20 (II 12)

846 Jesus is Sent Mt 1040 (II sect14)

847 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (II sect16)

848 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916ndash21 (II sect19)

849 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2023 (II sect20)

8410 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2028 (II sect21)

8411 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24)

8412 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24)

8413 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Mt 2818 (II 27)

8414 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mk 1112ndash40 par Mt 2118ndash22 (II sect30)

8415 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1332 par Mt 2436 (II sect31)

85 Summary

Chapter 9 Conclusion The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics

91 Synopsis of Finds

911 Selectivity of Readings

912 Continuity with Earlier Polemics

913 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement

92 Evaluation of Finds

921 The DivineHuman Dichotomy

922 Jesus is Vere Homo Only

93 Epilogue The Central Paradox

Appendix I Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣva Reason 11 of the 15 Reasons Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus

Appendix II Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments

Bibliography


1 Jewish

2 Muslim

3 Pagan

4 Christian


Index of Literature

Hebrew Bible


New Testament

Rabbinic Scriptures

Muslim Scriptures

Christian Writings

1 Early Christian

2 Patristic


4 Medieval



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




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



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



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




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


X Contents


44 Overview of the Use of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 138


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



XIContents


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


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


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


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



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


911 Selectivity of Readings 321912 Continuity with Earlier Polemics 326913 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement 331


921 The DivineHuman Dichotomy 333922 Jesus is Vere Homo Only 335


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




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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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 twelfthcentury 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


[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]


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


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



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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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)



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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



( 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


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)


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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



The Sermon on the Mount Christians contradict their Scriptures since Jesus did not come to abolish the Law




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



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)


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


The Relatives of Jesus Mary had other sons and daughters (she consequently was not a virgin)


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


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)



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


Jesus in Gethsemane since Jesus fearfully prayed to God he cannot be God


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


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


The Rich Young Man Jesus affirmed that eternal life comes from keeping the Law


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



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


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



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)


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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)


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


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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



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



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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


(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


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



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



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)


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


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


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


site151 Also when commenting on Jesusrsquo teachings he consistently arguesthat Jesus stands within the Jewish tradition albeit perhaps marginally so152

Therefore for his contemporaries to convert from the higher order of Judaismto the lower is rather unsound Rabbinic tradition is based on the trustworthytestimony and erudition of the sages the gospels are based on the witness ofsimple folk and twisted by the deceptive ambitions of the evangelists153

Overall comment sect23 represents one of the most concise rational andcomprehensive attacks on Jesusrsquo divinity though Shem Ṭov only engageshere with a popular understanding of Jesusrsquo divinity without attempting tofurther engage the theological or philosophical aspects of Christian doctrine

6 4 9 Jesus and John the Baptist Matt 1111ndash15 (sect24)

The immediatley following comment which is based on Matt 1111ndash15 like-wise contains novel arguments although the last of the four points Shem Ṭovmakes is similar to Yosef ha-Meqanne sect1 (see 4511)The transcriber said I have four questions about this (section)

The first is that he already previously wrote that when Jesus came to be baptized by Johnthat he did not want to (baptize him) because he (felt he) was ldquonot worthy to carry his shoesrdquo(Matt 311) and that at the time of baptism a voice from heaven was heard saying ldquoThis is

151 In doing so Shem Ṭov might be the first person to clearly emphazise that Jesus wasJewish

152 Shem Ṭov repeatedly argues that Jesusrsquo teaching are in line with the sages (חזל) andthat Jesus was not innovating anything (חדש) see esp comment sect17 (f 140r see 63) Forthis purpose almost like a precursor to Paul Billerbeck Shem Ṭov connects various passagesfrom the Talmud to Jesusrsquo teaching Comment sect8 (f 137v) relates Matt 520ndash24 to m rsquoAbot311 and b Qidd 28a comment sect9 (f 137v) links Matt 527ndash30 to Deut 521 comment sect10(f 138r) links Matt 533ndash42 to b Šabb 88b But then in comment sect11 (f 138v) Shem Ṭovdeviates from this strategy and critiques Jesusrsquo teaching in Matt 543ndash48 as misinterpretationyet he returns to the previous pattern already in comment sect12 (f 138v) where he links Matt61ndash4 to b B Meṣirsquoa 85a and b Sanh 37a Then comment sect13 (f 139r) relates Matt 65ndash15to b Ber 24b comment sect14 (f 139r) links Matt 619ndash23 to b Baba Batra 11a and b Yoma37andashb comment sect15 links Matt 624ndash34 to Psalms 5522 373 and Jer 175 comment sect16 (f139v) links Matt 76ndash12 to Prov 268 b Ḥul 133a Lev 1918 and b Šhabb 31a Commentsect17 then summarizes Shem Ṭovrsquos reading of the Sermon on the Mount Another more exten-sive critique of Jesusrsquo understanding and use of the Law follows in comment sect26 (f 144v)but see also comments sect34 (f 148v) sect40 (f 152r) sect48 (f 155v) sect49 (f 156v) sect55 (f 160v)and sect56 (f 161v)

153 In various comments Shem Ṭov points out inconsistencies between Matthew and theHebrew Bible but also to other gospels (mostly Mark and John) see sect1 (see 641) sect3 (see643) sect27 (f 145r) sect41 (f 153r) sect51 (f 158r) sect52 (f 158v) sect54 (f 160r) sect57 (161v) Incomments sect2 (f 134vndash135r) and sect5 (f 135v) Shem Ṭov maintains that Matthewrsquos under-standing of the fulfilment of prophecy is misconceived In comment sect36 (f 149v) he interpetsMatt 1539ndash1612 in a way that implies that the disciples are ldquocoarse of senserdquo and ldquothick inthe headrdquo ( מושכל שום יבינו לא יבינו לא המוח עבי השכל גסי היו שהם מכאן נראה )


my son my pleasure is in himrdquo (Matt 317) But if so how is it that John sent (a messenger)to him now in order to ascertain if he is the Messiah or whether he ought to hope for another

Second since John is (supposedly) a prophet and according to his words (even) oneldquogreater than a prophetrdquo how is it that he is satisfied with this (answer Jesus gives) (Yet)here it is written that ldquothe Lord God will not do anything unless he reveals his secret to hisservants the prophetsrdquo (Amos 37) All the more he [Jesus] did not come (and tell John him-self) instead (he just told a messenger) to inform him about Jesus according to these words

Third If his power is so much greater than Johnrsquos why does he not (just) show his signsand miracles to (all) the people for (apparently) he [John] did not remember that he [Jesus]performed a (single) sign or wonder with his own hands

Fourth look Jesus testified here about him [John] that nobody like him ldquohas risen upamong all (those) born of womenrdquo (Matt 1111) If that is the case he ought to be greater thanJesus since he was also born by a woman But that a man could be greater than God (orElijah) is a lie154

להטבילישו155שכשבאלעילכתבשכברהראשונהשאלותארבעבזהליישהמעתיקאמרמןקולנשמעהטבילהובשעתמנעליולשאתראויהיהשלאלפירוצההיהשלאמיוחנןהואאםכמסתפקעתהיוחנןלושלחאיך157הואואכבווחפציבניזה156אומרתהשמיםוהא158בזהיספקאיךלדבריומנביאוגדולנביאשיוחנןאחרשניתלאחריקוהאםאוהמשיח

באלאשהואוכשהנביאיםעבדיואלסודוגלהאםכידבר160אלהיםאליעשהלא159כיכתימאותותיומראהלאמדועמיוחנןגדולכחוכךכלאםשלישיתכדבריהםישועללבשראלא

עליוכאןהעידישוהנהרביעיתידיועלופלאאותשום161יעשהנזכרלאכילעםונפלאותיוגדולוהאישאשהילודגכ163שהואמישוהיהגדול162אככמוהוהנשיםילדיבכלקםשלא

164שקר מהאלוה

Shem Ṭov argues here that John the Baptist should not have doubted Jesus ifhe himself had heard a heavenly voice or seen miracles performed by Jesus (asimilar argument is made in regard to the scribes and Pharisees in commentsect30 see 6413)165 The fact that John who is heralded to be Israelrsquos greatest

154 If one allows the emmendation Elijah אליה) instead of (אלוה the argument wouldexpress incredibility that Jesus could ever be ldquohigherrdquo than John who is meant to be under-stood as Elijah (cf Matt 1111 14ndash15) which would make sense in the context Otherwisethe argument simply expresses the theological impossibility that a created being could beldquomorerdquo than God (מהאלוה) but even Christians do not hold to Jesusrsquo superiority over God

155 MS BL כשבא156 MS BL omit157 MS BL omit158 MS BL מזה יסתפק איך159 MS BL omit160 MS BL omit161 MS BL שעשה162 MS BL ואכ163 MS BL adds היה164 MS Plutei 217 ff 143vndash144r MS BL here וכזב שקר 165 Also similar is Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq ldquoFurther at first he (John) prophesied concerning

him (Jesus) that he was the son of God and after wards he did not believe in him For he saidlsquoAre you he who is destined to come or are we to wait for anotherrsquo For he did not believe inhimrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 344 [f 16v]


prophet (Matt 1111) is unsure about Jesus does not exactly make Christiani-tyrsquos claims stronger mdash an argument that still has some force166 NeverthelessShem Ṭov also argues (slightly counterproductively) against the notion thatJohn was a prophet by referring to Amos 37 Since Jesus did not personallyinform John either Jesusrsquo estimate that John is a prophet cannot be true orJesus is not divine for otherwise he should himself have made efforts tonotify John ahead of time since John was the most important of prophets


Like Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 345) and Nizzahon Vetus sect170 (see 546)Shem Ṭov uses Matt 1125ndash30 as a means to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity andthe TrinityThe transcriber said I have five misgivings about this passage

The first If he was God how is it that he gave instruction to God when he (himself) wassomeone who had to learn167

Second how is it that he needed to be taught (at all)Third how is it that it was necessary (for him) to receive something (that was) given by

someone else when he said that ldquoeverything has been given to merdquo (Matt 1127)Fourth how is it that he said that therefore ldquonone knows (him) except the Father (alone)rdquo

and the ldquoFather (is known) by the Son (alone)rdquo and his disciples If this is so then it is appar-ent that they are two entities and that there is a difference between them and this is the oppo-site of their confession

Fifth if (the above is) the case we can draw the conclusion that the Fatherrsquos knowledgewas more than the Sonrsquos knowledge

לאלהוראהנתןאיךאלוההואאםהאחתספקותחמשהמאמרבזהליישהמעתיקאמרהכלשאממאחרמתנהלקבלנצטרךאיךשלישתלמלמדצריךהיהאיךשנית168בשלמדו

ששנינראהאכותלמידיוהבןולאבהאבאלאמכיראיןשלכןאמראיךרביריתלי169נתוןמידיעתהאבידיעתמעלתנדלהאכחמישיתאמונתםהפךוזהביניהםהפרשוישהםדברים

170הבן

166 On the relationship between Jesus and John see eg Daniel S Dapaah The Relation-ship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth A Critical Study (Lanham Md Uni-versity Press of America 2005) and Robert L Webb ldquoJohn the Baptist and His Relationshipto Jesusrdquo in Studying the Historical Jesus Evaluations of the State of Current Research (edBruce Chilton and Craig A Evans Leiden Brill 1994) 179ndash230

167 Matt 1127 in Even Boḥan reads מכיראיןולאבבלבדהאבאלאהבןאתמכירואיןהבןאלא Shem Ṭov inteprets מכיר (ldquobeing familiar withrdquo or ldquolsquonon-intimatersquordquo knowingrdquo) as

being given instructions ( הוראהנתן ) by God This is probably due to the influenced ofMilḥamot ha-Shem which reads here ldquoIf everything was delivered (נמסר) 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 him ( אביו שלמדו )rdquo see 345

168 MS BL שלמדו169 MS BL נתן170 MS Plutei 217 f 144r


In comparison to the other two texts Shem Ṭov is more systematic althoughthe argument is essentially the same as it arises directly from the text focusingon Jesusrsquo limited knowledge If Jesus had to learn then ldquothere is a differencebetweenrdquo the Father and the Son and ldquothe Fatherrsquos knowledge was more thanthe Sonrsquos knowledgerdquo Jesus is consequently not God

6 4 11 Jesusrsquo Exorcisms Matt 1222ndash29 (sect28)

The following section in which Jesus reacts to the Phariseesrsquo verdict that heuses demonic powers to exorcise demons also would appear to be Shem Ṭovrsquosown response to Matthew No other polemical texts so far have critiqued Matt1222ndash29171 Shem Ṭov in turn attempts to refute Jesusrsquo replyThe transcriber said Jesusrsquo argument against the Pharisees is not (applicable for a case)where a few wicked people were to rise up from one kingdom in order to harm (someone) inanother kingdom and the king (in turn) would punish them for this (this) would not mean(that there) is a division in his kingdom So likewise if Beelzebub were to harm one of hisservants it (would) not follow from this that there was a division in his (own) kingdom

Second if I were to assume this (exorcism) was true who told them that this did nothappen due to a division in the kingdom of Beelzebub172

Third when he said ldquohow shall a man be able (to enter the strong manrsquos house)rdquo mdash this isnot a (conclusive) argument for it is (quite) possible through the power of an oath on thename of God may he be blessed or on his angels to subdue Beelzebub so that he might doonersquos bidding or (perhaps) through some ritual that was performed on him And so he may(indeed) have first bound his servants for thus it is with those who perform oaths173

אחתממלכותרעיםאנשיםקצתיקומושכאשראינההפרושויםעלישוטענתהמעתיקאמרייסרזבובבעלאםוכןבמלכותומחלוקתבזהיהיהלאייסרםוהמלךאחרתבמלכותלהזיקהגידמיאמיתיתזאתהנחתיהיתהאםשנית174במלכותומחלוקתמזהיגיעלאמעבדיואחדאינה176כואישיוכלואיךשאממהשלישית175במלכותומחלוקתזבובלבעלקרהשלאלהםבסבתאומאמרולעשוזבובלבעליכריע177ומלאכיויתבשםהשבועהשבכחשאיפשרטענה

179ההשבעות בעלי דרכי וכן לעבדיו 178תחלה נקשר הוא יהיה ואז לו נעשית עבודה זה אי

171 Shem Ṭovrsquos version of Matthew differs here from the Greek text see Howard HebrewGospel of Matthew 223 ldquoThe meaning is different in the Hebrew text because of two majorvariations (1) Verse 27 reads lsquoIf I cast out demons by Baalzebub why do your sons not castthem outrsquo instead in the Greek lsquoby whom do your sons cast them outrsquo (2) Verse 28 readslsquothe end of [his] kingdom has comersquo instead of the Greek lsquothe kingdom of God has comersquordquo

172 In other words it would have been equally possible that Jesus was the (demonic) sub-versive element within Satanrsquos domain

173 Or perhaps ldquomagical spellsrdquo174 MS BL בביתו175 MS BL בביתו176 MS BL וכו177 MS BL ובמלאכיו בשית 178 MS BL נקשר תחילה 179 MS Plutei 217 f 145v


The Phariseesrsquo assessment of Jesusrsquo miracle activities as demonic is a pivotpoint in Matthewrsquos gospel as the resulting rejection of Jesus by the crowdsputs him on the path to the cross and effects a turn to the Gentiles (in additionit is related to the ldquoUnforgivable Sinrdquo)180 As such Jesusrsquo tertium non daturargument is a challenge that as long as it remained unanswered would notonly dispute the Phariseesrsquo and the rabbisrsquo assessment of Jesus but more sowould even put them in the realm of the ldquoUnforgivable Sinrdquo most certainly inthe eyes of Christians Thus the claim that Jesus was nothing else than an evilmagician is a decisive attack against Christianity181 a view with whichrabbinic Judaism concurred182 Therefore Shem Ṭov is keen to point outfallacies in Jesusrsquo tertium non datur argument by offering not just a third butalso a fourth and fifth option

First he argues that Beelzebubrsquos harming of his own servants does notnecessarily mean his kingdom is divided It could be a form of punishment

180 The assessment that Jesus is demonically empowered occurs four times in Matthew in934 1025 1224 and 1227 Immediately after the latter occurence the Pharisees demand asign from Jesus (1238ndash45) which he denies by deriding them as ldquoevil and adulterous genera-tionrdquo only to be finally opposed by his own family which Jesus in turn also appears to reject(1246ndash50) The following chapter which comprises the third speech in Matthew distin-guishes then between the crowds that now only hear Jesus preach in parables and riddles andthe disciples that are allowed a clear explanation (1310ndash15) This process of successivelyturning away from the Jewish crowds and the Jewish core-lands is presented in conjunctionwith 1) the death of John the Baptist as end of the prophetic era (141ndash12) 2) Jesusrsquo apparentrejection of Pharisaic halachah (151ndash20) and 3) comes to a first apex in Jesusrsquo encounterwith the Cannanite woman in Syrio-Phoenicia whom he reluctantly accepts (1521ndash29) Onthe one side Jesus is rejected by the spiritual leaders of Israel the Pharisees resulting in histurning to those few who do follow him And on the other side he is accepted by a few disci-ples and a Gentile woman esp seen in the turning point of the narrative Peterrsquos acclamationldquoYou are the Christ the Son of the living Godrdquo (1616) All this then puts Jesus on the path tothe cross (1621) which eventually leads to a full acceptance of the Gentiles (2819) andlines up with Matthewrsquos initial focus on the Gentiles (ldquothe son of Abrahamrdquo cf Mat 11)

181 The use of magic is a major issue in Contra Celsum esp in the first two books seeCels 16 and 128

182 Jesusrsquo miracle activities were explained as being performed by means of (demonic)Egyptian magic cf Justin Dial 697 b Sanhedrin 43andashb 104b 107b b Soṭah 47a alsoSchaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud 102ndash106 In contrast Toledot Yeshu relates that Jesus was ableto perform miracles because he stole the Shem ha-Meforash the Name of God which was thereason he (and also Judas) could achieve various miraculous feats see eg Krauss LebenJesus 28 (typus Wagenseil) 40 53 (Strassburg) 68 93 (Vindobona) 118 123 (Adler) andOra Limor an Israel Jacob Yuval ldquoJudas Iscariot Revealer of the Hidden Truthrdquo in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) 197ndash220 esp 201ndash202 See also Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq ldquoHe per-formed no miracles until he went down to Egypt with his father and mother where he learnedmany arts After he returned to the Holy Land he performed the miracles described in yourbooks All this was done through the arts which he learned in Egyptrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrewPolemical Treatiserdquo 342 [f 15r] see also 333ndash39 (see 348)


against some defectors or a punishment for transgressing into ldquoanotherkingdomrdquo183

Second it is actually difficult to verify that there was in fact no division inBeelzebubrsquos kingdom Jesus himself could perhaps be the instigator of such asubversive activity within Beelzebubrsquos domain

And third according to Shem Ṭov the power of exorcism can also bewielded without having to immediately infer that the exorcist has renderedSatan or his minions ultimately powerless That Satan can be temporallybound by magic would not mean that the one binding Satan is ontologicalsuperior to Satan In this sense Jesusrsquo power over Satan is comparable to amagician or spell-caster

Thus for Shem Ṭov Jesusrsquo exorcisms are not conclusive evidence for adivinely endorsed messianic mission or Jesusrsquo superiority184 He diametricallyopposes the evangelistrsquos narrative that exorcism and with that other miraclesgive validity to Jesusrsquo mission or claims Common to the Christian argumentis the understanding that miracles endorse a divine messenger and it is there-fore paramount to discern the source of these super-natural powers In thisJewish polemic usually does not dispute that Jesus performed miracles butmaintains that these were illict Overall Shem Ṭov takes the Christian posi-tion rather seriously here


Shem Ṭov stays in Matthew 12 and not surprisingly repeats the by nowfamiliar Jewish standard critique of Jesusrsquo statement on the blashphemyagainst the SpiritThe transcriber said I have two questions about this passage

The first Look they are saying that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are reflecting185

one (being) and their power and their knowledge are one and that there is no differencebetween them and (that) they are one in every aspect and in respect to substance186 And ifthis were the case how is it that there is a difference between cursing the Spirit and cursingthe Son

Second if a man curses the three of them while thinking of them as one in his mind (per-haps by saying) that the Trinity is a lie and afterwards repents mdash now the Father and the Sonforgive him but the Spirit will not forgive him If so what use is there (then) in the Fatherand the Son forgiving him And where will his soul be in the Garden of Eden or in Hell Orin a place between for the Father and the Son on their part would agree that he should be inthe Garden of Eden while the Spirit on his part (would have him) in Hell

183 Shem Ṭovrsquos own experience of war and the warring of kingdoms in Iberia may haveprovided visual examples in support of this argument

184 In this Shem Ṭov stands in the tradition of Deut 131ndash5185 Lit ldquogo backreturn to one ( לאחד חוזרים הם )rdquo186 Lit ldquothey are one from every side (צד) and one from every corner (פינה)rdquo


והרוחוהבן188שהאבאומריםהםהנההאחת187שאלותשתיזהבמאמרליישהמעתיקאמרכןואםפנהומכלצדמכלאחדוהםביניהםהפרשואיןאחדודעתםוכחםלאחדחוזריםהםבחשבוכאחדשלשתםאדםיגדףאםשנית189לבןלמגדףלרוחהמגדףביןהפרששםאיךהוא

מהאכלוימהוללא191והרוחלוימחלווהבןהאבהנה190ביתשובהשבואחרשקרשהשלושכיאמצעיבמקוםאו193גיהנםאועדןבגןנפשותהיהואנהוהבןהאבבמחילתלו192תועלת194בגיהנם הרוח וחלק עדן בגן שתהיה יחייבו והבן האב חלקי

Shem Ṭov is very systematic and precise in presenting the challenges but theargument itself is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 349) Yosef ha-Meqannesect9 and sect41 (see 4513ndash14) and Nizzahon Vetus sect223 (see 547) Though thefirst of Shem Ṭovrsquos points is more theological and the second almost moreanecdotal there is no radical new contribution or different reading than whatwas already observed It is therefore difficult to tell if this particular argumentagainst the Trinity had special importance to Shem Ṭov (cf 644)

6 4 13 Jesusrsquo Signs Matt 1238ndash45 (sect30)

Shem Ṭov returns to the topic of miracles (see 646ndash9) and echoing therequest of the Pharisees he asksIf all the signs he mentioned were true which Jesus (supposedly) performed that he revivedthe dead and healed the lepers and drove out the demons what need would there have beenfor other (signs)

מצרעיםורפאמתיםשהחיהוהואעשהשישואמתהיוהנזהאותותכלאםהמעתיקאמר195לאחרים צורך מה שדים והוציא

Shem Ṭov essentially questions the truthfulness and nature of the miracleaccounts in the New Testament If they truly occurred and were observedwhy was there a need for other signs In other words there may have beensomething intrinsically questionable about Jesusrsquo miracle activity and withthis Shem Ṭov follows the lead of the Pharisees196 In contrast in Matthewrsquos

187 MS BL תשובות188 MS BL האב שהנה אומרים 189 MS BL הבן190 MS BL בתשובה191 MS BL הרוח אבל לו 192 MS BL תופלת193 MS BL בגהינם194 MS Plutei 217 ff 145ndash146r MS BL here עכ בגהינם 195 MS Plutei 217 f 146r196 A similar question is raised in comment sect35 (f 149r) on Matt 1529ndash38 ldquoIf he was

(such) a great prophet and the lsquoSon of Godrsquo mdash the lsquoHand of Godrsquo for short mdash (why did) they[the disciples] not see that Moses (likewise) fed and supplied (food for) six hundred thousand(men) apart from the women and children (and that for) forty years in the wildernessrdquo שנית)

לבדרבואלששיםוספקזןשמשהראוולאתקצראלהידאלוהולבןגדוללנביאהיההואאם

במדברשנהארבעיםוהטףהנשים ) The reference to Jesus as the ldquohand of Godrdquo relates an


portrayal Jesusrsquo reaction makes clear that the miracles performed by Jesusought to have been sufficient and it is precisely in this context that Jesus callsthe Pharisees an ldquoevil and adulterous generationrdquo (Matt 1238)

Shem Ṭov acknowledges here in some sense that if Jesus had producedthe proper signs that he would have given sufficient validity to his divinemission and claims and hence would have been credible to the Pharisees197

Interestingly Shem Ṭovrsquos argument rests to a large extend on the Phariseersquosassessment of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of Matthew The evangelist didnot just report that people believed in Jesus he also recalls that the Phariseesrejected Jesus and this constitutes a trustworthy witness about Jesus thatholds weight for Shem Ṭov

6 4 14 Peterrsquos Confession Matt 1613ndash20 (sect37)

Athough this comment only marginally relates to Jesus divinity it has beenincluded because Shem Ṭov presents a unique challenge First of all no othertext surveyed so far has included Peterrsquos high-christological confession (ldquoYouare the Christ the Son of the Living Godrdquo Matt 1616)198 But more interest-ingly Shem Ṭov questions the entire pericope by comparing it to other versesin the Matthew thereby creating doubt about the plausibility of the gospelThe transcriber said I have three questions about this (section)

The first Look in the parable of the weeds in sect62 he said to them ldquoThus it will be in thelast days the ldquoSon of Manrdquo will send his angels etcrdquo (Matt 1341) Who is the one who rulesover angels and the righteous in the Garden of Eden and the wicked in Hell is it the ldquoSon ofGodrdquo

And how is it that he [Jesus] was amazed by Peter(rsquos answer) when he said that he is theldquoSon of Godrdquo (This is all the) more (odd since) he frequently said (things such as) ldquomyfather who is in heavenrdquo and in sect51 he said that ldquoeverything has been given to me from my

old traditionally Christian interpretation though in medieval Judaism this term was also partof the anthropomorphic dispute see Meir Bar-Ilan ldquoThe Hand of God A Chapter in RabbinicAnthropomorphismrdquo in Rashi 1040ndash1990 Hommage agrave Ephraiumlm E Urbach Congregraves Euro-peacuteen des eacutetudes juives (ed Gabrielle Sed-Rajna Paris Cerf 1993) 321ndash35 Cf also PhiloPlant 50 b Sanh 38a or Exod 156 12 Isa 628 Psalm 177 444 Ireneaus first comparedthe Son to ldquothe Hand of Godrdquo by which all things are created in Haer 5283 see alsoCyprian Test 24 (ANF 5516f) Athanasius C Ar 271 (NPNF2 4387) Isidore of Seville(d 636) Etymologiae 7223 Cf the discussion in Anthony Briggman Irenaeus of Lyons andthe Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford Oxford University Press 2012) 104ndash47

197 However according to the long argument in 648 this would not have necessarilymeant for Shem Ṭov that Jesus was divine he would have been perhaps acceptable as aprophet but not as God incarnate

198 In this context Jesus is designated as messiah (Christ) for the first time in Shem ṬovrsquosHebrew gospel all other references to Jesus as messiah have been omitted in the Hebrewtranslation up to here ldquoYou are the Messiah in the foreign language lsquoChristosrsquo son of theliving Godrdquo ( העולם בזה שבאת חיים אלהים בן קרישטו לעז משיח אתה )


Father and nobody knows the Father etcrdquo (Matt 1127) And also in sect56 ldquoevery sin and blas-phemy (against the Son and the Father) will be forgiven etcrdquo (Matt 1231ndash32)

Second in [Matthew] chapter 14 when he spoke to his disciples on the lake (after which)they worshipped him they said ldquoAlas he is the lsquoSon of Godrsquordquo (cf Matt 1433)199 So whywas he now amazed by Peter(rsquos answer) and not by (what) all of them (said) then

Third I wonder how (some) would say that he was John Was Jesus not well-known onaccount of his signs and miracles (performed even) during Johnrsquos lifetime as is mentioned inmany places above

יהיהכןלהםאמסבפרקהזונןבמשלהנההאחתשאלותשלשבזהליישהמעתיקאמרבגןצדיקיםוכןמלאכיםעלשמושל201ומיוכמלאכיואת200האדםבןישלחהימיםבאחרית

שעהכלועודאלהיםשבןשאמ202מפיטרושתמהואיךהואאלהיםבןלגיהנםורשעיםעדןובפרקוכלאבמכירואיןאבימאתלינתוןהכלאמנאובפרקשבשמיםאביאומר חטאכלנובןהואאכיהואמרולוהשתחווביםלתלמידיואמכאשרידבפרקשניתוכ203ימחלוגדוף

אומריםהיואיךתמהנישלישיתאזמכולםולא205מפיטרושעתהתמהולמה204האלהיםבהרבהלעיכנזונפלאותיו206באותותיומפורסםישוהיהיוחנןבימיוהלאיוחנןשהוא

207מקומות

While the first argument is merely a terse rethorical question it raises doubtsconcerning Christian convictions arising from the text Who do Christiansbelieve rules over Heaven and Hell Is it the ldquoSon of Manrdquo as the one who

199 The passage referred to is actually in Matthew chapter fourteen ( ידפרק ) and bothMS BL and MS Plutei 217 (a late 15th century copy) interestingly refer here to theldquomodernrdquo chapter division of the Gospel of Matthew which was probably introduced in 1205as part of a revision of the Old Latin text by Cardinal Stephen Langton who at the time wasprofessor in Paris In 1238 the Dominican Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro (Hugo of St Cher)adopted this system in his concordance Sacrorum bibliorum concordantiae see Walter FSpecht ldquoChapter and Verse Divisionsrdquo in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ed Bruce MMetzger and Michael D Coogan Oxford Oxford University Press 1993) 106 and RaphaelLoewe ldquoThe Medieval History of the Latin Vulgaterdquo in The Cambridge History of the BibleVolume 2 mdash The West From the Fathers to the Reformation (ed GWH Lampe CambridgeCambridge University Press 1969) 147ndash8 see esp 147 n 6 In comment sect39 (f 150r) bothMS BL and MS Plutei 217 refer to the modern chapter division again while at the same timequoting verbatim from the Hebrew Matthew pericope no 48 (in Shem Ṭovrsquos text) This mightsuggest that these modern chapter references were perhaps added by a later copyist althoughthis would have occurred fairly early since it is already in MS Plutei 217 It could also indi-cate that Shem Ṭov (or alternatively one of the earlier copyists) must have been able to accessthe Gospel of Matthew with ldquomodernrdquo chapter divisions by the time of reaching the middle ofcomment sect37 In comments sect2 sect11 sect26 sect31 sect35 and the first half of sect37 references stillcorrespond to the pericope divisions as given in Even Boḥan

200 MS BL אדם בן 201 MS BL מי202 MS BL מפייטרוס203 MS BL omit204 MS BL אלקים בן הוא כי אמרו וגם לו השתחוו 205 MS BL מפייטרוס206 MS BL באותותיו מפורסם היה ישו וכן מפורסם ישו בימי היה יוחנן והלא 207 MS Plutei 217 f 149v


sends angels (Matt 1341) his Father (Matt 1343 1617) the ldquoSon of Godrdquo(Matt 1616) or even Peter (Matt 618ndash19)

The impression of the confused nature of Christian beliefs is then rein-forced with the second question based on Matt 1617 which Shem Ṭov inter-prets as a reaction of surprise208 The comparison with the disciplesrsquo confes-sion after Jesus walked on water (Matt 1433) thus either questions Jesusrsquomental capacity or the veracity of Matthewrsquos composition for it should havebeen easy for Peter to deduce that Jesus is the ldquoSon of Godrdquo based on Jesusrsquofrequently calling God his ldquoFatherrdquo It should have been no surprise to Jesusthat Peter came to this understanding of Jesus Shem Ṭov implicitly assumeshere that Matthew gave a historical account and the tension seen betweenMatt 1433 and Matt 1617 thus questions the probability that these mattershad occured as reported

Likewise the third argument points out potential problems on the narrativelevel of Matthewrsquos gospel Shem Ṭov asks here how it could be possible thatpeople confused Jesus with John (who did not perform any miracles) if he wasso well known on account of his miracles which is indeed a good question

All three arguments appear novel but at least the first must have comefrom a different source unless Shem Ṭov had access to another Gospel ofMatthew version209 The latter two have a distinct historical-critical flavorbecause Shem Ṭov actually shows interest in the historical reality and proba-bilities behind Matthewrsquos account This then is an new quality of engagementwith the Christian text

6 4 15 The Transfiguration Matt 171ndash8 (sect38)

Also unique to Shem Ṭov is his reaction to the reading of the transfigurationaccount in Matt 171ndash8The transcriber said If he was God what need is there for Moses and Elijah to inform himabout what would happen

210יקרהו אשר להודיעו ולאליה למשה צורך מה אלוה הוא אם המעתיק אמר

For the sake of argument Shem Ṭov simply accepts that Jesus was transfig-ured and met with Moses and Elijah although without commenting further on

208 Cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 733) where the same strategy is employed in regard tothe fig tree There it is questioned why the disciples are surprised that the tree actually with-ered if they really believed that Jesus was God

209 Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthew text actually does not make any mention of Jesus as ldquoSon ofManrdquo ( אדםבן ) in Matt 1613 which reads ldquoWhat do men say about merdquo ( בניאמריםמה

בשבילי אדם ) This would suggest that the argument comes from another source210 MS Plutei 217 f 150r MS BL here ואליהוממשההיהצורךמהאלוההואאם

יקרוהו אשר להודיעו


the Bat Qol in Matt 175 which announces that the disciples should obey Jesus( תשמעוןאליו )211 He clearly interacts here with the text he has before himwhich states that Moses and Elijah ldquotold Jesus all which would happen to himin Jerusalemrdquo ( בירושליםשיקראהומהכללישוהגידו )212 This argument is inline with that seen in 6410 on Matt 1125ndash30 where Shem Ṭov remarkedthat Jesus apparently had things to learn and was in need of further instruc-tion The expectable response to this of course is to wonder about Jesusrsquoignorance an objection that is usually attached to Jesusrsquo cursing of the figtree which is included in Shem Ṭovrsquos critique as well

6 4 16 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Matt 2110ndash22 (sect42)The transcriber said Look at this for there are three questions to ask

The first question is Can God hungerThe second is about his lack of knowledge recognition and vision since he did not know

recognize or see that there were no figs on the fig treeThe third is that he cursed the fig tree although the tree had done nothing to him213 nor

did it called him (a bad name) he simply did not receive anything

שהיההשני215ירעבשהאלוההאחתשאלות214שלשכאןוישוהביטהזהראההמעתיקאמרבתאנהתאניםיהיושלא216וראההכירולאידעשלאוראיההכרהוחסרוןידיעהחסרוןלו

217לו נתן ולא לו קראה האם בכפיה חמס לא על התאנה שקלל השלישית

The argument is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) although lessaggressively presented here218 Jesus is understood as somebody with limitedknowledge and appears even as cruel both are taken as arguments against hisdivinity Again one notes the rather simplistic formuation of the questionldquoCan God hungerrdquo The assumed Christian understanding behind this is thatJesus is simply understood as God which on the popular level may very wellhave been the case for many Christian Like in previous polemical works thedoctrine of the two-natures is not commented on though Shem Ṭov havingdisputed with a cardinal likely would have been aware of this teaching

6 4 17 Paying Taxes to Caesar Matt 2215ndash22 (sect44)

As already observed earlier Shem Ṭov follows the Phariseesrsquo lead (see 6411and 6413) when evaluating Jesus and his claims In a discussion of Matt

211 Already in 644 at Jesusrsquo baptism Shem Ṭov did not comment on the Bat Qol212 Cf Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew 82ndash83213 Lit ldquoAbout violence in her [the fig treersquos] handsrdquo cf Job 1617214 MS BL שלשה כאן יש כי 215 MS BL רעב216 MS BL ממה217 MS Plutei 217 f 153v MS BL here לו נתנה ולא קראה האם 218 See also Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 83ndash84 92ndash93 cf Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410)


2215ndash22 where Jesus is asked about paying taxes to Caesar Shem ṬovobservesHere the Pharisees asked him if it was true that he was the Messiah who was able to take offthe yoke of Caesar from their necks and to put their yoke on his shoulders [Caesarrsquos] as it iswritten in the passage ldquoArise shinerdquo (Isa 601) and ldquoforeigners shall rebuild your walls theirkings shall serve you For in my anger I struck you but in my favor I shall have compassionon you And your gates shall be open day and night They will not be closed so that men maybring to you the wealth of the nations and their kings led (in procession) For the nation andthe kingdom which will not serve you will perish and the nations will be utterly ruinedrdquo (Isa6010ndash12) And so the Pharisees seeing that they were (still) under Caesar accordinglyjudged that they would not believe in him

Second if he was the ldquoSon of Godrdquo or the Messiah how is it that he was afraid of CaesarAnd why did he not tell them clearly that they should not give to him anything Has Mosesalthough he was (merely) a man not told Pharaoh in his own country (even) his own houseand to his face ldquoYou must also let us have sacrifices and burnt offeringsrdquo (Exodus 1025)

220שיזרעוללפרוקלוהיה219הואמשיחשאםנכונהממנושאלוהפרושיםהנההמעתיקאמר

ומלכיהםחומותיךנכרבניובנואוריקומיבפרשתדכתיצוארועלעולםולתתצוארםמעליסגרולאולילהיומםתמידשעריךופתחורחמתיךוברצוני221הכיתיךבקצפיכיישרתונךחרובוהגויםיאבדויעבדוךלאאשרוהממלכההגויכינהוגיםומלכיהםגויםחילאליךלהביאאלהיםבןאםשניתבולהאמיןשלאהיהכדין222שיזרתחתשהםבראותםוהפירושיםיחרבו

והלאדברלויתנושלאבפירושלהםאמלאולמה224משיזרנתיראאם223איךהואמשיחאוזבחיםבידנותתןאתהגם226בפניוובביתובארצולפרעהאמראדםבן225הותועםמשה

227ועולות

The question about paying taxes to Caesar was according to Shem Ṭov a validway of assessing if Jesus was the Messiah who was expected to remove theRoman governance of the Promised Land228 Since Jesus was not concernedwith the Roman rule the Pharisees judged him to not be a credible messianiccontender In Shem Ṭovrsquos day a period of intense messianic speculationamong the Jewish communites of Iberia this was an important argument asmany Jews had abandoned their Jewish faith in favor for Christianity precise-ly over the question of the Messiah229

219 MS BL המשיח הוא שאם 220 MS BL ציזארי221 MS BL הכיתך222 MS BL סיזארי223 MS BL omit224 MS BL מציזארי225 MS BL היותו עם עה רבינו ומשה דבר 226 MS BL omit227 MS Plutei 217 f 154v228 For the related historical question see Martin Hengel Die Zeloten Untersuchungen

zur juumldischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I bis 70 n Chr (Leiden Brill1961 2nd rev ed 1976 various translations) recently revised and republished 3rd ed byRoland Deines and Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton (WUNT I283 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011)

229 See Roth Conversos 11 141 194ndash95 383 n 18 et al (see index)


The second objection is similar to comment sect4 (see 643) where Jesusrsquoescape to Egypt is likewise interpreted as an act motivated by fear of a humanruler That Jesus experiences fear which is a point that also appears incomment sect53 (see 6419) is however not the issue here but that Moses issuperior in this regard Where Jesus seems to be a coward Moses showshimself to be a brave national leader Consequently Jesus is not a propersavior and Moses is to be preferred While this argument is only marginallyrelated to Jesusrsquo divinity nevertheless it portrays Jesus as someone unlikely tobe divine as he does not compare to Mosesrsquo stature vis-aacute-vis a foreigner ruler

6 4 18 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Matt 2427ndash36 (sect50)

As in other polemic texts and already earlier in comment sect42 (see 6416)Jesusrsquo ignorance is shown to be being incompatible with divinityThe transcriber said I have two questions here

The first is that that whole generation has already passed away and (also) many other gen-erations (after them) and all this is (quite) evident

Second he said that nobody knows that time but the father alone (and) if so (it means)the Son does not know If so (then) there is a difference between the knowledge of the Fatherand the Son but that is the opposite of their belief

רבותאחרותודורותההואהדורכלעברשכברהאחתשאלותשתיכאןליישהמעתיקאמרכןאםיודעבלתיהבןאכבלבדהאבאלאהעתאותייודעשאיןאמרהואשניתנראהזהוכל230אמונתם הפך והוא לבן האב ידיעת בין הפרש יש

The argument of Jesusrsquo ignorance about the future is similar to NizzahonVetus sect177 and sect194 (see 5411) and Qiṣṣa sect39 (see 2511) Shem Ṭovadds another question concerning Jesusrsquo near expectation of the parousia inMatt 2434 which is also a hotly debated topic in New Testament studies231

If Jesus was wrong as Shem Ṭov implies Jesus clearly lacked divine knowl-edge and may have even have been a false prophet

6 4 19 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2631ndash44 (sect53)

The last of the three more extensive comments in Shem Ṭovrsquos critique of theGospel of Matthew are based on the Gethsemane pericope which are alsoquite similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Judged by the length of therespective comments the Gethsemane pericope played an important role inShem Ṭovrsquos polemic

230 MS Plutei 217 ff 156vndash157r231 See eg Luz Matthew 21ndash28 208ndash10 Davies and Allison Matthew 19ndash28 366ndash68

Randall Otto ldquoDealing with Delay A Critique of Christian Copingrdquo BTB 34 (2004) 150ndash60also Reinaldo Siqueira ldquoThe Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretationrdquo Kerygma 3(2011) 23ndash42


The transcriber said I have six questions about this (section)The first how is it that he was praying that the cup of death should depart from him

although he had come down just for this And he said moreover ldquoLet it not be as I will butaccording to your willrdquo This shows that their wills are not equal But this is the opposite ofwhat they say in their creed232 that their will and their power are one233

Second if he were God how is it that he said that ldquothe Spirit is ready to go to his cre-atorrdquo234 If so (this) should show them that the [his] spirit has a creator and that he is in factcreated If so he would have a God who is above him

The third how is it that he shivered (of fear) of death235 Is God not ldquoexalted in powerrdquo(Job 3723) And if you should say that it was (only) the flesh that was shivering has he notsaid (earlier) ldquomy soul is grievedrdquo And moreover does the body (really) shiver by itselfwithout the participation of the spirit that is giving (the body its) senses

Fourth how is it that he is praying for the cup of death to depart if he was able to do so[himself] It appears that he lacked the awareness (that he had) this ability236 And if so(then) there is a shortcoming in his knowledge and if he were (indeed) God this would be animpossibility with respect to his essence ( בחוקו נמנע זה יהיה אלוה הוא ואם )237

Fifth he shows (here) that the death he received was out of compulsion in order to estab-lish Godrsquos decree and that is the opposite of what is said about him that he received itwillingly238

232 Lit ldquotheir knowledgerdquo (דעתם)233 Shem Ṭovrsquos argument seems not directly relate to the debates over Monotheletism and

Dyothelitism in the 7th century despite the fact that he phrases the problem similarly Thequestion for him (as for other polemicists) is if Jesusrsquo will and Godrsquos will are ldquoin-sync rdquo andhis aim with this argument is to dispute Jesusrsquo divinity For a in-depth study of the debateover Monotheletism see Cyril Hovorun Will Action and Freedom Christological Controver-sies in the Seventh Century (The Medieval Mediterranean 77 Leiden Brill 2008)

234 This argument is based on Shem Ṭovrsquos differing version of Matt 2641 ldquoWatch andpray lest you will come into temptation for (it is) the truth that the spirit is ready to go tohim see (that) the flesh is weak and sickrdquo ( שהרוחשהאמתבנסיוןתבאופןוהתפללושמרו

וחולהחלושהבשראתראולולילךנכון ) The Greek reads here ldquoγρηγορεῖτε καὶπροσεύχεσθε ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόνmiddot τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξἀσθενήςrdquo (NA27) the Latin ldquovigilate et orate ut non intretis in temptationem spiritus quidempromptus est caro autem infirmardquo (Vg) Shem Ṭovrsquos comment interprets this as ldquothe spirit isready to go to its Creatorrdquo ( לבוראולילךנכוןהרוח ) It is thus possible that the gospel text hasbeen corrupted here Based on Howardrsquos apparatus MS Heb 28 Bibliotheek der Rijksuniver-siteit Leiden reads הבשר אך לבוראו לילך (ldquohellipto go to its Creatorhelliprdquo) here

235 This detail is not found in Shem Ṭovrsquos Matthew text nor do any of the other canonicalgospels explicitly report that Jesus was shaking (but cf Luke 2244) Shem Ṭov must havetaken this from Milḥamot ha-Shem (cf ומתפחד מריעד היה ועתה ) see 346

236 Or ldquooptionrdquo237 The argument probably relates to Ḥasdai Crescasrsquo philosophical treatise rsquoOr Adonay

(ldquoLight of Godrdquo) book 2 chapter 5 שהואאצלוומורגשנגלהמבוארוההכרחהחיובהנהההיאהאמונהסותרלהאמיןבחוקונמנע This then is one of the few times in the discussion

of New Testament texts that a more serious problem with the Christian understanding ispointed out though it still does not fully engage the Christian understanding of the two-natures of Christ Lasker has already pointed out the influence of rsquoOr Adonay on Kelimmatha-Goyim see idem The Refutation of the Christian Principles 8 88 n 27 cf also 12ndash15

238Cf Mark 831ndash33 John 1017ndash18 1910ndash11 also Origen Cels 131 211 34 473


Sixth if you should (however) say that the truth (of the matter) is that he received thisdeath willingly mdash if so why were the Jews then (according) to your opinion239 punished forthis Or is the doer of Godrsquos will not deserving of good reward much less deserving of pun-ishment And if you should say that their punishment is based on the fact that they did notintend to do his will instead (even) angered him mdash are simple intentions then (punishable)like deeds240 And therefore since this was (presumably) a good deed and willingly donethere is then no reason to punish (anyone) over this But much more so they [the disciples]are (even) compelled by him to fulfill the will of the Lord and his decree as is mentioned inthe next pericope ldquoto fulfill what is written in Scripturerdquo (cf Matt 2654) And also it isclear241 that the killers did not (really) hold him to be the ldquoSon of Godrdquo unless they wouldhave been completely foolish (either way) they are not liable Instead according to their(own) words they were thinking he was an impostor and a blasphemer of God And if that isthe case they killed him in accordance with the law So why were they punished

לאוהואממנוהמותכוסשיסורמתפללהיהאיךהאחתשאלותששבזהליישהמעתיקאמרוזהשוהבלתישרצונםיראהכרצונךאלאיהיהרוצהשאניכמולאאומרוועודלזהאלאירדלילךנכוןשהרוחאמראיךאלוההואאםשניתאחדוכוחםורצנםשדעתםשאמרמההפך

נרעדהיהאיךהשלישיתלוממעלאלוהישאכברויוהואבוראלרוחשישיראםאכלבוראווהלאועודמתעצבתנפשיאמרוהלאנרעדהיהשהבשרואתכחשגיאהאלוהלאמהמות

המותכוסלהסירמתפללהיהאיךרביעיתהחושהנותןהרוחבשתוףאםכינרעדבלתיהגוףואםבדעתוחסרוןיהיהואכהאפשרותבזההידיעהחסרהיהשהואנראהלהיותיוכלאםהאלגזירתלקייםכרחועלקבלהשהמיתהיראהחמישיתבחוקונמנעזהיהיהאלוההואלמהאכברצונוקבלהשהמותשהאמתאתששיתברצונושקבלהעליוהנאמרהפךוהואראוישאיןוכשטובלתגמולראויהשםרצוןהעושהוהלאזהעללדעתכםהיהודיםנענשושבלבדבריםוהלאלהכעיסואלארצונולעשותהםנתכונושלאלפישעונשםואתשיענשעליומוכרחיםשהםוכשעליוליענשראויאיןורצויטובשהפועלאחריולכןדבריםאינם

לאשההורגיםספקשאיןועודהכתביםכתבילמלאתהבאבפכנזוגזירתוהשםרצוןלמלאתהיוהםאבלעונשיםבניואינםגמוריםשוטיםיהיוכןלאשאםאלוהבןהיותוחושביםהיו

242נענשו ולמה הרגוהו כדין כן ואם לדבריו השם ומחלל משקר היותו חושבים

As already noted the Gethsemane prayer features prominently in most Jewishpolemic texts that discuss New Testament texts243 Shem Ṭov is clearlyindebted to Jacob ben Reuben since there are several clear paralles in wordingand argumentation (cf 346)244 though he is more succinct in presenting hisarguments In addition to what is found in Milḥamot ha-Shem he adds twomore points (questions two and six) which appear to be Shem Ṭovrsquos owncontributions The former is based on the Hebrew gospel translation available

239 Lit ldquoto your knowledgerdquo (לדעתכם)240 This rabbinic principle is phrased here as a double negative ldquoThen are not the matters

of the heart not (real) mattersrdquo ( דבריםאינםשבלבדבריםוהלא ) meaning there is no reli-gious significance or consequence to unexpressed (and unverifiable) human intention cfb Qidd 49b

241 Lit ldquothere is no doubtrdquo ( ספק אין )242 MS Plutei 217 ff 159rndash159v243 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect53 and sectsect139ndash141 (see 2515) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see

4519ndash20) and Nizzahon Vetus sect176 (see 5412)244 See also Levy ldquoChapter Elevenrdquo 142


to him and the latter relates to the accusation of deicide and is perhapsgleaned from Sefer ha-Berit245 In particular this last point is noteworthyaccording to Christian thinking Jesus went to the cross willingly and in doingso fulfilled a divine plan Jews should therefore be doubly blameless from theaccusation of being ldquoChrist-killersrdquo246 This is of course not only a very goodargument it is also a central theological issue Jews should not be held culpa-ble for Jesusrsquo death that Matthew and Christian theology maintain to be God-ordained247 In fact this notion has fueled anti-semitic atrocities throughouthistory and for Shem Ṭov and his contemporaries this matter may have beenmuch more serious

6 4 20 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2727ndash66 (sect56)

The last comment that relates (although very remotely) to Jesusrsquo divinityfollows the crucifixion account in Matt 2727ndash66The transcriber said John wrote that Jesus carried the cross himself but here it says thatSimeon (carried) the cross

Second if he is God how is it that he did not know what was in the bitter wine until hestarted to drink it Moreover how is it that Jesus was three hours on a cross and there were(also) thieves with him Did the (act of) hanging not strangle him within the hour But more-

245 ldquoThe gentiles say that the time had not yet come when he was to suffer This provesthat according to them he was afflicted when he wished it so Accordingly he descended toearth to die and save the world from the torment of hell Why then did he punish the nationthat dealt rightly with him since by his own free will he accepted death Had the Jews notwanted to kill him he would have put it into their hearts to do so since he was God and itwas so decreed from above by his father in heaven He underwent death to safe the world forin no other way could he have saved the world from the torment of hell Only by his bloodand his death according to their notion did he redeem the world from Satanrsquos power If sohe committed a grave injustice in punishing the nation that killed and afflicted him accordingto his own wishes We can say too that the intention of the Jews was positive since theyheard from his own mouth that the salvation of the world depended on his death [Theywished then] that the world be be saved through them that they might have some merit in theworld to come in this matter Therefore they killed him to save the worldrdquo Talmage TheBook of the Covenant 76ndash77 [Hebr ed pp 63ndash64] A similar argument also occurs in QiṣṣaNestor sect24a see Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor the Priest 156 n 7 143 cf also RosenthalJoseph Hamekane sect43 137 Moreover it appears already in Justin Dial 952ndash4

246 The accusation that Jews were ldquoChrist-killersrdquo (deicide) is according to Roth compara-tively rare in medieval Spain as relations between Christians and Jews were usually morecordial see Roth Conversos 347 But cf MS Plutei 217 f 107r ldquoThey think we killedJesusrdquo ( לישוהרגנושאנוחושביםהם ) For the history of this idea see esp Jeremy CohenChrist Killers The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big Screen (New York OxfordUniversity Press 2007) also Cohen ldquoThe Jews as the Killers of Christrdquo

247 In spite of this some Christian theologians nevertheless tried to maintain this accusa-tion see the discussion under 453


over in the legal traditions of Israel there is no (mandate that stipulates that a) thief ought tobe killed So why did they hang these as thieves

הואאםשניתהוליכהששמעוןאמוכאןהצליבההוליךעצמושישוכתיוחנןהמעתיקאמרבצליכהשעותשלשישוהיהאיךועודלשתותשהתחילעדמרהבייןשהיהידעלאאיךאלוהתלוולמהנהרגהגנבאיןישראלשבדיניועודלשעתונחנקהנתלהוהלאעמוהגנביםוכן

248גנבים לאותם

Shem Ṭov limits himself here to the discussion of the discrepancies betweenthe passion narratives and the inconsistencies between the gospel accountsand rabbinic criminal law He wonders about the oddities of the story itselfhow is it that mere robbers received capital punishment and how could Jesushave been unaware that he was given vinegar The first questions the veracityof the Gospel account the latter the veracity of the claim that Jesus is divinesince he seems ignorant

Shem Ṭovrsquos polemic also operates on the premise that Jesus death occurreddue to being strangulated (by hanging on gallows) His argument is curiousinasmuch it would stand to reason that he had seen depictions of Jesus cruci-fied249 Therefore it would seem most probable that the Hebrew translation hereceived already described Jesus as being ldquohangedrdquo (on gallows)250 and thathis comment criticizes the text itself In other words he disputes what isdepicted in the translation at hand over against what he knows from Christianart and gospel narratives Based on this passage Garshowitz has suggestedthat the translator may have been a zealous apostate who capitalized on theprevailing Jewish tradition and wanted ldquoto maximize the Jewsrsquos blame forJesusrsquo deathrdquo inasmuch as hanging was a Jewish form of punishment251

In this context Shem Ṭov unlike other polemicists does not discuss thenotion of suffering or death However in comment sect58 he writesYou already saw my comment about (his) death and on the outcry (on the cross) So to whomand about whom can one say and arrange such a thing as this (Surely) one can much better

248 MS Plutei 217 f 161v249 Eg crosses are depicted on medieval Aragonian coinage of the 13th and 14th

century also altar crucifixes or Christian jewelry of the 14th century ought to have beenfamiliar to Shem Ṭov

250 But more likely on the cabbage stalk mentioned in Toledot Yeshu see Hillel INewman ldquoThe Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literaturerdquo JTS 50 (1999) 59ndash79 andMichael Meerson ldquoMeaningful Nonsense A Study if Details in Toledot Yesurdquo in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) 181ndash96

251 Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo 303 HoweverDavid W Chapman has shown that תלה can indeed refer to crucifixion though in the Mishnait is not a death penalty on its own but following crucifixion see idem Ancient Jewish andChristian Perceptions of Crucifixion (WUNT 2244 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2008 GrandRapids Baker 2010) 30ndash32 228ndash34 et passim


(say) this about the King of ldquothe King of Kingsrdquo may he be blessed (who is) beyond anychange or any ldquooffspring of the mightyrdquo252

מלךעלכשהזהכדברויסדריאמרמיועלולמיוצעקתההמיתהזאתדברירואהאתהכבר253רב ועלוי שנוי מכל ית המלכי מלכי

Shem Ṭov presumably refers here to his discussion of Psalm 22 whichappears much earlier in Even Boḥan in a debate between a Christian (המשלש)and a Jew (המיחד) which is similar to Milḥamot ha-Shem254

The Jew replied ldquoYou are saying that he received the judgment of the crucifixion willinglyand that he came down for this [very purpose] If so why did he call out to God to save himFurthermore how could he have placed himself under another by saying lsquomy God my Godrsquo(Psalm 221) and similarily lsquoMy God I cry by day but you do not answerrsquo (Psalm 222) Itseems he was screaming without being answered And if you should say that the flesh said allthis tell me how to interpret the passage lsquoDeliver my soul from the sword my only [life]from the power of the dogrsquo (Psalm 2220) Moreover you [essentially] explained lsquoBut I am aworm and not a manrsquo (Psalm 226) [to mean] that he is in the likeness of a worm If so youshould interpret in like manner lsquoDo not fear you worm of Jacobrsquo (Isa 4114) [and] lsquoHowmuch less man a worm the son of man a maggotrsquo (Job 256) Moreover your translatorserred when they wrote lsquothey pierced my hands and feetrsquo (Psalm 2216) Surely lsquolike a lionrsquo iswritten [there]rdquo255

ייאלצעקלמהכןאםירדושלכךברצונוהצליבהדיןשקבלשאמרתאתההמיחדהשיבולאיומםאקראאלהיוכןאליאליבאומרואחרתחתעצמושםאיךועודשיצילהו

מההודיעניזהכלאומרהיהשהבשרתאמרואםנענהבלתיצווחשהיהנראהתענהאישולאתולעתואנכיפירשתעודיחידתיכלבמידנפשימחרבהצילהבפסוקתאמראדםובןרמהאנושכיואףיעקבתולעתתיראיאלכןתפרשכןאםהתולעתבדמיוןשהואכארישהאמתהעתיקולאוכוורגליידיכרובשכתבושמעתיקיךתדעעודתולעת256כתיב

252 The phrase רבעלוי also occurs in Ibn Tibbonrsquos translation of Moreh Nevukim 19 לארבעלוייתעליוהבוראשינשאגשםשיש expressing there that God is too exalted to become

corporeal which is perhaps also what Shem Ṭov had in mind by using this phrase253 MS Plut 217 f 162r254 See Rosenthalrsquos edition 66ndash67 and Garshowitz ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos

Even Bohanrdquo 2177ndash181 (Plutei 217 ff 88vndash89r) Cf the discussion of Psalm 22 in Nizza-hon Vetus sect145 (see 5413)

255 The phrase כארי in Psalm 2216[17] most naturally would be rendered as ldquolike a lionrdquothough this creates an awkward reading and may not be original the JPS Bible eg trans-lates ldquolike lions [they] maul my hands and feetrdquo adding the verb ldquomaulrdquo Alternatively bymeans of an emmendation it can be related to the root כרה (to dig) thus the LXX translatedhere ὤρυξαν (ldquothey dug out made a hole by diggingrdquo) which corresponds to the traditionalChristian reading ldquothey pierced my hand and feetrdquo Christians consequently have used Psalm2216[17] as a prediction of Jesusrsquo death on the cross the first being Justin Martyr in 1 Apol3538 and Dial 97 104 On this see esp Gregory Vall ldquoPsalm 2217B lsquoThe Old GuessrsquordquoJBL 116 (1997) 45ndash56 and Kristin M Swenson ldquoPsalm 2217 Circling around the ProblemAgainrdquo JBL 123 (2004) 637ndash48

256 Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 2179ndash80


After this Shem Ṭov inserts his own comment257

The abridger said If Jesus were God and the Trinity were stuck together eternally in accor-dance with your belief how could the flesh have said ldquoWhy have you forsaken merdquo(Psalm 221) since heit258 was always with him Also ldquodeliver my soul from the swordrdquo(Psalm 2220) He could have said ldquomy bodyrdquo or ldquomy fleshrdquo because the soul which is thedivinity is not subject to salvation259

יוכלאיךכאמונתךלעולםיחדנדבקיםוהשלשהאלוהישוהיהאםהמקצרטובשםאמרכיבשריאוגופילומרהיהנפשימחרבהצילהועודעמותמידוהואעזבתנילמהלומרהבשר260הצלה בה יפול לא האלהות שהיא הנפש

After essentially reproducing a passage from Milḥamot ha-Shem Shem Ṭovforwards a challenge based on Psalm 221 (Matt 2746 par Mark 1534) ifJesus Christ had pre-existed with God and always was joined to God howcould he in his incarnationhumanity (ldquothe fleshrdquo) despair over being left byGod And on the other side how could Jesus pray for his ldquosoulrdquo to berescued If the soul is understood as the divine aspect of Jesus which seemsto be the understanding Shem Ṭov shares with other Jewish scholars261 heshould have prayed for his flesh ie his human nature to be delivered not hisdivine nature But by praying for his soul so the implication he demonstratesthat he is at the core a man which is also why he can despair over beingseperated from God

Shem Ṭov clearly points here something of the inherent paradox of confes-sing Jesus as the God-man Even after distinguishing human and divinenature262 the language of the passage at hand challenges the notion that thedivine nature was unaffected It is as such evident that Shem Ṭov is familiarat least rudimentarily with the notion of the two-natures of Christ and hefinds that the imagery of separation abandonment and despair does not siteasy with high christological claims nor the doctrine of the Trinity

6 5 Summary

In Even Boḥan we have a fine presentation and sample of a Jewish critique ofthe Gospel of Matthew which mdash as most likely intended by the author mdash

257 Shem Ṭov refers to himself here as the ldquoabridgerrdquo ( המקצרטובשםאמר ) and as wasseen throughout as someone who essentially extracts from Milḥamot ha-Shem elements hedeemed important

258 Grammatically both is possible either the flesh was co-joined with God or the Son259 The translation is based on Garshowitz ldquoEven Bohan (Touchstone)rdquo 1xxiiindashix260 The critical Hebrew text is given ibid 180261 See the summaries in 55 and 913262 Or even pre-incarnate and incarnate existence though not as Christians understand it


allows for a relatively comprehensive view of Jewish objections to the claimsof Christianity based on the New Testament itself

Shem Ṭovrsquos arguments against the divinity of Jesus stand within the trajec-tory of the previous polemic tradition and in particular Jacob ben ReubenrsquosMilḥamot ha-Shem which he clearly knew and defended in the later revisionof Even Boḥan against Alfonso de Valladolidrsquos refutation263 He liberallydraws from Jacob ben Reubenrsquos treatise though he presents a more succinctand systematic treatment of the Gospel of Matthew than many of his prede-cessors His reasoning is based on a plain exegesis and he abstains fromlengthy exegetical excursions or sharp polemical attacks Especially in placeswhere his Hebrew gospel text deviates (from the canonical text) it is possibleto see some of Shem Ṭovrsquos own thoughts on Matthew

Although his comments are usually quite brief he is more verbose whencommenting on Matt 41ndash11 (see 645) Matt 932ndash38 (see 648) Matt1111ndash15 (649) Matt 1125ndash30 (see 6410) Matt 1222ndash29 (see 6411)and Matt 2631ndash44 (see 6419) Of these Jesusrsquo temptation (Matt 41ndash11)Jesusrsquo miracles (Matt 932ndash28) and Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane (2631ndash44)are discussed in great length Matt 932ndash38 in particular presents him with theopportunity to give a systematic and rational critique of the incarnation thevirginal conception claims of Jesusrsquo divinity and the trustworthiness of theGospel of Matthew itself which in this form appears to be original to ShemṬov Likewise his remarks about Jesusrsquo exchange with the Pharisees over hisexorcisms (Matt 1222ndash29) are not commonly found in other sources This isalso true for his observations on Matt 1111ndash15 (see 659) and Matt 1613ndash20(see 6414) which question the probabilities of Matthewrsquos account within thegospelrsquos narrative horizon Interestingly Shem Ṭov follows the Phariseesrsquoevaluation of Jesus for which he relies on the Gospel of Matthew264 Unlikemost of the polemical tradition he does not explicitly argue that Joseph isJesusrsquo biological father instead he questions the purpose relating Jesus toJoseph if the latter is indeed conceived without Josephrsquos involvement (see641)

Shem Ṭovrsquos incorporation and in fact propagation of the entire Gospel ofMatthew must be understood in line with his view and use of the gospel Onthe one side Shem Ṭov clearly seeks to explain how Matthewrsquos account ofJesusrsquo life and teaching could be attractive and in doing so arrives at a diffi-cult but also more nuanced Jewish view of Jesus On the other side hemaintains that the arguments for Jesusrsquo divinity are irrational and cannot beestablished from the gospel text itself His view of the gospel is thus some-what ambivalent and while he clearly identifies it as flawed he still finds it in

263 See Garshowitz review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ 458264 See 6411 6413 and 6417

65 Summary 255

its entirety useful enough to argue against Christianity This then allows himto reject ontological claims about Jesus but at the same time to still affirmJesusrsquo teaching as far as it is in line with the rabbinic tradition He goes togreat lengths to show that ldquoJesusrsquo halachahrdquo is a copy of Jewish traditionJesus was not innovating (מחדש) on anything Thus he can show that Jesusrsquosteaching was mostly in line with Jewish thinking and that it was Matthewrsquos(or Jesusrsquo) intention to attract his Jewish audience with this265 Shem Ṭov isas such one of the first Jewish scholars to explicitly acknowledge that theGospel of Matthew shows an affinity between Jesus and Judaism

265 See the discussion under 63 and 648


Chapter 7

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inProfiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim

7 1 Introduction

Isaac ben Moses ha-Levy1 usually referred to as Profiat Duran or Efodi2 isone of the most exceptional polemical writers of the Late Middle Ages It islikely he was forcibly baptized in the wake of the anti-Jewish persecutionsthat began in Seville in 1391 and he may have taken on the Christian nameHonoratus de Bonafide3 Nevertheless he appears to have secretly continuedin his Jewish faith or returned to Judaism at a later point and therefore wouldhave written the polemical treatise Kelimmat ha-Goyim (ldquoThe Reproach of theGentilesrdquo) at considerable risk to himself4 Kelimmat ha-Goyim stands out as

1 Norman Roth (erroneously) calls him Israel instead of Isaac see Conversos 1922 His nome de plume Efod (אפד) according to Talmage was based on the acronym of

his Catalan name En Profiat Duran although it could also be the abbreviation for אניאמרדוראןפרופייט Efod could also be a veiled reference to the shame of his forced baptism see

Frank Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Immanuel 13 (1981) 69ndash85 see69 72ndash73 also Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155 Jonathan Friedlaumlnder and JakobKohn Maase Efod Einleitung in das Studium der Hebraumlischen Sprache von Profiat Duran[ אפדמעשה ] (Vienna Holzwarth 1865) 2 (German part) Also Norman Roth has suggestedthat the name is referring to the efod (the priestly breastplate) mentioned in the Talmud (andTorah) which signifies that Profiat Duran ldquosought atonement for his own conversion and forothers in his generationrdquo see his Conversos 192ndash3 see also 36ndash37 142ndash43

3 Richard W Emery ldquoNew Light on Profayt Duran lsquoThe Efodirsquordquo JQR 58 (1968) 328ndash37 see especially 331ndash32 Emeryrsquos reconstruction has been questioned however to date hisinvestigation of Duranrsquos life circumstances appears to be based on the best evidence avail-able Cf Baer History 2152 Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo 72Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155ndash156 and Netanyahu Marranos 221ndash23

4 Sometimes also translated as the ldquoShamerdquo or ldquoConfusion of the Gentilesrdquo To date thereare two Hebrew editions of Kelimmat ha-Goyim available The earlier edition was publishedby Adolf Posnanski ldquoThe Reproach of the Gentiles The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran ofPerpignan in the year 1397rdquo [ דוראןפרופייטמאישטרוחיבורוהגויםכלימתספר

הקנזבשנתמפירפינייאנו ] Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914) 99ndash113 143ndash80 4 (1915)37ndash48 81ndash96 115ndash23 [Hebr] which was translated into English by Anne D Berlin butunfortunately never published idem ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Polemic Against Christianityrdquo (BA thesis Cambridge Mass RadcliffeCollege Harvard University 1987) The more recent edition was published by FrankTalmage ed The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran The Reproach of the Gentiles and

one of the best informed and ingenious anti-Christian treatises of its genre inparticular when it comes to the treatment and use of the New Testament5 Itwas most likely written between 1396 and 1397 though the composition datehas also been discussed in relation to the timing of Duranrsquos forced conversionaround the year 13916

Duran was an erudite writer and had extensive knowledge of Semitic andRomance languages even Greek7 which he ably demonstrates in his treatiseon Hebrew grammar Malsquoaseh rsquoEfod8 He also wrote on astronomy andperhaps may have been the court astrologer of Juan I of Aragon9 Duran is

lsquoBe not like unto thy Fathersrsquo [ תהיאלואיגרתהגויםכלימתדוראןלפרופיטפולמוספכתבי[באבותיך (ldquoKuntresimrdquo Texts and Studies 55 Jerusalem The Zalman Shazar Center andThe Dinur Center 1981) Neither publication can be considered a full critical edition ofKelimmat ha-Goyim Talmagersquos version is based on what he has deemed to be the most reli-able manuscript (MS Bodl Caps Or F 4 19969 = Neubauer 2155) see ibid 27 (מבוא)He chose this 16th century copy and two further manuscripts from more than 30 extant copiesof Kelimmat ha-Goyim by analyzing how faithfully the (Italian) scribes had rendered Catalanwords Posnanskirsquos edition although his footnotes provides a wealth of information appearssomewhat ldquoover-editedrdquo eg the New Testament is referenced with verse numbers as if theywere part of the original text For these reasons Talmagersquos edition has been chosen as theprincipal text underlying this chapter An English translation of the slightly abridged intro-duction (מבוא) of this edition appeared in the same year see idem ldquoThe Polemical Writingsof Profiat Duranrdquo which was republished in Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver Studies inMedieval Jewish Exegesis and Polemics (ed Barry Dov Walfish Papers in Medieval Studies14 Toronto Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies 1999) 281ndash97

5 On Duranrsquos polemic see Jeremy Cohenrsquos valuable article ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos TheReproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicrdquo in ShlomoSimonsohn Jubilee Volume Studies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages andRenaissance Period (ed Daniel Carpi et al Jerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen1993) 71ndash84 see also Lasker ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemicsrdquo 74ndash76 and RosenthalldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo 229ndash34 [1349ndash54]

6 See Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 286 Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 335 most relevant isNetanyahu Marranos 221ndash23

7 See Jacob S Levinger and Irene Garbell ldquoDuran Profiatrdquo EncJud (2007) 656ndash578 See Friedlaumlnder and Kohn Maase Efod also Irene E Zwiep ldquoJewish scholarship and

Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia Profiat Duran and the art of memoryrdquo inHebrew Scholarship and the Medieval World (ed Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cam-bridge University Press 2001) 224ndash39

9 A Honorato de Bonafeacute served at the Aragonese court in May 1392 (which thereforewould be the terminus ante quem for his forced conversion) see Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 331ndash32 If this was indeed Duran it would fit well with his impressive knowledge of Christiantexts to which he would have had access more easily at the royal court of Aragon Juan I wasborn in 1350 in Perpignan which is also Profiat Duranrsquos hometown and it is at such at leastpossible that they were familiar with each other (Emery suggests Duran was born around1340ndash45) On Duranrsquos life and works see also Krauss and Horbury Controversy 210ndash12Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword 155ndash59 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of ProfiatDuranrdquo 1ndash36 Talmage ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Netanyahu Marranos


well-known as the composer of the satirical epistle rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka (ldquoBenot like thy Fathersrdquo) which is an open letter written to Davi (David) BonetBonjorn Duranrsquos friend had been forcibly baptised but afterwards genuinelyconverted to Christianity under the tutelage of the prominent convert Pablo deSanta Mariacutea (Solomon ha-Levy) rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka is Duranrsquos attempt topersuade him to return10 For some time it was perhaps misunderstood by itsChristian readers as a polemic against Judaism when in fact it was a mostclever satire against Christianity11 More recently a third polemical workentitled Teshuvot bersquoAnshei rsquoAwen (ldquoResponses to Impious Menrdquo cf Job3436) has been related to Duran12

7 2 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Profiat Duran was an associate of Ḥasdai Crescas the chief Rabbi of Zaragozaand official leader of the Jews of Aragon Crescas commissioned Duran toproduce a major polemical treatise primarily aimed at the conversos ldquoandmore particularly for those among them who were partly Christianizedrdquo13 Inresponse it would seem Duran composed Kelimmat ha-Goyim He writes inthe introductionOh Glory of the Rabbis and Crown of the Believers Your Highness has asked me to set outfor you in a (more) general manner about what has become clear to me concerning the inten-

84ndash94 221ndash23 Baer History 2150ndash58 Friedlaumlnder and Kohn Maase Efod 2ndash11 (Germanpart) Max Saenger ldquoUeber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes הכלימהס oder כלימתMGWJ 4 (1854) 320ndash27 5 (1855) 197ndash202 rdquoהגוים

10 See 63 and Roth Conversos 136ndash50 193ndash9411 See Krauss and Horbury Controversy 211 Trautner-Kromann Shield and Sword

155ndash62 Rosenthal ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo 227ndash29 [1347ndash49] esp Talmage ldquoPolemical Writ-ingsrdquo 73ndash76 also Lasker ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemicsrdquo 90ndash91 The English translationof the letter has been made available by Franz Kobler ed Letters of Jews through the AgesFrom Biblical Times to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed 4 vols LondonArarat 1953) 1276ndash82 and also by Frank Talmage ed Disputation and Dialogue Read-ings in the Jewish Christian Encounter (New York Ktav 1975) 119ndash23 See also Eleazar(Eliezer) Gutwirth ldquoReligion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon An Aspect ofProfayt Duranrsquos Activitiesrdquo Michael 12 (1991) 142ndash45

12 Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes and Carlos del Valle have attributed this tract to Duran and pub-lished it in a critical edition Profiat Duraacuten Cinco Cuestiones Debatidas De Poleacutemica Ediacute-cion criacutetica bilingue con anotaciones de C del Valle (Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1999)The treatise is composed of five short chapters 1) A discussion of the nature of the promisesgiven in the Torah 2) the interpretation of Psalm 7217 3) the interpretation of Isaiah 714and 95 4) the interpretation of Psalm 1101 and 5) a discussion of the value of Jesusrsquo mira-cles as proofs for his divinity (giving the familiar argument that other biblical figures also per-formed miracles nevertheless are not divine the same occurs in Kelimmat ha-Goyim)

13 Netanyahu Marranos 86


tion of the alleged messiah and of his disciples or apostles and if they intended the destruc-tion of the divine Torah in its entirety or in part according to what was proclaimed and per-petuated by those who believe in him and (also) those who were drawn after him and(furthermore) what their intention was with this faith And (further) upon what basis the theo-logians (or preachers) of this nation who came after them build their faith and their opin-ion(s) (and) how they argue (for their opinions) from their (own) words and the words of theprophets of the truth peace be upon them and the divine Torah14

מכוונתלישנתבררמהעללהעמידךרוממותךשאלתניהמאמיניםונזרהרבניםתפארתאובכלהאלוהיתהתורהחריסתכיוונוואםכללדרךעלשלוחיואוותלמידיוהמדומההמשיחההיאבאמונהכוונתםאחריווהנמשכיםבוהמאמיניםאצלונמשךשנתפרסםמהכפיבחלקשיטענובמהאחריהםבאואשרההיאבאומההמדבריםודעתםאמונתםבנויסודאיזהועל

15האכוהית והתורה זל האמת נביאי ומדברי מדבריהם

Netanyahu has suggested that Crescas was perhaps not entirely satisfied withDuranrsquos work because it may have been too scholarly and hence proceeded tocompose his own polemical work Biṭṭul lsquoiqqare ha-Noṣrim (ldquoRefutation ofthe Christiansrsquo Principlesrdquo) originally written in either Catalan or Ara-gonese16 The writing of a polemical treatise in the vernacular is highly un-common but it shows Crescasrsquo determination to reach the larger conversocommunity17 In fact large numbers of Jews in Spain and Aragon hadconverted to Christianity18 and it is exactly this group which Crescas Duran(and also Shem Ṭov) ultimately seek to address19 Duran however held to themore traditional method of first addressing his treatise to Crescas and otherrabbinic leaders just as he had been asked It is therefore not quite fair tothink that Crescas felt that Kelimmat ha-Goyim was insufficient20 After all it

14 The English translations of Kelimmat ha-Goyim in this chapter are all my own thoughI have consulted Anne Berlinrsquos translation and at times followed her lead

15 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 316 See Daniel J Lasker The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas 2ndash

3 for the Hebrew text see R Ḥasdai Crescas Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim (ed Daniel JLasker Ramat-Gan Bar-Ilan University 1990) [Hebr] See also Krauss and Horbury Con-troversy 209ndash10 Baer History 2163ndash4 and Netanyahu Marranos 86ndash87

17 According to Netanyahy Marranos 86ndash87 This would also corroborate his (andNorman Rothrsquos) thesis that most conversions were voluntary for forced converts hardlywould need a tract composed in the local vernacular to convince them to not longer remain inthe Christian faith See also Laskerrsquos discussion of this issue The Refutation of the ChristianPrinciples 8ndash10

18 See the summary under 62 but also Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 3 and Netan-yahu Marranos 77ndash134 235ndash45

19 Since Duran was born around 1345 and probably died after 1414 he would have been acontemporary of Shem Ṭov ibn Shaprut and consequently alive at the time of the disputationat Tortosa See Emery ldquoNew Lightrdquo 333ndash34 and Baer History 2217 See also the discus-sion in 642

20 In particular when one considers the last lines of the introduction of Kelimmat ha-Goyim ldquoTherefore so as to fulfill your wish I have (effectively) declared to void my wishand I will write a little as is pleasing to you since I knew (that) with the breadth and hight of


is Duranrsquos explicit strategy to reach the larger Jewish and converso commu-nity through CrescasYour intention oh Glory of the Rabbis is to open the gate (and) if possible to answer (theopponents) from the speakersrsquo (own) words For this is the true(st) and (most) decisiveanswer when dealing with issues like these And although none of the predecessors (and)inheritors of truth cared to pass on the truth in these (matters) and to reveal it21 nor wanted towaste time with such matters however you Oh Glory of the Rabbis you saw the days of eviland wrath pour out over the exiles of Jerusalem which are in Spain and (how) the ones whoburst out (from us) (ie apostates)22 have multiplied those ldquowho are deeply hiding their coun-selrdquo (Isa 2915) to heap up a rampart against the wall of the Torah (cf Eze 2127) to make itldquolike a watchmanrsquos hut in a cucumber field like a besiegedrdquo and breached city (cf Isa 18)But you Oh Glory of the Rabbis are desiring to establish its fallen and destroyed hut (cfAmos 911) and also since the leprosy of heresy is blossoming on the foreheads of the people(cf Lev 1312) ldquoand all the people were arguingrdquo (2 Sam 1910) (over) the wood of the staffof wickedness and ldquoarrogance has blossomedrdquo (Eze 710 cf Num 17)

היאכיהאומרמאמרכפילהשיבאפשראםהשערלפתוחהרבניםתפארתממךהכוונההאמתנוחלימהקודמיםשאחדהיותועםהנושאיםבאלובכיוצאוהניצחתהאמיתיתהתשובה

אתההנהלזהבדומההזמןלבלותרצולאכיוגםולגלותוהאמתלפרסםבזההשגיחולאורבובספרדאשרירושליםגלותעלהשפוכהוהחימההרעהימיראיתהרבניםתפארת

אותהלתתהאלוהיתהתורהחומתעלסוללהלשפוךעצהלסתירוהמעמיקיםהמתפרציםהנופלתסוכתהלהקיםהרבניםתפארתאתהורוצהופרוצהנצורהכעירבמיקשהכמלונה

הרשעמטהעץנדוןהעםכלויהיפורחתהאנשיםבמצחותמינותצרעתכיוגםוהנהרסת23הזדון ופרח

It is evident from this introduction that Duranrsquos times were indeed dire notonly had many Jews chosen or been forced to convert some even had joinedthe ranks of the Christians in besieging Judaism24 Kelimmat ha-Goyim fulfillsas such a defensive but also offensive role in the polemical discourse as iteffectively attempts to break the metaphorical siege by turning the opponentsrsquoweaponry against them

Duranrsquos overall strategy was to answer the opponents from their own scrip-tures ( האומרמאמרכפי ) for he felt the Christian texts themselves were bestproof against the doctrines of Christianity ( והניצחתהאמיתיתהתשובההיאכי

your intelligence you will add to it (further) sophisticated remarksrdquo ( רצונךלעשותכןעלבותוסיףשכלךוגובהלבבךברוחבידעתייעןאצלךכנרצהמעטואכתוברצונילבטלהפצתי

מפולפלים דברים ) See also Lasker The Refutation of the Christian Principles 6ndash821 This shows that Crescas and Duran felt that the anti-Christian apologetic-polemical

writings they were familiar with where insufficient to deal with the situation in the latter 14thcentury

22 On this passage and on המתפרצים see Netanyahu Marranos 90ndash91 also nn 18ndash2023 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 324 This most likely referred to the group around the very prominent convert Alfonso de

Valladolid and Pablo de Santa Mariacutea see Netanyahu Marranos 90 nn 17 and 17a see alsothe discussion in 62


הנושאיםבאלובכיוצא )25 This of course implies that he had to read interpretand promulgate these texts in order to demonstrate that they contradictedChristian doctrine And with the increasing number of conversos and theirgrowing familiarity of Christian thought and scriptures cursory or merelypolemically expedient arguments were not sufficient anymore In-depthknowledge of Christianity became a necessity for the Jewish leaders of IberiaConsequently Duran had to systematically present and reproduce both theChristian Scriptures and the respective doctrines as accurately as possibleAlready the chapter headings of Kelimmat ha-Goyim reveal that it wasDuranrsquos intention to relate the actual content of Christian doctrine and to dis-prove and criticize these doctrines mostly from the New Testament Hedevotes three chapters to major Christian doctrines (Jesusrsquo divinity theTrinity the incarnation) two lengthy chapters to the topic of Jesusrsquo and theChristiansrsquo understanding of the Law two chapters on sacraments (theEucharist and Baptism) two chapters on minor doctrines (Mary and thePope) and the last three chapters on Christian errors and textual corruptionsin the New Testament

To bring proof based on the words of the speaker(s themselves) that it wasnot the intention of the alleged messiah nor the intention of his disciples (tosay) that he was God which is what those who came after them thought

Chapter 1

ולאהמדומההמשיחכוונתהייתהשלאהאומרמאמרכפיראיהלהביאאחריהם הבאים שחשבו מה כפי אלוה הוא שיהיה תלמידיו כוונת

To explain the matter of the Trinity in which they believe and the passageson which they base this belief

Chapter 2

זו באמונה עליהם יישענו אשר והמקומות יאמינוהו אשר השילוש עניין לבאר

To explain the matter of the incarnation in which they believe and the ulti-mate reason for it in regard to original sin which they call (peccatum) origi-nale and the passages on which they base this belief

Chapter 3

העווןבענייןשלההתכליתיתוהסיבהיאמינוהאשרההגשמהענייןלבארעליהם יישענו אשר והמקומות אוריגינאל קראו אשר השורשי

That Jesus never considered in this at all to disagree with the divine Torahinstead he very much wanted its establishment and its perpetuity Also hisstudents considered it eternal(ly binding) for the people which he (also)enjoined on them

Chapter 4

בקיומהרצהאבלהאלוהיתהתורהעללחלוקבזהישוחשבלאמעולםכיעליהם צוותה אשר לעם נצחית חשבוה תלמידיו וגם מאוד ונצחותה

25 See Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 288


How the ones who followed them who believed in Jesus thought up (amethod) to assist the (process) of dismantling the Torah and its destructionaccording to their understanding

Chapter 5

עלבחולקםבישוהמאמיניםאחריהםהבאיםבולהיעזרשחשבובמהדעתם לפי ובהריסתה התורה

Concerning the matter of the bread (and wine) of their god of which theythink that they shed their forms and assume the body of Jesus in the samequantity and quality and as when he was hung (on the cross) and the pas-sages on which they base this belief

Chapter 6

עלישוגוףויקבלוצורותיהםשיפשיטויחשבואשראלוהיהםלחםענייןעלזו באמונה עליהם שיישענו והמקומות בו שנתלה והאיכות הכמות אותה

Concerning the matter of baptism which they set down as one of the founda-tions of their religion and the passages on which they base this belief

Chapter 7

עליהםשיישענווהמקומותדתםמשורשיאחדיניחוהאשרהטבילהענייןעלזו באמונה

Concerning the matter of the Pope which they likewise set down as one ofthe foundations of their religion and the passages on which they base thisbelief

Chapter 8

והמקומותדתםמשורשיאחדכןגםהניחוהואשרהאפיפיורענייןעלזו באמונה עליהם שיישענו

Concerning the matter of Mary the mother of Jesus and other (related)foundational issues and articles of their religion

Chapter 9

בדתם יניחו וסעיפים משורשים אחרים ועניינים ישו אם מרים דבר על

On errors and mistakes which Jesus and his disciples set downChapter 10

ותלמידיו ישו הניחום אשר והשיבושין בתעויות

How they got confused about the issue of datingChapter 11

התאריך בעניין שהשתבשו במה

On the mistakes of Jerome ldquothe Confuserrdquo (and) on the bringing of proofthat what we have from the holy books is the exact truth

Chapter 12

הקודשמספריאצלנוהנמצאכיעלראיהבהבאתהמשבשגרוניםבשיבושיהמדוקדקת האמת הוא


Duran is well-informed both in terms of the New Testament and Christiandoctrine In fact no other Jewish author before him shows so much familiaritywith the New Testament Much of his insight is derived from Christiansources in particular Vincent of Beauvaisrsquo Speculum historiale26 PeterLombardrsquos fourth volume of Sententiae27 but most frequently he refers toNicholas de Lyrersquos Postillae perpetuae mentioning him thirteen times28 Healso criticizes Jeromersquos translation29 perhaps knew of Petrus Alfonsisrsquo (PedroAlfonso) polemic Dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo Peter Abelardrsquos Sic et non30

and seems to be aware of arguments from Thomas Aquinasrsquo Summatheologiae31

He was also familiar with the Western Schism the inner Christian criticismof the primacy of the pope and the apostolic succession essentially agreeingwith Jan Hus32 Also in his criticism of the Eucharist (chapter 6) Duranldquorejects the idea that the bread of the Eucharist could maintain its accidents(outward characteristics) while changing its substance mdash an argument putforth not long before by John Wyclifferdquo33 Whether Duran knew of Jan Hus

26 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 32 60ndash61 Duran also alludes to Augustinersquostheory of the three ages of the Torah see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 30 also n 2though Posnanski suggests that Duran came to know this through Speculum historiale 891see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 165 n 2

27 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 36 38 39 41 4828 Ibid 8 14 (2x) 16 28 32 50 53 55 56 57 58 (2x) It is quite evident that at least

some of Duranrsquos in-depth knowledge of interpretive and textual difficulties with the Christiantext were gleaned from the de Lyrersquos discussions On de Lyre see 31 but also KlausReinhardt ldquoDas Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanienrdquo Traditio 43(1987) 321ndash58 and Philip D W Krey and Lesley Smith eds Nicholas of Lyra The Sensesof Scripture (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 90 Leiden Brill 2000) 1ndash12 HisPostillae perpetuae in universam S Scripturam (or Postilla litteralis) appeared in 1331 andbecame the primary and extremely influential Bible commentary of the Late Middle ages DeLyre was well versed in Hebrew and relied heavily on Rashi Martinirsquos Pugio Fidei ThomasAquinas et al

29 He devotes chapter 12 to critique Jeromersquos translation see Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 64ndash66 but Jerome is also referred to elsewhere see ibid 8 29 31 50 52

30 See Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 9ndash10 17 also Talmage ldquoPolem-ical Writingsrdquo 79

31 See Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 33 34 but esp 7312 It is quite possible thatDuranrsquos knowledge of Aquinas came through de Lyrersquos Postillae

32 Duran argues in ch 8 that Jesus acc to Matt 1818 bestows on all of his disciples thesame authority he gave Peter in Matt 1613ndash20 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 45 alsoTalmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79ndash80 and Matthew Spinka John Husrsquo Concept of theChurch (Princeton Princeton University Press 1966) 27ndash29 263ndash64

33 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 17ndash18 see also Talmage ldquoPolemicalWritingsrdquo 78 Kelimmat ha-Goyim shows some similarities here to a section of Wycliffersquos Deeucharistia ldquoFor some argue that a hog a dog or a mouse can eat our God because it is thebody of Christ who is Godrdquo (Arguunt enim quod sus canis vel mus potest comedere Deum


and John Wycliffe is not clear but it is evident that Duran operated at theintellectual heights of his times and that the polemical literature of the perioddid not evolve in a vacuum34

7 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

Already the first chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim is directed against Jesusrsquodivinity which Duran therefore may have seen as the most problematic of thevarious Christian views he argues against He makes a sophisticated andsustained argument against the divinity of Jesus which weaves togethervarious elements from the polemical stock he has inherited though he alsoadds his own observations He is not merely listing various points as some ofhis polemical predecessors but he has an overall theory about the develop-ment of Christology The following is a summary and discussion of the firstchapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

nostrum qui corpus Christi quod est Deus) see Iohannis Wyclif De eucharistia tractus major(ed John Loserth London Truumlbner 1892) x and 11 In Kelimmat ha-Goyim we find ldquo(hellip)if the pig or the mouse eat this body or this wine then they [accordingly would] eat Jesusrsquobody and blood (hellip)rdquo ( גוףהאוכליםהנםוהעצברהחזרהזההייןוישתוהזההלחםיאכלואם

ודמוישו ) see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 38 The similarity between Wycliffe andDuran probably derives from the fact that they both appear to extrapolate their respectiveanti-eucharist polemic from Lombardusrsquo Sententiae 4131 (72) which Duran explicitly men-tions in the same context (though only a mouse eating the host is discussed there) SeeKenneth B McFarlane John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity (LondonEnglish Universities Press 1952) 93ndash95 131 and Gordon Leff Heresy in the Late MiddleAges (2 vols Manchester Manchester University Press 1967) 2553ndash57 also MatthewSpinka John Hus A Biography (Princeton Princeton University Press 1968) 38 65 71ndash72233 261ndash62

34 See Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 34ndash36 Cohen ldquoProfiat DuranrsquosThe Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76ndash78 but especially Baer History 2474ndash75 n 41 Baerremarks that the ldquoJews of Spain kept in touch with the contemporary Christian theologyrdquosuggesting as an example of how this may have occurred Magister Adam (Easton) who wrotehis Defensorium ecclesiae against Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham whilst beingassisted by a Jewish scholar for two years Likewise Alonso Fernaacutendez de Madrigal (ldquoElTostadordquo c 1400ndash55) may have been a source for Jewish scholars see Solomon Gaon TheInfluence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the Pentateuch Commentary ofIsaac Abravanel (New York Ktav 1993) 22ndash44 El Tostado also prepared a Matthew com-mentary in Latin which may or may not have been accessible to Jews though only theintroduction was finished see Joseacute Manuel Saacutenchez Caro Rosa Mariacutea Herrera Garciacutea andInmaculada Delgado Jara Alfonso de Madrigal el Tostado Introduccioacuten al evangelio seguacutenSan Mateo (Fuentes Documentales 3 Salamanca-Avila Universidad de Salamanca 2008) (Ithank David E C Ford for bringing this to my attention) Thus the close contact of conver-sos Jews and Christians in Spain would have provided ample opportunities for furtherexchange esp when conversos tried to convert Jews and Jews tried to reconvert conversos


The short almost abstract like heading informs the reader of the purpose ofthe chapter and in some sense even the overarching intention of his polemicTo bring proof based on the words of the speaker(s themselves) that it was not the intentionof the alleged Messiah nor the intention of his disciples (to say) that he was God which iswhat those who came after them thought

שיהיהתלמידיוכוונתולאהמדומההמשיחכוונתהייתהשלאהאומרמאמרכפיראיהלהביא35אחריהם הבאים שחשבו מה כפי אלוה הוא

Duran starts by summarizing for Crescas his theory about Jesus and the firstChristians Jesus the disciples and apostles were people who were mistaken(טועים) although they themselves were not quite capable of deceiving others( זולתםאתשיטעואלמדרגתםהגיעהולאלבדהםשטעולפי ) However thosewho came after them ie the church fathers and theologians ( האומהמדברי

והפיקחיםהזאת ) they were the true deceivers 36(מטעים) capable of leadingmany astray by their teachings which they intermingled with that of theiropponents namely ideas gleaned from science logic and Judaism Thus theypreserved their faith by making a combination of ldquohoney and poisonrdquo ועשו)

והלענה מהדבש הרכבה )37

Profiat Duran is thus essentially arguing that Jesus and his first followerswere still ldquomarginal Jewsrdquo who still had a high view of the Torah though ulti-mately they were misguided Only those who came after them misunderstoodtheir teachings and Jesus and intentionally made him into a divinity ProfiatDuran therefore may be one of the first medieval interpreters of the NewTestament who explicitly conceptualizes the ldquohistorical Jesusrdquo different fromthe ldquoJesus of faithrdquo proclaimed by the church mdash and that hundreds of yearsbefore the ldquohistorical Jesus questsrdquo38

This analysis and interpretation of the New Testament evidence is alreadyvery different and more perceptive than in the other texts surveyed so far Itis also surprisingly enlightened and is still a common argument found in thepresent day

35 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 436 This view is similar to Porphyryrsquos who likewise had argued that the followers of Jesus

had corrupted his teaching and made him into a God see Robert L Wilken The Christians asthe Romans Saw Them (2nd ed New Haven Yale University Press 2003) 126ndash63 esp144ndash47 Also the Karaite Jacob Qirqisani had maintained that Paul had made Jesus into a div-inity ldquoThe Christian religion as practised now was invented and proclaimed by Pūluṣ it washe who ascribed divinity to Jesus and claimed to be himself the prophet of Jesus his LordrdquoChiesa and Lockwood Yalsquoqūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects 135

37 This is a similar assessment to that of Shem Ṭov who found Jesusrsquo teachings to beattractive because they had been taken from Jewish tradition See also Cohen ldquoProfiatDuranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 72ndash73

38 Shem Ṭov also has argued that Jesusrsquo teaching is more or less in line with the Torah


7 3 1 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament

Duran begins to lead the reader through the New Testament to demonstratethe veracity of his assessmentAnd so I am saying that when their statements are examined with absolute scrutiny free fromany habit and custom [ie prejudice] without any preconceived notions it will be apparentthat the alleged messiah never intended to make himself a god Likewise the ldquomistaken onesrdquo[ie the first followers of Jesus] did not intend this And in all what they wrote in the gospelsand the epistles and the rest there is not found (an instance) where they call him god ratherthey always were saying ldquoLord Jesusrdquo or ldquoour Lord Jesusrdquo or ldquoTeacherrdquo They never saidldquoour God Jesusrdquo rather they considered him as being chosen (from the) human race higherthan our teacher Moses peace be upon him And this is why he called himself and (why) hisdisciples called him ldquoSon of Godrdquo (so as) to indicate the superiority of his level and that ourteacher Moses peace be upon him according to their bogus reasonings is on the level ofldquoservantrdquo since he is called ldquomy servant Mosesrdquo (Num 127) ldquoMoses the servant of theLordrdquo (Josh 11) but Jesus is on the level of ldquothe beloved sonrdquo

משוללומנהגהרגלבזולתמוחלטבעיוןמאמריהםכשיושקפוכיאומראנוכיזהואחרלאהטועיםוגםאלוהעצמולעשותהמדומההמשיחכיווןלאמעולםכיייראהמהתואנה

אלוהאותושקראוזהוזולתוהפישטוליסבאונגיליששכתבומהבכלנמצאולאבזהכיוונוישואלוהינואמרולאומעולםמלמדאוישואדוננואוישוהאדוןאומרםיהיהתמידאבלעצמויקראולזההשלוםעליורבינוממשהלמעלההאנושיהמיןמבחרהיותוחשבואבל

לפיהשלוםעליורבינומשהוהיותמדרגתועליונותלהורותאלוהיםבןתלמידיוויקראוהוהבןבמדרגתוישוndashייעבדמשהמשהעבדישאמרכמוהעבדבמדרגתהמדומהסברתם39החביב

While Duran is certainly right in that there is evidently a reluctancy in theNew Testament to designate Jesus as God (especially without any furtherqualification) he fails to acknowledge the existence of various passages thatindeed relate the word ldquoGodrdquo (θεόςdeus) to Jesus in particular John 11 andJohn 2028 with which he is familiar40 Leon Modena another Jewish scholar

39 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 540 Duran discusses John 11ndash2 14 in the next chapter on the Trinity see Kelimmat ha-

Goyim (Talmage) 12 14 There he first entertains the notion that Jesus was a misguided(משובש) qabbalist which was suggested to him by an Ashkenazi Talmudic scholar (11) buthe then discards this view since that would attribute too much insight and understanding toJesus (13) He opts for a more traditional view of Jesus as magician who learnt his evil craftin Egypt (13) Duran then explains that John called Jesus only ldquothe Word of Godrdquo whichcould at most prove that John held to a duality (השינות) in God (and not the Trinity) espsince John does not mention the Spirit in John 1 (15) Duranrsquos views expressed in this chaptertherefore lessens the integrity of his argument in chapter 1 somewhat for if Jesus was a sim-pleton and an Egpytian trickster how could he be considered merely deceived (טועים) Cfalso pp 39 and 45 where Jesus is described as crazy and stupid Also Duran never reallyengages John 11 (or 14) for if John can be understood to express a duality in God then atleast this evangelist should have proclaimed Jesusrsquo divinity Duran therefore ought to haveargued for a ldquoparting of waysrdquo not after Paul and the evangelists but earlier Yet since herelied so heavily on John 10 in his argumentation (see 738) he could not do so


and polemicists essentially made the same argument some 250 years later inhis Magen wa-Ḥerev41

Duran then recalls Matt 1613ndash17 and Heb 35ndash6 to corroborate his view-point Peter esteems Jesus as superior to anyone else in Israelrsquos history andalso Paul (as the supposed author of Hebrews) affirms that Moses is a mereservant whereas Jesus is a son over Godrsquos house In other words the first fol-lowers of Jesus had an exalted view of Jesus and the use of the term ldquoSon ofGodrdquo has to be understood accordingly but they did not estimate him to beGod42

7 3 2 Jesusrsquo Temptation I Matt 41ndash11

Next Duran begins to present a sequence of passages to further demonstratethat Jesus was not divine He uses several well known pericopes and beginswith the temptation scene in Matthew 4 And there in Matthew chapter 4 it is said that Satan brought Jesus to the wilderness to temptand seduce him In another instance he brought him to Jerusalem and in another he led himon a high and steep mountain as it is mentioned there But all this is too far-fetched andimproper that it could be said about God And likewise when Satan asked ldquoIf you are thelsquoSon of Godrsquo throw down yourself from the high place where you are standing lsquofor he willcommand his angels concerning you to watch over you in all your waysrsquordquo (cf Psalm 9112)He answered ldquoThus it is written in the Law lsquoDo not test the Lord your Godrsquordquo (cf Mt 46ndash7)

אחרתופעםולהדיחולהסיתולמדברישוהביאשהשטןאמרלמטיבהרביעיבפרקוהנההואומגונהרחוקזהוכלשםכנזכרותלולגבוההרעלהוליכואחרתופעםלרושליםהביאו

הגבוהמהמקוםעצמךהשלךאתהאלוהיםבןאםהשטןכששאלוגםהאלוהעלשייאמרלאבתורהכתובאזהשיבדרכיךבכללשמרךלךיצוהמלאכיוכילמטהבועומדשאתה43אלהיכם יי את תנסו

Duran seeks to demonstrate that Jesus did not consider himself to be Godsince he countered Satanrsquos temptation by recalling that one (ie humans)ought not to try their God in this manner The fact that Satan attempts to causeJesus to sin itself is enough to show the improbability that Jesus is divine וכל)

האלוהעלשייאמרהואומגונהרחוקזה ) but also the use of the title ldquoSon ofGodrdquo in this context verifies that neither Jesus nor his contemporaries regard-

41 See Podet A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb 99ndash100 Abraham Farissol (1451ndash1528) went even further in Magen Avraham (ch 26) with his suggestion that Jesus may havebeen the Messiah for the Gentiles see David B Ruderman The World of a Renaissance JewThe Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol (Monographs of the Hebrew UnionCollege 6 Cincinnati Hebrew Union College Press 1981) 77ndash78 206 n 47

42 This is perhaps comparable to James Dunnrsquos view according to which high Christologyis a later (Johannine) development



ed the title as a claim to divinity Duran reproduces the polemical standardview of the passage though it is only one element in his larger argument44


From the temptation scene he moves straight to the cursing of the fig tree inMatt 21And in chapter 21 Matthew said that Jesus was hungry and went (over) to a fig tree to see iffigs could be found on it but he did not find any so he cursed the fig tree and it witheredand his disciples were amazed about this miracle (cf Matt 2120) But if they held him to begod there would not have been any place for surprise for them

תאניםבוימצאאםתאנהאילןלראותוהלךרעבהיהשישומטיבאמרואחדעשריםובפרקמחזיקיםהםהיוואםהזההפלאעלתלמידיוותמהווייבשהתאנהעץוקיללדברמצאולא45לתמהונם מקום היה לא באלוה אותו

It is quite evident that this argument is different from how the fig tree is usedin previous polemical texts46 Not Jesusrsquo ignorance about the availability offruit or his harshness in cursing the tree is made an issue although it wouldhave served Duranrsquos point here47 but the thrust of the argument rests on thedisciplesrsquo surprise about Jesusrsquo miracle power if they considered him to bedivine they should not have been surprised48 Duran quite ingeniously uses thedisciplesrsquo amazement as proof that they really held him to be human and notas evidence that he was more than a human And Duran might very well beright in his reading of Matthew here

The point that Jesus was just human is further sustained by mentioning thatMark (63) recalls Jesus to be a mere carpenter ( עציםחורש ) and likewise thathe did not have the ability to perform any miracles in Nazareth All this is tooimproper to be said about God ( אלוה על שייאמר מגונה וזה )

7 3 4 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21

Then Matthew 19 and the parallel passage in Mark 10 are mentioned to showthat Jesus did not consider himself to be God

44 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect142ndash145 Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) Nizzahon Vetus sect162 (see544) and Even Boḥan sect7 (see 645)

45 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 546 Cf Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410 and also 5410)

and Even Boḥan sect42 (6416)47 The ldquoclassicrdquo argument that Jesus was ignorant about the presence of figs occurs

already soon after see 736 However in Posnanskirsquos edition (and manuscripts) of Kelimmatha-Goyim it also appears right here see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 106

48 Cf here esp Even Boḥan sect37 (see 6414) which follows the same argumentativestrategy


And there in Matthew chapter 19 and (Mark) chapter 10 is is mentioned that a man came toJesus and said to him ldquoGood teacher what can I do that I might obtain eternal liferdquo Hereplied ldquoWhy do you call me good there is none good but Godrdquo If so he is not God

לוואמרישואלבאאחדשאדםשםאמרלנזכרעשיריובפרקלמטיבעשרהתשעהובפרקאלאטובואיןטובתקראנילמההשיבוהנצחייםהחייםשאשיגאעשהמהטובמלמד49האל אינו הוא כן אם האל

Again this is the standard reading of this passage and follows previousapologetic-polemical usage though Duran notes that it is both in Mark andMatthew50

7 3 5 Jesusrsquo Temptation II Matt 43ndash4

Then Duran returns to the temptation pericope to further corroborate thesame argument (as per Matt 1917) but also that he lacked divine powerAnd in chapter four of Matthew and Luke (it is written) that Satan said to Jesus ldquoNow if youare the lsquoSon of Godrsquo tell these stones that they should turn to breadrdquo He replied ldquoA mandoes not live by bread alone but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lordrdquo(Matt 43ndash4 Luke 43ndash4) And in chapter 10(35ndash40) of Mark (it is written) that his slow-witted disciples ask him who would sit to his right in the kingdom of heaven51 and he repliedthat this was not in his power [lit ldquohandsrdquo] to give to them If so he does not have the (same)ability as God

האלהלאבניםאמוראתהאלוהיםבןואםלישואמרהשטןכיולוקלמטיברביעיובפרקעשיריובפרקייפימוצאכלעלכיהאדםיחיהלבדוהלחםעללאהשיבולחםשישובולתתזהבידושאיןוהשיבושמייםבמלכותלימינושיושיבםהפתאיםתלמידיושאלוהולמרק52האל כמו יכולת לו אין כן אם להם

Although Duran earlier accepted at least for the sake of argument that Jesusas a human has the ability to curse a tree53 and thus can cause amazement henow emphasizes that Jesus is nevertheless clearly limited in his capabilitieswhich Jesus himself readily admits he is not able to nourish himself miracu-lously or to bestow heavenly favors on his disciples This again is simply thestandard polemical argument against the divinity of Jesus based on these tworespective passages

49 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 550 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514) See also Yosef ha-Meqanne sect33 (see 4516) and

Nizzahon Vetus (see 549) Interestingly Shem Ṭov did not comment on this passage51 This is interpretation is based on a paraphrase of Mark 1037 (par Matt 2021)52 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 553 In the next chapter of Kelimmat ha-Goyim Duran explains the common rabbinic view

(see b Sanh 107b) that the origins of Jesusrsquo miracle power was his familiarity with Egyptianmagic which he corroborates by referring to Matt 214ndash15 and 1224 thereby affirming theaccusation that Jesus worked by the demonic power of Beelzebub cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 13


7 3 6 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mark 1045 1113ndash14

Duran already appealed to the tempation account twice he now also re-usesthe fig tree pericope (see 733) in combination with a ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayingAnd there [in Mk 1045 par Mt 2028] he said ldquoFor the lsquoSon of Manrsquo did not come to beservedworshipped but to serveworship (someone) other than himselfrdquo And in chapter11(13ndash14) he cursed the fig tree because he did not find any figs on it But if he were Godwould he not have known before he walked there And there are many (instances) like these

עשרהאחדובפרקלזולתולעבודאםכילעבודאםכילהיעבדבאלאאדםבןכיאמרושםכמוורביםשםלכתוטרםידעוהלאאלוההיהואםתאניםבהמצאשלאעלהתאנהקילל54אלה

Not only is Jesus not able to nourish himself he cannot even see if any nour-ishment (fruit) is available to him Morover Jesus himself declares that he hascome to serve (or worship) others The implication again that this is notsomething that is proper to say of God and can only indicate that Jesus ishuman As seen both arguments are not novel55

7 3 7 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo John 530

Duran then quotes John 530 to illustrate that Jesus himself depended onGod and addsAnd always in all what he said he called himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo in the manner of Ezekiel Butthe deceivers said that ldquomanrdquo [Adam] is a name shared by both man and woman so as to pullthem after their creed belief (and justify) that Jesus was born by a virgin (and) without afather although Jesus (himself) did not mention this And by this then [the use of ldquoSon ofManrdquo] it can be seen that he did consider Joseph his physical father

אדםכייאמרוהמטעיםאבליחזקאלדרךעלאדםבןעצמוקוראהיהמאמריובכלותמידזההזכירשלאעםאבבלאמבתולהנולדכידעתםאחרלהימשכםולאשהלאדםמשותףשם56גשמי לאב יוסף חשב הוא כי ייראה ולזה ישו

Duran argues that by using the phrase ldquoSon of Manrdquo Jesus acknowledges thathe is biologically related to humanity but moreover that he implicitly recog-nizes Joseph as his physical father He thus offers two ways of understandingthe term ldquoSon of Manrdquo The first is that Jesus used the term like Ezekielpresumably indicating that Jesus saw himself as a human prophet57 which isperhaps the only time a Jewish polemicist entertains a different interpretationfor the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo The second way is that the term ldquoAdamrdquo (אדם)

54 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 555 Cf 733 Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) and Niz-

zahon Vetus sect188 (see 545)56 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 557 The phrase ldquoSon of Manrdquo ( אדםבן ) is used 93 times in Ezekiel always referring to the

prophet Ezekiel


actually refers to a male ie Joseph In Duranrsquos understanding the churchfathers and early theologians argued that ldquoAdamrdquo is inclusive and signifiesldquohumanityrdquo (and not just a male)58 in order to mitigate the fact that Jesus wasborn without the involvement of a male

7 3 8 Joseph is Jesusrsquo Father Matt 122ndash23

Having argued that Jesus recognized Joseph as his father59 it is only natural torecall nextLikewise also Mary his mother called Joseph ldquoyour fatherrdquo In the second chapter of Luke(241ndash48) (it is written) ldquoOne time they took him up to Jerusalem by foot but while they werewalking they lost him And the went on for a dayrsquos journey since they thought to themselveslsquoPerhaps he went with a group from their townrsquo But when they saw that he was not there theyreturned to Jerusalem and they found him in the temple with the elders And his mother saidto him lsquoMy son your father and I were sad and very worried about you because we did notknow where you werersquordquo However the evangelist [in Matt 122ndash23] clearly mentions that shewas a virgin when she gave birth to him

לרגללירושליםהעלוהואחתפעםללוקהשניבפרקיוסףעלאביךאמרהאמומריםוגםעירםבניחבורתעםהלךאוליבלבםאמרוכיאחדיוםמהלךלהםוהלכואבידוהוובלכתםואמרוהזקניםעםהמקדשבביתבירושליםאותוומצאולירושליםחזרושםאיננוכיובראותם

איומקומךיודעיםהיינולאכיעליךמאודודואגיםמתעצביםהיינוואניאביךבניאמולו60אותו בלדתה היתה בתולה כי בביאור זכר האונגילי אמנם

Thus having corroborated that Jesus had human parents and at the same timecasting doubt on the trustworthiness of the evangelist (or Maryrsquos virginity)Duran returns to his main point and brings further passages that challenge theclaim that Jesus is divine61 He recalls 1 John 412 where it is said that noman has ever seen God and then paraphrases 1 Cor 86 demonstrating theuniqueness and superiority of God the Father and his distinction to Jesus Hethen summarizes

58 Eg in Justin Dial 1003 Irenaeus Haer 4332 5211 Gregory of Nyssa Libricontra Eunomium 122 34 (NPFN2 563 145) and Ambrose Enarrat Ps 39 (CSEL64222) the latter occurring in a refutation of Apollinarianism See also Muumlller The Expres-sion lsquoSon of Manrsquo 9ndash31 53ndash80 81ndash92

59 Also briefly mentioned in chapter 9 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim 46ndash4760 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 5ndash661 Duran thereby shows he does not really trust Matthewrsquos account Beside the various

errors he sees (see 74) he also discusses Matthewrsquos genealogy and the difference to Lukersquosin chapter 10 concluding that ldquotheir purpose in telling these genealogies is (to show) that thedesignated (ie the true) messiah must be from the seed of David And they (also) thoughtthat since the groom (of Mary) is of the seed of David that his bride was likewise from thatseed But this is (only) their conjecture without any proof even from their own storiesrdquo( אחרכיוחשבודודמזרעשיהיהמחוייבהמיועדשהמשיחההםהתולדותבסיפורוכוונתם

מסיפוריםאףראיהבלאמהםסבראוזהההואמהזרעכןגםארוסתודודמזרעשהארוסsee Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 54 (שלהם


And so from all these proofs and the others (contained) in those stories it becomes apparentthat neither he or his disciples ever erred in this at all that they should think of him as God

כללבזהותלמידיוהואטעולאמעולםכיייראהההםבסיפוריםוזולתןהראיותאלוכלוהנה62הכל ובורא אלוה שיחשבוהו

Having argued that the first generation that is Jesus and his disciples (andeven Paul) did not consider Jesus to be divine and therefore cannot be under-stood as real deceivers Duran moves on to show from where the errors creptinAnd what caused the deceivers to err (that is) to think that he is God are a few sayings hesaid and (in addition those) which the erring ones said about him

63עליו הטועים ושאמרו הוא שאמר המאמרים קצת הוה אלוה לחשבו המטעים הטעה ואשר

In other words the first generation was not misguided themselves at least notabout Jesusrsquo divinity but they prepared the way for those after them Duranthen presents the New Testament passages that have been used to support theclaim that Jesus is divine John 1030 John 149 and John 1410 But in thesame way as with 1 Corinthians he explainsBut the truth is that by these sayings (which) he said (which made) them think he is God hemerely expressed closeness to him [God]

64מצורף אליו הקירבה אך האלוהות לו יחשבו הוא שאמר המאמרים באלו כיוצא כי והאמת

In fact contrasting these passages with John 1420 one would have to consid-er all of Jesusrsquo disciples as godsHe said to his disciples that he is in them and they are in him Yet (in) the (same) way hetalked about his father and if so then all his disciples would (likewise) be gods

תלמידיוכליהיוכןואםאביועלשאמרהדרךעלבווהםבהםהואכילתלמידיוהואאמר65אלוהות

Profiat Duran very perceptively relates Jesusrsquo sayings in John 1030 and 1420about his relationship with his father to similar sayings in the same contextthat attribute this relationship to the disciples Jesusrsquo sayings consequentlycannot speak about his divinity but only his humanity66 If one were to use

62 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 663 Ibid64 Ibid65 Ibid66 John 1030 and 149ndash10 also feature in Muslim polemics In fact the John 1030 argu-

ment Duran employs here appears also in Al-Ghazālīrsquos polemic on this see Sweetman Islamand Christian Theology Part 2 Volume 1 267ndash69 also 249 Further see Neal RobinsonChrist in Islam and Christianity The Representation of Jesus in the Qurrsquoān and the ClassicalMuslim Commentaries (Albany State University of New York Press 1991) 47ndash48 see alsoI Mark Beaumont Christology in Dialogue with Muslims A Critical Analysis of Christian


Jesusrsquo ldquoI am in the Father and the Father is in merdquo saying to argue for Jesusrsquodivinity the immediate context would demand that the disciples are in thesame manner divine that is ontologically (i e as members of the Trinity) Inpresenting this more contextual exegesis Duran offers a sensitive assessmentof the Johannine text

7 3 9 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2734

This is followed by recalling Jesusrsquo cry on the crossAnd here at the time of his hanging (on the cross) he cried (to God) but He did not answerhim He said ldquoMy God my God why have you left merdquo (Matt 2734) (So) he alreadyacknowledged with this exclamation that he did not make himself (out to be) God But Jesusalready settled all this in the chapter when he said ldquoWhy do you call me good For there isno one good except Godrdquo (Mark 1018 par Luke 1819)

לאכיזהבדיבורהודהכברעזבתנילמהאליאליאמרענהוולאקראותלייתבעתוהנהזולתטובואיןטובתקראתילמהבאמרוזהבכלהפסקישוהתירוכבראלוהעצמועשה67האל

Duran argues that Jesus more or less explicitly expressed that he did notconsider himself God His prayer on the cross which was seemingly unan-swered together with his reply in Mark 10 should clearly demonstrate thatJesus cannot be seen as God Again this simply repeats earlier arguments68

7 3 10 Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding John 1019ndash36

He then supplies a long paraphrase of John 1019ndash36 to definitively show thatJesus did not think of himself as God He subsequently arguesAnd although the premise (Jesus) used is false for it is not written in the Torah69 neverthe-less one can take from what he says a complete answer for all those who see in his saying(here) and (also) in the sayings of the mistaken ones that he is God himself For the intentionof all of what he is saying with this is (to give) a parable [or metaphor] (just) like in the pas-sage ldquoI said you are godsrdquo (Psalm 826) or this was said (perhaps as a means) to share in(and apply) the name (of god)70 not that he intended by this (to show that he should) be theFirst Cause the Creator of the universe

Presentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries (Regnum StudiesIn Mission Carlisle Paternoster 2005) 60ndash61

67 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 668 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) Nizzahon Vetus

sect145 and sect178 (see 5413) and Even Boḥan sect56 (see 6420)69 This refers to Jesusrsquo use of Psalm 826 in John 1034 which is evidently not in the

Torah but from the Psalms70 Talmage relates this to a passage by David Qimḥi where a similar symbolic identifica-

tion with God is used see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7 n 15


כוללתתשובהממאמרויילקחזהכלעםבתורהכתובשאיןכוזבתהקדמהשהקדיםהיותועםזהבכלהמכווןכיאלוהעצמועושההיותוהטועיםוממאמריממאמריושיראהמילכל

בשיתוףנאמרשהואאואתםאלהיםאמרתיאניבפסוקשהואכמוהמשלהואהמאמר71העולם בורא ראשונה עליה היות בזה כיוון לא השם

Earlier Duran remarked that Jesusrsquo teaching style is frequently figurative (cfJohn 106) not to be understood as literal ( שיריילימודהיהלימודוהאישזהכי

משליםממשלהיהותמיד )72 In like manner the rest of John 10 is to be appreci-ated Jesus is not literally saying that he is ldquoThe Son of Godrdquo (John 1036)since he uses Psalm 826 to deflect the accusation that he is making himselfequal to God The term ldquoSon of Godrdquo is thus to be understood as a figure ofspeech and Jesus only applies it to himself figuratively by no means is heidentical with the Creator73 Earlier Duran made a similar but also somewhatopposite argument about the use of the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo which he interpretsmore literally Accordingly Jesus used the title in the manner of Ezekiel (see737) Here he suggests Jesusrsquo self-understanding in using the concept ofsonship to God does not express his absolute identification with the Fatherthe Creator but perhaps is more of a metaphor to express his relationship toGod ( השםבשיתוףנאמרשהואאו ) Inasmuch as those to whom the word ofGod came are called ldquogodsrdquo (Psalm 826 John 1034) so Jesus who seeshimself as sent from God surely can be called a ldquoSon of Godrdquo (John 1035ndash36) without understanding this as a claim to divinity74 It is therefore amistake to think that the phrase means Jesus considered himself divine Alsoalready in the beginning of the chapter he stated that the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo

71 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 772 Ibid 6 The same point that Jesus speaks only figuratively is maintained in chapter

six on the Eucharist in the discussion of John 647ndash66 cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 3973 John 1035 (Psalm 826) is used in this manner already by Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova a

Muslim theologian (994ndash1064 CE) and one of the most famous authors of Al-Andalus seeTheodore Pulcini Exegesis of Polemical Discourse Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and ChristianScriptures (AAR The Religions 2 Atlanta Scholars Press 1998) 107 and Juan Pedro Mon-ferrer Sala ldquoIbn Ḥazmrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations (Brill Online 2012) Likewise Al-Ghazālī (1058ndash1111 CE) used this argument see Chidiac Une Reacutefutation excellente de ladiviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ 9 25 (ff 7rndash7v 20vndash21r) J Windrow Sweetman Islam andChristian Theology 21 267ndash69 Wilms AlndashGhazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu 63 79also Kenneth Cragg The Arab Christian A History im the Middle East (Louisville Westmin-ster John Knox 1991) 87ndash88 also 93ndash94 n 37

74 Compare this assessment to James F McGrath Johnrsquos Apologetic Christology Legiti-mation and Development in Johannine Christology (SNTSMS 111 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 2001) 117ndash30 esp 122ndash29 who summarizes that in John 1034ndash36 ldquoJesusdefends the legitimacy of the agent of God being called lsquoSon of Godrsquo or lsquoGodrsquo on the basis ofScripture If this applies to earthly agents (Adam and Israel) who ultimately failed to obeyGod how much more does it apply to Godrsquos heavenly agent now become flesh who alwaysobeys Godrdquo (129)


shows superiority of Jesus over Moses and that these sayings express merelycloseness to God ( מצורף אליו הקירבה אך )

Duran then continues to survey the passages that he thinks lead Christiansto believe in Jesusrsquo divinity He refers to Acts 2016ndash17 where Paul spoke tothe church in Ephesus on his way to JerusalemAnd he said to them amidst his words that God had appointed them as leaders [or bishops] tolead his congregation which he had bought with his blood that is by the shedding of hisblood (cf Acts 2028) Here then he said that the blood of God was shed

לומררוצהבדמוקנהאשרעדתולהנהיגהגמוניםאותםמינההאלכידבריובתוךלהםואמר75נקפך האל שדם שאמר הנה דמו בשפיכת

Duranrsquos comment implies that Christians in his time used Acts 2028 to arguethat Jesus is divine Accordingly the one who appointed leaders namely Goddid so by the shedding of His blood76 In like fashion he refers to (and quotes)Romans 95 1 John 31677 Col 28ndash9 Rev 117ndash18 51278 and Jude 14bndash579 Duran does not comment on any of these passage other than by giving asummaryThese are the verses which deceived the deceivers (misleading them) to attribute to him div-inity I mean the divinity attributed to the First Cause But by permitting the doubt80 which

75 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 776 The reading ldquoof Godrdquo (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Acts 2028 is found in א B 614 1175 1505 al vg

sy boms according to Nestle-Alandrsquos apparatus Other manuscripts have ldquoof the Lordrdquo (τοῦκυρίου) here so P74 A C D E Ψ 33 36 453 945 1739 1891 al gig p syhmg co while many ofthe minuscule fuse these two into ldquoof the Lord and Godrdquo (τοῦ κυρίου καὶ [τοῦ] θεοῦ) Thefirst reading could consequently be used as a passage in support of Jesusrsquo divinity SeeCharles F DeVine ldquoThe Blood of God in Acts 2028rdquo CBQ 9 (1947) 381ndash408 and MurrayJ Harris Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (GrandRapids Baker Book House 1992) 131ndash41

77 He quotes the verse with an addition ldquoFor by this we know what the love of God is forhe put his soullife down for usrdquo ( בעדנונפשושםהואכיהאלאהאבתנכירבזהכי ) idemKelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7 emphasis mine

78 Duran quotes the verse ldquoWorthy is the lamb that was killed to receive strength and div-inity and wisdomhelliprdquo ( וחוכמהואלוהותגבוהלקחתהנהרגהשההואראוי ) cf the Vulgatefor Rev 512 dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere virtutem et divinitatem et sapientiamemphases mine

79 Duran understands the verse to say that ldquoJesus saved Israel from Egyptrdquo ( הושיעישוממצרים ישראל את ) Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7

80 That is by producing an alternative interpretation for the meaning of ldquoSon of GodrdquoJesus effectively did not claim the exclusive status of Creator Already the author of Vikkuaḥha-Radaq had observed that Jesus did not explicitly refer to himself has God ldquoFurther youshall be punished for believing in him as a deity for he never called himself divine You willnot find this written in any of your books either He called himself the son of God which hewas entitled to do for everyone who cleaves to the Lord and his Torah is fittingly called theson of Godrdquo Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 345 [f 17r] Likewise ldquoKnow that thatman (Jesus) never said any place that he was truly divine nor did he mention it in any of their


Jesus brought from ldquoI told you you are godsrdquo all this is resolved But if someone should wantto insist that the intention of these verses is to attribute to him divinity there is no doubt thatthey are missing Jesusrsquo intention clearly stated in his answer to those who disagreed with himin Jerusalem

לעילההמיוחסהאלוהותרצוניאלוהותאליולייחסהמטעיםשהטעוהמאמריםהםאלוואםזהכלהותראתםאלהיםאמרתיאנימפסוקישועשהאשרהספקובהיתרראשונה

שהםספקאיןהנהאלוהותלוליחסהמאמריםבאלהכוונתםכילהתעקשאחדירצה81בירושלים עליו חלקו לאשר בתשובתו המבוארת ישו כוונת מחטיאים

In other words Duranrsquos interpretation of Jesusrsquo saying in John 1034 over-rides essentially all other passags which may be used to argue for the divinityof Jesus Thus John 1034 functions as an overruling hermeneutical principleand Christians who seek to argue otherwise are ignorant of Jesusrsquo realintention

Duran then begins a new subsection in which he lists various passagesfrom the Hebrew Bible that Christians have uses to argue for Jesusrsquo divinity82

7 3 11 Matthewrsquos Intention with Isaiah 714 Matt 122ndash23

He begins with the Christian interpretation of Jer 236 which he cancels outby comparing it to Exod 175 and Gen 3320 Then he moves into a longdiscussion of Isa 714And Scripture further mislead them with the verse ldquoBehold the young woman shall shallconceive and she shall give birth to a son and call his name Immanuelrdquo (Isa 714) Now whyis it that they thought that his was said about the Messiah But they obtained from this tworoots for the roots of their faith 1) his being born without a father from a virgin and 2) beinggod on account of being called by the name ldquoImmanuelrdquo And Matthew brought forth thisteaching83 at the beginning of his gospel so as to bring from it proof about the virgin (cfMatt 122ndash23) But it is not hidden that (this comes) from an inferior (level of) proof andfrom a shortcoming (of understanding on the part of him) who brought (this) as proof for thismatter preceded Jesus by more than 500 years And thus what is said there ldquoBefore the boywill know enough to refuse evil and choose good the land whose two kings you dread will beforsakenrdquo (Isa 716) and likewise what is said (here) ldquoshe will conceive and will give birth toa sonrdquo (Isa 714) (this) relates to that time but their translator [Jerome] corrupted this Scrip-ture and made it future And thus they said (that) ldquoand she shall callrdquo (refers to) his mother

books He only said that he was the son of God and that God sent him [hellip] If he said he is theson of God perhaps he said it figuratively as in the other cases [He did not mean] that he isof the essence of God Heaven forbid for God is neither body nor a force in the bodyrdquo (348)[f 18v]

81 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 7ndash882 Posnanski suggests here that Duranrsquos argument shows links to de Lyrersquos commentary

on Isaiah and Petrus Alfonsirsquos Duodecim dialogus cum Moyse Judaeo (PL 157619) seeKelmiat ha-Goyim (Posnanski) 3 (1914) 110 nn 2ndash3

83 Lit ldquoauthorityrdquo thereby implying that Matthew deliberately appealed to Isa 714 inorder to establish a basis for incarnational theology


[Mary] (who would be) calling him Immanuel But according to their opinion as written inthe gospel [of Luke] it is the angel who called him Immanuel (cf Luke 128)

ולמהעמנעלשמווקראתבןיולדתהרההעלמההנהבאמרוהכתובאותםהטעהועודהיותווהואndashאמונתםמשורשישורשיםשניממנווהוציאוהמשיהעלנאמרשזהבושחשבו

בראשמטיבהביאוהזהוהפיקודעמנואלהשםלקריאתאלוהוהיותומבתולהאבבלינולדמפחיתותשבזהמהייעלםולאהבתולהעלראיהממנולהביאראשוןפרקשלוהאונגילימהוכןשנהמאותמחמשיותרלישוקדםזהענייןכילראיהשהביאהמיומחסרוןהראיהשנימפניקץאתהאשרהאדמהתעזבבטובובחורברעמאסהנערידעבטתםשםשאמרהכתובשיבששלהםהמעתיקאבלההואהזמןעלשיורהבןוילדתהרהאמרווגםמלכיה

ככתובסברתםולפיעמנואלקראתושאמווקראתאמרווכןעתידאותוועשההזה84עמנואל קראו המלאך באונגילי

Duran mostly repeats earlier arguments here but he also suspects thatMatthew added Isa 714 in order to argue that Mary was a virgin85 Butothers those who subsequently read Matthew mistakenly argued that thismeant Jesus was divine thereby maintaining the distinction between Jesusrsquomisguided early followers and the later deceivers Duran does not considerMatthewrsquos use of Isa 714 sufficient proof however since in his view (andthat of many other Jewish exegetes) Isa 714 only can refer to the historicalcontext of the prophet Jerome however presumably deliberately altered thetext to redirect the historical fulfilment to the future and to Mary Accordingto Duranrsquos analysis by using Isaiah with its reference to Immanuel Matthewinadvertenly opened the path for other to understand Jesus to be divine

The discussion of Isaiah 7 then continues by referring to Nicholas de Lyrein particular that he admitted that the passages from the Hebrew Bible do notapply literally but are only parablesallegories (משל) for the coming of theMessiah86 Duran however emphasizes that God commonly gives signs to hispeople shortly before the actual event to confirm the veracity of his promise87

Therefore if Matthew was right the Christians would have to concedethat also a virgin in Ahazrsquo day gave birth to a son whose name was Immanuel and (conse-quently) the proof (here) would turn into faith entirely by which they (then) helped no-one atall

אמונההריאהותשובעמנואלשמושנקראבןבתולאהילדהאחזבזמןשגםיודוכןואם88כלום בה הועילו ולא מוחלטת

In other words if the passage as Matthew understood it were to be applied tothe contemporaries in the time of Ahaz one would have to surmise that at that

84 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 885 This understanding requires that Matthew understood Isa 714 to refer to a virgin and

not a young woman see below86 The same argument was made by Martin Luther and Isaac ben Abraham of Troki see

below 8387 Cf the similar argument in Even Boḥan sect24 (see 649)88 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 8ndash9


time likewise a virgin gave birth to a son named Immanuel and if so thiswould not be a sign that the child is divine In effect one could not allow forMatthewrsquos interpretation of Isaiah 7 since it would either leave Godrsquos promiseof a sign to Ahaz unfulfilled or would lead to the admission that a (divine)virgin-born child named Immanuel lived in the time of Ahaz In other wordsDuran requires one interpretation (and fulfillment) of the passage consistentwith the historical context of the contemporary recipients He effectivelyrejects at least here the use of two kinds of interpretative senses The impli-cation is that there is only one literal interpretation of Isaiah 7 and thatMatthewrsquos interpretation is simply wrong or at least ineffectual in terms of itsability to proof that Jesus is born of a virgin and divine on account of beingnamed Immanuel Matthewrsquos proof turns out to be simply a matter of unverifi-able faith ( מוחלטת אמונה הריאה ותשוב ) a rather enlightened conclusion

7 3 12 The Hypostatic Union and Jesusrsquo Death Matt 2746

Duran then turns to the interpretation of Isaiah 96 explaining how it refers toHezekiah and that the use of the names in the passage does not indicate thedivinity of the one who is called by them He finalizes his discussion ofpassages from the Hebrew Bible which Christians have used to validate theirbelief with an interesting assessment of ChristologyAnd it is possible that there are a few more passages found of this kind on which they basetheir belief For when their clever ones saw passages which they considered proof for the div-inity (of Jesus) and (also) passages which pointed without a doubt to his humanity and (that)these sayings contradicted each other they divided this messiah into two and made him intotwo aspects (בחינות) mdash one aspect by which he is God and one aspect by which he is ahuman (אדם) and what is written which points to his being a human they say is (part of) theaspect of his humanity (האנושות) and that which they consider an indicator to his divinity(האלוהות) they say (relates to the aspect) by which it speaks of (his) divinity89 And theythought this was a solid method to verify their opinion But it is not hidden what in this (rea-soning) comes from defect and weakness inasmuch as this messiah was not himself com-posed (מורכב) of these aspects rather they were united (התאחדו) in him (in) unity and pur-pose (that is) according to their opinion divinity and humanity And this one was (then) themessiah and this union (התאחדות) (in him) was (supposedly) stronger according to theiropinion than the union of body and soul that makes a human being

And just as the plant is composed (נשלם) out of the form (צורה) of the plant and the inan-imate which is its internal matter (חומר) and the animate (organism) is composed out of theform of the plant and the animate and the man (אדם) is composed out the form of humanityand life (החיות) thus (also) the essence 90(מהות) of the messiah is composed out of the divi-nity and the humanity

89 Which is precisely what eg Gregory of Nazianzus writes in Orat 291890 This word can be understood as being (Wesen) quidditas essentia or οὐσία see Jacob

Klatzkin Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris (4 volsBerlin Eschkol 1928 repr Hildesheim Olms 2004) 2156


And this (is supposedly so) because they say that they are two opposites and natures inone subject (נושא) (which) they call supposit(um)91 and they call these two natures thedivine nature and the human nature and they united into a perfect union תכלית)assumed humanity (האלוהות) and that this (happened) when the Divinity (ההתאחדות

And now this messiah just as he is in these two natures was hung (onto a cross) andkilled And with this it is (therefore) right (to say) that the Divinity was hung (on a cross) andwas killed although he was not killed on the side of the divine (nature) Just as it is with amurdering trader who will be punished by death For (they say) it is quite right that the tradershould be punished by death although he will not be punished on the side (ie on account) ofbeing a trader And thus it is (with Jesus) (that) after he was hung (on the cross) he calledout to God ldquoMy God my God why have you left merdquo (Matt 2746) although he would nothave said this on the side of the divine (nature) For (they think) it is quite right that God iscalling to God mdash but this is improper (to say about God) And therefore it would appear thatneither he [Jesus] nor his disciples in any way erred about this at all

פיקחיהםראווכידעתםבםשיקיימוהזההמיןמןמקומותקצתשיימצאעודואפשרספקבלאאנושותועלשיורווהמקומותהאלוהותעלראיהחשובוםאשרהמקומות

ndashבחינותבחינותממנוועשולשנייםהזההמשיחחילקואלואתאלוסותריםוהמאמריםאדםהיותועלשיורהשכתובומהאדםשהואמהמצדובחינהאלוהשהואמהמצדבחינהייאמרהאלוהותשמצדיאמרואלוהותעלמורההיותושיחשבוומההאנושותבבחינתיאמרו

שהמשיחלפיוהחולשההמוםמןשבזהמהייעלםולאסברתםלאמתחזקדרךזהוחשבוזהסברתםלפיהאחדותתכליתבוהתאחדואבלהבחינותמאלהמורכבעצמוהיהלאהזה

סברתםלפיחזקיותרהזהוההתאחדותהמשיחהואהזההאחדוהיהוהאנושותהאלוהותחומרהואאשרוהדומםהצומחשמצורתוכמוהאדםמהםלהיותוהנפשהגוףמהתאחדות

כןהאדםנשלםוהחיותהאנושותומצורתהחינשלםוהחיהצומחומצורתהצומחנשלםלהאחדבנושאוטבעיםהפכיםשנישהםאמרוכיוזההמשיחמהותנשלםוהאנושותמהאלוהות

תכליתוהתאחדוהאנושיוטבעאלוהיטבעהטבעיםאלהלשניוקוריןשופושיטלוקראואלהבשנישהואכמוהזההמשיחוהנההאנשושותאתהאלוהותכשקיבלוזהההתאחדות

מצדנהרגשלאהיותועםונהרגנתלהשהאלוהותבויצדקזהועםונהרגנתלההטבעיםשלאעםמיתהייענששהסוחריצדקכברהנההרוצחהסוחרמיתהייענשאםכמוהאלוהות

למאאליאלילאלוהקוראהיהתלייתושבשעתאחרכןגםוזהסוהרהיותומצדייענשוזהלאלוהקוראשהאלוהיצדקכברהנההאלוהותמצדזהייאמרשלאהיותעםעזבתני92כלל בזה תלמידיו ולא הוא טעה לא מעולם כי נראה כן על מגונה

Duran displays more insight here into christological thought than many otherJewish polemical writers93 His argument does not come from ignorance andafter having explained the hypostatic union at some length and by identifyinghow he thinks christological thought came about which in his view was to

91 This refers to the hypostatic union In Thomas Aquinasrsquo understanding suppositum isclosely related to the term hypostasis In this the suppositum underlies the general nature of asingle thing or being and as such it denotes the ontological reality of the two though also dis-tinct natures in Christ as one complete entity cf his Summa contra gentiles IV Q 34 Art29 IV Q 39 Art 1 But see especially also his Summa theologiae III Q 16 Art 4 and 5Q 19 Art 1 and Q 46 Art 12 Furthermore see also Summa theologiae I Q 3 Art 3 andIII Q 2

92 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 9ndash1093 Cf the understanding displayed in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Yosef ha-Meqanne

sect9 (see 4513) and Nizzahon Vetus sect181 et al (see 5410ndash13)


make sense of contradictory passages as referring to either the human anddivine nature of Christ94 he simply turns back to Matt 2746 In fact heessentially argues that the divine-human Christ as suppositum that is as oneontological entity could not have called out to God in this manner In thisDuran essentially disputes Aquinas who ascribed Jesusrsquo suffering only to theassumed human nature and not the the divine impassable nature95 That isDuran uses the hypostatic union to argue that the ldquoentityrdquo Jesus Christ who iscomposed of the divine nature in union with his human nature could not havecalled out to God with such a desperate request much less died96 In his esti-mation this is simply improper (מגונה) to say of God and if Jesus and hisdisciples were not mistaken about his human identity then it was the ldquocleveronesrdquo who clearly mislead all those after them

Finally based on Acts 3 and 4 he reiterates his view that the apostles anddisciples did not think of Jesus as divine even after his death ( שטענומהוכן

מותואחרבעדו ) In particular the quotation of Deut 1815 in Acts 322 (cfalso 734) shows that the disciples thought of Jesus as a prophet on a levelhigher than Moses ( ממשהעליונהיותרמדרגה )97 He also reminds his readersthat when Jesus calls himself ldquoSon of Godrdquo it is not to be understood as anindication that he is divine which he achieves by pointing to Deut 141 Rom814 and John 112 All passages refer to humans as ldquosons of Godrdquo conse-quently one cannot understand the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo as claim of divinity

7 4 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

In chapter 10 of Kelimmat ha-Goyim various contradictions and corruptions inthe New Testament are discussed Duran starts with the Gospel of Matthew

94 With this he might be one of the first Jewish polemicists to implicitly recognize thatthere were passages in the New Testament that pointed to Jesusrsquo divine identity after all itrequired Christians to assign two aspects to Jesus though his argument also assumes thatChristian were wrong about this and ultimately read this into the text

95 On this see also Hans Kuumlng The Incarnation of God An Introduction to Hegelrsquos Theo-logical Thought as prolegomena to a future Christology (Edinburgh TampT Clark 1987) 531ndash32

96 Eberhard Juumlngel and Juumlrgen Moltmann essentially appeal to the same christologicalmechanism (communicatio idiomatumἀλλοίωσις) when they argued that the death of Christthat is at least in some sense means the death of God or to be more precise ldquodeath in GodrdquoSee Eberhard Juumlngel ldquoVom Tode des Lebendigen Gottesrdquo in Unterwegs zur Sache Theolo-gische Bemerkungen (ed E Juumlngel BEvT 61 Munich Kaiser 1988) 105ndash25 and JuumlrgenMoltmann The Crucified God The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Chris-tian Theology (trans RA Wilson and John Bowden London SCM 1974 repr 2001) esp206ndash88



sequentially going through the whole gospel pointing out various difficultieswith the text and then proceeds to do the same for Mark Luke JohnRomans Corinthians Hebrews Acts and James The discussion of theGospel of Matthew takes by far the most space He begins by restating hiscentral understanding of Jesus and the New TestamentThere is no doubt that Jesus and his disciples and his apostles were people of the land (ieunlearned peasants) and this is seen clearly from what proof they bring from the Scriptures toestablish the matter and also in (how) they err in (using) the stories of the Torah and theProphets

מהכתובראיהשיביאוממהבבירורזהוייראההיוהארץעםושלוחיוותלמידיוישוכיפסקאיןלאמזהשיאמרומהכיאניוחושבטועיםהיווהנבאיםהתורהבסיפוריוגםעניינובקיום

98הכתוב מתוך יאמרוהו

The textual difficulties he cites in this chapter therefore show that Jesusrsquodisciples and apostles were uneducated when it came to the Torah and theProphets and consequently also not trustworthy This general ad hominemargument is repeated in much of the chapter though it actually was thefailure of the ldquofoolish devoutrdquo ( השוטיםהחסידים ) who came after them andwho listened to them who fell into error99 Duran then goes on to list theseerrors in particular as they appear in the New TestamentNow see I am presenting in this chapter a few of their errors and mistakes (although) withthis (comes also) a loss of time and (having to deal with) words of foolishness for I know(that) the heirs of the religion of truth will delight in this in the gift of their portion of whichyou Oh Glory of the Rabbis are their head to this day And the superiority (or virtue) of thedivine Torah and its veracity will be proclaimed over (against) its opposite so as to separatebetween the holy and between the ordinary between the light and between the darkness

כיחבלבדבריזמןמאיבודשבזהעםושיבושיהםמטעיותיהםקצתהזהבפרקאביאוהנהכהיוםראשםהרבניםתפארתאתהאשרחלקםבמתנתהאמתדתנוחליבזהישמחוידעתיהקודשביןלהבדילזולתהעלויתרונהואמיתתההאלוהיתהתורהמעלתבוותתפרסםהזה100החושך ובין האור בין החול ובין

While Duran considers it a waste of time to scrutinize the New Testament inthis manner the recipient Ḥasdai Crescas and the rabbinic leaders with himare to use this chapter as a means to appreciate their own Scriptures in thatthey come to see some of the mistakes of the evangelists disciples andJesus mdash and conversely that of the conversos and the Christian campaign toproselytize Jews

98 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 4999 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) reads here מתמידיםהאלההשוטיםהחסידיםוהיו

שומעיםשהיובמהמשתבשיםהיוובחסרונםהדרשותלשמוע These ldquopious onesrdquo couldequally also refer here to the conversos

100 Ibid


Duran begins with the Gospel of Matthew mostly by pointing out thatMatthew andor Jesus ldquoerredrdquo in their understanding of the Hebrew Bible( בכתובטעה ) Often this may simply mean that the passage from the HebrewBible is not quoted precisely as it appears in the Hebrew text other times thismay point to other perceived contradictions and inconcistencies some ofwhich are well known

The following table lists and summarizes all the passages discussed in thismanner in Matthew

Passage Critique

Matt 122ndash23 99 Matthew erred about (= did not understand) Isaiah 714 whichis not surprising since he is just an uneducated tax collector

Matt 25ndash6 21ndash2 211 Matthew erred about Micah 51 his nativity account also does not mention any angels (as in Luke) it is also not explicitly mentioned that there were three magi

Matt 216ndash18 Matthew erred about Jer 3114 the passage is not about Rachelrsquos sons for Bethlehem is in Judah and it is anyway only speaking about the Babylonian exile

Matt 219ndash23 The prophecy about being called a Nazarene was explained by de Lyre with Isa 111 but in like manner Isa 1419 could be applied

Matt 47 10 Jesus erred about Deut 616 and Deut 613 [misquotation]

Matt 413ndash15 Jesus erred about Isa 823 [misquotation]

Matt 543 Jesusrsquo quote of hating ones enemy is not found in the Hebrew Bible (cf Lev 1918)

Matt 1110 (amp Mk 12) Jesus erred about Mal 31 by relating it to John the Baptist

Matt 1215ndash21 Jesus did not quote Isa 421ndash4 correctly

Matt 1313ndash15 Jesus erred about Isa 69ndash10 [misquotation]

Matt 157ndash9 (amp Mk 76ndash7) Jesus erred about Isa 2913 [misquotation]

Matt 193ndash5 (amp Mk 107) Jesus erred about Gen 224 [misquotation]

Matt 211ndash5 Jesus erred about Zech 99 [the quote was a composite of Zech99 and Isa 6211]

Matt 2115ndash16 Jesus erred about Psalm 83 [misquotation]

Matt 2241ndash45 Jesus uses Psalm 1101 and heretically applies it to himself101

101 This argument somewhat undermines Duranrsquos theory that Jesus did not make himselfdivine for if it is heretical (נתפקר) for Jesus to apply Psalm 1101 to himself than one ought


Passage Critique

Matt 2617ndash20 Jesus could not have been killed on Passover Also a capital punishment trial did not just take one day

Matt 2335 Jesus was wrong about Zechariah ldquothe son of Berachiahrdquo (cf 2Chron 2420ndash21)

Matt 2647ndash50 273ndash10 Matthew erred about his Jeremiah quote it is only found in Zech 1112ndash13 and Jerome and Nicholas de Lyre were aware of this error

Matt 2739ndash43 The people mocking Jesus had actually some good arguments

Matt 2751ndash53 The accounts of the miracles that happened after Jesusrsquo death are all a fabrication otherwise the Jews would have believed in Jesus

Matt 2738 Robbery was not punished by death in Israel

It is rather evident that the main intention is to show that the evangelist oreven Jesus did not properly understand the Hebrew Bible Their apparent lackof knowledge and their ignorance consequently casts doubt on the trustworthi-ness of Christian claims In his discussion of Matt 2751ndash53 Duran explicitlyemphasizes that the gospel accounts are to be considered partly fabricatedAnd this story (already) by itself (shows) that all this is an utter lie and all nonsense for thereis no doubt that if these signs and wonders had (indeed) been seen then the Jews (surely)would have been attracted to the faith in Jesus and repented for what they did

אזנראיםהיושאילוספקאיןכיהבליםוהכלגמורשקרזהשכללעצמועדהזההסיפורמהעלומתחרטיםישואמונתאחראזנמשכיםהיהודיםהיוהאלהוהמופתיםהאותות102שעשו

In like manner Duran also did not leave the contradictions among the variousgospels uncommented In the context of discussing the differing genealogieshe remarksAnd in many words the evangelists contradict this and that for they are all (like blind men)groping for a wall What is surprising in these stories is that each one of them tells of thedeed(s) of Jesus in a different manner from his compatriots for in the absence of eyes they(only) can grope

שכלמהסיפוריםוהתימהקירימששוכולםכיזהאתזהסותריםהאונגילישהרבהובדברים103יגששו עיניים ובאין מחבירו משונה באופן ישו מעשה מספר ואחד אחד

to question what Jesusrsquo self-understanding was see Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 52102 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 53103 Ibid 54


Duranrsquos intention with this chapter is to show that the New Testament textsand their authors are not trustworthy and while he uses the same texts toshow that Jesus did not consider himself divine he also argues that the NewTestament writers were misguided and misguiding He therefore concludesthat(hellip) their (own) mouths condemn them (cf Job 920) they neither know or understand (cfPsalm 825) and they err in what even primary school children would not fail in so that theyappear this day (as those who are) ldquoall futile and the things they treasure can do no goodrdquo (cfIsa 449)

לארבןביתשלתינוקותשאפילובמהוטעההבינולאגםידעושלאהרשעיםפיהםהנה104יועילו בל וחמודיהם תוהו כולם כי הזה ביום הראות למען בו ייכשלו

7 5 Summary

Profiat Duranrsquos overall argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is impressive inparticular when compared to other polemical writings His arguments pre-dates the modern period nevertheless he is quite at home in much laterdiscussions Of course Duranrsquos uniqueness has not been overlooked andvarious scholars have already analyzed and acknowledged his work

Eleazar Gutwirth eg has seen Duranrsquos approach as originating in earlyhumanist currents He evaluates Duranrsquos work as an attempt to establish a laquoJesus strandraquo through philological method when for example he argues thatthe divinity of Jesus is a later addition to Christianity He looks at the New Testament usageof addressing Jesus and finds that he is not addressed as God105

Gutwirth highlights further aspects of this pre-modern critical methodologyin particular the usage of terminology considerations of the historical andstylistic context issues of dating and chronology identification of discrepan-cies source criticism and listing of variances between Jeromersquos translationand the Masoretic text

Likewise Netanyahu has appraised Duran as the first of a novel type ofpolemical writers with a ldquonew polemical approachrdquo106

Duran here followed the policy pursued by the Christians in their attacks against Judaism butwith other means and opposite objectives Just as the Christians tried to prove that ancientJewish literature contains acknowledgments by some of the Sages of the rightness of Chris-tianity so Duran tried to show that the early Christian writings and primarily Jesusrsquo sayingscontained an admission of the rightness of Judaism And just as the argument employed bythe Christians attempted to play upon Jesusrsquo faith in the wisdom and knowledge of their

104 Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Talmage) 59105 Eleazar (Eliezer) Gutwirth ldquoHistory and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish

thoughtrdquo Helmantica 35 (1984) 231ndash42 here 235106 Netanyahu Marranos 84 see also 93

75 Summary 285

Sages so must the argument followed by Duran have been aimed at those who recognized atleast to some extend the authority of Jesus107

This he suggests shows that Duran primarily wrote for marranos (or conver-sos)108 and he considers Kelimmat ha-Goyim to be ldquoan outright assault onChristianityrdquo which ldquowas penetrative and far-reaching to an extend neverbefore displayedrdquo109 Netanyahursquos focus on the marranos perhaps read toomuch into Duranrsquos intention for Kelimmat ha-Goyim in particular since heinitially wrote the treatise for Crescas but Duran (and also Shem Ṭov)certainly represent a new quality in polemical literature This ldquonew polemicalapproachrdquo is perhaps not as novel and uniquely offensive in character as somehave seen it especially when considering that for the most part Duran onlyrecycles older polemical arguments Nevertheless Duran clearly stands outbecause he is much better informed and confident in using Christian writingsand doctrine In fact no other polemical writer before him has used such awide spread of New Testament texts or shown such understanding of actualChristian doctrine Yet Kelimmat ha-Goyim still follows the trajectory ofearlier polemic in particular when it comes to reading and interpreting NewTestament passages from a non-christological vantage point Talmage in factinforms us that this approach was not new and that Duran potentially took itfrom the polemical tract ldquoLivyat Ḥen by Levi b Abraham b Hayyim(c 1245ndash1315) a work which he knew and which is mentioned in hisbookrdquo110 Cohen has also elaborated on this and seeks to show that Duranrsquosldquohistoricistrdquo approach has in fact both Jewish and Christian predecessors Hesug-gests that Duran is echoing the strategy of Raymund Martinirsquos PugioFidei111

Talmage has summarized Duranrsquos ldquohistoricist methodrdquo as an attempt ldquotodemonstrate that contemporary Christianity is the outcome of a long develop-ment and that (hellip) the heads of the Church (hellip) elaborated confused and fal-sified the intentions of the foundersrdquo112 And although Duran sees later Chris-tianity as ldquoa deviation from the intention of the founderrdquo he essentially didnot esteem the former any better for Duran ldquoprimitive Christianity was a con-fused and distorted version of Judaismrdquo113

107 Netanyahu Marranos 85ndash86108 Ibid 86109 Ibid 85 Though Duranrsquos reference to the Jews of his day as being ldquounder siegerdquo

points more to a defensive motivation for Kelimmat ha-Goyim110 Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79111 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76ndash84 As was mentioned

earlier there is also possible evidence that Duran relied on Even Boḥan in his reading ofMatthew see 642

112 Talmage ldquoPolemical Writingsrdquo 79113 Ibid 81


Also Anne Berlin has provided an insightful analysis of Duranrsquos approachHe tried to show that the doctrines set forth by later Christian theologians had no foundationin the words of Christ the Apostles or the Gospel writers and that numerous New Testamentverses were actually inconsistent with later doctrine Further these doctrines were corrobo-rated by faulty translation of Hebrew Scripture and erroneous exegesis of Old Testament pas-sages by Christian theologians (hellip) Perhaps Duranrsquos approach could best described as histor-ical reconstruction (hellip) Essentially Duran tried to present the sense of the New Testamentverses as they would have been perceived in first century Israel He sought to show that thecircumstances of time place and nationality mandated that Jesus could only have meant cer-tain ideas by his statements and that these ideas were not equivalent to later beliefs whichwere invented by theologians in a different context ie the Trinity Incarnation Transubstan-tiation baptism the sacraments original sin clerical celibacy or the abrogation of the OldTestament (hellip) Appeal to contemporary testimony also formed the basis of Duranrsquos chal-lenge to the authority of Christ and the Apostles He uses the statements of the Gospel writersregarding Jewsrsquo adverse reaction to Jesus to show that Jesus did not command respect in histime Moreover Duran tries to show that Jesus did not deserve respect in his time mdash or at anylater time mdash because the New Testament documents his ignorance Duran cited numerouserrors which Jesus committed in citing the Old Testament For Duran this was proof enoughthat Jesus was a simpleton who did not even know the Law and customs of his own peopletherefore he was hardly deserving the authority with which the Christians credited him114

She makes much of Duranrsquos use of the sensus literalis of a given text egseen in the interpretation of the title ldquoSon of Manrdquo or the discussion whetherMary had ever intercourse with Joseph (Matt 125)115 But as alreadymentioned earlier the application of this literal interpretation is not slavishand Duran makes concessions for a more figurative interpretation of passagesaccording to the context as seen eg in the treatment of John 10 and 14

Duranrsquos thesis that neither Jesus nor his disciples considered him divine iscarefully sustained with evidence from the New Testament and the Gospel ofMatthew though he had to be selective to maintain this hypothesis Like hispredecessors he can only argue this by neglecting various passages in thegospels Yet in the discussion of John 1 (see 731) Duran comes close toargue that John may have been a dualist which undermines his general thesissomewhat And although Duran has a low view of Jesus he still appeals toJesusrsquo own statements116 to those of his disciples of the apostles117 and

114 Berlin ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duranrdquo 11ndash12 (Introduction) Reproducedhere by courtesy of the Harvard University Archives

115 Ibid 10ndash11 13ndash15116 Matt 46ndash7 (God ought not be tempted) Matt 1917 (par Mark 1018 God alone is

good) Mark 1040 (Jesus has no authority to grant the disciplesrsquo request) Mark 1045 (Jesuscame to serve) John 530 (Jesus does not do his own will) John 1030 149 1410 1420(Jesus has a close relationship to the Father) Matt 2734 (Jesus is calling on God) John1019ndash36 (Jesus only uses the title ldquoSon of Godrdquo as a figure of speech cf also Rom 814 andJohn 112)

117 Matt 1613ndash17 (Peter thinks Jesus is higher than those before him) Heb 35ndash6 (Paul

75 Summary 287

finally also to contextual or ldquorationalrdquo evidence as proof for his assessmentthat the early followers of Jesus did not consider him to be God118

Through careful examination of of specific texts Duran concluded that when Jesus said heand his Father were one or called himself Son of God he meant to affirm nothing more than aspecial relationship with God not to describe himself as ldquothe First Cause and Creator of theworldrdquo119

Slightly counterproductive is the assertion Jesus was crazy which underminesthe argumentation to some extend However Duran must have thought thatthe evidence he found in the New Testament mandated this conclusion heobviously felt that Jesus was not in particular impressive as Cohen points outThe Reproach of the Gentiles confronts Jesus more as an object of pity than as a villainDescribed as a pious fool (ḥasid shoteh) as uncultured and as ignorant of religious tradition(lsquoam Harsquoareṣ) his biblical homilies were repeatedly flawed Ending a long list of faulty quo-tations from Scripture with Jesusrsquo incorrect rendition (Mark 1229ndash30) of Deuteronomy 64ndash5(lsquoHear O Israelrsquo) Duran concluded lsquoBehold this poor man did not even know ShemarsquoYisrarsquoel120

Duran also identifies the passages which he understood to be the basis of laterChristian confusion about Jesusrsquo divinity121 and while he leaves thesepassages largely uncommented in the light of his interpretation of Jesusrsquo ownstatements he asserts them to be misinterpretations of the original intention ofJesus

The next step was to juxtapose these statements with the doctrines them-selves which allowed Duran to question Christian doctrine its developmentthe representatives of this doctrine and also its sources Thus Duran couldessentially maintain that Christianity in his day had departed from the primitive Christianity of Jesus and the apos-tles constituting no less than a heretical distortion of thereof Not only from a Jewish stand-

thinks Jesus is above Moses) Matt 2120 (the disciples are surprised) Luke 248 (Mary statesthat Jesus has a human father but cf Matt 122ndash23) 1 John 412 (no one has seen God)1 Cor 86 (the Father is superior) Acts 322 (Jesus is a superior prophet)

118 Matt 41 5 8 (Jesus is lead by Satan) Mark 63 (Jesus is a simple carpenter and couldnot do miracles in Nazareth) Matt 43ndash4 (par Luke 43ndash4 Jesus lacks [divine] ability) Mark1113ndash14 (Jesus lacked knowledge) Matt 2746 (the supposit[um] of Jesus calls on God)

119 David Berger ldquoOn the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christian-ity The Quest for the Historical Jesusrdquo in Jewish History and Jewish Memory Essays inhonor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (ed Elisheva Carlebach John M Efron and David NMyers Hanover NH Brandeis University Press 1998) 25ndash39 the quote is from p 31

120 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 73 see Kelimmat ha-Goyim(Talmage) 53

121 Acts 2016ndash17 Rom 95 1 John 316 Col 28ndash9 Rev 117ndash18 512 and Jude 14bndash5


point had Christianity erred but also from a truly Christian perspective medieval Catholicshad betrayed the legacy of the founders of their faith122

The Gospel of Matthew played in this discussion a significant role insofarmany of the passages come from Matthew and also from the Gospel of Johnthe two being the more dominant within church history Also in the otherchapters of Kelimmat ha-Goyim the Gospel of Matthew is frequently refer-enced In chapter 10 most of the passages in which Duran found errors arefrom Matthew The gospel text becomes thus a prime witness against theclaims of Christianity the statements of the protagonists their actions andalso their (or the evangelistsrsquo) use of scripture is seen as evidence of the mis-taken nature of Christianity both in its inception and also later development

What is perhaps most impressive in Kelimmat ha-Goyim is how Duran didnot shrink back from facing the relevant New Testament passages that Chris-tians have used to support their doctrine and faith He finds proof for the mis-apprehension of Jesusrsquo divinity in the very passages that Christians have usedto support Jesusrsquo divinity most clearly seen in his discussion of John 1019ndash36 which is a key text for Duran His exegesis of John but also Matt 46ndash7and Matt 1917 and the interpretation of Jesusrsquo intention is insightful andquite modern Also his explanations of Peterrsquos understanding of Jesus in Matt1613ndash17 and that of Paul in Heb 35ndash6 are noteworthy In particular the jux-taposition of Matt 2746 with the hypostatic union is impressive Jesus callingon God precisely when he is hanging on the cross touches the soft spot ofChristology And in this Duran is not operating from a point of ignorance heis familiar with the contemporary christologial concepts and the inherentparadox of the incarnation But and this is important he is not simply point-ing to the rational paradox he uses Matthewrsquos Gospel and Jesusrsquo own wordsto methodically question the possibility of Jesusrsquo divinity

Clearly Profiat Duran deserves to be better recognized especially by NewTestament scholars not the least since his view of Jesus and the developmentof Christian doctrine predates the later equivalent critical positions by severalhundred years

122 Cohen ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentilesrdquo 76

75 Summary 289

Chapter 8

The Use of the Gospel of Matthew inIsaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah

8 1 Introduction

Although written fairly late in 1593941 the last primary text to be consideredin this study is Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah2 In fact Rabbi Isaac ben AbrahamrsquosldquoStrengthening of the Faithrdquo historically has been one of the best knownJewish polemical works which has influenced so illustrious thinkers asVoltaire Baron drsquoHolbach and Hermann Samuel Reimarus3 Of all the

1 Marek Waysblum has argued for a different dating from what is commonly accepted hesuggests 1585 as composition date see idem ldquoIsaac of Troki and Christian Controversy inthe XVI Centuryrdquo JJS 3 (1952) 62ndash77 esp 72

2 For an introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah and the workrsquos Rezeptionsgeschichte seeAbraham Geiger ldquoIsaak Troki Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehntenJahrhundertsrdquo in Abraham Geigerrsquos Nachgelassene Schriften (ed Ludwig Geiger 5 volsBerlin Louis Gerschel 1876) 3178ndash223 Graetz Geschichte 9437ndash38 Leon NemoyldquoTroki Isaac Ben Abrahamrdquo EncJud (2007) 20155ndash56 Ernst Ludwig Dietrich ldquoDasjuumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlch am Ausgang des 16 Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuchdes R Isaak Trokirdquo Judaica 14 (1958) 1ndash38 Ananiasz Zajączkowski Karaims in PolandHistory Language Folklore Science (Warsaw Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1961)77ndash79 Frank Talmage review of Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Faith Strengthened JAAR 41(1973) 430ndash32 Rosemarie Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-juumldischenGespraumlch der Reformationszeit (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Muumlnsteraner Judais-tische Studien 17 Muumlnster Lit 2005) and also Richard H Popkin Disputing ChristianityThe 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Classic Arguments (NewYork Humanity Books 2007) 7ndash40

3 Ḥizzuq Emunah may have played a role in Reimarusrsquo quest for a new approach to thecritical study of the New Testament cf Hermann Samuel Reimarus Apologie oderSchutzschrift fuumlr die vernuumlnftigen Verehrer Gottes (ed Gerhard Alexander 2 vols FrankfurtInsel 1971) 2268 ldquoDer R Isaac in seinem Chissuk Emunah wirfft ihnen nicht allein uumlber-haupt vor daszlig sie die Spruumlche der Propheten wieder den wahren Verstand im NT miszlighan-delten indem man aus dem Vorhergehenden und Nachfolgenden leicht sehen koumlnnte daszligjene gar nicht an das gedacht haumltten was die Evangelisten und Apostel daraus beweisenwollten sondern er wiederlegt auch im zweyten Theil seines Werks alle Deutungen derbesonderen Stellen AT die man im Neuen angefuumlhrt findet als falsch und verkehrt undsoferne ist dieser Jude der gruumlndlichste und staumlrkste Wiedersacher des Christenthumsrdquo Trans-lation ldquoR Isaac accuses them in his Ḥizzuq Emunah not only of abusing the sayings of theprophets in the NT against true reason in that it is easily seen from what comes before and

Jewish polemical works Ḥizzuq Emunah may therefore have made thebiggest impact on modern Christianity which is why it needs to be includedhere

Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki was probably born born in 1533 anddied in 15934 He lived in the small Lithuanian town of Troki which is whyhe is often just referred to as ldquoRabbi Trokirdquo By the 16th century the town ofTroki (modern day Trakai close to Vilnius) had become a center of Karaismafter several hundred Crimean Karaites were settled in Lithuania under theprotection of Grand Duke Vytautas (Vitold) around the year 13975 RabbiTroki likewise was a follower of Karaism this peripheral denomination ofJudaism that rejects the dual Torah and various other rabbinic traditions andconsiders the Hebrew Bible in particular the Torah as primary authoritativebasis for Jewish faith and practice6

Lithuania and Poland which in 1569 had merged into effectively onecountry became a noteworthy counterpoint to the absolute monarchies ofEurope on the one side its political system of democratic election of themonarch albeit limited to nobility and on the other side the religious freedomand relative tolerance granted to its inhabitants was almost unprecedented inthe history of Europe7 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth subsequentlybecame an asylum and free-haven for the persecuted free-thinkers and fringereligions of Europe8

after that they did not think about the things the evangelists an apostles sought to prove withthem more so he also refutes in the second part of his work all interpretations of particularOT passages which are used in the NT as false and wrong and as such this Jew is the mostthorough and strongest opponent of Christendomrdquo

4 His work was published post-mortem by his student Joseph b Mordechai Malinovski5 Zajączkowski Karaims in Poland 646 Karaites have been considered heretical by mainstream Judaism and have been ostra-

cized since the eight and ninth centuries Abraham Geiger made a strong case that RabbiTroki was indeed a Karaite based on the content of Ḥizzuq Emunah and other evidence seeGeiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 187 213 esp 216ndash21 On the history of Karaism in Poland seeZajączkowski Karaims in Poland and Simon Szyszman ldquoDie Karaumler in Ost-MitteleuropardquoZeitschrift fuumlr Ostforschung 6 (1957) 24ndash54

7 See Jerzy Lukowski and Hubert Zawadzki A Concise History of Poland (2nd ed Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 2006) 83ndash94

8 Robert Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy first published in 1621 wrote thatldquoPoland is a receptacle of all religions where Samosetans Socinians Photinians [] AriansAnabaptists are to be foundrdquo he further remarked ldquoin Europe Poland and Amsterdam are thecommon sanctuaries [for Jews]rdquo idem The Anatomy of Melancholy (ed Democritus Junior 3vols New York A C Armstrong 1880) 3369 (Section IV Member I) 3435 (Section IVMember I Subsection V) Already before the time of the Commonwealth and the Union ofLublin the Jews of Poland had been granted special privileges under King Bolesław whichwere mostly continued and even expanded by his successors In 1441 King Casimir IV (Jag-ellonid) ldquogranted the Jews of Troki the Magdeburg law which long before had been granted


In this historical milieu Rabbi Troki was able to come in contact withmany liberal thinkers and varied forms of Christianity especially since thereligious scene in Poland and Lithuania was in great upheaval during the 16thcentury9 He explains in the introduction to Ḥizzuq Emunah that his knowl-edge of Christianity came from friendly and respectful dialogues with Chris-tians In his youth he apparently even had access to the courts of nobilitywhere he was able to read and study Christian writings10 and he reports thathe recorded the arguments levelled against him and likewise his responses ofwhich some were his own and others were taken from Jewish scholars andtheir writings11

Rabbi Troki very frequently cites Szymon Budny12 who was a close asso-ciate of Faustus Socinus (Fausto Paolo Sozzin) a prominent leader of the anti-trinitarian movement of which many of its adherents were forced to flee toeastern Europe13 Thus at least some of the arguments in Ḥizzuq Emunah are

to the Christian inhabitants of that city as well as to the Jews of Wilna and Kovno Accordingto this law the Jews of Troki were subject to the jurisdiction of a Jewish bailiff elected by hiscoreligionists and confirmed for life by the kingrdquo Herman Rosenthal ldquoCasimir IV Jag-ellonrdquo JE (1901ndash1906) 3598ndash99 see also Zajączkowski Karaims in Poland 66ndash69 andGraetz Geschichte 9410ndash38

9 See James Miller ldquoThe Roots of Polish Arianismrdquo The Sixteenth Century Journal 16(1985) 229ndash56

10 See David Deutsch Sefer Khizzuk Emuna Befestigung im Glauben Von Rabbi JizchakSohn Abrahams (2nd ed Breslau H Skutsch 1873) 9

11 See Deutsch Befestigung 10 Rabbi Troki does not disclose all the sources he usedbut he refers eg to David Qimḥirsquos interpretation of Isaiah 7 and 8 (which he rejects ibid136ndash37) or also mentions Joseph ben Gorionrsquos book (Josippon) ibid 249 255 cf also 53318 Dietrich lists other sources in ldquoDas Juumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlchrdquo 9 For a fulllist of sources see Golda Akhiezer ldquoThe Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and hislsquoPolemics against the Rabbanitesrsquordquo in Tradition Heterodoxy and Religious Culture Judaismand Christianity in the Early Modern Period (ed Chanita Goodblatt and Howard Kreisel TheGoldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6 Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion University of theNegev Press 2006) 437ndash68 see 466ndash68 also Stefan Schreiner ldquoIsaac of Trokirsquos Studies ofRabbinic Literaturerdquo Polin 15 (2002) 65ndash76 Graetz likens Trokirsquos arguments to ProfiatDuranrsquos see Geschichte 9438 Waysblum in contrast only sees literary connections toKaraites in Constantinople ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 65

12 Deutsch Befestigung 50 91 106 131 241 253 259 265 267 271 283 300 301330 331 335 337 348 Budny (or Budneaus d after 1584) was a leading calvinist unitarianpastor who had translated the Old and New Testament into Polish with a commentary in1572 Graetz Geschichte 9435 Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 191ndash94 Cf also David A FrickPolish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (Berkeley Universityof California Press 1989) and idem ldquoSzymon Budny and Sacred Philology Between Eastand Westrdquo in Biblia Slavica (Series II Polnische Bibeln Vol 3 Budny Part 2 [commen-tary] ed R Olesch and H Rothe Paderborn F Schoumlningh 1994) 232 309ndash49 (this is acommentary of Budnyrsquos translation)

13 See Popkin Disputing Christianity 14

81 Introduction 293

influenced by the same school of thought to which Faustus Socinus and alsoMichael Servetus belonged the latter having been burned for his teachings inGeneva in 155314 This anti-trinitarian influence is in particular evident in sect10of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah where Rabbi Troki specifically citesNiccolograve Parutarsquos tract De uno vero deo15 He also refers to two of MarcinCzechowicrsquos publications (in one case even with page numbers) as sources ofwhere one can find a discussion of many New Testament passages withldquostrong proofsrdquo ( עצומותבראייות ) that show that the Trinity is a falseconcept16 He is also quite aware of the different currents and positions on theChristian side(hellip) in our generation many of their wise men who in their language are called the sect of theEbionites (אביוניטי) and the sect of the Servetians (סרוציאנו) and the sect of the Arians(ארייני) split off from the two (larger) sects of the Catholics (הקרטאליש) and Lutheransteach (now) the oneness of God and refute the belief in the Trinity17 (לוטריש)

It is thus clear that Rabbi Troki draws to no small degree on non-Jewishsources and arguments although it must be said that these movements them-selves had been influenced by Jewish polemics18

In the same section Rabbi Troki outlines also his metaphysical convictionsdoubtlessly influenced by his own tradition and confirmed by the anti-trinitar-ian debate among the various Christian factions in Poland19

14 See Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki 116ndash2915 See Massimo Firpo Antitrinitari nellrsquoEuropa orientale del rsquo500 Nuovi testi di Szymon

Budny Niccolograve Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo (Florence La nuova Italia 1977) also GeigerldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 188 Sievert Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki 1ndash61

16 See Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 188ndash91 Rabbi Troki refers to Marcin Czechowicrsquos Trzechdni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie (ldquoA conversation of three days about an article of faithrdquo)and Rozmowy Christyanskie (ldquoChristian Dialoguesrdquo) published in 1575 of which part isdevoted to the refutation of Jewish objections against the Messiahsip of Jesus cf Befesti-gung 86 131 135 287 321 See Judah Rosenthal ldquoMarcin Czechowic and Jacob ofBełżyce Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th Century Polandrdquo PAAJR 34 (1966) 77ndash97 andStefan Fleischmann Szymon Budny Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weiszligrussischenHumanisten und Unitariers (ca 1530ndash1593) (Cologne Boumlhlau 2006) It is noteworthy thatRabbi Troki utilizes both Budnyrsquos and Czechowicrsquos works seizing on the inner-Christiandispute over trinitarianism

17 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 86 This and the following is my own translation18 See Robert Daacuten ldquoDas Problem des juumldischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewe-

gung des 16 Jahrhundertsrdquo in Der Einfluszlig der Unitarier auf die europaumlisch-amerikanischeGeistesgeschichte (ed W Deppert W Erdt and Aart de Groor Unitarismusforschung 1Frankfurt P Lang 1990) 19ndash32 and idem ldquoIsaac Troky and his lsquoAntitrinitarianrsquo Sourcesrdquoin Occident and Orient A tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber (ed R Daacuten LeidenBrill Budapest Akadeacutemia Kiadoacute 1988) 69ndash82

19 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 86 also Erwin Rosenthalrsquos treatment of ldquoTrokisAuseinandersetzung mit Christologie und Trinitaumltslehrerdquo in his article ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo234ndash37 [1354ndash57]


And also human reason compels (one to believe in) the true unity of Him may he be blessedwithout any plurality or division or change for after He may he be blesses created by Him-self all things found (in the world) and (considering) that everything other than Him was cre-ated therefore there is nothing like Him and nothing is similar to Him For how could thecreated be like Him who created it (hellip) And in like manner it is also with their belief that theCreator is composed of the divine and corporeal this also is something that is not possible tobelieve in regard to the Creator may he be blessed (hellip) God can also not be described (assomeone) who would be able to (re)compose (himself) and to lsquoincarnate himselfrsquo in likemanner He cannot be described as someone who is able to create afterwards (a being) like orsimilar to Him in every aspect mdash and this has nothing to do with a limitation to God far be itfrom Him may he be blessed mdash as this is a matter clear to the rational So thus even thephilosophers that do not have a religion confess the unity of God may he be blessed and dis-associate plurality and corporeality from Him in their reasonings for which there is no spaceto account for here

שהואאחרכיושנויוחלוקרבוישוםבלתייתלוהאמיתיתהאחדותמחייבהאנושיהשכלוגםאאכילודומהואיןכמוהואיןכאנבראיםהםשזולתומהוכלהנמצאיםכלבראיתלבדו

זהוגשמותמאלהותמורכבשהבוראמאמיניםשהםמהכןוכמו(hellip)לבוראוהנבראשידמהולהגשיםלהרכיביכולשיהיההאליתוארלאוגם(hellip)הבוראבחיקשיאמיןאשאממהכג

ליאותבזהואיןצדמכללודומהאוכמוהואחרלברואיכולבשהואיתוארשלאכמועצמואתדתלהםשאיןהפילוסופיםאפילווכןלמשכיליםמבוארהעניןזהכאשרלוחלילהיתבחוקו20לזכרם מקום כאן אין בראיות והגשמות הרבוי ממנו ומרחיקין ית האל באחדות מודים

It is thus evident that the encounter between Protestants free-thinkers andJews in the periphery created a unique exchange of ideas which allowedsuppressed undercurrents to re-emerge and flourish into its various religiousexpressions The fault lines between Christianity and Judaism became lessdistinct and it is particularly the literature of these more peripheral groupsthat appear to cross-pollinate each other from Protestant anti-trinitariansources that themselves were influenced by contacts with Jewish and Muslimthought to Ḥizzuq Emunah21 and from there back to both the Jewish andChristian ldquomainstreamrdquo

Rabbi Trokirsquos motive for writing is given in the introduction of ḤizzuqEmunahThus I told myself it is time to make to the honor of God a book small in size and great inquality with succinct and not lengthy words for weak people who have little and bad under-standing like me as a support called The Strenghtening of Faith in order to strengthen thehands of the feeble

20 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 83ndash8521 Michael Servetus who with the blessing of John Calvin was tried and burned at the

stake for heretical charges (anti-trinitarianism and objecting to infant baptism) in Geneva in1553 refers to the Qurrsquoān in his Christianismi Restitutio several times cf Peter HughesldquoServetus and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005) 55ndash70 idemldquoIn the footsteps of Servetus Biandrata David and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Univer-salist History 31 (2006) 57ndash63 The arguments that the anti-trinitarians used were certainlynot novel as many of them appear in much earlier sources

81 Introduction 295

בקוצרבודברייהיהביהאיכותורבהבמותמעטספרליילעשותעתבלביאניאמרתיכעקראתיוומשענהלמשעןכמוניהבינהוקצריהרעתחלושילאנאשיםולהיותבאריכותולא22רפות ידים להזק אמונה חוזק ספר

The authorrsquos intend was thus not to attack Christianity directly after all hewrote in Hebrew but like many of his polemical forbears to encourage andequip his fellow Jews to stand firm in an environment of religious upheavaland to hold on to their own faith23

His methodology is two-fold and similar to other polemical writers On theone side he seeks to use the Hebrew Bible to establish the truth of a matter( הדרושיםאמתתלהודיעhellipהוכחתי ) by which he means the refutation of themore significant Christian interpretations of passages from the HebrewBible24 On the other side he comments on the texts of the Christian canonmostly seeking to refute that Jesus is the Messiah and the Trinity both withstatements found in the gospels and epistles Both these strategies wereemployed already in Qiṣṣa and Milḥamot ha-Shem in fact many of the samearguments encountered in earlier sources are also found in Ḥizzuq Emunah

The structure and arrangement of the book likewise suggest that RabbiTroki envisioned Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah as a ldquohandbookrdquo for Jewish-Christianencounters For Christians who eventually would discover this internal apolo-getic and polemic it posed a most potent attack on their convictions specifi-cally the New Testament section which prompted them to publish a goodnumber of apologetical refutations of their own25

22 Deutsch Befestigung 823 In the wake of anti-Jewish legislation and reactions there were at least two waves of

conversions of Jews to Christianity in Lithuania in the late 15th and 16th century cf Ways-blum ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 72

24 Deutsch Befestigung 1025 Eg Johannes Muumlller Judaismus oder Juumldenthum das ist Ausfuumlhrlicher Bericht von

des juumldischen Volcks Unglauben Blindheit und Verstockung (1st ed 1644 2nd ed HamburgZ Haumlrtels 1707) Wagenseil Tela Ignea Satanae Jaques Gousset Controversiam adversusJudaeos ternio (Dordrecht Ex Officina Viduae Caspari amp Theodori Goris 1688) ibid JesuChristi Evangeliique veritas salutifera demonstrata in confutatione libi Chizzuk Emunah a RIsaaco scripti (ed Arnold Borst Amsterdam J Borstius 1712) Brandanus Henricus Geb-hardi Centum Loca Novi Testamenti quae R Isaac ben Abraham in suo אמונהחזוק ieMunimine Fidei depravaverat vindicata (Greifswald Litteris Danielis Benjaminis Starckii1699) Richard Kidder A Demonstration of the Messias In which the Truth of the ChristianReligion is defended especially against The Jews (3 vols London J H for W Rogers at theSun amp M Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1699) Yechiel Tzvi Lichtenstein-Her-schensohn אמתאמונתחזוק Befestigung im wahren Glauben an Jesum Christum den SohnGottes (Leipzig C W Vollrath 1879) [Hebr] and the rather thorough discussion of ALukyn Williams Christian Evidences for Jewish People (2 vols Cambridge W Heffer1911 repr Eugene Wipf and Stock 1998) Also Hermann Strack proposed to write a refuta-tion but this was never carried out cf his preface in Williams Christian Evidences vol 1xii


8 2 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah

Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah came to a wider (non-Jewish) audience by way of aLatin translation by Johann Christoph Wagenseil in 1681 who had discoveredthe text on an expedition in North Africa By then the text had already beenwidely circulated in Jewish communities which makes the history of the textcomplicated as it was also altered by its copyists26 A few non-Jews were ableto procure and read the work before Wagenseilrsquos publication but it wasspecifically Tela Ignea Satanea (ldquoSatanrsquos Fiery Dartsrdquo) that brought ḤizzuqEmunah together with a refutation to a wider Christian audience

Because Wagenseilrsquos textual Vorlage was found to be deficient somesought to republish the work with a more accurate manuscript as textual basisldquoIn 1715 a Christian pastor Christian Gottlieb Unger collated the printed textwith a reliable manuscript copy and correctly established the identity of itsauthor which had remained uncertain up to that timerdquo27 David Deutsch anotable orthodox rabbi in Germany republished a new translation of ḤizzuqEmunah into German together with a much revised Hebrew text based on thestudy of several manuscripts28 Deutschrsquos edition was first published privatelyin 1865 then in 1873 a second edition was printed that was made availableto a much larger readership It remains to this day the best available text andtranslation into a modern language Already in 1851 Moses Mocatta hadtranslated Ḥizzuq Emunah into English albeit in a modified and toned-downform under the title Faith Strengthened29 However ldquoDeutschrsquos translation isnearly twice as long as the abridged Mocatta text that remains the standardEnglish versionrdquo30 Consequently Deutschrsquos edition and his manuscriptreconstruction will be the basis for this chapter

8 3 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah

Rabbi Trokirsquos main argument addresses the Christian interpretation of theHebrew Bible seeking to show that Jesus was the expected Messiah He

26 Geiger ldquoIsaak Trokirdquo 208ndash211 Deutsch Befestigung ix How much of the presenttext has been altered in its transmission is not certain Rabbi Trokirsquos correspondence showsthat he himself was familiar with rabbinic traditions references to Talmudic material shouldthus not necessarily be attributed to later interpolations see Waysblum ldquoIsaac of Trokirdquo 67

27 Popkin Disputing Christianity 28 see esp Deutsch Befestigung viindashix28 See Joseph Norden David Deutsch (1810ndash73) Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O-

S Ein Lebensbild (Myslowitz Verein fuumlr juumldische Geschichte und Litteratur 1902)29 Moses Mocatta אמונהחזוק or Faith Strengthened (London Wertheimer 1851 repr

New York Ktav 1970)30 Popkin Disputing Christianity 33


wishes to demonstrate that the Christian interpreters and New Testamentauthors contradict themselves the prophets and reason Accordingly Jesusdid not fulfill messianic prophecies and Christians simply do not understandthe texts of the Hebrew Bible properly A second large focus is the critique ofthe doctrine of the Trinity predominantly with passages from the New Testa-ment and in particular Jesusrsquo own statements A further topic is the Christianunderstanding of the Mosaic LawḤizzuq Emunah is presented as a two-partite work The first part is com-

posed of 50 chapters and is more apologetical in nature Christian argumentsare addressed by first presenting a Christian interpretation of a Hebrew Biblepassage to which then a Jewish response is supplied31 The first 43 chapters ofthis first part deal mostly with Christian arguments based on the HebrewBible although at times passages from the New Testament are treated aswell32 The last seven chapters of the first part present Jewish objectionsagainst Christianity by discussing contradictions in the New Testament HereChristians are directly addressed in the second person which may anticipatethat the arguments would be used in debates with Christians

These seven objections in fact give a kind of summary of many of thepoints raised in the second part of the book Christians are to be challengedwith a rational evaluation of the proofs that they cite to support their convic-tions especially the interpretations and use of the ldquoproof passagesrdquo from theHebrew Bible found in the New Testament and here in particular the Gospelof Matthew These are deemed arbitrary manipulated and simply not applica-ble In sect45 Rabbi Troki specifically emphasizes that the use and interpretationof the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament is misleading and often plainlywrong which is the premise for the entire first part of the work He then goesthrough some of the passages of the Gospel of Matthew and points out incon-sistencies starting with the genealogy He also rejects the use of Isaiah 714and other passages from the Hebrew Bible as prophetic ldquoproof-textsrdquo by refer-ring back to the discussion of the respective passages in the preceding chap-ters Rabbi Troki finishes this section by quoting both Martin Luther andSzymon Budny who both remarked that the New Testamentrsquos manner ofciting the Hebrew Bible is only for remembrance and not controversy Thus

31 In this first part Rabbi Troki devotes most pages to the refutation of the Christian inter-pretation of Isa 52ndash53 closely followed by Isa 7ndash9 In total seventeen pages on Isa 52ndash53(Deutsch Befestigung I sect22 145ndash62) and fourteen pages on Isa 714 and context (I sect21132ndash45) On Trokirsquos exegesis of Isaiah 53 see the important essay by Stefan SchreinerldquoIsaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (lsquoFaith Strenghtenedrsquo) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham ofTrokirdquo in The Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed BerndJanowski and Peter Stuhlmacher Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004) 418ndash61

32 Rabbi Troki also discusses the Hebrew Bible in the second ldquoNew Testamentrdquo part ofḤizzuq Emunah eg Paulrsquos use of Psalm 27 in Acts 1333 in II sect68 and II sect95


they agree with his view that in a debate with Jews these ldquoproof-textsrdquo wouldfail to convince because a person properly familiarized with the HebrewBible is able to discern that these passages do not apply which is exactly themethodology Ḥizzuq Emunah follows33

These seven intermediate chapters serve as a summary and preview of thesecond part of Ḥizzuq Emunah which is more polemical and attempts torefute the New Testament in 100 chaptersAnd the second part (contains) the interpretive (self-)negation and refutation of the gospeleither by the words of the prophets peace be on them or by judging from reason and therespective interpretations or by (comparing) some of the words of (their own) writers witheach other or (by comparing) the words of the Christians with their faith

השכלמשפיטתהןעההנביאיםמדבריהןהאגוסתירתביטולבהוראותהשניוהחלק34ואמונתם הנוצרים מדברי והן לקצתן ההם הכותבים קצת מדברי והן והוראותיו

This part is arranged according to the order of the New Testament canon andconsists of exegetical discussions and appeals to the readerrsquos common sense

8 4 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

Many of the Hebrew Bible passages discussed in Ḥizzuq Emunah are basedon Matthewrsquos fulfillment paradigm For the topic at hand following sectionsare relevant35

Part I Matthew Issue D Deutsch

sectsect9ndash1036 1232 On Genesis 11 and 26 and the Trinity pp 78ndash86

sect21 122ndash23 On Isa 7 and 9 and the Incarnation pp 132ndash45

sect28 217ndash18 On Jeremiah 3115 pp 186ndash90

sect33 26 On Mica 51 pp 202ndash208

sect35 214ndash5 1034 2028 On Zechariah 99 pp 213ndash21

sect39 117ndash15 1712ndash13 On Malachi 45ndash6 pp 230ndash32

sect40 2244 On Psalm 110 pp 232ndash37

sect41 2430 2664 On Daniel 713 pp 237ndash42

33 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect45 27134 Deutsch Befestigung 19 (content summary)35 Only the first two of these directly relate to Jesusrsquo divinity and the Gospel of Matthew36 The arguments here and in the following marked in bold are those discussed in this

study


Then in sectsect44ndash50 of the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah Rabbi Troki brings awhole variety of common polemical arguments and Jewish objections thoughonly sect47 is relevant for this inquiry (see 843)

In the second part where the books of the New Testament are discussedsequentially the Gospel of Matthew is dealt with in sectsect1ndash27 which is listedbelow and of which ten will be briefly considered in the subsequent discus-sion (as usual in bold) The arguments are by now are familiar in fact it willbecome apparent that Rabbi Troki does not innovate on any of the medieval(and earlier) objections though that does not retract from the effect thesearguments had on Trokirsquos Christian readers


sect1 ch 1 Jesusrsquo genealogy pp 285ndash87

sect2 122 Isa 714 and the Incarnation cf I sect21 pp 287

sect3 124ndash25 Mary was not a virgin (cf Matt 1355) and Jesus was not named Immanuel

p 288

sect4 214ndash15 Hosea 111 is misunderstood p 289

sect5 216ndash18 Jeremiah 3115 is misunderstood cf I sect28 p 289

sect6 223 Matthew had a ldquolying dreamrdquo pp 289ndash90

sect7 41ndash10 The temptation shows that Jesus is not God p 290

sect8 413ndash15 Isaiah 91 is misunderstood Matthewrsquos proofs were assembled to create the appearance of prophecy

pp 290ndash93

sect9 418ndash19 The gospels try to deceive and ldquocatchrdquo people p 293

sect10 517ndash19 Jesus upheld the Law cf I sect19 pp 293ndash94

sect11 543 Jesus is wrong about hating onersquos enemy p 294

sect12 819ndash20 Jesus calls himself ldquoSon of Manrdquo and claims to possess nothing

pp 294ndash95

sect13 1034ndash35 Jesus did not come to bring peace he thus cannot be the Messiah

p 295

sect14 1040 Jesusrsquo claim that he is one with the one who sent him cf John 1038 (sect52)

pp 295ndash96

sect15 1113ndash14 That the Law is valid up to the coming of John is contradicted by Matt 517ndash19 cf I sect19 also sect7 sect39

p 296

sect16 1232 Jesus is only a ldquoSon of Manrdquo p 297

sect17 1355ndash56 Mary is not a virgin Joseph is Jesusrsquo father p 297

sect18 151ndash21 Dietary laws are relevant even for the early Christianscf eg Acts 15 and I sect15

pp 297ndash98



sect19 1916ndash21 Jesus himself indicated that he is not God and he upheld the Law

pp 298ndash99

sect20 2023 The Son and the Father are not one since the Son lacksauthority

p 299

sect21 2028 Jesus as the ldquoSon of Manrdquo came to serve thus he cannot be God

p 300

sect22 2335 Matthew is wrong about Zechariah the son of Berechiah

pp 300ndash301

sect23 266 All four evangelists differ in their account of the woman anointing Jesus

p 301

sect24 2639 Jesus does not appear to accept his passion willingly cf Matt 2746 (sect26) Also the will of the Son and the Father are different cf I sect47

pp 301ndash302

sect25 279 Zechariah 1112ndash13 is misunderstood If the betrayal of Jesus happened according to Godrsquos will Jews should expect a reward37

pp 302ndash306

sect26 2746 Jesus shows himself to be merely human when he called on God in his time of need

p 306

sect27 2818 Jesus had to be given power pp 306ndash307

Then after sect27 other books of the New Testament are discussed in which afew parallel passages in Matthew are mentioned Most noteworthy is sect30(Mark 1112ndash14 par Matt 2118f) and sect31 (Mark 1332 par Matt 2436 [butnot cited]) Also in sect53 in the discussion of John 133 and 1615 Rabbi Trokicites Matt 2818 Matt 2023 and Matt 81938

The following discussion will present all the passages in the first andsecond part that deal with the divinity of Jesus in relation to Matthew In thefirst section these are sect10 sect21 and sect47 (841ndash3) and in the second part sect7sect12 sect14 sect16 sect19 sect20 sect21 sect24 sect26 sect27 (844ndash13) in addition to two pas-sages from Mark sect30 sect31 (8414ndash15)

In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah earlier arguments are revisited butalso expanded on Frequently the reader is deferred to a refutation in the firstpart in particular when dealing with the various passages from the Hebrew

37 This is similar to Even Boḥan sect53 (see 6419)38 Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect168 and sect188 (see 545) also Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252)

Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452)


Bible Consistent with Rabbi Trokirsquos strategy many passages from the gospelsused to corroborate that Jesus was a man thus refuting belief in the divinity ofJesus and also in the Trinity In regard to the Gospel of Matthew Rabbi Trokipresents the full range of common Jewish polemic but is often more econom-ical than comparable polemics Since most of the arguments have alreadybeen encountered in the previous sources the discussion will be kept to aminimum First however the relevant sections from part one of the treatise

8 4 1 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo amp Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1232 (I sect10)

In the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah in sectsect9ndash10 Rabbi Troki is dealing with theChristian interpretation of Genesis 11 and 126ndash27 as proofs for the TrinityHe presents the Christian interpretation and subsequently refutes it by discus-sing and comparing it with passages in the Hebrew Bible39 Then he brieflyoutlines his metaphysical convictions arguing that trinitarian thought isagainst reason In the latter part of sect10 he cites passages from the New Testa-ment to show that Jesus himself did not hold to any trinitarian understandingThe arguments in this section appear to be especially influenced by hisreading of anti-trinitarian works

He begins his discussion of New Testament passages that contradict theTrinity with Matt 1232Matthew wrote in chapter 12 verse 32 ldquoWhoever speaks a word against the lsquoSon of Manrsquo itwill be forgiven him but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven himnot in this world nor the coming worldrdquo You can also find the same in Mark 328 and Luke1219 Now with this passage these men clearly confirm that the Holy Spirit and the Son arenot one thus it follows that the three (or Trinity) are not one and since Jesus is (called) theldquoSon of Manrdquo he then is not God according to their false belief which is obvious to theunderstanding

רוחנגדשידברמיאבללויכופראדםבןנגדדברשידברמילבפסוקיבבפמטיאשכתבפסוקפגבמרקוסהמאמרזהגכתמצאעכלבעהבולאבעהזלאלויכופרלאהקדשרוחשאיןבבירורהוכיחוהאלההאנשיםהמאמרבזההנהיטפסוקיבפובלוקשכח

כאשרהכוזבתאמונתםכפיאלקולאאדםבןהואישווכיאחדהגאיןאכאחדוהבןהקדש40למבינים ידוע זה

The argument is familiar the inequality of the ldquoSon of Manrdquo compared to theHoly Spirit together with Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquo demonstratethat Jesus did not consider himself equal to God The use of ldquoSon of Manrdquo as

39 Cf Rabbi Trokirsquos explanation of Gen 126 (I sectsect9ndash10) to Saadia Gaon The Book ofBelief amp Opinions (ed Rosenblatt) 107 and Qirqisani see Daniel Frank Search ScriptureWell Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East(Leiden Brill 2004) 215ndash17

40 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 84ndash85 The use of ldquoSon of Manrdquo is also understood thisway in his comments on Matt 819ndash20 1232 Luke 957 1210 see ibid II sect12 and sect16294ndash295 297


an affirmation of Jesusrsquo humanity already appeared in Qiṣṣa there howeverbased on Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) which is discussed next in ḤizzuqEmunah41

Mark wrote in chapter 13 verse 32 ldquoIts sign and the day and that hour nobody knows not theangels in heaven nor the Son but only the Father alonerdquo This passage confirms as well thatthe Father and the Son are not one since the son does not know what the Father knows Andherein he (also) confirms that he is not God since he does not know the future

שבשמיםהמלאכיםלאשיודעמיאיןההיאוהשעההיוםאותולבפסוקיגבפמרקושכתבהבןשאיןאחדאינווהבןשהאבהוכיחהמאמרבזהגםהנהעכללבדוהאבאלאהבןולא42עתידות יודע שאין אחד אלק שאין יוכיח וכן יודע שהאב מה יודע

After pointing out that the New Testament does not contain any clear prooffor the Trinity Rabbi Troki takes up another argument also already encoun-tered in Qiṣṣa (see 2516) namely that Jesus considered himself as only sentby GodAnd we also do not find in any place that Jesus calls himself God but to the contrary heattributes divinity and strength and power to the (true) God may be he blessed (In fact) heonly called himself his messenger as it is written in a place in Matthew chapter 10 verse 40ldquoWhoever receives you receives me and whoever receives me receives him who sent merdquo

והיכולתוהכחהאלקיותמיחסהואאבלאלקאותויקראעצמושישומקוםבשוםמצינולאוכןמיזלמפסוקיפרקבמטיאשכדכתיבמקוםשלשלוחועצמואתקרארקיתהאלאל

43שלחני אשר אותו מקבל אותי שמקבל ומי אותי מקבל אתכם שמקבל

In the second part of Ḥizzuq Emunah (in II sect14) Rabbi Troki commentsabout the same verse that those who argue from this passage that Jesus wasone with God consequently should also believe that the disciples whom Jesussends are one with the Trinity44

Continuing in I sect10 he returns to discuss the use of the term ldquoSon ofManrdquo as expression of Jesusrsquo humanityAnd thus he says about himself that he is a man as it is written in John chapter 8 verse 40ldquoAnd now you seek to kill the man who has spoken to you a true wordrdquo And so said Paulabout him in what he wrote to the Romans chapter 5 verse 15 ldquoThrough the grace of oneman Jesus the Messiah the many were savedrdquo In a different place He calls himself ldquoSon of

41 Cf Qiṣṣa sect39 sect57 sect105 and sect150 (see 2511) See also Nizzahon Vetus sect177 (see5411) and Even Boḥan sect50 (see 6418)

42 The argument is repeated in part II see Deutsch Befestigung II sect31 and in II sect5343 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 85 The point is also repeated in the refutation of the

Christian interpretation of Isa 5213 in I sect22 146 ldquoJesus of Nazareth is not God neitheraccording to the gospel nor much less according to him since he did not call himself God inany place as shall be shown from the words that are written in the gospel every passage and(each) passage within its context in the second part of this bookrdquo ( אפילואלוהאינונוצריישו

עודוכשאריתבארמקוםבשוםאלוהעצמוקראלאשהואעצמולדעתוכשהאגלדעתהב בחלק במקומו ודבר דבר כל האג כותבי מדברי )

44 Cf the similar argument in Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 738) see also 846


Manrdquo as it is written in Matthew chapter 20 verse 18 ldquoSee we are going up to Jerusalemand the lsquoSon of Manrsquo will be delivered to the priestsrdquo also there in verse 28 ldquoas the lsquoSon ofManrsquo did not come that he should be served but he came to serverdquo which is a matter that yetwill be clarified in another place

להמיתמבקשיםאתםועתהזלמפספחביאןכמשכאיששהואעצמועלאומרהואוכןזלטופסוקהפלרומייםבכתבופיולשעליואמרוכןאמיתידברלכםהמדברהאישאת

בןעצמואתקוראהואמקומותבאשרגםכןוכמולרביםהושפעוהמשיחישואישבחסדימסראדםובןלירושליםעוליםאנחנוהנהיחפסוקבפרקבמטיאששכתובכמואדם

זהעניןכאשרלעבודבאאלאלושיעבדואדםבןבאלאכאשרזלכחפסוקשםעודלכהנים45במקומו יתבאר

According to Paul and the other evangelists Jesus has to be understood as aman and Rabbi Troki essentially argues here along the same trajectoryalready seen in the previous sources Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquomust be understood as reference to Jesusrsquo exclusive humanity

The final refutation of the Trinity in this section is then given by means ofthe pater nosterAnd this matter is quite clear from the prayer which Jesus taught his disciples called in theirlanguage pater (noster) written in Matthew chapter 6 where he did not decree to pray to theTrinity only to one God and He is the God of heaven as it is written there called in theirlanguage pater ldquoOur Father in heaven (hellip)rdquo From this you can see that he did not instructthem to pray to himself who according to them is the Son and (also) not the the Holy Spiritbut only to his father in heaven to whom there is no equal

הכתובפאטרבלשונםהנקראלתלמידיוישוהורהאשרמהתפלההיטבמובןהעניןוכןזהושםכדכתיבהשמיםאלקיוהואאחדלאלרקהשילושאללהתפללגזרשלאופבמטיאשהבןשהואלעצמולהתפללהורהשלאראיתהנך(hellip)שבשמיםאבינופאטירבלשונםהנקרא

46מלבדו אין אשר שבשמים לאביו רק הקדש לרוח ולא כדבריהם

Consequently Jesusrsquo own teaching shows that one ought to pray to the Fatheralone By leaving the Holy Spirit and himself unmentioned he shows thattrinitarian thinking is foreign to him47

Thus in the first part of Ḥizzuq Emunah sect10 we have a sequence of NewTestament passages arguing that belief in the Trinity is incongruent withJesusrsquo own statements48 Jesus as ldquoSon of Manrdquo considered himself to be dis-tinct from God (Matt 1232) and limited (Mark 1332) He furthermore

45 Deutsch Befestigung I sect10 8546 Ibid I sect10 85ndash8647 However an argumentum e silentio can work both ways48 Rabbi Troki briefly summarizes this argument again in I sect49 Deutsch Befestigung

278 ldquoHe does not refer to himself by the name God in any place but rather refers to himselfby the name lsquoSon of Manrsquo and lsquohumanrsquo as is recounted in the gospel in many places but youascribe to him divinity and refer to him by the name of God something which he did notcommand you (to do)rdquo ( אתקוראאלאמקוםבשוםאלקיםבשםעצמואתקוראאינוהוא

אלקותלומיחסיםאתםאבלרביםבמקומותבאגכמוזכראישובשםאדםבןבשםעצמואתכם צוה שלא מה אלקים בשם אותו וקוראים )


acknowledged that he was only sent (Matt 1040) and that he is just a human(John 840) which also Paul confirms (Rom 515) This ldquoSon of Manrdquo cameto serve (Matt 2028) and instructed his followers to pray to the Father alone(Matt 69) It follows that Jesus must be understood a man and that exclu-sively so

8 4 2 Jesusrsquo Nativity and Isaiahrsquos Prophecies Matt 120ndash25 (I sect21)

The discussion of Jesusrsquo nativity and the beginning of Matthew begins with abrief presentation of Matthewrsquos use of Isa 714 (Matt 122ndash23) After quotingIsaiah Rabbi Troki writesAnd they bring proof for their faith from this passage by saying that the prophet here desig-nated that Jesus Christ was to be born by a young girl who was a virgin by one of the daugh-ters of Israel without the involvement of a man rather by the Holy Spirit according to what iswritten in the gospel of Matthew chapter 1

נולדנוצרישישוייעדהנביאהנהבאמרםהפסוקמזהאמונתםעלראייהשמביאיםומהבאגשכתובמהכפיהקדשברוחאלאהאנושיזיוגבלתיישראלבנימבנותבתולהמנערה

49פא במטיאש

Rabbi Troki answeres this with a lengthy in-depth discussion lasting fourteenpages in total50 He uses the context of Isaiah and many other passages fromthe Hebrew Bible to refute the idea that Jesus is the child over which Isaiahprophecies while echoing and answering several well known Christian objec-tions in the course of his exposition His exegesis is based on survey of theterm ldquovirginmaidenrdquo (עלמה) and the demand for a fulfillment of the prophecyin Isaiahrsquos historic context

In the course of the discussion he mentions a Christian objection whichposits that the name Immanuel is inappropriate for ordinary humans and thatit therefore can only refer to Jesus who was both human and divine RabbiTroki respondsBut that Jesus was called by the name Immanuel we do not find in any place in the gospelsonly that the angel in Matthew chapter 1 said to Joseph in his dream ldquolsquoDo not fear acceptMary your wife since she conceived by the Holy Spirit and she will give birth to a son andyou shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sinsrsquo All this (willhappen) so that the prophetrsquos saying shall come to take place lsquoBehold the young womanvirgin will conceive and she will give birth to a son and she will call his name Immanuelrsquordquo(Matt 120ndash23) And (further it is) said (that) ldquoJoseph took his wife and did not know (her)until she gave birth to his firstborn son and he called his name Jesusrdquo (Matt 124bndash25) Andthus it is also in Luke chapter 2 ldquoAnd when the eight day had come when the boy was to becircumcised he was named lsquoJesusrsquo according to what the angel had named him prior to the

49 Deutsch Befestigung I 13250 Ibid I 132ndash45 sect21


conceptionrdquo (Luke 221) Accordingly one can see from this that Immanuel is someone elseand not Jesus since Jesus is not called lsquoImmanuelrsquo in any place

שאמראפרקבמטיאשאומררקגבאמקוםבשוםמצינולאעמנואלבשםישושיקראאבלושתלדהקדשמרוחהרהשהיאלפיאשתךמריםאתמלקבלתיראאלבחלומוליוסףהמלאך

הנביאמאמרשיתקייםכדיזהוכלמעונותיועמואתיושיעהואכיישועשמואתותקראבןעדידעהולאאשתואתיוסףויקחואומרעמנואלשמווקראתבןויולדתהרההעלמההנההנערנמולימיםחובמלאותבפרקבלוקשוכןישועשמושיקראהבכורבנואתילדהאשרישוזולתהואשעמנואלמזהיראהכאההריוןקודםמהמלאךנקראכאשרישועשמוויקרא

51עמנואל מקום בשום ישו נקרא שלא לפי

Since Jesusrsquo name is actually not Immanuel the prophecy should not beapplicable to him This argument is not new52 though ignores that Matthewuses the names Immanuel and Jesus in the same context (Matt 123 and Matt125) In Matthewrsquos own understanding Isaiah 714 and the Immanuel-motifwas certainly applicable to Jesus53

Rabbi Troki addresses another Christian objection and argues against thenotion that the names and titles of the child in Isaiah 96 indicate divineidentity After showing that Hebrew names do not necessarily have to denoteidentity he writesIn fact that Jesus is designated God (with these names) as they say is not of the realm of thepossible For how can he be called ldquoWonderful Counsellorrdquo ( יועץפלא ) when Judas and hisstudents fooled him when he delivered him to his enemies And how can he be calledldquoMighty Godrdquo ( גבוראל ) when he was killed And also how can he be called ldquoPrince ofPeacerdquo when there was no peace in his days as he himself remarks ldquoI did not come to estab-lish peace on the earth but the swordrdquo (Matt 1034)

ויודעיועץפלאשמויקראאיךכיהאפשרמןאינוכדבריהםהשמותבאלוישושיקראאכןשריקראאיךוכןנהרגוהואגבוראליקראואיךלאויביומסרוכאשרעצתוסכלותלמדיו

אמכיבארץשלוםלשוםבאתילאבאמרומעירעצמוהואכאשרבימיושלוםהיהולאשלום54חרב

The verse taken from Matt 1034 together with the fact that Jesus wasbetrayed and killed is given as evidence that Jesus could not have been thechild mentioned in Isaiah 96 Ḥizzuq Emunah assumes here the position ofthe Christian interlocutor and applies Jesusrsquo portrayal in the New Testamentin a rather ldquocommon senserdquo fashion Jesus cannot be this supernatural divineperson since he was outwitted and lacked the power to prevent his own death

51 Deutsch Befestigung I 140ndash41 sect21 The text of Matt 125 seems to be related to theVulgate (or a translation thereof) ldquoet non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primo-genitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesumrdquo (emphasis mine) Cf Nizzahon Vetus sect163 (see 541)

52 See eg Yosef ha-Meqanne sect137 (see 452) and cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 7311)53 See Luz Matthew 1ndash7 96ndash97 who points out that Matthewrsquos ldquoGod-with-usrdquo theme

links Matt 123 1717 1820 2629 and 2820 See also Kupp Matthewrsquos Emmanuel esp157ndash75

54 Deutsch Befestigung I 143 sect21 Cf also II sect13 295


Moreover he himself explained that he did not come to be a peace-bringer Inother words Jesusrsquo limitations both in life and death preclude him frombeing divine mdash which is the basic argument that was already encountered inQiṣṣa and in polemics from late antiquity and is repeated throughout thepolemical tradition

With this Rabbi Troki disqualifies Isaiah 714 and Isaiah 96 as Christianproof texts and casts doubt on the author of the nativity narrative both interms of supporting Jesusrsquo divinity and his messiahship The use of Isaiah714 by Matthew is therefore inadmissible proof for Jesusrsquo divinity as Isaiahonly speaks to his own historical context Jesusrsquo life as portrayed byMatthew furthermore shows that he cannot be considered divine in particularwhen considering Jesus in Gethsemane

8 4 3 Jesus in Gethsemane Matt 2636 2746 (I sect47)

Within the seven intermediate chapters before the second part Rabbi Trokiadds a well known argument based on Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane and hisdeath on the cross since God did not heed Jesusrsquo request and because Jesusexclaimed on the cross that God had left him it is evident that the Father andthe Son are not oneAnd this passage likewise proves that the Father is not one with Son since the will of theFather is not (equal to) the will of the Son And if the Christian should reply and say that itwas not according to his will but what they did to him was done by force then we say to himldquoIf this is the case how can you call him God since he suffered torments against his will thathe should not be able to safe himself from the hands of his enemies And how will he be ableto safe those who trust in himrdquo

ישיבואםהבןכרצוןהאברצוןשאיןאחראחדאינווהבןשהאבמוכיחגכהמאמרוזהקוראאתהאיךאכלונאמראזישעשומהלועשוכרחובעלאלאמרצונושלאויאמרהנוצריואיךאויביומידעצמולהציליכולשלאבהכרחיסוריםסובלשהואאחראלוקיםבשםאותו55בו הבוטחים יציל

This of course is the same argument already seen in QiṣṣaNestor and neednot be discussed again56

Rabbi Troki ends this chapter by wondering how someone could everascribe divinity to Jesus as nobody seemed to have shown him reverence wasafraid of him or was in any way hesitant about mistreating and killing him Inother words his contemporaries did not consider him divine In sect50 RabbiTroki concludes the first part of the book by stating that it was the Christians

55 Deutsch Befestigung I sect47 276 the argument is repeated in II sect24 301ndash302 56 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect45 (see 2512) and sectsect140ndash141 See also Milḥamot ha-Shem (see

346) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20) Nizzahon Vetus sect145 sect176 and sect178(see 5412ndash13) and Even Boḥan sect53 (see 6418)


who invented the idea of the Trinity (and Jesusrsquo divinity) and who added itlater to the Bible57

8 4 4 Jesusrsquo Temptation Matt 41ndash10 (II sect7)

In sect7 of the second part Rabbi Troki raises a familiar argument namely thatthe temptation of Jesus demonstrates that Jesus is not God After citingMatthew 41ndash10 he asksLook from all these verses it is evident that Jesus was not God as their words say for howcould Satan tempt God And how is it that he [Satan] would not be afraid of his Creatorsince he was created (by him like any other) of his creations How could it be (ever) possiblethat the created should (be able to) coerce its Creator and lead him to a place against His willSuch matters reason cannot tolerate nor anyone with knowledge they are nothing but thefabrications of worthless and reckless men who have no wisdom whatsoever

ואיךלאלקיםינסההשטןאיךכיבדבריהםאלוקהיהלאשישויראההמאמריםאלומכלהנהאתגכיכריחשהנבראנכהאפשרמןיהיהאיךמנבראיונבראבהיותומבוראוייראלא

משכילשוםדעתולאהשכליסבלהולאהדברזהכרחועלירצהאשרלמקוויוליכהובוראו58כלל חכמה להם אין אשר ופוחזים רקים אנשים של מלבם בדויים דברי אמ כי זה ואין

The argument that people did not fear Jesus which Rabbi Troki deems to be aproper reaction to the presence of the Creator was already used in the firstpart towards the end of sect4759 Here it is expanded with the argument that thecreated viz Satan cannot ldquoman-handlerdquo the Creator This argument that ifJesus were God he could not be coerced is much older and was alreadyimplied in Qiṣṣa60 However Rabbi Troki unlike earlier polemicists leaves inno doubt what to think of this story they are but ldquofabrications of worthlessand reckless men who have no wisdom whatsoeverrdquo He does not use theaccount to re-emphasize Jesusrsquo humanity but outright rejects it as irrationaland unreasonable presumbaly because Jesus is understood as the Creator inthe plot or at least within the Christian preception Correspondingly theauthor of the Gospel of Matthew has to be seen in the same light essentially

57 See Deutsch Befestigung I sect50 280ndash8158 Deutsch Befestigung II sect7 29059 Ibid 276 ldquoAnd if there was such a great fright on account of Moses (cf Exodus

3430) (who was ldquoonlyrdquo) the servant of the Lord and his prophet there should have beeneven more fright on account of the one whom you call God and attribute with the name ofGod And even more so if he really was God as you say and believe how is it that thepeople did not fear him (at all) but even took a hold of him beat him and injured him untilhe was deadrdquo ( קוראיםשאתםלמיונביאוייעבדשהיהלמשהכזההגדולהמוראהיהואם

כמהאהתעלגדוליותרמוראלולהיותיתחייבאלוקיםשםלוומייחסיםאלקיםבשםאותובוהחזיקואבלממנויראולאאדםבניאיךואמונתכםדבריכםכפיאלקיםהואהיהאםוכמה

במיתה שהרגוהו עד ופצעוהו והכוהו )60 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sectsect142ndash145 Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 344) Nizzahon Vetus sect162 (see

544) Even Boḥan sect7 (see 645) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 732)


he is ldquoworthlessrdquo and ldquorecklessrdquo for associating the Creator with the notionthat the created could exercise control over God Essentially it is an utterrejection of the Christian notion of incarnation

8 4 5 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 819ndash20 (II sect12)

In sect12 Rabbi Troki recalls Matthew 819ndash20 (par Luke 957) and argues thatalso this passage is a contradiction of their belief that he is God For if he were God as theysay why did he call himself a ldquoSon of Manrdquo But since he testifies about himself that he is aldquoSon of Manrdquo it is not right to trust in him as it is written in Psalm 146 ldquoDo not trust inprinces in the lsquoSon of Manrsquordquo and in Jeremiah (175) ldquoCursed is the man who trusts in manetcrdquo And likewise if he were God as they say why did he say he does not have a place tolay his head Is the whole world not his as is written in Psalm 24 ldquoThe earth is the Lordrsquosand all it contains the world and those who dwell in itrdquo

למהכדבריהםאלקיםהואהיהואםאלקיםשהואשמאמיניםאמונתםסותרהמאמרזהגםכדכתיבבולבטוחראויאיןאדםבןשהואעצמועלמעידשהואואחראדםבןעצמוקוראהיה

יבטחאשרהגברארורייאמרכהיזובירמיהאדםבבןבנדיביםתבטחואלקמותהיליםכלוהלאמקוםלושאיןמקוםלושאיןאמרלמהכדבריהםאלקיםהואאםוכןוגומרבאדם61בה ויושבי תבל ומלואה הארץ ליי כד תהילים כדכתיב הוא שלו העולם

Ḥizzuq Emmunah echoes the argument seen in Yosef ha-Meqanne and Nizza-hon Vetus62 In fact the discussion of Matt 819ndash20 in conunction with Psalm24 may indicate that there are direct links to the arguments of the medievalFrench context

8 4 6 Jesus is Sent Matt 1040 (II sect14)

In sect14 Matt 1040 is used to once more demonstrate that Jesus saw himself asa messenger63

Based on this passage the Christians believe that Jesus is one substance (lit ldquolikenessrdquo) withthe one who has sent him And when they based on these (words) believe that the Trinity isone it should follow that they likewise (ought to) believe that Jesus and whom he sends out[the apostles] are one You will find a similar passage in John 1038

מאמיניםכברשהםואחראחדדמיוןשלוחיועםשישומאמיניםהמאמרמזההנוצריםהנהתמצאהענייןבזהוכיוצאאחדשהואהישועלכןכמושיאמינויתחייבאחדשהואהשילושאל

64עש לח פסוק י פרק ביאן

61 Deutsch Befestigung II sect12 29562 Cf Yosef ha-Meqanne sectsect26ndash27 and sect7 (see 456ndash7) Nizzahon Vetus sect168 (see 545)63 See Hizzuq Emunah I sect10 (see 841)64 Deutsch Befestigung II sect14 296 Another manuscript adds here that Christians

should consequently believe that God is fifteen that is the Trinity plus 12 apostles see thefootnote on p 296 the same occurs also in II sect52


Rabbi Troki assumes that Matt 1040 (cf Mark 937 Luke 1016 John 1320)is used by Christians to corroborate the Trinity and though that may havebeen the case in his experience Matt 1040 is not a classic text to argue forthe doctrine of the Trinity65 He makes the same argument based on John103866 and contends that if these verses speak of Jesusrsquo divine-ontologicalunion with God then this must also be extended to the disciples If Jesus isldquoone with the Fatherrdquo in an ontological sense then also the disciples must bereckoned as ldquoone with the Fatherrdquo that is they must be assumed to be integralmembers of the Trinity Since that is evidently not the case not even from aChristian point of view these passages cannot speak of the Trinity67

8 4 7 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Matt 1232 (II sect16)

Then in sect16 after quoting Matthew 1232 (par Lk 1210) the comment ismadeSee in this passage Matthew and Luke the two of them confirm that Jesus is a ldquoSon of Manrdquo(ie human) and not God They further confirm clearly that the son and the Holy Spirit arenot one And if so the three are not one as in their fabricated faith which is clear to theunderstanding

הוכיחווכןאלקיםולאאדםבןהואישוכיהוכיחושניהםולוקשמתיאשהמאמרבזההנהזהכאשרמלבםהבדוייהאמונתםכפיאחדהגאיןאכאחדהקדושורוחהבןשאיןבבירור

68למבינים ידוע

Two witnesses Matthew and Luke testify that Jesus calls himself a human( אדםבן ) and if that was not enough Jesus himself indicates that he is notequal to the Holy Spirit thereby undermining the whole of trinitarian thinkingand exposing it as a fabrication

8 4 8 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21 (II sect19)

In sect19 Jesusrsquo statement in Matthew 1916ndash21 (parr Mark 1017ndash21 Luke1818ndash22) is employed as proof that Jesus did not think that he was GodAnd from this you can see when he says ldquoWhy do you call me good nobody is (good) but forthe one Godrdquo by this saying then he shows that he is not God which is what they believe

65 Matt 1040 usually is used to corroborate the apostolic authority of the messengers orthe message see Luz Matthew 8ndash20 120 and Davies and Allison Matthew 8ndash18 226

66 See Deutsch Befestigung II sect52 324 where Rabbi Troki (again) comments thatChristians should therefore hold to a union of fifteen the Trinity plus twelve apostles

67 This argument is similar to Ibn Ḥazm see Sweetman Islam and Christian Theology21 249 267ndash69 and Pulcini Exegesis of Polemical Discourse 107 Cf Kelimmat ha-Goyim(see 7310)

68 Deutsch Befestigung II sect16 297


הוכיחהמאמרבזהאחדאלאלאטובאיןטובאותיקוראאתהלמהשאמרמהכירואההנך69מאמינים הם כאשר אלקים אינו שהוא

As already encountered several times this is the standard reading of thispassage and follows previous apologetic-polemical usage70

8 4 9 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Matt 2023 (II sect20)

In sect20 Rabbi Troki discusses Matthew 2023 (par Mk 1040) where Jesustells the sons of Zebedee that it is God who decides who sits to his right andleft Based on this (it is evident) there is no power or authority in the hands of the Son to do as hewishes but they are in the hands of the Father And if so he declares that the Father and theSon are not one as they say and (as such) those who trust in this one will be put to shame

האבשאיןמודיעאכלבדוהאבבידאלארצונולעשותהבןבידיורשותכחשאיןאחרהנה71בו הבוטחים יבושו ולזה כדבריהם אחד והבן

Since Jesus does not render a decision concerning the petition even explicitlydefers to the Father Jesus demonstrates that he had not supreme authorityand therefore he cannot be God The argument is not common but occurs inQiṣṣaNestor and Yosef ha-Meqanne72

8 4 10 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Matt 2028 (II sect21)

Then in sect21 Rabbi Troki again refers to Jesusrsquo use of the term ldquoSon of Manrdquoin Matthew 2028 (par Mark 1045)Here Jesus announces about himself that he is not God on account of two reason first he is aldquoSon of Manrdquo and second he is serving and not being served

ואינועובדשהואוהבאדםבןשהואהאסבותלבאלוקאינושהואעצמועלהודיעישוהנה73נעבד

When Jesus said that the ldquoSon of Manrdquo came to serve Rabbi Troki argues thathe must be understood here to affirm that he is not God This again is thestandard polemic attached to Matt 202874

69 Deutsch Befestigung sect19 29870 Cf QiṣṣaNestor sect51 (see 2514 also Yosef ha-Meqanne sect33 (see 4516) Nizzahon

Vetus (see 549) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 734)71 Deutsch Befestigung II sect20 299 The argument is repeated in II sect5372 See 252 and 451773 Deutsch Befestigung II sect21 30074 Cf Qiṣṣa sect105 and sect150 (see 252) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect37 (see 452) Nizzahon

Vetus sect188 (see 545) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 733 and 736)


8 4 11 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross Matt 2639 (II sect24)

In sect24 he recalls Matthew 2639 (par Mark 1235 Luke 2241) and finds thatalso this matter is the opposite of their belief that is that they believe that Jesus Christ gave(himself) willingly (over) to suffering and crucifixion for their sakes in order to atone fortheir souls And if it was (done) willingly as they say then why is he sad before he wasapprehended (And why) is he imploring God for the cup to pass and to be removed fromhim And likewise after he was apprehended he cried out with a loud voice and said ldquoMyGod my God why have you left merdquo as it is written there in Matthew 2746 And this pas-sage also proves that the Father and the Son are not one since the will of the Son is not likethe will of the Father We already have explained this issue in sect47 in the first part of thisbook

כדיבעדםולצליבהלענוינתןברצונוהנוצרישישומאמיניםשהםאמונתםהפךהדברזהגםומתחנןשנתפסקודםמתעצבהיהלמהאככדבריהםבכךרצונוהיהואםנפשותםעללכפרעזבתנילמהאליאליואמרגדולבקולצעקשנתפסאחרוכןממנוהכוסויסירשיעבירלאל

אהראחדאינווהבןשהאבגכהוכיהחהמאמרוזהמופסוקכזפרקבמטיאששםכדכתיב75הספר מזה הא מהחלק מו בפרק הענין בארנו וכבר האב כרצון הבן רצון שאין

8 4 12 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Matt 2746 (II sect26)

Not much further on Jesusrsquo cry on the cross in Matthew 2746 (par Mark1534) is once again referred to as admission of Jesusrsquo humanityAnd here also it is evident that he was not God rather he was a human (as those) who cry outto God in their time of distress

76צרתם בעת לאל הקוראים אדם בני כאשר היה אלא אליק היה לא שהוא הודיע פה גם והנה

Both arguments are familiar by now and so far have been encountered inevery other polemical source examined They represent as such one of themost common Jewish objections to Jesusrsquo divinity77

8 4 13 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Matt 2818 (II sect27)

Immediatley following in sect27 after quoting the first part of Matthew 2818Rabbi Troki returns again to the question of Jesusrsquo authorityAnd also here he made known that he was not God for he to whom authority has been givenby another is not God but rather the Creator alone has the kingdom and the authority He isthe giver without having received authority from another And if the Christian should saythat ldquoHis Father has given to him the authority and not anotherrdquo in this case they are two

75 Deutsch Befestigung II sect24 301ndash302 cf also 84376 Ibid II sect26 30677 See QiṣṣaNestor sect53 and sectsect139ndash141 (see 2515) Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346)

Yosef ha-Meqanne sect6 and sect10 (see 4519ndash20) and Nizzahon Vetus sect176 sect178 and sect145(see 5412ndash13) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (see 739) Cf also Even Boḥan sect53 sect56 and sect58(see 6419ndash20)


that is one that gives and one that receives Yet they maintain that the Father and the Son areone

אבלאלוקאינומאחרלונתונהשממשלתומיכיאלוקהיהלאשהואהודיעפהגםוהנהיאמרואםמאחרהממשלהמקבלובלתיהנותןוהואוהממשלההממלכהלבדולוהבוראוהאחדנותןהאחדלרשניםיהיוכןאםלונשיבאחרולאהממשלהלונותןשאביוהנוצרי78אחד והבן שהאב אומרים הם אבל מקבל

It becomes quite evident here that Rabbi Troki argues by means of a verysimple and strict dichotomy giver and taker sender and sent God and manin which Jesus can only belong to ldquoone camprdquo This is similar to what otherpolemic authors have argued79

Having thus moved through the Gospel of Matthew and drawn out all thepassages which he felt contradicted trinitarian thought Rabbi Troki proceedsto Mark and the rest of the New Testament Two more passages need to bebriefly mentioned though their arguments are well-known

8 4 14 The Cursing the Fig Tree Mark 1112ndash40 (II sect30)

In sect30 the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 1112ndash40 (par Matt 2118ndash22) ispresented as one more proof that Jesus is not God and not surprisingly theargument is the same as in earlier texts80

Also this verse clearly proves that he is not God and even that there was never a divine Spiritin him for if he was God as they say or if there ever was a divine spirit in him how did henot know that there were no figs on the fig tree before he came to it In particular because itwas not the season for figs then (and) even the ordinary person would not walk up to a figtree and shame it for no reason for not having any use He should have decreed that the treebear figs for his (own) benefit and to satisfy his hunger (that is) if he had the power tochange nature according to his will which is what those who follow him believe

בוהיהולאבואיןאלקיםרוחושאפילוהואאלקיםשלאבבירורמוכיחהמאמרזהגםהנהשאיןיודעהיהלאאיךאלקיםרוחבוהיהאפילואםאודבריהםכפיאלקיםהואהיהכא

לאשבאנשיםהדיוטאפילותאניםזמןאזהיהשלאובפרטאצלהבואוקודםבתאנהתאניםלתאניםשיתהפךהאילןעללגזורלווהיהתועלתוללאבחנםלהובישההתאנהאלהולךהיה

שמאמיניםמהכפיכרצונוהטבעילשנותבידוכחהיהאםרעבונוולהשביעלתועלתו81אהריו הנמשכים

Rabbi Troki finishes his discussion of this pericope by refuting the Christianobjection that the passages has to be understood allegorically namely that thefig tree represents Israel by appealing to Joel 227 and 3182

78 Deutsch Befestigung II sect27 306ndash30779 Cf the similar discussions in Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 348) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect30

(see 4522) and Nizzahon Vetus sect168 and sect182 (see 545 and 5414)80 See Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 347) Nizzahon Vetus sect181 (see 5410 and also 5410)

Even Boḥan sect42 (6416) and Kelimmat ha-Goyim (736) but cf 73381 Deutsch Befestigung II sect30 308ndash30982 Arguing that is not anticipated that Jews would reject the Messiah in the Messianic era


8 4 15 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mark 1332 (II sect31)

Then in sect31 Mark 1332 (par Matt 2436) is cited as proof that Jesus did notknow the futureYou will see oh understanding (reader) how this here clearly proves that the Son is not Godbecause he does not know the future

83עתידות יודע שאינו כיון אלוק אינו שהבן בבירור בכאן הוכיח איך תראה המעיין אתה

This is again the standard polemic84 Finally in sect53 it is argued again thatJesus contradicts himself one the one side he asserts that God has given himall authority (John 133 1615 Matt 2818) yet Jesus did not know the future(Mark 1332) nor did he have the authority to give the sons of Zebedeeprominent positions in the kingdom (Matt 2023)85 neither has God given hima place on earth to call his own (Matt 820) In fact Jesus states that theFather is greater than him (John 1428) which shows that he is not of thesame greatness as God (Heb 27ndash8)

8 5 Summary

As was seen Rabbi Trokirsquos arguments are by no means novel Most if not allare known from much earlier polemical sources and his ldquoStrenghtening of theFaithrdquo can therefore only be deemed a more accessible collation of anti-Chris-tian arguments that had been used for centuries by Jews That Ḥizzuq Emunahbecame the channel by which these arguments came to the attention of theChristian mainstream was perhaps more of an accident of history neverthe-less the ldquoStrenghtening of the Faithrdquo became one of the most influentialJewish polemics which was partially determined by the historical context inwhich it was written In fact in the beginning of the 17th century we find asituation in eastern Europe where the differences between ldquoperipheralrdquoJudaism and ldquoperipheralrdquo Christianity were melting away and Christianbeliefs converged with long held Jewish non-trinitarianism This created asituation similar to that of the early centuries of Christianity when there was aspectrum of Jewish and Christian beliefs and where differences were not asdelineated doctrinally Rabbi Troki clearly identifies this situation as a dangerto his fellow Jews as he himself states in the introduction86 Especially the

83 Deutsch Befestigung II sect31 310 Rabbi Troki uses Mark 1322 also to contradictJohn 1030 see II sect50 321

84 See Qiṣṣa sect39 (see 2511) Nizzahon Vetus sect177 and sect194 (see 5411) and EvenBoḥan sect50 (see 6418)

85 Cf Deutsch Befestigung II sect20 29986 Ibid 8


availability of Polish Bible translations with anti-trinitarian commentary madeChristian religious convictions accessible and perhaps even attractive87 Sincehe and the anti-trinitarians converge in their view of the nature of God itbecame more important to highlight the differences And although RabbiTroki reaffirms anti-trinitarianism88 he makes a point of dispelling the notionthat Jesus could have been the Jewish Messiah Thus he emphazises thatJesus could not have been the Messiah due to his ancestry his deeds andbecause the messianic prophecies were not fulfilled during Jesusrsquo lifetime89

Also by further questioning the veracity of the New Testament he attemptsto critique the basis of Christianity as a whole In his assessment the gospelauthors are ignorant at best and wilfully deceptive at worst90

His view of Jesus (if he even had one) could be summarized as followsJesus is a man who erroneously thought he was the Messiah He understoodhimself sent by God as a servant authorized by God but he was clearlylimited in authority knowledge and ability He was also distinct from Godwhich he himself asserts since he identifies himself as a human (ldquoSon ofManrdquo) To believe that Jesus is God or that Jesus considered himself to beGod is therefore simply wrong and perilous Jesus cannot be divine becausehe has no authority or sufficient power eg to save himself He is also clearlynot omnipotent and he is passable in that he was tempted and coerced bySatan Based on his own statements Jesusrsquo will is distinct from Godrsquos willAccordingly Rabbi Troki argues that later Christians clearly contradictreason Jesus and the writers of the New Testament The incarnation there-fore must be understood as irrational and is a vestige of earlier pagan mytho-logical belief91 Likewise the belief in the Trinity is to be rejected which thereasonable among Christians have also concludedḤizzuq Emunah could perhaps be characterized as Rabbi Trokirsquos attempt to

reclaim anti-trinitarianism for Judaism and judging by the response it gener-ated from Christians he indeed may have succeed

87 Rabbi Troki uses at least three New Testament translations cf Deutsch BefestigungII sect63 330 cf also 337

88 Rabbi Troki adopts eg Marcin Czechowicrsquos interpretation of Jesusrsquo ldquooneness state-mentsrdquo see Deutsch Befestigung II sect50 321

89 Ibid II 30ndash3190 See ibid I sect6 6691 See Deutsch Befestigung 29

85 Summary 315

Chapter 9

Conclusion The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics

In the seven major sources we surveyed which roughly span a thousand yearperiod and which are written in the Middle East Southern Western andEastern Europe the Gospel of Matthew along with other New Testament textswas used by Jewish authors to argue against Jesusrsquo divinity (and other Chris-tian doctrines) Though this was a given from the outset of the study it is notimmediately self-evident that a Christian primary text could be used againstthe Christian interest or Christian doctrines in this manner1 To dispute withonersquos opponent on their home turf is a bold move and it prepared the way for

1 Incidentally this also puts the hypothesis that the Gospel of Matthew is anti-semitic (oranti-JudaicJewish) into perspective as eg argued by Rosemary Ruether Faith and Fratri-cide The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (Minneapolis Seabury 1974) 64ndash95 or SeacuteanFreyne ldquoVilifying the Other and Defining the Self Matthewrsquos and Johnrsquos Anti-JewishPolemic in Focusrdquo in ldquoTo See Ourselves as Others See Usrdquo Christians Jews ldquoOthersrdquo inLate Antiquity (ed Jacob Neusner and Ernest S Frerichs Chico Cal Scholar 1985) 117ndash43 To my knowledge not one of the Jewish apologists and polemicists surveyed here hasargued that Matthew is anti-Jewish or that this was the case for Jesus to the contrary This iseven more noteworthy since many of their Christian contemporaries were not particularlypositive minded towards Jews and the argument would have been easy to make especially ina genre of writings that for the most part was inaccessible to non-Jews Instead the Jewishreading often stressed that Jesus was (relatively) Jewish a monotheist (someone who prayedto God) upheld the Law (Matt 517ndash19) etc and that later Christians and church interpretersmoved away from these Jewish moorings which is also how Jules Isaac one of the seminalauthors on anti-Judaism in the New Testament has generally argued in Jesus and Israel(trans Sally Gran ed Claire Huchet Bishop New York Holt Rinehart amp Winston 1971)though Isaac has also put some of the blame on the New Testament in particular the Gospelof John and some passages in Matthew (esp 2725 see ibid 343ndash64) The literature on thequestion of anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew is extensive for a recent introduction intothe topic see Terrence L Donaldson Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament Decisionpoints and divergent interpretations (London SPCK 2010) 1ndash54 and for Matthew esp ScotMcKnight ldquoA Loyal Critic Matthewrsquos Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspectiverdquo inAnti-Semitism and Early Christianity Issues of Polemic and Faith (ed Craig A Evans andDonald A Hagner Minneapolis Fortress 1993) 55ndash79 and Hubert Frankenmoumllle ldquoAntiju-daismus im Matthaumlusevangelium Reflexionen zu einer angemessenen Auslegungrdquo inStudien zum juumldischen Kontext neutestamentlicher Theologie (Stuttgarter Biblische Auf-satzbaumlnde Neues Testament 37 Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk 2005) 168ndash98

the modern discussion that the Jesus of the gospels is different from the Jesusof Christian doctrine

This can be further enlarged with the additional observation that where theNew Testament was used in Jewish arguments passages from Matthew play acentral role While the other three evangelists are often known by name(occasionally also Paul) and various verses from these authors come intoplay the Gospel of Matthew receives most attention as is amply demonstratedin the previous chapters

That Matthew has such a foremost position in Jewish polemics is not acoincidence and not just predicated by the importance of Matthew for Chris-tians2 Historically the Gospel of Matthew functioned as bridge over whichthe Jewish-Christian discourse was mediated whether as avenue for respect-ful dialogue for playful parody or sharp polemical attack

Already in the early church the various Hebrew gospel versions can berelated to Matthew The so-called Gospel of the Hebrews the Gospel of theNazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites apparently exclusively used byvarious Jewish-Christian groups are perhaps three labels for only one under-lying proto-text written in Hebrew (ldquothe Hebrew Gospelrdquo) that was ascribedto Matthew3 But also the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew has been situ-ated at the intersection of Judaism and (Gentile) Christianity in more recentresearch especially by the assertion that the Matthean community was pre-

2 See the introduction (13ndash14)3 Edwards The Hebrew Gospel 118ndash24 argues for this point seemingly independent of

Ray A Pritz Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period untilits Dissapearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem Magnes 1988) 83ndash94 and also SimonClaude Mimouni Le judeacuteo-christianisme ancien Essais historiques (Patrimoines) (ParisCerf 1998) 215ndash25 (ldquolsquoLrsquoEacutevangile des Heacutebreuxrsquo ou lsquoEacutevangile des Nazareacuteensrsquordquo) who hold asimilar view (though Edwards did not recognize them in his study) However this compli-cated issue is not settled and leaves open how the canonical Gospel of Matthew was relatedto the ldquoHebrew Gospelrdquo cf eg Baltes Hebraumlisches Evangelium und synoptische Uumlberlie-ferung 144ndash45 590ndash99 For these texts see A F J Klijn Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition(VCSup 17 Leiden Brill 1992) and James K Elliott The Apocryphal New Testament ACollection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford OxfordUniversity Press 1993) 3ndash16 But even if one has to assume that there was more than onegospel written in Hebrew the proximity of the majority of the preserved fragments point to aMatthew-like gospel (the issue is that some of the remaining fragments are quite close toMatthew others esp those related to the Gospel of the Ebionites are not) For a list of schol-ars that see these gospels as two (or three) distinct compositions see Edwards The HebrewGospel 120 n 76 but esp Joumlrg Frey ldquoDie Scholien nach dem juumldischen Evangelium unddas sogenannte Nazoraumlerevangeliumrdquo ZNW 94 (2003) 122ndash37 and idem ldquoZur Vielgestaltig-keit judenchristlicher Evangelienuumlberlieferungenrdquo in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienuumlber-lieferungen (ed Joumlrg Frey and Jens Schroumlter WUNT I254 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010)93ndash137


dominantly Jewish4 It could even be argued that Matthewrsquos fulfillment para-digm5 and use of typology which linked Jesus to Abraham Israel Moses andDavid establish this gospel probably intentionally as a bridge betweenJewish and (Gentile) Christian identities6 Even its canonical position as thefirst New Testament book visibly manifests this link between the HebrewBible Godrsquos covenant story with his people Israel and the arrival of thekingdom of God with the proclamation and ministry of Jesus This is certainlytrue for modern printed bibles where Matthew follows Malachi but alreadyin the great codices of the 4th and 5th centuries Matthew always appears asthe first New Testament book7

Even nowadays the Jewish-Christian dialogue continues to be mediated toa large extend by the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew which in partic-ular is focused on the Jewish context of the book and its author8 And like in

4 As argued by J Andrew Overman Anthony J Saldarini and David C Sim et al seeRoland Deines ldquoNot the Law but the Messiah Law and Righteousness in the Gospel ofMatthew mdash An Ongoing Debaterdquo in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of Matthew(ed Daniel M Gurtner and J Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) 53ndash84 esp 53ndash54

5 Which Matthew clearly uses to identify Jesus as Messiah the one in whom all promisesand prophecies were to be fulfilled see the disucssion in 13

6 Even if the gospel was written for a predominantly Jewish-Christian community andadvocated fidelity to the Mosaic Law which is still a fairly recent and contested hypothesis itwas certainly not received in this manner If the gospel indeed promoted adherence to theMosaic Law it would have been thoroughly misunderstood by its immediate recipients andby a vast majority of its audience ever since See Deines Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora imReich des Messias 24ndash27

7 In Codex Sinaticus the Gospel of Matthew (ff 200rndash217r) follows Job (ff 185vndash199v)Also in Codex Alexandrinus Matthew is the first New Testament book (following TheWisdom of Jesus ben Sirach) likewise in Codex Vaticanus (following Daniel) CodexEphraemi Rescriptus Codex Bezae and Codex WashingtonianusFreerianus cf Kurt andBarbara Aland The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed trans Erroll F Rhodes GrandRapids Eerdmans 1989) 109ndash10 113 Also in the Muratorian fragment (either 2nd or 4thcentury) Matthew most probably appeared as the first New Testament book see Bruce MMetzger The Canon of the New Testament Its Origin Development and Significance(Oxford Oxford University Press 1987) 195 On the dating of the fragment see esp Geof-frey Mark Hahneman The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (OxfordTheological Monographs Oxford Oxford University Press 1992) who has argued for a late4th c origin On the position of Matthew in other canon lists see ibid 133ndash34

8 If Matthew is interpreted as a law-abiding Jew addressing equally law-abiding JewishChristians then Matthew represents an inner-Jewish dialogue The difference betweenldquoChristianityrdquo and ldquoJudaismrdquo can thus be minimized and the embarrassment of Matthewrsquossharp anti-Pharasaic polemic avoided which is perhaps one of the motivations for this partic-ular position see Deines ldquoNot the Law but the Messiahrdquo 55ndash56 However this essentiallywould mean that the development of historical Christianity is largely at odds with the inten-tion of the Gospel of Matthew On the other hand if Matthew is understood to establishldquoChristianityrdquo as a new antinomian entity in opposition to Judaism then the disparity betweenthe two is obviously much greater and potentially more adverse see ibid 55ndash57 and also

85 Summary 319

the past not only Christian voices are heard in this discussion9 especiallyafter the third Jesus quest which has so strongly affirmed Jesusrsquo Jewishidentity It is thus likely that the Gospel of Matthew continue to play a dom-inant role in negotiating the relationship between Judaism and Christianity

9 1 Synopsis of Finds

This study has shown that the Gospel of Matthew is used selectively andrepeatedly in Jewish polemics and that a large and diverse number of pas-sages from the New Testament came to be employed in such texts (911)However the Jewish arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity and the texts used intheir support do not change much often are only repeated and effectivelystand in a trajectory with polemical arguments seen in much earlier Christiansources (912) though they often did not engage the Christian understandingof Jesusrsquo divinity and the finer points of Christian doctrine (913)

Donaldson Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament 53ndash54 Roland Deines seeks toavoid both extremes and advocates neither a straightforward supersessionist (potentially anti-Jewish) nor a law-adhering ldquoJewish-Christianrdquo understanding of the Gospel of MatthewInstead Matthew seeks to demonstrate that in the arrival of the messianic kingdom adherenceto the Mosaic code is not appropriate anymore which is not because the Law was bad abro-gated or ceased to be valid but because Jesus has fulfilled all righteousness (Matt 315) andthe ldquolaw and the prophetsrdquo (Matt 517) which has to be understood as an exclusively christo-logical task which ultimately only God could accomplish (which is why Matthew identifiedJesus as ldquoGod with usrdquo) This righteousness which was the expectation of the Law is nowldquoJesus-righteoussnessrdquo a righteoussness that without Jesus would be impossible Matthew istherefore not advocating in 517ndash20 that Jewish or Gentile Christians had to adhere to Torahbut that an eschatological paradigm shift had occured in Jesus the Law was finally fulfilledThe Law is still a valid expression of Godrsquos will but the disciples as those ldquoblessed onesrdquonow have a share in the new reality of eschatological Jesus-righteousness through their rela-tionship with the God-sent Messiah who came to ldquosave his people from their sinrdquo (Matt121) see his Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias 643ndash51 also his ldquoNot theLaw but the Messiahrdquo 71ndash84

9 See eg Lapide Hebrew in the Church 204 David Flusser Jesus (3d ed JerusalemMagnes 2001) Samuel Sandmel A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (3d edWoodstock Vt Jewish Lights Publishing 2008) 136ndash68 Amy-Jill Levine and Marc ZBrettler eds The Jewish Annotated New Testament (New York Oxford University Press2011) 1ndash54 (the Gospel of Matthew was annotated by Aaron M Gale) Especially the latteris noteworthy The annotations summarize the more recent scholarly views on Matthew in avery accessible informative and fairly neutral manner yet they also point out that Luke andMatthew have ldquoinconsistentrdquo genealogies (3) give a highlighted excursus discussing thevirgin birth and Isa 714 (4) mention that Matt 125 does not preclude subsequent sexual rela-tions between Joseph and Mary (5) and that ldquoMatthew upholds Torahrdquo (10) With this TheJewish Annotated New Testament effectively stands consciously or unconsciously in thesame trajectory as Even Boḥan and its predecessors


9 1 1 Selectivity of Readings

One of the most clearly observable features of the use of the Gospel ofMatthew by Jewish polemicists and apologists is that passages from Mattheware used selectively In texts of the apologetical or polemical genre this is ofcourse what one would expect

A set of core pericopes is frequently employed to show Jesusrsquo exclusiveand limited humanity Jesusrsquo genealogy (Matt 11ndash16 18ndash25) the flight toEgypt (Matt 21ndash22) his baptism (Matt 313ndash17) the temptation (Matt 41ndash11a) the cursing of the fig tree (Matt 2118ndash19) his prayer in Gethsemane(Matt 2638ndash46) and his words on the cross (Matt 2746)10 Amongst Jesusrsquosayings his exchange with the so-called ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo is typically men-tioned (Matt 1916ndash21) but also a selection of his ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayings(Matt 819ndash20 96 2028) his prayer to the Father (Matt 1125ndash27) that hereceived authority from God (Matt 2816ndash20a) and especially Jesusrsquo dis-course on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 1230ndash32) In particu-lar the latter and Jesusrsquo prayer in Gethsemane play prominent roles in most ofthe surveyed texts11 Thus Jewish polemicists used the depictions of Jesusrsquodeeds as strong indications that he is exclusively human whereas Jesusrsquosayings demonstrate that he understood himself to be a mere human who isdistinct from God12

10 Interestingly Jewish polemic focuses more on Jesusrsquo desperation in Gethsemane andhis prayer on the cross rather than on the fact that he died the greater emphasis being on suf-fering (passability) Also noteworthy is that Jesusrsquo resurrection is hardly discussed Perhapsthe topic of resurrection was too contested within the Jewish community (in the Maimonideancontroversy) and it would have been unwise to weave it into a text that ultimately was meantto strenghten Jewish identity (rather than to further aggravate it)

11 I wonder if it is a coincidence that the Gospel of Matthew differs from Mark in some ofthose pericopes that also feature in Jewish and pagan objections cf Mark 19 and Matt 314ndash15 (Jesusrsquo baptism) cf Mark 1035 and Matt 2020 (sons of Zebedee) Mark 1018 and Matt1917 (ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo) also Matt 2652ndash54 (twelve legions of angels at Jesusrsquo dis-posal) Matt 2762ndash66 (soldiers guarding the tomb) and esp Matt 2811ndash15 (Jewish rumors)On the differences between Mark and Matthew see Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runessoneds Mark and Matthew I Comparative Readings Understanding the Earliest Gospels intheir First Century Settings (WUNT I271 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011) KlostermannMatthaumlusevangelium 19ndash21 and Willoughby C Allen A Critical and Exegetical Commen-tary on the Gospel according to S Matthew (ICC 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT Clark 1907)xiiindashxl If these pericopes were already felt to be problematic in the canonical Matthew is itthen not possible that the same arguments we encounter in the second century sources werealready voiced in the first century and is it then not also possible that they may have beenpart of the reason why the Gospel of Matthew was written in the first place In this regardDavid C Sim recently has speculated that Matthew may have purposely written his gospel inorder to supplement Mark see ldquoMatthewrsquos Use of Mark Did Matthew Intend to Supplementor to Replace His Primary Sourcerdquo NTS 57 (2011) 176ndash92

12 This strategy is also used by modern Jewish tractates see eg Berger and Wyschogrod


It is further evident that this selection was to some extend predeterminedthrough what was handed down as polemical tradition as most arguments areusually only repeated This does not preclude that at some point this chain ofreferences was started eg Milḥamot ha-Shem clearly exerted a lot of influ-ence on subsequent compositions nor does it mean that the respective argu-ments were not further refined and modified But it is very likely that not allcommentators had access to the Gospel of Matthew and therefore had to workon the basis of the received tradition which effectively resulted in a collectionof passages that were used according to their polemical expediency13 Thusthe various arguments that utilize the Gospel of Matthew are frequently repe-titions which for the most part recycle traditional debate points Individualarguments hardly change instead they are abridged or expanded on and attimes were even misunderstood which is eg noticeable in the frequentreoccurence of arguments from Milḥamot ha-Shem in later sources This repe-tition of individual arguments does not necessarily mean that there are directlinks between eg Nestor and later texts this must be established case bycase as between Milḥamot ha-Shem and Even Boḥan But it is neverthelessnoteworthy that Qiṣṣa via Nestor is an important conveyor of much earlierarguments14 whereas Ḥizzuq Emunah via Wagenseilrsquos Tela Ignea Satanaelikewise acts as a bridge which made this long tradition of arguments avail-able to the modern religious consciousness

Not only the presentation of various New Testament passages is selectiveequally the interpretation of such passages is often determined by polemicalexpediency Thus the overall polemical or apologetical purpose determinedconsciously or unconsciously the interpretation of a given passage inMatthew This is most clearly seen in the use and interpretation of the termldquoSon of Manrdquo which almost axiomatically is understood as an expression that

Jews and lsquoJewish Christiansrsquo 30 which likewise appeals to Luke 1818ndash19 (ldquoRich YoungRulerrdquo) Matt 1232 (Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) and Mark 1332 (Jesusrsquo Ignorance)to argue that Jesus did not think of himself as divine

13 Shem Ṭov Ibn Shapruṭ may have realized that this strategy was insufficient and there-fore published the whole of the Gospel of Matthew This brings up the question of how thevarious arguments that used the New Testament actually functioned in practice Although it isunlikely that the intended (Jewish) audience could detect if the text given in an argumentactually concurred with the New Testament we nevertheless have quite a lot of argumentsthat show the desire to carefully quote New Testament passages (even in Latin) sometimes atlength and then to base more or less penetrating arguments based on these texts This wouldsuggest that the polemicists clearly felt that the actual content of the Gospel of Matthew wasa challenge for Christian convictions Already in QiṣṣaNestor Milḥamot ha-Shem MSRome Milḥemet Miṣvah and Nizzahon Vetus we find sections that systematically deal withthe New Testament and this may therefore also indicate that Matthewrsquos gospel may havebeen employed in actual debates with Christians

14 See Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo 62


denotes Jesusrsquo exclusive and mere humanity15 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo sayings thatreinforce this view are repeatedly appealed to whereas those that do not fitthis mold are left unmentioned (eg Matt 1341 1627 179 1928 24302531 2664) The result of this selectivity is that an author as eg seen inSefer Yosef ha-Meqanne can use Matthew to prove Jesusrsquo exclusive humanitywithout having to engage with the passages that clearly stand in tension withthis argument (at least within the literary horizon of the Gospel of Matthew)16

This is then perhaps comparable to the discussion of proof passages from theHebrew Bible which for the most part are wranglings over the need to inter-pret a given passage ldquoliterallyrdquo (viz only applying to its historical context) orldquoallegoricallyrdquo (viz as Messianic prophecy) with the Jewish and Christianpositions usually arguing for the diametrically opposed modes of interpreta-tion for a given verse17

15 Although it must be said that this understanding of the ldquoSon of Manrdquo follows that ofmany of the church fathers who likewise took the term to denote Jesusrsquo human nature (but notexclusively so) see Muumlller The Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo 9ndash80 and Burkett The Son of ManDebate 7ndash9 also 13ndash21 See eg Justin Dial 1003ndash4 Irenaeus Haer 3102 163 167171 183ndash4 191ndash2 Tertullian Marc 410 Carn Chr 5

16 In fact without this selectivity it cannot be shown that Matthewrsquos use of the term ldquoSonof Manrdquo denotes Jesusrsquo mere humanity

17 Eg Jewish exegesis often painstakingly analyzes Isa 714 and its context usuallyarguing that is has to be understood as a prophecy that exlusively refers to its historicalcontext whereas Christians maintained that the historic-contextual interpetation was insuffi-cient and that there are deeper and greater referents namely Mary and Jesus Both the Chris-tian and Jewish sides are of course aware that there are several modes of interpretation Eachdistinguish at least four types of interpretive methods medieval Christians recognized theliteralhistorical and spiritual sense of a given passage of Scripture the latter being furtherdivided into the allegorical moraltropological and anagogical sense whereas medieval Jewsdistinguish the peshat (ldquoplainrdquo) remez (ldquohiddenrdquo allegorical) derash (ldquohomileticrdquo) and thesod (ldquomysticalrdquosymbolic) Doctrinal preconceptions prevented either side from admittingthat the opposing argument had (at least in some respect) validity See Henri de LubacMedieval Exegesis The Four Senses of Scripture (3 vols Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1998ndash2009) 11ndash14 Wilhelm Bacher Die exegetische Terminologie der juumldischen Tradtionslitera-ture (2 vols Leipzig J C Hinrichs 1899 1905) 125ndash27 241ndash43 173 208ndash11 136 146also Rimon Kasher ldquoThe Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literaturerdquo in Mikra TextTranslation Reading amp Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism amp EarlyChristianity (ed Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling Compendia rerum iudaicarum adNovum Testamentum 21 Assen Van Gorcum 1988 repr Peabody Hendrickson 2004)547ndash94 Avraham Grossman ldquoThe Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis inthe Twelfth-Century Francerdquo [ בצרפתלמקראהיהודיתוהפרשנותהיהודי־הנוצריהפולמוס

)הפולמוסאלקרארישלזיקתולפרשת(יבבמאה ] Zion 51 (1986) 29ndash60 [Hebr] andesp the essays in Magne Saeligboslash ed Hebrew BibleOld Testament I From the Beginnings tothe Middle Ages (Until 1300) Part 2 The Middle Ages (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht 2000)


The result of this selection is a rather atomistic exegesis and the preventionof any real engagement with Matthewrsquos intention his depiciton of Jesus orhis overall purpose since the immediate or greater context of Matthew israrely taken into account mdash nor was that necessarily a concern for the Jewishpolemicists There is consequently no real attempt to understand the Gospelof Matthew in its own right though this may not even have been possibledepending on the availability of the gospel text Only Profiat Duran perhapsinfluenced and enabled by his reading of Even Boḥan went further andadvanced the theory that Matthew was deceived about Jesus and that he in hisignorance paved the way for later deception ie the belief that Jesus isdivine18

Yet although a clear selection of passages is evident the large number ofpassages used remains impressive19 And this remains to be the case evenwhen one sees these exegetical arguments based on New Testament writingsin the context of the much larger polemical and apologetical enterprise whichincluded the refutation of the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible andphilosophical metaphysical social and rational argumentation There is stilla sizable array and discussion of New Testament passages even if they oftenonly appear as an addendum to a more extensive discussion of interpretationsof the Hebrew Bible20 That the intended audience who first and foremostmust have been Jewish religious leaders was presented with passages fromthe New Testament at all let alone with such a diverse corpus of varied argu-ments warrants further investigation21 At the very least it shows that the

18 This notion that the New Testament writers were wrong about Jesus was of course notnew already Celsus had argued that Matthew invented the virgin birth see Origen Cels137 Yet Profiat Duran formulates this argument coherently and sustains it with readingsfrom the New Testament

19 This study already reduced the number New Testament passages by focusing on theseven more important primary sources the use of the Gospel of Matthew and by only survey-ing the discussion of the divinity of Jesus Yet even after this three-fold limitation thereremains a good number of arguments and passages from the New Testament

20 The first of these appended New Testament discussions appears in Jacob ben ReubenrsquosMilḥamot ha-Shem the same is true for Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne Nizzahon Vetus LipmannMuumlhlhausenrsquos Niṣṣaḥon Even Boḥan Kelimmat ha-Goyim and Ḥizzuq Emunah et al AlsoSimeon ben Zemah Duranrsquos Qeshet u-Magen was originally part of Magen Avot

21 A few attempts have been made in this direction most notably the already mentionedbut unpublished study by Joel E Rembaum ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo David Berger though without discussing the use of the New Testamenthas argued in ldquoMission to the Jewsrdquo that the Jewish debaters were not merely in the defen-sive but also initiated religious debates with Christians which resulted in the increasedproduction of Adversus Judaos literature The use of the New Testament therefore may notmerely have been so extensively collated for defensive or internal purposes especially sinceit is often presented in dialogue form and primed with instructions to ask specific questions ofChristian opponents


close proximity of Jews and Christians in medieval Europe and Christianattempts of converting Jews created a situation in which it was deemed highlynecessary to collect and present strong arguments to keep the Jewish congre-gations steadfast and convinced of the truth of Judaism By fending off Christ-ian ideas with Christian texts some of which may have been attractive andpersuasive ldquoJewishnessrdquo could be reinforced and ldquoJewish doctrinerdquo promotedas rational and consistent In other words anti-Christian polemics were a wayof providing internal pro-Jewish apologetics which is of course also howanti-Jewish Christian apologetics function The Christian attempt to prosely-tize Jews and the newer strategies used to accomplish this in particular theuse of the Talmud championed by Nicholas Donin and the emergence ofcapable Christian apologists such as Pablo Christiani Nicholas de LyreRaymond Martini or Pablo de Santa Mariacutea was apparently so effective or atleast deemed so worrisome that it warranted an extensive response anddefense22 In this the Jewish polemicists attempted to reassure the Jewishcommunity that the Christian advance as forceful oppressive or attractive itmay have seemed was ultimately based on a flawed understanding of theirown tradition be it in the realms of reason or scriptural exegesis23

It is however also clear from the surveyed texts that the Jewish readers ofthe New Testament (or portions thereof) felt that the passages themselves con-stituted strong proofs and support for their rejection of the claim that Jesus isdivine (or other Christian doctrines) especially where they were read in isola-tion from the overall Matthean context The selection of these arguments istherefore comparable to the use of passages from the Talmud eg in PugioFidei which Christians had felt provided formidable support for their asser-tion that Jesus was indeed the Messiah

22 After all many of the dominant figures who actively promoted Christianity whereJewish converts themselves a fact that must have been extremely unsettling to their Jewishcommunities which is perhaps often underestimated When in 839 CE the relatively unim-portant royal deacon Bodo converted to Judaism it created significant ripples in medievalChristendom see Allen Cabaniss ldquoBodo-Eleazar A Famous Jewish Convertrdquo JQR 43(1953) 313ndash28 Correspondingly when various Jews and Rabbis turned to Christianity andsome subsequently even joined the clerus and missionary orders so much so that at least oneeven became a bishop (Pablo de Santa Mariacutea) then it is perhaps not too far fetched to positthat at least some Jewish communities had been shaken to the core Reassurance was badlyneeded

23 This had also the added effect that those versed in this type of apologetic-polemical tra-dition could present themselves as capable and erudite leaders of their flock confidently dis-played in their familiarity of Christian doctrine and New Testament passage in Latin (orGreek) their use of reason and exegetical aptitude See Lasker and Stroumsa Nestor thePriest 132 ldquoThe various authors must have felt that a gloss of the opponentsrsquo own languagelent a degree of verisimilitude to their work as well as helping them avoid charges offorgeryrdquo Or to quote Shem Ṭov ldquothrough this (endeavor) praise will come to the Jew whodebates with them and catches them in their own traprdquo


9 1 2 Continuity with Earlier Polemics

As already noted the general strategy of collecting and repeating a number ofset arguments effectively created a polemical tradition based on the NewTestament24 This however should not be taken as an innovative strategy butrather as a continuation of an existing trajectory The study has shown that thearguments of this polemical tradition show significant paralles with those ofmuch earlier periods which is clearly evident when one compares passageseg with Celsus Porphyry and Julian ldquothe Apostaterdquo25 Since the Jewisharguments used in the medieval period stand in a trajectory with early objec-tions to orthodox Christian thought26 there is a higher probability that thearguments ascribed to Jews in Christian commentaries and apologetical litera-ture are genuinely Jewish (rather than being merely ldquostraw-menrdquo on which acounter-argument is propped up)27 Besides the references provided a fewfurther examples will suffice to corroborate this observation

24 This has also been noticed by Rembaum see ldquoThe New Testament in Medieval JewishAnti-Christian Polemicsrdquo xi

25 This was already noted by Bernhard Blumenkranz ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnde imReligionsgespraumlch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis11 Jahrhundertsrdquo TZ 4 (1948) 119ndash47 repr in Juifs et Chreacutetiens Patristique et Moyen Agechapter XIX (no pagination) ldquoDer Groszligteil der juumldischerseits im Mittelalter verwendetenArgumente ist uns schon aus dem Altertum bekanntrdquo (146) Rembaum ldquoThe New Testamentin Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo xvii 17ndash61 suggested that the similaritybetween the pagan and Jewish arguments ldquocould be the result of two processes operatingindependently or together 1) Jews in the Middle Ages had access to the ancient polemicaltraditions 2) Jews in the Middle Ages employed a critical methodology which was similar tothat used in antiquity As we shall see both factors were probably operativerdquo (17) I wouldadd to this a third process which I consider more probable (though without denying thatmedieval Jews may have learnt some anti-Christian arguments from Christian sources andproselytes) which is that from very early on various anti-Christian arguments had formed akind of (Jewish) polemical tradition (which also informed pagan polemics) and that this tra-dition was retained either orally or in written form by Jews and Christians (Rembaum hints atthis 60ndash61) As long as Jews and Christians were in some kind of personal contact as wasthe case throughout late antiquity in many regions of the Roman Empire there would havebeen at least a faint need for religious polemics and apologetics if not for debate then at leastfor personal assurance It is implausible that the more potent polemical arguments would havebeen so easily forgotten only to be rediscovered by the reading of pagan and Christian sources(esp when one considers how Qiṣṣa functions as a literary bridge into the early medievalperiod)

26 However to fully evaluate this further study is necessary27 On this see esp Blumenkranz ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnderdquo Carlton Paget Jews

Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity 274ndash79 and Amos Funkenstein ldquoPolemicsResponses and Self-Reflectionrdquo in Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley University ofCalifornia Press 1993) 170ndash219 esp 173ndash75 Still instructive is Amos B Hulen ldquoThe lsquoDia-logues with the Jewsrsquo as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianityrdquo JBL 51(1932) 58ndash70


In the second century in Justin Martyrrsquos well known Dialogue with Tryphothe Jewish party articulates among many other questions which bear similari-ties to medieval debate literature the underlying issue which is the basis forthe entire medieval discussionYou are attempting to prove what is incredible and practically impossible namely that Goddeigned to be born and to become man28

It is hardly coincidental that also Celsus put some of the various objections toChristianity into the mouth of a Jew who is in an imaginary dialogue withJesus especially when one considers the various arguments more closelyLet us imagine what a Jew mdash let alone a philosopher mdash might put to Jesus ldquoIs it not truegood sir that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumours about thetrue and unsavory circumstances of your origins Is it not the case that far from being born inroyal Davidrsquos city of Bethlehem you were born in a poor country town and of a woman whoearned her living by spinning Is it not the case that when her deceit was discovered to witthat she was pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera she was driven away by her hus-band mdash the carpenter mdash and convicted of adultery Indeed is it not so that in her disgracewandering far from home she gave birth to a male child in silence and humiliation Whatmore Is it not so that you hired yourself out as a workman in Egypt learned magical craftsand gained something of a name for yourself which now you flaunt among your kinsmenrdquoWhat absurdity Clearly the Christians have used the myth of Danae and Melanippe or ofAuge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesusrsquo virgin birth A beautiful woman musthis mother have been that this Most High God should want to have intercourse with her Aninteresting point in itself since if as their philosophers (copying ours) say God by naturedoes not love corruptible bodies he cannot love a woman Are we to think that this high Godwould have fallen in love with a woman of no breeding mdash one unknown and unregarded evenby her neighbors29

28 Dial 681 cited from St Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho (trans T B Falls) 10529 As reconstructed by R Joseph Hoffmann Celsus On the True Doctrine (New York

Oxford University Press 1987) 57ndash58 (cf Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum 28ndash38) CfOrigen Cels 128 It has often been discussed if the Jew in Contra Celsum is real or only fic-titious see Ernst Bammel ldquoDer Jude des Celsusrdquo in Judaica Kleine Schriften I 265ndash83also Horacio E Lona Die raquoWahre Lehre des Kelsoslaquo Uumlbersetzt und erklaumlrt von Horacio ELona (KfA Freiburg Herder 2005) 172ndash75 It also has long been recognized that some ofthe points raised by Celsus are similar to elements found in Toledot Yeshu and the Talmudeg that Jesusrsquos mother was a spinner that his true father was called Panthera [Pandira] thathe learned Egyptian magic see eg Schaumlfer Jesus in the Talmud esp 18ndash24 150ndash53 Butsee also Cook The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism esp 27ndash28 and Marc Lods ldquoEtude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chre-tiensrdquo Revue drsquohistoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941) 1ndash33 Already a cursoryglance at Cookrsquos outline of New Testament passages discussed by Celsus shows significantthematic parallels to those in later medieval Jewish sources (eg Jesusrsquo genealogy the flightto Egypt his baptism Gethsemane Jesusrsquo miracles) and this also rings true for Porphyry andJulian see ibid ix xi xiv passim


It is further noteworthy that the New Testament passages utilized in thesemuch earlier texts are often the same that appear in later medieval Jewishpolemics eg Jesusrsquo genealogy or his prayer in Gethsemane In EmperorJulianrsquos polemic we read for instanceBut it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus for he is not even fromJudah How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the HolySpirit For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah you could not inventeven this plausibly For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree con-cerning his genealogy30

Also in Porphyryrsquos critique of Christianity we find the following argumentbased on the Gethsemane pericopeAnd yet he being in torment and anticipating the expectation of horrible things asked inprayer that his passion pass from him And he said to his closest friends lsquoWatch and pray thatthe temptation pass awayrsquo (Matt 2641 Mk 1438 Lk 2246) Now these sayings are notworthy of Godrsquos Son not even of a wise man who despises death31

Likewise the ontological argument that underlies the later medieval debate isencountered in much earlier sources eg in the sixth century Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila which in terms of time and space cannot be too far offfrom the sources of Qiṣṣa Timothy representing the Jewish side asks inchapter 512ndash18For concerning this Jesus as his memoirs contain in those books you call the gospels we findfrom where he comes and his parents with him so how is this one God Does God suck milkand grow and become strong And I will tell what Luke says about him For the present dis-cussion is about this one is that he also fled when John was beheaded by Herod and then wasbetrayed by his own disciples and bound and mocked and flogged and spit on and crucifiedand buried But prior to that he hungered and thirsted and was tempted by Satan Then doesGod submit to these things done by men And who is able to see God Not to mention that hewas seized and suffered so many things which is indeed impossible for God to suffer But hewas also given sour wine to drink and was fed gall And he was struck with a reed on his headand crowned with thorns And finally he was condemned and crucified with bandits I am

30 In Against the Galileans see The Works of the Emperor Julian 3395ndash97 See also3188ndash89 (God in a womb) 378ndash79 (Mary registered in the census) 398ndash99 (Isa 714 andMary as mother of God) In fact so many similarities and in depth knowledge of scripturaldebates appear in Julianrsquos writings that possible links should be further investigated It hasbeen recognized that Julianrsquos anti-Christian zeal lead him to favor Jewish interests and themutual influence of arguments from anti-Christian Jews to Julian and vice versa might there-fore be a distinct possibility see Michael Adler ldquoThe Emperor Julian and the Jewsrdquo JQR 5(1893) 591ndash651 esp 609ndash10 who remarks about Julian that ldquoin his war against Christianityhe is at one with Jewish theologians and arms himself with the same weapons importinghowever into the contest a virulence and bitterness towards the creed of the lsquoGalileanrsquo thatare a blot upon his manly and upright characterrdquo (610 emphasis mine)

31 See Berchman Porphyry Against the Christians sect175 198 (Macarius Magnesrsquo Apokri-tikos 32)


shocked How is it that you are not ashamed to say that God himself entered into a womanrsquoswomb and was born For if he was born then he was not eternal and also now where is heWhat will you say to these things Answer me32

The similarity between much later Jewish arguments is thus evident33

Whether this implies a direct continuity with early arguments cannot beconclusively established with this study but further comparison with patristic(and pagan) texts should be much more convenient now

What stands out is that the New Testament passages that are used in Jewishpolemics are also those that have attracted a lot of discussion in much earlierdoctrinal debates within Christianity34 At times the argument in the Jewishsources has therefore a distinct ldquoheterodox flavorrdquo and it stands to reason thatvarious heterodox ideas were originally Jewish or became part of the Jewishpolemical tradition through personal exchanges or conversions to Judaismfrom individuals familiar with such arguments35 As was already seen various

32 Varner Dialogues 150ndash51 (512ndash18) Lawrence Lahey argued that the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquila reflects a real Jewish-Christian debate The similarity to the arguments inQiṣṣaNestor might support this cf Lawrence L Lahey ldquoThe Dialogue of Timothy andAquila Critical Greek Text and English Translation of the Short Recension with an Introduc-tion including a Source-critical Studyrdquo (PhD diss University of Cambridge 2000) idemldquoJewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine JewishndashChristian Debate in the Dialogue ofTimothy and Aquilardquo JJS 51 (2000) 281ndash96 In a sense the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilais almost an ldquoanti-Nestorrdquo Timothy at the end of the debate becomes converted andordained both as deacon and presbyter whereas the narrative framework of QiṣṣaNestorpresents the author as a former Christian priest who has convert to Judaism

33 Of course the earliest traces of objections against Jesusrsquo divinity can already be foundin the New Testament itself see eg Mark 63 (par Matt 1355ndash56) John 1033 (cf Mark1464) and 1 John 42ndash3

34 See esp Kevin Madiganrsquos study The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought AnEssay on Christological Development (Oxford Oxford University Press 2007) who showshow early and late church interpreters struggled against Arian (and their own) interpretationsof Jesusrsquo ignorance the Gethsemane pericope (pp 62ndash72) or Jesusrsquo prayer on the cross (73ndash90) et al See also Paul Gondreau The Passions of Christrsquos Soul in the Theology of StThomas Aquinas (Muumlnster Aschendorff 2002 repr Scranton Scranton Press 2008)

35 In fact the Jewish arguments (and the respective NT passages used) are so similar towhat is known from the Arian controversy that one is tempted to assume a literary link cfesp Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God 106ndash22 Arians used the theexchange with the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo (Matt 1018) the ignorance logion (Mark 1432 parMatt 2436) that he was afraid (Matt 2639) and pointed to Jesusrsquo words on the cross (Matt2746) They likewise stresses that Jesus prayed to the Father was hungry subject to bodilyneeds and that he suffered Even more remarkable is that they argued for the Jesusrsquo inferior-ity to the Father based on the notion that Jesus was indwelled by the logos instead by a humansoul see ibid 110 cf Epiphanius Panarion 69 In this Arians had a distinct logos-sarxunderstanding that they advanced to argue for the ldquocreatednessrdquo of the (nevertheless divine)logos


discussions in Ephremrsquos Diatessaron commentary engage precisely the argu-ments used in much later Jewish objections36

But perhaps surprisingly the Jewish arguments do not just recall hetero-dox arguments they can also use very orthodox ideas For example in thefourth century and with that still before the Council of Chalcedon the Christ-ian poet Prudentius37 argues in his Apotheosis against the notion that theFather can suffer (Patripassianism) His arguments which reflect an inner-Christian debate over the Trinity and Christology echo many of the mainlines of later medieval Jewish argumentationVery many teachings there are but of few shall I tell lest misguided utterance of unspeakabledoctrines stain an orthodox tongue Yonder is one who banishing the Father from his thronethrusts Him into the narrow vesture of a manrsquos body and fears not to subject the Father todeath and fasten him to a cruel cross Can God suffer His shape and form no man has everseen () He is the Father whom no eye ever had force to reach by looking from without withkeen flashing vision and who does not put on the form of man nor qualify the infinity of hisGodhead by assuming countenance or mode Either thou blasphemer must thou reject thefaithfulness of the gospel-book or else the intangible being of the blessed Father whichcannot mingle with mortality has never been seen () [The spirit of the Father] therefore noscourges cut nor spitting defiles nor hand hurts with buffeting nor nail-pierced wounds fas-tened upon a cross It was the flesh of man that felt these things flesh of a woman with childbrought forth according to the law of birth without the law of wedlock He it is that suffershunger that drinks the gall and drains the vinegar He it is that fears the shape of death andtrembles at the pain Tell me ye blasphemous teachers who maintained that the supremeFather abandoned his throne at the time when God entered into a mortal body was it theFather then who suffered What would not evil error dare Was the Father himself conceivedand did He grow from a maidrsquos blood Did He himself swell a modest virginrsquos womb Anddoes the page of the holy book lie then when it says that the Word passed into the form ofthe flesh38

36 See 2514 343ndash7 and 5410 Recently Elena Narinskaya has explored similaritiesbetween Ephrem and Jewish exegetical traditions which might suggest that he was aquaintedwith Jewish thought (and anti-Christian arguments) see Ephrem a lsquoJewishrsquo Sage A Com-parison of the Exegetical Writings of St Ephrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions (StudiaTraditionis Theologiae 7 Turnhout Brepols 2010)

37 Born 348 CE he lived perhaps in north-eastern Iberia in Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza)where he became twice the provincial governor see Karla Pollmann ldquoPrudentiusrdquo BrillrsquosNew Pauly (Brill Online 2012) and Prudentius (trans H J Thomson Loeb ClassicalLibrary 2 vols London W Heinemann 1949) 1viindashviii

38 Prudentius (trans H J Thomson) 1121ndash29 Of course this is an inner Christian debateover the Trinity arguing against Patripassianism but it is still significant how many of thearguments are eg found in Qiṣṣa It is thus somewhat ironic how similar Prudentiusrsquo anti-monarchic arguments are compared to those found in later anti-Christian medieval Jewishsources esp since they even come to be used in the same geographic region only roughly amillennium later Whereas Prudentius under the premise that Jesus was divine used theimpassibility of God to argue for a trinity of persons the very same arguments he employswere used to dispute the notion that Jesus was divine


The medieval Jewish arguments that use the New Testament stand thus notonly in a trajectory with earlier arguments but likewise can be shown to havea long pre-history in traditional debate literature In some sense they may noteven be anti-Christian (depending on how and what one judges to be orthodoxand heterodox in Christianity) This suggests that the actual use of thesepolemical arguments by various Jews but also others may have been whatcontinually prompted the production of Adversus Judaeos literature Part ofthe incentive for composing such literature may have been the awareness thata set of polemical arguments is remembered collated and not infrequentlyutilized by those who are antagonistic towards central Christian claims andthat these arguments have a certain inherent force The importance of theChristian beliefs eg the divinity of Christ and the persistent continuation ofarguments that would dispute them made it simply necessary to repeatedlyconfront and dispel them not least to affirm and explicate the paradoxicalclaim of Jesusrsquo identity to Christians39

9 1 3 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement

In the surveyed texts the polemicists largely argue against the simplisticnotion that ldquoJesus is Godrdquo rather than against the doctrine of the two naturesof Christ as understood by the church This may be a reflection of the popularChristian understanding which reckoned Jesus to be God without any furtherqualification or may have been part of the argumentative strategy whichdeliberately sidelines the more complicated doctrinal deliberations40 TheJewish polemicists are aware that Christians differentiate between the twonatures of Christ at least various arguments that address this differentiationare part of the polemical repertoire However the christological understandingreflected in these arguments is not necessarily reciprocating the doctrinalunderstanding of (Western) medieval Christendom The Jewish understandingseen in most texts if one were to classify them in Christian terms would have

39 With this I do not seek to dispute or corroborate Miriam S Taylorrsquos study Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Studia Post-Biblica 46 Leiden Brill 1995) nor do I wish to enter that discussion though the consid-erable similarity to medieval Jewish polemical arguments suggest that the Jewish argumentsin Adversus Judaos literature are not only ldquosymbolicrdquo and concerned with theological self-definition (cf ibid 127ndash87) They could very well represent a recollection of the argumentsJews actually have made (eg in debates) at least where it pertains to the divinity of Jesusand the Gospel of Matthew For a comprehensive critique of Taylorrsquos study see CarltonPaget Jews Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity 43ndash76

40 The respective Jewish scholars may very well have known the more intricate aspects ofChristian doctrine but may have deemed them too cumbersome or unhelpful for their pur-poses (that is in exegetical arguments that use the New Testament)


to be called the ldquoApollinarianrdquo or the logos-sarx view of Jesus41 The notionthat Jesusrsquo soul is the locus of his divinity which is ldquodressedrdquo in human natureis repeatedly encountered in particular in discussions of the Gethsemane peri-cope42 One should assume that at least some of the Jewish commentatorswere familiar with the more differentiated ldquoorthodoxrdquo view of Christology43

but it appears that the polemical tradition that used Jesusrsquo anguish in Gethse-mane (ldquomy soul is deeply distressedrdquo Matt 2638) may have prompted andgiven preference to this particular understanding The fact that Jesus said hissoul the ldquospiritual sourcerdquo and center of his being was distressed couldconveniently be used to attack the argument that only Jesusrsquo human that isthe ldquophysicalrdquo side was perturbed This then lead back to the underlyingargument that God is impassable Profiat Duran appears to have noticed thatthis view was not in line with the contemporary Christian understanding ofJesus and therefore abandoned this argument replacing it with something farmore perceptive and potent44 This particular logos-sarx understandingexpressed in most of the Jewish sources would probably not trouble amedieval church theologian too much precisely because this christologicalissue had been dealt with hundreds of years earlier However on a popularlevel eg in dialogue with lower clergy or a with regular member of theJewish community these arguments were probably effective

41 This is not to say that this was actually the understanding of the polemicists TheJewish argument in fact disputes this ldquoApollinarian viewrdquo of Jesus by appealing to the Geth-semane pericope a passage which also the church fathers used to emphasizes the full human-ity of Jesus against Docetistic tendencies However the similarity of argumentation endshere since the Jewish position unerstands herein the clear negation of the full divinity ofJesus In this the Jewish position categorically rules out the possibility of incarnation andparadoxically only allows for a Docetist Christology All comparisons between Moses andJesus eg point to this Effectively Jesus cannot be superior to Moses because Jesus isessentially more human than Moses (who fasts longer who was not in need of nourishmentdid not have to defecate etc) In other words the underlying assumption is that as closerhumans would be to God as less human they are and a man indwelled by God even ldquoGodwith usrdquo could therefore effectively only be human in appearance if at all Christian ortho-doxy in contrast has consistently maintained that only in Christ men really see what it meansto be truly human (and also what it means to be truly divine) cf Col 115 29 Rom 515 1Cor 1545ndash49

42 In Milḥamot ha-Shem (see 346) Yosef ha-Meqanne sect5 and sect9 (see 4513ndash14) andNizzahon Vetus sect176 sect178 and sect181 (see 5410 12 13)

43 Certainly Profiat Duran (see 7312) Of course this study only examined exegeticalarguments to the exclusion of the philosophical and metaphysical discussions an area whereJewish scholars often exhibited superior understanding see Lasker Jewish PhilosophicalPolemics also Sarah Stroumsa Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣrsquos lsquoTwenty Chaptersrsquo(lsquoIshrūn Maqala) (Leiden Brill 1989) 156ndash60 218ndash20

44 See 7312


9 2 Evaluation of Finds

The two main arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity consistently encountered inthe surveyed sources are that 1) Jesus is distinctly and exclusively humanseen in either his limitations or his own statements reported in the Gospelsand 2) that it is unthinkable that God could be or become human These twoessential lines of argumentation stay more or less constant from QiṣṣaNestorthrough to Ḥizzuq Emunah though Shem Ṭov Ibn Shaprut and Profiat Duranadd a few new impulses to the debate45 With this the Jewish objections toJesusrsquo divinity firmly rest on the ontological assumption that there is anunbridgeable divinehuman dichotomy the Creator cannot become created(921) Thus all of the surveyed polemicists can use depictions of Jesusrsquohumanity in the Gospel of Matthew as evidence of his exclusive humanityThat Jesus is a human can thus be relentlessly stressed because the force ofthe argument always rests on the foundational assumption of human anddivine exclusivity Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus (922)

9 2 1 The DivineHuman Dichotomy

In most if not all of the arguments against Jesusrsquo divinity the underlyingontological presupposition is that God is too other to become human Thisunderlying premise is rarely discussed in these exegetical arguments (at mostmerely stated) Yet the argument of the impropriety of ascribing human limi-tations to God often by pointing to the absurdity of seeing God sleeping or tothe taboo of associating God with physical (ldquomammalianrdquo) birth this is onlypossible if the divine and the human are understood to exist in distinct modesof being which excludes any commonality or analogy between God andman46 The metaphysical assumption that emerges here is the Aristoteliannotion that humanity and divinity exist in a dialectically opposed unbridge-able dichotomy so that God cannot be or become man47 Humanity is passibleand limited God is impassible unlimited in ability knowledge and might

45 The latter explicitly mentions that the polemical stock he inherited was insufficient todeal with the converso situation he and Ḥasdai Crescas faced Also only with these two dowe find attempts to understand the origin of Christianity and Jesusrsquo intention Thus theirrespective arguments (and reading of Matthew) become more original and esp ProfiatDuranrsquos argument (though it also can be found in earlier sources but perhaps not as explicit)is surprisingly modern and even can be found with contemporary interpreters

46 On this see also Kuumlng The Incarnation of God 519ndash2047 David B Burrell has shown how interconnected the philosophical assumptions of the

principal theologians of the medival period were see his Knowing the Unknowable God Ibn-Sina Maimonides Aquinas (Notre Dame University of Notre Dame Press 1986)


Therefore the argument over Jesusrsquo divinity is essentially an argument aboutthe nature and proper worship of God48

In order to maintain and differentiate the Jewish view from the Christianunderstanding the Jewish apologists effectively promoted this strictdichotomy which was further reinforced by the reading of Christian texts andengagment with the Christian tradition for to dissolve the divinehumandivide automatically would move one closer to Christianity If it was openlyaccepted that God was ldquoanthropomorphicrdquo could become incarnate or that aman could be divine in some way then Christianity would be at least theoreti-cally viable The Jewish apologist was therefore almost forced into a moreanti-anthropomorphist and monolithic view of God which in this stringencywas foreign to Biblical (or ldquoformativerdquo) Judaism49

In response to this more philosophical understanding of God MichaelWyschogrod has convincingly argued on biblical grounds that a certain senseof incarnation is not foreign to biblical JudaismIn any case it must be emphasized that the Jewish objection to an incarnational theologycannot be based on a priori grounds as if something in the nature of the Jewish concept ofGod made his appearance in the form of humanity a rational impossibility (hellip) If we candetermine a priori that God could not appear in the form of a man or to put it in moreDocetistic terms that there could not be a being who is both fully God and fully man then weare substituting a philosophical scheme for the sovereignty of God50

With this view becoming more popular Daniel Boyarin has essentially madea similar argument in that he argues for the ldquoSon of Manrdquo to be understood as

48 See Maccoby Judaism on Trial 54 ldquoThe worship of Jesus as the Incarnation of Godwas to the Jews a clear infringment of the First Commandmentrdquo

49 As eg argued by Jacob Neusner The Incarnation of God ix 4ndash6 MichaelWyschogrod ldquoIncarnation and Godrsquos Indwelling Israelrdquo in Abrahamrsquos Promise Judaismand Jewish-Christian Relations (ed R Kendall Soulen Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004)165ndash78 or Esther J Hamori When Gods where Men The Embodied God in Biblical andNear Eastern Literature (BZAW 384 Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2008) 150ndash55 The rela-tionship of these exegetical anti-Christian arguments to the debate over anthropomorphism inthe so-called Maimonidean controversy cannot be further investigated here but one wouldexpect that the anti-Christian polemics which essentially expounded the utter distinction ofthe human and divine would have had some influence on this issue (esp in the discussions ofGen 18) Maimonidesrsquo son Abraham b Moses b Maimon eg accuses his Jewish opponentsof being like (anthropomorphic) Christians ldquoThese perplexed Jews were not guided Oneshould not be surprised at the fact that these heretics who serve idols pay no heed to TorahBehold the Christians interpreted the words of the prophets literally and made a son for theCreator in their well-known theology Whoever denies this belief and claims that AlmightyGod is corporeal and has form like the form of a human being (hellip) is as if he denies the Torah(hellip)rdquo Fred Rosner ed Abraham Maimonidesrsquo Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Con-troversy (Haifa The Maimonides Research Institute 2000) 362ndash63 see also 92

50 Wyschogrod ldquoA Jewish Perspective on Incarnationrdquo 204


a form of divine incarnation (following others who have argued thus)51 itwould stand to reason that the Jewish-Christian debate over Jesusrsquo divinity isnowhere close to being over

9 2 2 Jesus is Vere Homo Only

In light of the assumed divinehuman dichotomy the Jewish argument againstthe divinity of Jesus by means of the Gospel of Matthew focuses on depic-tions of Jesus human limitations emphasizing his ignorance need to sleep(Matt 821ndash25) display of fear hunger distress and his prayer activity all inorder to argue for the exclusively human nature of Jesus With this the view isadvanced that Jesus as vere homo cannot possibly be vere Deus As alreadymentioned this reading of Matthew has as its starting point in a very basicand undifferentiated albeit Christian view of Jesus He is simply understoodas God ie ldquoJesus is Godrdquo (see 913) and this reduction of the more complexChristian view empowers the overall polemical argument

Passages that would interfere with the view that Jesus was merely ahuman such as his claim to be able to forgive sins (Matt 92ndash8) walking onwater (Matt 1425ndash33)52 his transfiguration (Matt 171ndash8)53 or the resurrec-tion are hardly mentioned at all passages which Christian exegesis hasstressed as pointing to Jesusrsquo divinity54 On the other hand the issue of Jesusrsquo

51 See Daniel Boyarin ldquoHow Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesusrdquo Early Christianity 2(2011) 51ndash76 and idem Jewish Gospels 31ndash101 Others who see Jesusrsquo divinity as congru-ent with Jewish thinking are eg the late John OrsquoNeill Simon Gathercole Crispin H TFletcher-Louis or William Horbury see also Adele Yarbro Collins and John J Collins Kingand Messiah as Son of God Divine Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical andRelated Literature (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008) On this see the summary by WilliamHorbury ldquoDie juumldischen Wurzeln der Christologierdquo Early Christianity 12 (2011) 5ndash21 esp15ndash21

52 But see Even Boḥan sect33 (MS Plut 217 f 148r) where Shem Ṭov emphasizes thatPeter believed Jesus was an apparition of Satan (his translation of Matt 1426 reads שד ldquoademonrdquo ldquoevil spiritrdquo or ldquodevilrdquo in place of φάντασμά ldquo a ghost phantom apparitionrdquo)

53 But see Even Boḥan sect38 (see 6415)54 On Jesusrsquo forgiving sins as divine prerogative see Grindheim Godrsquos Equal 60ndash76

also Otfried Hofius ldquoJesu Zuspruch der Suumlndenvergebung Exegetische Erwaumlgungen zu Mk25brdquo in Neutestamentliche Studien (WUNT I132 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000) 38ndash56On the transfiguration see Andrew Louth ldquoFrom Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ StMaximus he Confessor on the Transfiguration of Christrdquo in In the Shadow of the IncarnationEssays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E Daley SJ (ed Peter WMartens Notre Dame University of Notre Dame 2008) 260ndash75 and John A McGuckinThe Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition (Studies in the Bible amp Early Chris-tianity 9 Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1986) For the interpretation of the trans-figuration in the Eastern church and the relationship to hesychasm see Zoltaacuten DoumlrnyeildquoTransfiguration Beauty and Biblical Interpretationrdquo (MA diss University of Nottingham2011) esp 50ndash58 and 141ndash46 and Solrunn Nes The Uncreated Light An Iconographical


miracle activity which many Christian intepreters advance in support forJesusrsquo divinity was not disregarded by Jewish commentators to the contraryMost polemicists frequently explained Jesusrsquo miracles with his familiaritywith Egyptian magic and further minimized the individual miracle accountsby pointing to characters in the Hebrew Bible who equally performed mira-cles and greater ones at that who were nevertheless not considerd divine55

What emerges is not a ldquobalancedrdquo interpretation which gives equal weightto Matthewrsquos account of Jesus nor acknowledges the more sophisticatedChristian view By exclusively focusing on Jesusrsquo human limitations and bynot taking into account Matthewrsquos more exalted descriptions of Jesus56 it wascomparably easy for the Jewish polemicists to argue that he was merelyhuman and that the ldquoreal Jesusrdquo was different from what Christians believedhim to be

9 3 Epilogue The Central Paradox

Jewish polemicists although not openly addressing the Christian dogmaticintricacies in their exegetical discussion of Jesus clearly perceived and identi-fied the central theological paradox of Christology namely the assertion thatGod became man in Christ and suffered This paradox is not only seen in themetaphysical realm but also as a contradiction between Christian Scriptureand Christian belief canon and creed are thus seen to be in significanttension57 The passages in the Gospel of Matthew (and the other Synoptic

Study of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Church (trans Arlyne Moi Grand Rapids Eerd-mans 2007) In regard to Jesus walking on water in the Eastern tradition far greater emphasiswas put on Peterrsquos ability to walk on water thereby illustrating the possibility of deification(theosis) see Rachel Nicholls Walking on the Water Reading Mt 1422ndash33 in the Light ofits Wirkungsgeschichte (Biblical Interpretation Series 90 Leiden Brill 2008) 127ndash74

55 Interestingly nowhere do the Jewish polemicist surveyed in this study ever argue thatJesus was a charlatan or that his miracles were not ldquogenuinerdquo This is simply accepted not theleast because the Jewish sages affirm that Jesus did miracles (though through illicit means)

56 Ironically Matthew is not really depicting the more obvious aspects of Jesusrsquo humanityat all In fact none of the evangelists give a description of Jesusrsquo stature or facial features eyecolor his complexion his hair length or whether he had a beard nor do they ever mentioneg his need to relieve himself Jesus is also only once potrayed as sleeping (Matt 824 Mark438 Luke 823) Considering the high christological understanding of Jesus in the earlychurch which very quickly (over)emphasized his divinity it should be more surprising thathe continuted to be proclaimed as vere homo at all And again ironically even with theirsparing potrayal of Jesusrsquo humanity it was nevertheless the Gospels that safeguarded theassertion that Jesus was truly human which hardly would have been possible with only thePauline corpus

57 Due to the selectivity of the polemical tradition this tension must have felt strongerthan if the entire Christian canon or at least all of Matthew had been considered


Gospels) that clearly depict Jesus as a human (who has to sleep is hungryignorant limited etc) and as someone who understands himself as distinctfrom God (Father Son) are thus emphazised and advanced as core pericopesthat address the underlying enigma of the Christian dogma

This tension was also clearly felt within the Christian tradition from theearliest times onward58 Some of those who were committed to a very highChristology made attempts to minimize disregard or explain these passagesaway59 However the dispute with Docetism prevented that these pericopesbecame too quickly eclipsed by the grandeur of proclaiming Jesusrsquo divinityalthough a general tendency towards this is quite noticeable in many patristicinterpreters60 In particular those of the Eastern tradition tended to embracethe paradox of ontological divine-human union in Christ in fact it becameabsolutely integral to soteriology in the notion of deification (theosis)61 Thishowever in some sense heightened the paradox And although the affirma-tion that Jesus was fully human and fully divine was mitigated with the teach-ing of the two natures of Christ in the Council of Chalcedon62 this onlydeferred the paradox to the mystery of the hypostatic union with the adverbsinconfuse immutabiliter indivise and inseparabiliter63 For most Jews (andChristians) this was too intangible and Jewish scholars could continue topoint to the obvious discrepancies between the gospel texts and the underlyingphilosophical assumptions which they shared with their Christian opponentsEspecially the (frequently unguarded) undifferentiated Christian assertion thatldquoJesus is Godrdquo which in this form hardly appears in the New Testament64

58 See eg 1 John 42 2 John 7 cf also 1 Cor 86 Phil 25ndash11 Col 113ndash2059 Seen in the apocryphal nativity accounts that replaced the more shocking implications

of human birth and affirmed Maryrsquos perpetual virginity see 25360 So Moltmann The Crucified God 23561 See Vladimir Lossky ldquoRedemption and Deificationrdquo in In the Image and Likeness of

God (ed John H Erickson and Thomas E Bird Crestwood NJ St Vladimirrsquos SeminaryPress 1974) 97ndash110

62 As essentially argued by Profiat Duran see 731263 Or rather ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως ἀδιαιρέτως and ἀχωρίστως negative qualifiers

which are a concession to the inability to coherently describe the ldquolsquohowrsquo of the divine and thehuman existence coexisted in the same personrdquo Vladimir Lossky ldquoChristological Dogmardquo inOrthodox Theology An Introduction (trans Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson CrestwoodNY St Vladimirrsquos Seminary Press 1978) 95ndash118 here 99

64 Even John 11 and 2028 are further qualified cf also 1 Cor 86 This however doesnot mean that the New Testament has a low view of Jesus to the contrary see Robert MBowman and J Ed Komoszewski Putting Jesus in His Place The Case for the Deity ofChrist (Grand Rapids Kregel 2007) also Bauckham Jesus and the God of Israel Gather-cole The Pre-existent Son Grindheim Godrsquos Equal Martin Hengel The Son of God TheOrigin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (trans John BowdenLondon SCM 1976) Horbury Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ and Hurtado LordJesus Christ On the other hand Dunnrsquos objections should not be dismissed either the New


would have fueled the Jewish (and Muslim) objections and reinforced thevalidity of the use of the New Testament against this view

What is common to both sides of the debate which also made the Jewishargument potent is that Jews and Christians essentially shared the same basicconcept of a strict divinehuman dichotomy When encountering the passagesthat depict Jesusrsquo humanity this shared philosophical assumption led theJewish apologists effectively to nurture a more impassable and monolithicview of God than the Hebrew Bible itself advocated (and many contemporaryJews themselves could accept) and Christians who should have been forcedto take on a more dynamic (or anthropomorphic) view of God retained thenotion that the divine aspect of Christ was completely undisturbed by theincarnation65 That this was the case can only be attributed to Christian fidelityto the same metaphysical axiom that makes the Jewish argument relevantThus both Christians and Jews ultimately operated (and argued) within theAristotelian matrix (at least in the West) rather than from that of their respec-tive Scriptures

And so it would perhaps be more beneficial for the Jewish-Christiandebate to not merely use Scripture to corroborate or confound (metaphysical)beliefs but to argue truly from Scripture For the Christian this would meanthat the paradox of Jesusrsquo identity ought to be held within the horizon ofScripture rather than the horizon of metaphysics as helpful and necessary itmay be for further conceptualization The objection that Christians are incon-sistent would then not immediately necessitate more delicate doctrinal exposi-tions and revolve around explicating arguing and defending the intricacies ofwhat the Christian tradition ultimately has acknowledged to be an impenetra-ble mystery but instead would be based on the Christiansrsquo commitment toScripture Jews conversely would not have to assume a metaphysical posi-tion which ultimately is incompatible with the Hebrew Bible thereby havingto define Judaism against its own sacred Scriptures or the Christian tradition66

Testament carefully differentiates between Jesus (Christ Son) on the one hand and God(Creator Father God) on the other

65 Of course the Trinity is essentially a more ldquodynamicrdquo redefinition of the concept ofGod nevertheless when it comes to Dyophysitism where the passible human nature ofChrist is affirmed as co-joined to the divine nature the divine aspect of Jesus is shielded fromany association with human limitations by consistently asserting that this union is kept incon-fuse and immutabiliter The divine aspect (and essence) is as such untouched by any of theexperiences of the ldquohuman siderdquo and still can be affirmed as ldquoun-dynamicrdquo ie as impassibleand omnipotent etc It is then not surprising that Profiat Duran can argue that the union (assuppositum) of the two natures nevertheless means that also the divinity in the one divine-human person Jesus suffered and experienced change (despite the assertion that this unionwas achieved inconfusedly) see 7312

66 Wyschogrod is helpful here ldquo(hellip) too often rationalistically minded Jewish theologianshave made it appear that Judaism resists incarnation on some a priori grounds as if the Jewish


While it perhaps opens the Christian (or Jewish) side to be perceived as naiveor unsophisticated it would liberate the entire interfaith dialogue A personrsquosfidelity to divine Scripture whether that is perceived to be the Christian Biblethe (dual) Torah or the Qursquorān surely is less contentious than compliance toAristotle kalam or reason At least it should be easier to respect since loyaltyto sacred Scripture lies mostly in the realm of personal convictions and cer-tainly is something every party can understand and appreciate67 Any religiousdiscussion therefore would need to be based on an honest reading and inter-pretation of that Scripture rather than what is perceived to be a threat to onersquosown beliefs Of course while a committed Christian could never read theQursquorān as a committed Muslim or a committed Jew appreciate the New Tes-tament as a committed Christian at least they would have to try to come to afairer understanding of the other68 The parties involved in such a debatewould perhaps be able to respect the belief of the other more easily as ldquoscrip-turalrdquo rather than having to define their own view in response to the otherrsquosdefinition which essentially just is an attempt to carve out an area of meta-physics for onersquos religious persuasion

However this scriptural reading cannot and should not exclude creedal anddoctrinal considerations mdash for the simple reason that Scripture is intrinsicallydefined by tradition and vice versa69 More significantly the deliberations

philosopher can somehow determine ahead of time what God can or cannot do what is or isnot possible for him what his dignity does not allow (hellip) If Judaism cannot accept incarna-tion it is because it does not hear this story because the Word of God as it hears it does nottell it and because Jewish faith does not testify to it And if the Church does accept incarna-tion it is not because it somehow discovered that such an event had to occur given the natureof God or of being reality or anything else but because it hears that this was Godrsquos free andgracious decision a decision not predictable by humankindrdquo idem ldquoWhy is the Theology ofKarl Barth of Interest to a Jewish Theologianrdquo in Abrahamrsquos Promise 211ndash24 here 214ndash16

67 This suggestion is similar to Peter Ochsrsquo (to whom this author is not related) David FFordrsquos and Daniel W Hardyrsquos ldquoscriptural reasoningrdquo approach see David F Ford ldquoAn Inter-faith Wisdom Scriptural Reasoning between Jews Christians and Muslimsrdquo Modern Theol-ogy 22 (2006) 345ndash66 and Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene eds Textual Reasonings JewishPhilosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids Eerdmans2003)

68 For instance the claim that Godrsquos logos took on flesh in Maryrsquos womb (Matt 120 23John 114) is primarily felt to be absurd and inappropriate because of the objectorrsquos precon-ceptions and not because it is necessarily something inherently un-scriptural In fact withinthe biblical tradition whether in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament God is not por-trayed as so utterly ldquootherrdquo and transcendent that He should completely dissociate himselffrom humanity to the contrary He tabernacled amongst us (Exod 4034 John 114)

69 Marius Reiser has aptly critiqued the notion that a sola scriptura interpretation is inde-pendent from tradition as Scripture and the canon are essentially products of tradition (whichis true not just for Christians) see his Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift 39ndash62


that lead to creedal definitions were direct outcomes from what was clearlyperceived as paradoxical statements in the sacred texts Without the paradoxof believing that the man Jesus was divine which to no insignificant partstemmed from the understanding that Scripture itself revealed this to be sofurther metaphysical deliberations and doctrinal fights would have beenunnecessary In fact the Christian creedal positions themselves had beenshaped by precisely the kind of questions medieval Jews raised concerning theChristian text For the most part their objections regarding the identity ofJesus had already been addressed in the inner-Christian debates of the firstcenturies after Christ

After all is said and done and despite the general misunderstanding ofeach other the fact remains that the overall discussion of the divinity of Jesusis concerned with a common shared appreciation for a very high view ofScripture and the nature of God who committed himself to be involved inhuman affairs by electing Israel as his people and who sent his Son to be hispeoplersquos promised Messiah

If the study has shown anything it is that Christians and Jews have debatedeach other precisely in those areas where they have most in common


Appendix I

Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet MiṣvaReason 11 of the 15 Reasons

Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus1

לאקטניםכשארכשנולדקטןשהיהגשמיותהנהגותכלבגופושנמצאהואעשרהאחדונוצרוהחלאההדם3במסגדחדשיםט2נסגדוהנההילדיםשארוביןבינוהפרטבגופונראהואכלונעורוישןושחקובכהולהניקלרחוץוהוצרךוהנדותהשתןבמעברתעברוכשנולדשם

ונבאשותרעותורוחותהרעיםומיםמבאישמגופורעיויצאותלמידיוהואונרעבושתהנקביו דרך מלמטה

שתהלאומיםאכללאלחםלילהוארבעיםיוםארבעיםשעמדעהבמשהמצאנווהנההוצרךשלאלהאמיןבאמתשיששכןכלעליושורההיתההקדשרוחבעודבהרכשהיהלאכולהוצרךאיךבוהיההאלהותשעצםאמתהיהאםוזהנבאשיםאחריםולדבריםלנקביו

הגוף צרכי ושאר ולשתות

מפנילמצריםלהבריחושהוצרךועודlsquoישראלשומרישןולאינוםלאrsquoכתובוהנהשישןועודשגדלאחראףרבותפעמיםנטמןהיהגםהמלךאימתמפנישגדלעדשםועמדהמלךפחדאמרוזלורבותינוותחבולותמופתיםידיעלאליםבבןעצמומחזיקוהיהישראללארץושב

אותותכשפיםידיעלעושהוהיהשבתבמכתהבונהבפרקממצריםכשפיםהוציאשהואהשדיםבשדיעושהשהיהאמרוהפרושיםכיכתובגיליוןובעוןהעמיםלהמוןמראהשהיהלהסירהבוראלפנינתפללגםזהעל4שיהרגונויראתומפניונפחדנזדעזערבותופעמיםענינושתמצאכמוהיראהמפניומכחשלבומכסההיהגםתפלתונתקבלהולאהמותכוסממנו

עלוגוlsquoלךיבאמלכךהנהrsquoבושכתובהמקראשהביאמלךעצמוקראשהואשלובספרוגםהיראהמפנילושראוימהלקיסרשינתןואמרלקיסרהמלכותהודהאחרובמקוםעצמולאיעבדוהוגויםכלשהריהמשיחמלךשכןכלמלךמעשהזהואיןלמוכסיםהמכסנתן

מהם יראתו מפני ויברח להם הוא שיעבד

שהואאמתהיהלאזהוהנהבאתלמהאוהבילוואמראוהביאסקיריוטהליהודהשקראוגםאויבושהיהיודעהיהולאבאלמהיודעהיהשלאהנההיאבעתלמוסרוובאשונאוהיה

לומרלוהיהיהודהאוהבהיהשהואתאמרואםלבבותובוחןיודעיתברךוהקלרעתוומבקשלאrsquoבתורהכתוב5ועברלמותמסרווהואאותואוהבהיהשיהודהמשמעאוהבוכיאהובי

1 See the discussion under 15 The Hebrew text is taken from William K HerskowitzldquoJudeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in Milhemet Mitzva of R Meir HaMeilirdquo(PhD diss Yeshiva University 1974) 68ndash69 [Hebrew section] which is a transcription ofBiblioteca Palatina Parma MS 2746 (De Rossi 155) ff 26vndash27v The translation is my ownRobert Chazan has partially translated several of the fifteen reasons given in MilḥemetMiṣvah see Daggers of Faith 55ndash66 This appendix essentially gives most Jewish argumentsagainst the divinity of Jesus and serves as a kind of summary

2 Read נסגר in place of נסגד3 Read במסגר in place of במסגד4 Read יהרגוהו in place of יהרגונו5 Read ועוד in place of ועבר

lsquoעזבתנילמהקליקליrsquoואמרבמותולהבכאבשצעקועודlsquoויתנחםאדםובןויכזבקלאיששאינונמצאlsquoנעזבצדיקראיתילאrsquoדכתובצדיקהיהלאשאףנמצאנעזבעצמושקראהרי

צדיק

אםלומריתכןלאגםאומרוםשהםכמוברצונוהיהולאהמיתהבקבלתשהוכרחנראהגםהצלהצריךואינוומצילשמירהצריךואינוהכלאתשומריתברךהקלכישיעזבבוהאלהות

שכתבתיכמותראההלאשכתבנוכמוהגוףמצרכישארוכלולשתותלאכולצריךואינוהיוולאלעליוניםדומיםהיומתנוססתבהםהקדשרוחשהיהבעודהנביאיםאףכילמעלהלילהומיוםמעמדומצותהתורהלקחתבהרבעמדומשהשהריהגוףמצרכילאחרצריכים

כתובובאליהוהנבאשיםהצרכיםלשארהוצרךשלאשכןכלשתהלאומיםאכללאלחםונוחבוהדבקבעתהנביאיםמןלאחדיקראכךואםlsquoיוםארבעיםההיאהאכילהבכחוילךrsquo

מהלכלהוצרךשלאאלעצמוהואוהיההאלהותבזהדבוקהיהאםשכןכלהרוחעליושכתבנו

[Reason] eleven is that all characteristics of corporeality were found in his body He [Jesus]was little when he was born like [all] other little ones There was not seen anything [special]in his body that was different between him and other children For nine months he wasenclosed in the prison of blood and refuse and there he was made6 When he was born hepassed through the passageway of urin and menstruation blood and [consequently] needed tobe washed and needed to nurse He [also] cried played slept awoke ate drank washungry mdash he and his disciples [Also] out of his body came foul smelly things [ie he defe-cated] and foul waters [ie he urinated] and foul odious winds [ie he flatulated] frombelow by way of his external organs [lit ldquoholesrdquo]7

Now look with Moses peace be upon him we find that he stayed forty days and fortynights he did not eat bread and he did not drink water while he was on the mountain Fur-thermore the Holy Spirit was a row [of protection and comfort] over him All the more so[we can] safely believe that he [Moses] was in no need of [using] his external organs or otherobjectionable odious matters As to this one [Jesus] if it were true that the Divinity werewithin him how was he in need of eating and drinking and all the other bodily necessities

Moreover he slept but look it is written ldquoThe Guardian of Israel neither slumbers norsleepsrdquo (Psalm 1214) Moreover they needed to smuggle him into Egypt out of fear of theking (Matt 214) and he stayed there until he grew up out of the terror of the king (Matt216ndash20) He was also hidden many times even after he had grown up and had returned to theland of Israel (cf Matt 412 1215 1413 1521) And he asserted himself to be the Son ofGod on account of miracles and tricks Our rabbis of blessed memory said that he broughtmagic from Egypt in Pereq Boneh [ch 12] in Tractate Shabbat [104b] and that he was doingsigns by means of magic which he showed to the crowds of people And in the gospel [alsquowongilion] it is written that the Pharisees said that he was doing his business by means of thechief of demons (Matt 934 1224 Mark 322 Luke 1115 cf John 720) And many timeshe was shacken and afraid for fear they would kill him for this8 He also prayed before theCreator to remove from him the cup of death (Matt 2639 Mark 1436 Luke 2242) but hisprayer was not received Also his heart was covered [ie he was self-deceived] and [then] hedenied [it] out of fear as you will find in his book that he called himself a king when he cited

6 This is similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo 3427 Cf here the similar QiṣṣaNestor sect28 sect59 sect74 sect82 (see 253)8 This is again similar to Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Treatiserdquo

344 Herskowitz (n 108 p 85 [Hebrew section]) also sees a connection to Toledot Yeshu cfJudah D Eisenstein ויכוחיםאוצר Polemics and Disputations (New York J D Eisenstein1928) 230


about himself the Scripture ldquoBehold your king is coming to yourdquo (Zech 99 Matt 214ndash5)9But [then] in another place he acknowledged that the kingdom belonged to Caesar [when] hesaid that it should be given to Caesar what is proper to him (cf Matt 2221 Mark 1217)(which he did) out of fear He also gave the tax to the tax collectors (cf Matt 1727) But thisis not a deed [worthy] of a king all the more so for the King-Messiah for it is clear that allthe nations will serve him not that he should serve them and run away out of his fear ofthem

And also that he called Judas Iscariot ldquomy loverrdquo [ie friend] when he said to him ldquoMylover why have you comerdquo (cf Matt 2650)10 But look this is not true for he hated himand at that time came to hand him over Look he was not someone who knew why he cameand neither was he someone who knew that he was his enemy seeking his evil mdash but Godblessed be He is the knower and tester of hearts And if you should say that he loved Judashe should have said ldquomy belovedrdquo for ldquomy loverrdquo means that Judas was the one loving himyet he is the one who handed him over to death11

And furthermore it is written in the Torah ldquoGod is not a man that He should lie nor ason of man that He should change his mindrdquo (Num 2319) Moreover he cried out in pain toGod during his death and said ldquoMy God my God why have you forsaken merdquo (Psalm221 Matt 2746 Mark 1534) It is thus clear that he called himself forsaken [by God] andwe [further] find that he was no even righteous as it is written ldquoI have not seen the righteousforsakenrdquo (Psalm 3725) [thus] we find that he is not a righteous person

It is also appears that he was coerced when he received his death [sentence] and that[this] was not according to his will as they are saying (cf Matt 2629 John 1017ndash18) It isalso not possible to say that he could be forsaken if the Divinity is in him for God blessed beHe is a guardian of all and he does not need a protector or rescuer and neither does he needrescuing12 And he [also] does not need to eat or drink or all the other bodily necessities aswe have written Do you not see as I have written above that even the prophets while theHoly Spirit blew in them that they were like heavenly beings and were not needing [tofollow] one of the bodily necessities For it is clear that Moses while he stayed on the moun-tain to receive the Torah and commandments [that] he stayed forty days and forty nights hedid not eat bread he did not drink water mdash all the more so [we can likewise affirm that] theprophets did not need [to follow] the other [bodily] necessities In Elijah it is written ldquoand he

9 This is similar to Toledoth Yeshu see Krauss Leben Jesu 78 (104) [MS Vindobona]10 Four arguments are exclusivey based on the Gospel of Matthew which are the flight to

Egypt (Matt 214ndash20) the paying of taxes (Matt 1727) the use of Zech 99 in the entry ofJerusalem (Matt 214ndash5) and Jesusrsquo question addressed to Judas (Matt 2650) Especially thegrammatical argument based on the latter (see below) would suggest that the author of thisargument had access to a Hebrew portion of the Gospel of Matthew (the difference betweenthe active and passive participle cannot be based on the Latin for the Vulgate reads ldquoamice adquod venisti tunc accesseruntrdquo here)

11 In Even Boḥan Matt 2650 is עשיתמהאהובי thereby giving the passive participleldquomy belovedrdquo and avoiding the ldquoWhyrdquo question see Howard Hebrew Gospel of Matthew137 (likewise MS Plutei 217 and MS British Library 26964) It is tempting to posit that thistranslation was motivated by the critique raised in Milḥemet Miṣvah (which then could poten-tially be used to further locate the translation in Even Boḥan) Du Tillet (1555) and MS ParisHeb 132 read באתלמהאהובי and Muumlnsterrsquo text (1537 and 1551) reads באתמהעלרעהhere

12 A similar argument is in Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq see Talmage ldquoHebrew Polemical Trea-tiserdquo 338

Reason 11 Why Jews cannot believe in Jesus 343

went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nightsrdquo (1 Kings 198) And if it is thussaid about one of the prophets at the time of being joined [with the Spirit] and the Spirit rest-ing on him all the more so if the Divinity was joined with this one [Jesus] and he were him-self God mdash then he [surely] had no need for all the things we have written here13

13 This kind of a minore ad maius argument is noteworthy for based on Jesusrsquo allegeddivinity and in comparison with Moses and Elijah it is argued that Jesus ought to be lesssubject to bodily functions (if at all) This effectively only allows for a Docetist Christology


Appendix II

Index amp Overview ofCommon Polemical Arguments

Page numbers in italics indicate primary source quotations

1 Incarnation (birth and nativity) ishellip

Unbecoming (God in the womb) 5 6 21 30ndash31 39 40 48 53 56 77 7880 81 81ndash82 83ndash84 85ndash86 90 99104ndash105 118 184 204 232ndash34296 328ndash29 330 341ndash45

Impossible for God 5 21 44 50 5684 190 204 330 333ndash35

2 Jesus is distinctly and exclusively human sincehellip

Jesus had a human father (genealogy) 4849 51 71ndash89 72ndash73 74ndash75 77 90103 125 143 177 176 181182ndash83 184 220 cf 223ndash24 255 271 272 300 cf 328

Jesus experienced bodily functions 7983 85 341ndash45

Jesus was afraid 40 47 50 85 114ndash15124 145ndash46 162 163 178 179184 191 199ndash200 201 202 220 222 227 248 249ndash50 328 341ndash45

Jesus was baptized 50 51 77 103108 185 186 220 227

Jesus was tempted 51 103 110 178188 190 220 228ndash29 268 300308 328

Jesus had to sleepgrew weary 6 40 4749 79 85 148 152 163 179 191 341ndash45

Jesus was hungry and ate food 6 47 4979 83ndash85 110 119 124 155 163178 179 188 190 191 197 201220 221 228ndash29 246 328 341ndash45

Jesus was ignorant 111 112 118 119124 165 179 197 198 199 221222 238ndash39 245 246 248 251ndash52271 303 313 314 341ndash45

Jesus was inconsistentcontradicted himselfchanged his mind 79 103 104 119ndash20

121 123 142 144 151 158ndash59179 180 192 197 200 202 203 221 222 248 274 283ndash84 300314 341ndash45

Jesus lacked of divine abilityattributes 117 140 143 160 161 162 177179 190 200 202 220 222228ndash29 249ndash50 270 301 307 314

Jesus suffered andor died (God cannot die)6 40 79 80 144 155 192 252ndash53280 301 328 330

Other gospel figures did not think him to be God 48 49 69 72 76 221 236ndash37

239 242 244 247 269 307

Jesus prayed to God (generally) 46 51103 111 112 124ndash25 145 160 178 180 194

Jesus prayed to God on the Cross 56 62 163 177 179 191 202 203 205 222 252ndash53 254 274 280 301 312 341ndash45

Jesus prayed to God in Gethsemane 4656 67 67 85 103 113f 114 116117ndash18 125 144 156 162 179199ndash200 201 249ndash50 307 312328 341ndash45

Jesus did not intend to be understood as divine 266 267 274ndash75 276ndash77

279ndash80 281 304

3 Jesusrsquo self understanding is exclusively human seen inhellip

Jesusrsquo use of the term lsquoSon of Manrsquo 56 57ff 58ndash59 60ndash61 149 150ndash51178 180 191 192 193 271 287300 302 303ndash304 309 311 323

Jesusrsquo affirmation that Godrsquos will and his are different (Jesus submitsdefers to God) 68 117ndash18 144 147 192 200

201 202 222 249ndash50 252ndash53 301307 312 314

Jesus considering himself as sentservant (prophet) 45 46 56 60ndash61 68ff 69 77

103 104 180 192 195ndash96 277 303 309 311

Jesusrsquo affirmation that God gave to himhe received from God 120 164 179 194

206 221 238ndash39 301 312ndash13

Jesusrsquo affirmation that the Spirit is ldquomore holyrdquo (Blasphemy against the Spirit) 103

121 157ndash58 180 194 221 241ndash42302 310

Jesusrsquo saying to the Rich Young Ruler 56 65 65ndash66 159 179 cf 196 270 274 310ndash11

Jesusrsquo saying to the sons of Zebedee 4977 78 160 311

4 Jesus was morally questionablebecausehellip

Jesus was a liar 49 50 142 144 151 152 192 193

Jesus was an evil magician 137 238ndash39 227 236 267 327 336

Jesus was in need of purification (baptism)50 79 108f 110 178 185 186 220

Jesus was cruel (in cursing the fig tree)119ndash20 179 197 201 207 221 246

Matthew implies Jesus is flawed (women in the genealogy) 104ndash105 220 223ndash24

Jesus was cursedforsaken through crucifixion 49 203 203ndash204

Jesus was drunka glutton 49 53 55 79155

Jesus did not adhere to Jewish custom 49148 178 179

Jesus admits he was a sinner 177 203

Jesus was a thief 50 79

Jesus was nursed by a harlot 79 83

Jesus was kissed by a harlot 79

Jesus was uncleandefiled 152

Jesus was rebellious 180

5 Miscellaneous Arguments

On the abrogation of and adherence to Torah 21 22 44 45 47 50 51 99

100 103 104 124 159 177 178 179 180 181 197 214 219 236262 263 300

There are others who are better candidates for divinity 40ndash41 80 138 142 188

202 204 205 220 221 230 231 232ndash34 247 341ndash45

Jesus failed as Messiah 142 143 179

On textual contradictions 48 50 51226 236ndash37 243ndash44 251 263 281ndash85 328

On the Virgin Birth 10ndash11 21 98 220224 232ndash34 272 277 cf 328

346 Appendix II

On the perpetual virginity of Mary 87ndash89 128 140 143 154 178 182 214 220224 233ndash34 300

Mary (amp Jesus) not being of Davidic lineage 74 107 177 178 182ndash83 184

223ndash24 272

On the Trinity 37 42 63ndash64 98 99 100101 108ndash109 112 117 120 121123ndash25 128 141 145 147 157ndash58162 163 164 165 179ndash80 184 191ndash92 194 198 203ndash204 221 227 238 241ndash42 254 262 267 274 294 296 299 302ndash304 309 310 330

On the Hypostatic Union 44 103279ndash80 279ndash80 289

On the veneration of Mary 21 262 263

On Original Sin 21 85 106 262 287

On Eucharist (sacrament) 262ndash64

On Baptism (sacrament) 262ndash63

On the papacy 262

Jews not culpable for Jesusrsquo death 249ndash50 251

Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments 347

Bibliography


1 Jewish

Bacher Wilhlem ldquoInedited Chapters of Jehudah Hadassirsquos lsquoEshkol Hakkoferrsquordquo Jewish Quar-terly Review 8 (1896) 431ndash44

Ben Reuben Jacob Milḥamot ha-Shem [ השםמלחמותראובןבןיעקוב ] Edited by Judah MRosenthal Jerusalem Mossad Ha-Rav Kook 1963 [Hebrew]

Berger David The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages A Critical Edition ofNizzahon Vetus Northvale N J J Aronson 1996

mdash ldquoThe Nizzahon Vetus A Critical Edition with a Translation and Commentary on the FirstPartrdquo PhD diss Columbia University 1970

Berlin Anne D ldquoShame of the Gentiles of Profiat Duran A Fourteenth-Century JewishPolemic Against Christianityrdquo BA thesis Cambridge Mass Radcliffe College HarvardUniversity 1987

Braude William G trans Pesikta Rabbati Discourses for Feasts Fasts and Special Sab-baths Yale Judaica Series 2 vols New Haven Yale University Press 1968

Breuer Mordecai Sefer Niẓẓaḥon Yashan (Niẓẓahon Vetus) mdash A Book of Jewish-ChristianPolemic [ ישן נצחון ספר ] Ramat Gan Bar-Ilan University 1978 [Hebrew]

Chiesa Bruno and Wilfrid Lockwood Yalsquoqūb al-Qirqīsānī on Jewish Sects and Christia-nity A translation of lsquoKitāb al-anwārrsquo Book I with two introductory essays Judentumund Umwelt 10 Frankfurt P Lang 1984

Crescas R Ḥasdai Sefer Bittul Iqqarei Ha-Nozrim Edited by Daniel J Lasker Ramat-GanBar-Ilan University 1990 [Hebrew]

Deutsch David Sefer Khizzuk Emuna Befestigung im Glauben Von Rabbi Jizchak SohnAbrahams 2nd ed Breslau H Skutsch 1873

Eisenstein Judah D ויכוחיםאוצר Polemics and Disputations New York J D Eisenstein1928

Friedlaumlnder Jonathan and Jakob Kohn Maase Efod Einleitung in das Studium der Hebrauml-ischen Sprache von Profiat Duran [ אפד מעשה ] Vienna Holzwarth 1865

Garshowitz Libby ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone) chapters2ndash10 based on MS Plutei 217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with colla-tions from other manuscriptsrdquo 2 vols PhD diss University of Toronto 1974

Gaon Saadia The Book of Beliefs and Opinions Translated from the Arabic and the Hebrewby Samuel Rosenblatt Edited by Samuel Rosenblatt Yale Judaica Series 1 New HavenYale University Press 1948 Repr 1976

Herskowitz William K ldquoJudeo-Christian Dialogue in Provence as reflected in MilhemetMitzva of R Meir HaMeilirdquo PhD diss Yeshiva University 1974

Howard George Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Macon Ga Mercer University Press 1995

mdash The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text Macon Ga Mercer Uni-versity Press 1987

Korobkin N Daniel The Kuzari In Defense of the Despised Faith Northvale NJ J Aron-son 1998

Krauss Samuel Das Leben Jesu nach juumldischen Quellen Berlin Calvary 1902Lasker Daniel J The Refutation of the Christian Principles by Hasdai Crescas Albany

NY State University of New York Press 1992Lasker Daniel J and Sarah Stroumsa The Polemic of Nestor the Priest Qiṣṣat Mujādalat

Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomer 2 vols Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study ofJewish Communities in the East 1996

Levy Joshua ldquoSefer Milhamot Hashem Chapter Eleven The Earliest Jewish Critique of theNew Testamentrdquo PhD diss New York University 2004

Limor Ora and Israel I Yuval Sepher Ha-Nizzahon by Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen ACritical Edition Forthcoming

Mocatta Moses אמונהחזוק or Faith Strengthened London Wertheimer 1851 Repr NewYork Ktav 1970

Murciano Prosper ldquoSimon ben Zemah Duran Keshet u-Magen A Critical Editionrdquo PhDdiss New York University 1975

Nicloacutes (Albarraciacuten) Joseacute-Vicente and Carlos del Valle Rodriacuteguez Profiat Duraacuten CincoCuestiones Debatidas de Poleacutemica Ediacutecion criacutetica bilingue con anotaciones de C delValle Espantildea Judiacuteca ndash Serie II Autores Judiacuteos de Cataluntildea Poleacutemica JudeocristianaMadrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1999

Perlmann Moshe Ibn Kammūnarsquos Examination of the Three Faiths A thirteenth-century Es-say in the comparative Study of Religion Berkeley University of California Press 1971

Posnanski Adolf ldquoThe Reproach of the Gentiles The treatise of Maestro Profiat Duran ofPerpignan in the year 1397rdquo [ דוראןפרופייטמאישטרוחיבורוהגויםכלימתספר

הקנזבשנתמפירפינייאנו ] Ha-Ṣofeh me-Ereṣ Hagar 3 (1914) 99ndash113 143ndash804 (1915) 37ndash48 81ndash96 115ndash23 [Hebrew]

Rosenthal Judah M ldquoWords of Debate from Sefer HaMeqannerdquo [ ספרמתךויכחדבריQobez al Yad 8 (1975) 295ndash323 [Hebrew] [המקנה

mdash ldquoA Religious Debate between a Sage named Menahem and the Dominican friar PabloChristianirdquo [ פאבלוהדומיניקאניוהנזירהמומרוביןמנחםבשםחכםביןדתיויכח[כריסטיאני Pages 61ndash74 in vol 3 of Hebrew Contemplation in America Studies on Jew-ish Themes Vol 3 [ באמריקהעבריתהגות ] Edited by Menahem Zohori Tel AvivYavneh 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoSections of a Debaterdquo [ ויכוחפרקי ] Pages 353ndash95 in vol 3 of Shalom BaronSaloWittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume mdash Hebrew Section [ ndashבארוןשלוםלכבודהיובלספר

עבריחלק ] Edited by S Lieberman and A Hyman Jerusalem American Academy forJewish Research 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoA Jewish Criticism of the New Testament from the Thirteenth Centuryrdquo [ יהודיתבקורתהיגהמאהמןהחדשההבריתשל ] Pages 123ndash39 [Hebrew section] in Studies in Jewish

Bibliography History and Literature in honor of I Edward Kiev Edited by C BerlinNew York Ktav 1971 [Hebrew]

mdash Sepher Joseph Hamekane ndash Auctore R Joseph b R Nathan Official (saec XIII) Ex manuscriptis edidit et notis instruxit Judah Rosenthal [ המקנאיוסףספר ] Jerusalem MeqiṣeNirdamim 1970 [Hebrew]

Simon Stanislaus Moses ben Salomon von Salerno und seine philosophische Auseinander-setzung mit den Lehren des Christentums Ohlau i Schl H Eschenhagen 1931

Stroumsa Sarah Dāwūd ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣrsquos lsquoTwenty Chaptersrsquo (lsquoIshrūn Maqala)Leiden Brill 1989

350 Bibliography

Talmage Frank E ed The Polemical Writings of Profiat Duran The Reproach of the Gen-tiles and lsquoBe not like unto thy Fathersrsquo [ ואיגרתהגויםכלימתדוראןלפרופיטפולמוסכתבי

באבותיךתהיאל ] ldquoKuntresimrdquo Texts and Studies 55 Jerusalem The Zalman ShazarCenter and The Dinur Center 1981 [Hebrew]

mdash The Book of the Covenant and other Writings [ הנצרותעםרדקוויכוחיהבריתספר ]Jerusalem Bialik Institute 1974 [Hebrew]

mdash The Book of the Covenant of Joseph Kimhi Toronto Pontifical Institute of MediaevalStudies 1972

mdash ldquoAn Hebrew Polemical Treatise Anti-Cathar and Anti-Orthodoxrdquo Harvard TheologicalReview 60 (1967) 323ndash48

2 Muslim

Al-Jāḥiẓ lsquoAmr b Baṛ ldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā al-naṣārārdquo Pages 10ndash38 in Thalāth Rasārsquoil mdash ThreeEssays of Abū lsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓ Edited by Joshua Finkel Cairo Al-Mat-baʻah al-Salafīyah 1926 Repr 1962 [Arabic]

Chidiac Robert Al Ghazali Une Reacutefutation excellente de la diviniteacute de Jeacutesus-Christ drsquoapregravesles Egravevangile Bibliothegraveque de lrsquoEcole des Hautes Eacutetudes Sciences religieuses 54 ParisLeroux 1939

Fletcher Charles D ldquoAnti-Christian polemic in early Islam A translation and analysis ofAbūlsquoUthmān lsquoAmr b Baḥr al-Jāḥiẓrsquos risāla Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā (A reply to the Christ-ians)rdquo MA thesis Montreal McGill University 2002

Ibn al-Layth ldquoRisālat Abī Rabīlsquo Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā ilā Qusṭanṭīn malikal-Rūmrdquo Pages 252ndash324 in vol 3 of Jamharat rasārsquoil al-lsquoArab fī lsquouṣūr al-lsquoarabiyyal-zāhira Al-lsquoaṣr al-lsquoAbbāsī l-awwal Edited by Aḥmad Zakī Ṣafwat 4 vols CairoMuṣṭafā al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī 1937 [Arabic]

Sourdel Dominique ldquoUn pamplet musulman anonyme drsquoeacutepoque lsquoabbāside contre chreacutetiensrdquoRevue des eacutetudes islamiques 34 (1966) 1ndash33

Wilms Franz-Elmar AlndashGhazālīs Schrift Wider Gottheit Jesu Leiden Brill 1966

3 Pagan

Berchman Robert M Porphyry Against the Christians Ancient Mediterranean And MedievalTexts and Contexts 1 Leiden Brill 2005

De Lacy Phillip Galen On Semen Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 531 Berlin AkademieVerlag 1992

Julian Against the Galileans Pages 319ndash427 in vol 3 of The Works of the Emperor JulianTranslated by Wilmer C Wright Loeb Classical Library 3 vols London W Heinemann1923

mdash To Photinus Pages 187ndash90 in vol 3 of The Works of the Emperor Julian Translated byWilmer C Wright Loeb Classical Library 3 vols London William Heinemann 1923

Hoffmann R Joseph Julianrsquos ldquoAgainst the Galileansrdquo Amherst NY Prometheus Books2004

mdash Celsus On the True Doctrine New York Oxford University Press 1987Lona Horacio E Die raquoWahre Lehre des Kelsoslaquo Uumlbersetzt und erklaumlrt von Horacio E Lona

Kommentar zu fruumlhchristlichen Apologeten Ergaumlnzungsband 1 Freiburg Herder 2005

Bibliography 351

4 Christian

Alfonsi Petrus Dialogue against the Jews Translated by Irven M Resnick Fathers of theChurch Medieval Continuation 8 Washington DC Catholic University Press 2006

Aquinas Thomas Summa theologiae Translated by the Fathers of the English DominicanProvince New York Benziger Bros 1947

mdash Catena Aurea Commentary on the Four Gospels mdash Vol I Part II 2nd ed Edited by JohnHenry (Newman) and James Parker Oxford JGF amp J Rivington 1864

Beeson Charles H Hegemonius Acta Archelai Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten drei Jahrhunderte 16 Leipzig J C Hinrichs 1906

Bezold Carl Kebra Nagast Die Herrlichkeit der Koumlnige Koumlnigliche Bayerische Akademieder Wissenschaften Abhandlungen Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 231 MunichG Franz 1909

Bliemetzrieder Franz Anselms von Laon Systematische Sentenzen Muumlnster Aschendorff-sche Verlagsbuchhandlung 1919

Chadwick Henry Origen Contra Celsum Translated with an Introduction and Notes byHenry Chadwick Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1953

Crispin Gilbert The Works of Gilbert Crispin Abbot of Westminster Edited by Anna SapirAbulafia and G R Evans Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi 8 London British AcademyOxford University Press 1986

De Lagarde Paul Aegyptiaca Goumlttingen D A Hoyer 1883 Repr Osnabruumlck O Zeller1972

De Lyre Nicolas Postillae perpetuae in universam S Scripturam 1331 First printed inRome Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz 1470

Driver Godfrey R and Leonard Hodgson Nestorius The Bazaar of Heracleides OxfordClarendon 1925

Epiphanius The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book 1 (Sects 1ndash46) 2nd rev ed Trans-lated by Frank Williams Leiden Brill 2009

Evans Ernest Q Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De Carne Christi Liber Tertullianrsquos Treatiseon the Incarnation London SPCK 1956

Harvey W Wigan Sancti Irenaei Episcopi Luodunensis Libros quinque adversus Haereses2 vols Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1857

Gregory of Nazianzus On God and Christ The Five Theological Orations and Two Lettersto Cledonius Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham Popular PatristicsSeries 23 Crestwood NY St Vladimirrsquos Seminary Press 2002

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Edited by Michael Slusser Translated by Thomas BFalls Rev by Thomas P Halton Selections from the Fathers of the Church 3 Washing-ton DC Catholic University Press 2003

Lahey Lawrence L ldquoThe Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila Critical Greek Text and EnglishTranslation of the Short Recension with an Introduction including a Source-criticalStudyrdquo PhD diss University of Cambridge 2000

Loofs Friedrich Nestoriana Die Fragmente des Nestorius Halle M Niemeyer 1905McCarthy Carmel St Ephremrsquos Commentary on the Diatessaron Journal of Semitic Studies

Supplement 2 Oxford Oxford University Press 1993Prudentius Prudentius with an English Translation by H J Thomson Loeb Classical

Library 2 vols London William Heinemann 1949Rabanus Maurus Expositio in Matthaeum (IndashIV) Edited by Bengt Loumlfstedt Corpus Chris-

tianorum Continuatio mediaevalis 174 Turnhout Brepols 2000

352 Bibliography

Resnick Irvin M On Original Sin and a Disputation with the Jew Leo Concerning the Ad-vent of Christ the Son of God Theologiocal Treatises Odo of Tournai Philadelphia Uni-versity of Pennsylvania Press 1994

Robinson Forbes Coptic Apocryphal Gospels Texts and Studies 42 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 1896

Steenberg Irenaeus M C and Dominic J Unger St Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies(Book 3) Ancient Christian Writers 64 Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2012

Varner William Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues Athansius and Zacchaeus Simon andTheophilus Timothy and Aquila Introduction Texts and Translations Lewiston NYThe Edwin Mellen Press 2004

Vermes Mark J Hegemonius Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelai) Manichaean Studies 4Turnhout Brepols 2001

Wagenseil Johann C Tela Ignea Satanae Altdorf Joh Henricus Schoumlnnerstaeligdt 1681Repr Jerusalem Akademon 1965 1968 Farnborough Gregg 1970 Jerusalem LAchim 2001

Wycliffe John De eucharistia tractus major Edited by John Loserth London Truumlbner1892


Accad Martin ldquoThe Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Cen-tury An exegetical inventoryrdquo Islam and Christian Relations 14 (2003) 67ndash91 205ndash20337ndash52 459ndash79

Abramowski Luise and Alan E Goodman A Nestorian Collection of Christological TextsVolume II Introduction Translation Indexes Cambridge Cambridge University Press1972

Abulafia Anna Sapir ChristianndashJewish Relations 1000ndash1300 Harlow Pearsons 2011mdash Religious Violence between Christians and Jews Medieval Roots Modern Perspectives

New York Palgrave 2002mdash Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance London Routledge 1995Adler Michael ldquoThe Emperor Julian and the Jewsrdquo Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 591ndash

651Akhiezer Golda ldquoThe Karaite Isaac ben Abraham of Troki and his lsquoPolemics against the

Rabbanitesrsquordquo Pages 437ndash68 in Tradition Heterodoxy and Religious Culture Judaism andChristianity in the Early Modern Period Edited by Chanita Goodblatt and HowardKreisel The Goldstein-Goren Library of Jewish Thought 6 Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion Uni-versity of the Negev Press 2006

Aland Kurt and Barbara The Text of the New Testament 2nd ed Translated by Erroll FRhodes Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1989

Allen Willoughby C A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according toS Matthew The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old andNew Testaments 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT Clark 1907

Allison Dale C The New Moses A Matthean Typology Edinburgh TampT Clark 1993Al-Makarim Abu The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Coun-

tries attributed to Abucirc Ṣacircliḥ the Armenian Edited and translated by BTA Evetts Anec-toda Oxoniensa Oxford Clarendon 1895

Bibliography 353

Alexander Philip ldquoThe Toledot Yeshu in the Context of Jewish-Muslim Debaterdquo Pages 137ndash58 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited byPeter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in Ancient Juda-ism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Aranda Peacuterez Gonzalo ldquoGabriel Archangelrdquo Pages 1135andash1137b in vol 4 of the CopticEncyclopedia 8 vols New York Macmillan 1991

Atiya Aziz Suryal ldquoAbu al-Marakimrdquo Pages 123andash23b in vol 1 of the Coptic Encyclope-dia 8 vols New York Macmillan 1991

Avneri Zvi ldquoAbner of Burgosrdquo Pages 264ndash65 in vol 1 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd edEdited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash Ed Germania Judaica Band II Von 1238 bis zur Mitte des 14 Jahrhunderts 3 volsTuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1968

Bacher Wilhelm Die exegetische Terminologie der juumldischen Tradtionsliterature 2 volsLeipzig J C Hinrichs 1899 1905

Baer Yitzhak A History of the Jews in Christian Spain 2 vols Philadelphia Jewish Publica-tion Society of America 1971

Baltes Guido Hebraumlisches Evangelium und synoptische Uumlberlieferung Untersuchungen zumhebraumlischen Hintergrund der Evangelien Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament II312 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Bammel Ernst ldquoDer Jude des Celsusrdquo Pages 265ndash83 in Judaica Kleine Schriften IWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck1986

mdash ldquoExcerpts from a new Gospelrdquo Novum Testamentum 10 (1968) 1ndash9 Repr pages 239ndash46 in Judaica Kleine Schriften I Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa-ment I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1986

mdash ldquoJesus und ein andererrdquo Pages 157ndash74 in Judaica Kleine Schriften I WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1986

mdash ldquoDie Versuchung Jesu nach einer juumldischen Quellerdquo Pages 253ndash56 in Judaica KleineSchriften I Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I37 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1986

Banitt Menahem Rashi Interpreter of the Biblical Letter Tel Aviv Tel Aviv University1985

Bar-Ilan Meir ldquoThe Hand of God A Chapter in Rabbinic Anthropomorphismrdquo Pages 321ndash35 in Rashi 1040ndash1990 Hommage agrave Ephraiumlm E Urbach Congregraves Europeacuteen des eacutetudesjuives Edited by Gabrielle Sed-Rajna Paris Cerf 1993

Bat Yersquoor (Gisegravele Littman) The Dhimmi Jews and Christians under Islam Rev and enlEnglish ed Cranbury NJ Associated University Press 1985

Battenberg Friedrich Das Europaumlische Zeitalter der Juden Von den Anfaumlngen bis 1650 2nded 2 vols Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 2000

Batto Bernard F ldquoThe Sleeping God An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine Sover-eigntyrdquo Biblica 68 (1987) 153ndash77

Bauckham Richard Jesus and the God of Israel God Crucified and Other Studies on theNew Testamentrsquos Christology of Divine Identity Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

mdash Gospel Women Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels Grand Rapids Eerdmans2002

Bauer Walter Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der Neutestamentlichen Apokryphen TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1909 Repr Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1967

Beaumont I Mark Christology in Dialogue with Muslims A Critical Analysis of ChristianPresentations of Christ for Muslims from the Ninth and Twentieth Centuries RegnumStudies In Mission Carlisle Paternoster 2005

354 Bibliography

Becker Eve-Marie and Anders Runesson eds Mark and Matthew I Comparative ReadingsUnderstanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I271 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Becker Hans-Juumlrgen ldquoMatthew the Rabbis and Billerbeck on the Kingdom of HeavenrdquoPages 57ndash69 in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting Edited by Hans-JuumlrgenBecker and Serge Ruzer Paris Gabalda 2005

mdash Review of Daniel J Lasker and Sarah Stroumsa ldquoThe Polemic of Nestor the Priest QiṣṣatMujādalat Al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor HaKomerrdquo Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-laumlndischen Gesellschaft 148 (1998) 406ndash409

Beinart Haim and Zvi Avneri ldquoFerrer Vicenterdquo Page 764 in vol 6 of EncyclopaediaJudaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan2007

Bekkum W Jac van ldquoAnti-Christian Polemics in Hebrew Liturgical Poetry (piyyuṭ) of theSixth and Seventh Centuriesrdquo Pages 297ndash308 in Early Christian Poetry A Collection ofEssays Edited by J den Boeft and A Hilthorst Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 22Leiden Brill 1993

Ben-Sasson Haim H A History of the Jewish People Cambridge Mass Harvard UniversityPress 1976

Ben-Sasson Haim H Yehuda Slutsky and Dina Porat ldquoBlood Libelrdquo Pages 774ndash89 invol 3 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skol-nik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Ben-Shalom Ram ldquoBetween Official and Private Dispute The Case of Christian Spain andProvence in the Late Middle Agesrdquo Association for Jewish Studies Review (2003) 23ndash71

Berger David Persecution Polemic and Dialogue Essays in Jewish-Christian RelationsBoston Academic Studies Press 2010

mdash ldquoJewish-Christian Polemicsrdquo Pages 7230ndash36 in vol 11 of The Encyclopedia of Religion2nd ed 15 vols Edited by Lindsay Jones Detroit Macmillan Reference USA 2005

mdash ldquoOn the Use of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity The Quest forthe Historical Jesusrdquo Pages 25ndash39 in Jewish History and Jewish Memory Essays in hon-or of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi Edited by Elisheva Carlebach John M Efron and DavidN Myers Hanover NH Brandeis University Press 1998

mdash ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian Contacts in the Polemical Literature of theHigh Middle Agesrdquo American Historical Review 91 (1986) 576ndash91

mdash ldquoChristian Heresy and Jewish Polemic in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuriesrdquo HarvardTheological Review 68 (1975) 287ndash303

mdash ldquoGilbert Crispin Alan of Lille and Jacob ben Reuben A Study in Transmission ofMedieval Polemicrdquo Speculum 49 (1974) 34ndash47

Berger David and Michael Wyschogrod Jews and ldquoJewish Christianityrdquo New York Ktav1978 Repr 2002

Berger Samuel ldquoNouvelles recherches sur les Bibles provenccedilales et catalanesrdquo Romania 19(1890) 505ndash61

Biale David ldquoCounter-History and Jewish Polemics against Christianity The Sefer ToldotYeshu and the Sefer Zerubavelrdquo Jewish Social Studies 6 (1999) 130ndash45

Bindley T Herbert and F W Green The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith 4th ed Lon-don Methuen 1950

Biscioni Antonio Maria Bibliotheca Ebraicae Graecae Florentinae sive BibliothecaeMediceo-Laurentianae Catalogus 2 vols Florence Ex Caesareo Typographio 1757

mdash Bibliotheca Medio-Laurentiana Catalogus Tomus Primus Codices Orientales FlorenceEx imperiali typographio 1752

Bibliography 355

Blastenbrei Peter Johann Christoph Wagenseil und seine Stellung zum Judentum ErlangenH Fischer 2004

Blau Joshua The Emergence and linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic A Study of theOrigins of Middle-Arabic 2nd ed Jerusalem Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of JewishCommunities in the East 1981

Bloch Reneacutee ldquoQuelques aspects de la figure de Moiumlse dans la tradition rabbiniquerdquo Pages93ndash167 in Moiumlse lrsquohomme de lrsquoalliancy Edited by H Cazelles Tournai Descleacutee deBrouwer 1955

Blumenkranz Bernhard ldquoDauphineacuterdquo Pages 441ndash43 in vol 5 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nded Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoFrancerdquo Pages 146ndash70 in vol 7 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by MichaelBerenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoNicolas de Lyre et Jacob ben Reubenrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965) 47ndash51Repr in Juifs et Chreacutetiens Patristique et Moyen Age London Variorum 1977 ChapterXVII (no pagination)

mdash Les Auteurs Chreacutetiens Latins du Moyen Age sur les juifs et le judaiumlsme Eacutetudes Juives 4Paris Mouton 1963

mdash Juifs et chreacutetiens dans le monde occidental 430ndash1096 Eacutetudes juives 2 Paris Mouton1960 Repr Leuven Peeters 2006

mdash ldquoDie juumldischen Beweisgruumlnde im Religionsgespraumlch mit den Christen in den christlich-lateinischen Sonderschriften des 5 bis 11 Jahrhundertsrdquo Theologische Zeitschrift 4(1948) 119ndash47 Repr in chapter XIX (no pagination) in Les Auteurs Chreacutetiens Latins duMoyen Age sur les juifs et le judaiumlsme Eacutetudes Juives 4 Paris Mouton 1963

Bockmuehl Markus Jewish Law in Gentile Churches Halakha and the Beginning of Chris-tian Public Ethics Edinburgh TampT Clark 2000

Bobichon Philippe ldquoLa Bible dans les œuvres de controverse judeacuteo-chreacutetienne (IIe-XVIIIesiegravecles) entre texte reacuteveacuteleacute et litteacuteraturerdquo Pages 69ndash97 in De la Bible agrave la litteacuteratureEdited by Jean-Christophe Attias and Pierre Gisel Religions en perspective 15 GenevaLabor et Fides 2003

Bowman Robert M and J Ed Komoszewski Putting Jesus in His Place The Case for theDeity of Christ Grand Rapids Kregel 2007

Boyarin Daniel Jewish Gospels The Story of the Jewish Christ New York The New Press2012

mdash ldquoHow Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesusrdquo Early Christianity 2 (2011) 51ndash76Brayer Menachem M The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature A Psychological Perspec-

tive New York Ktav 1986Briggman Anthony Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Oxford Early

Christian Studies Oxford Oxford University Press 2012Broydeacute Isaac ldquoNathan ben Joseph Officialrdquo Pages 269ndash270 in vol 7 of The Jewish Ency-

clopedia A Descriptive Record of the History Religion Literature and Customs of theJewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day Edited by Isidore Singer12 vols New York Ktav London Funk Wagnalls 1901ndash1906

Brown Raymond E An Introduction to New Testament Christology Mahwah NJ PaulistPress 1994

mdash The Birth of the Messiah Updated ed Yale Yale University Press 1993mdash Jesus God and Man New York Macmillian 1967Budny Syzmon and Marcin Czechowic Trzech dni rozmowa o dzieciokrzczeństwie Łosk

1578Burkett Delbert R The Son of Man Debate A History of Evaluation Society for New Testa-

ment Studies Monograph Series 107 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1999

356 Bibliography

Burnett Stephen G ldquoLater Christian Hebraistsrdquo Pages 785ndash801 in Hebrew BibleOld Testa-ment II From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment Edited by Magne Saeligboslash GoumlttingenVandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2008

Burrell David B Knowing the Unknowable God Ibn-Sina Maimonides Aquinas NotreDame University of Notre Dame Press 1986

Burton Robert The Anatomy of Melancholy Edited by Democritus Junior 3 vols NewYork A C Armstrong 1880

Bynum Caroline W The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity 200ndash1336 NewYork Columbia University Press 1995

mdash ldquoImages of the Resurrection Body in the Theology of Late Antiquityrdquo Catholic HistoricalReview 80 (1994) 215ndash37

Cabaniss Allen ldquoBodo-Eleazar A Famous Jewish Convertrdquo Jewish Quarterly Review 43(1953) 313ndash28

Capua Angelo di ldquoCatalogo dei Codici Ebraici della Biblioteca Vittorio Emanuelerdquo InCataloghi dei Codici Orientali di alcune Biblioteche drsquoItalia Vol 1 Florence 1878

Carlton Paget James C Jews Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity Wissen-schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I251 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010

mdash ldquoThe Four among the Jewsrdquo Pages 267ndash86 in Jews Christians and Jewish Christians inAntiquity Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I251 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 2010 First published in pages 205ndash21 in The Written Gospel Edited byMarkus N A Bockmuehl and Donald Hagner Cambridge University Press Cambridge2005

Casey Maurice The Solution to the Son of Man Problem Library of New Testament Studies343 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2007

Chapman David W Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of CrucifixionWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II244 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 2008 Grand Rapids Baker 2010

Chazan Robert Reassessing Jewish Life in Medieval Europe Cambridge University Press2010

mdash The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom 1000ndash1500 Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press 2006

mdash Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 2004

mdash Barcelona and Beyond The Disputation of 1263 and its Aftermath Berkeley Universityof California Press 1992

mdash ldquoJoseph Kimhirsquos lsquoSefer Ha-Beritrsquo Pathbreaking Medieval Jewish Apologeticsrdquo HarvardTheological Review 85 (1992) 417ndash32

mdash Daggers of Faith Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish ResponseBerkeley University of California Press 1989

mdash ldquoThe Christian Position in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milhamot Ha-Shemrdquo Pages 151ndash70 invol 2 of From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox Editedby Jacob Neusner Ernest S Frerichs Nahum M Sarna Atlanta Scholars Press 1989

mdash ldquoThe Condemnation of the Talmud Reconsidered (1239ndash1248)rdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy for Jewish Research 55 (1988) 11ndash30

mdash ldquoPolemical Themes in the Milḥemet Miẓvahrdquo Pages 169ndash84 in Les Juifs au regard delrsquohistoire Meacutelange en lrsquohonneur de Bernhard Blumenkranz Edited by Gilbert DahanParis Picard 1985

mdash Alfonso of Valladolid and the New Missionizingrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 143 (1984)83ndash94

Bibliography 357

mdash ldquoA Medieval Hebrew Polemical Melangerdquo Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980) 89ndash110

mdash ldquoConfrontation in the Synagogue of Narbonne A Christian Sermon and a Jewish ReplyrdquoHarvard Theological Review 67 (1974) 437ndash57

mdash ldquoAnti-Usury Efforts in Thirteenth Century Narbonne and the Jewish Responserdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 4142 (1973ndash1974) 45ndash67

mdash Medieval Jewry in Northern France A Political and Social History Baltimore The JohnHopkins University Press 1973

mdash ldquo1007ndash1012 Initial Crisis for Northern European Jewryrdquo Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy for Jewish Research 3839 (1970) 101ndash117

mdash ldquoThe Blois Incident of 1171 A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organizationrdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968) 13ndash31

Chernus Ira Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism Berlin Walter de Gruyter 1982Chester Andrew ldquoHigh Christology mdash Whence When and Whyrdquo Early Christianity 2

(2011) 22ndash50Chilton Bruce D ldquoThe Transfiguration Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Visionrdquo New

Testament Studies 27 (1981) 115ndash24Chokr Melhem Zandaqa et zindīqs en Islām au second siegravecle de lrsquoheacutegire Damascus Institut

Franccedilais des Eacutetudes Arabes de Damas 1993Christensen Michael J and Jeffery A Wittung Partakers of the Divine Nature The History

and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Tradition Madison NJ FairleighDickinson University Press 2007

Cohen Jeremy Christ Killers The Jews and the Passion from the Bible to the Big ScreenNew York Oxford University Press 2007

mdash Sanctifying the Name of God Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First CrusadePhiladelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 2004

mdash Living Letters of the Law Ideas of the Jew in medieval Christianity Berkeley Universityof California Press 1999

mdash ldquoMedieval Jews on Christianity Polemical Strategies and Theological Defenserdquo Pages77ndash89 in Interwoven Destinies Jews and Christians through the Ages Edited by EugeneJ Fischer Studies in Judaism and Christianity Mahwah NJ Stimulus FoundationPaulist Press 1993

mdash ldquoProfiat Duranrsquos The Reproach of the Gentiles and the Development of Jewish Anti-Chris-tian Polemicrdquo Pages 71ndash84 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee Volume Studies on the Historyof the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period Edited by Daniel Carpi et alJerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen 1993

mdash ldquoToward a Functional Classification of Jewish Anti-Christian Poelmic in the High MiddleAgesrdquo Pages 93ndash114 in Religionsgespraumlche im Mittelalte Edited by Bernhard Lewis andFriedrich Niewoumlhner Wolfenbuumltteler Mittelalter-Studien 4 Wiesbaden Harrassowitz1992

mdash Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict From Late Antiquity to the Re-formation New York New York University Press 1991

mdash The Friars and the Jews The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism 2nd ed Ithaca NYCornell University Press 1983

mdash ldquoThe Jews as the Killers of Christ in the Latin Tradition from Augustine to the FriarsrdquoTraditio 39 (1983) 1ndash27

Cohen Mark R Under Crescent and Cross The Jews in the Middle Ages Princeton Prince-ton University Press 1994

358 Bibliography

Cohen Shaye J D ldquoDoes Rashirsquos Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity A Compari-son of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shorrdquo Pages 249ndash72 in The Idea of BiblicalInterpretation Essays in Honor of James L Kugel Edited by Hindy Najman and JudithH Newman Supplements to the Journal of the Study of Judaism 83 Leiden Brill 2004

mdash Review of George Howard The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive HebrewText Bible Review 4 (June 1988) 8ndash9

Collins Adele Yarbro and John J Collins King and Messiah as Son of God Divine Humanand Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature Grand Rapids Eerd-mans 2008

Cook John G The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism Studienund Texte zu Antiken und Christentum 3 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000 ReprPeabody Hendrickson 2002

Cotton Hannah M ldquoThe Roman Census in the Papyri from the Judaean Desert and theEgyptian κατrsquo οἰκίαν ἁπογραφήrdquo Pages 105ndash22 in Semitic Papyrology in Context AClimate of Creativity Papers from a New York University Conference Marking theRetirement of Baruch A Levine Edited by L H Schiffman Leiden Brill 2003

Courbage Youssef and Philippe Fargues Christians and Jews under Islam London I BTauris 1997

Cragg Kenneth The Arab Christian A History im the Middle East Louisville WestminsterJohn Knox 1991

Cramer Peter Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages c 200ndash1150 CambridgeStudies in Medieval Life amp Thought Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993

Czechowic Marcin Rozmowy Christyanskie Roku Alexius Rodeck 1575Daacuten Robert ldquoDas Problem des juumldischen Einflusses auf die antitrinitarische Bewegung des

16 Jahrhundertsrdquo Pages 19ndash32 in Der Einfluszlig der Unitarier auf die europaumlisch-amerikanische Geistesgeschichte Edited by W Deppert W Erdt and Aart de GroorUnitarismusforschung 1 Frankfurt P Lang 1990

mdash ldquoIsaac Troky and his lsquoAntitrinitarianrsquo Sourcesrdquo Pages 69ndash82 in Occident and Orient Atribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber Edited by R Daacuten Leiden Brill BudapestAkadeacutemia Kiadoacute 1988

Dapaah Daniel S The Relationship Between John The Baptist And Jesus Of Nazareth ACritical Study Lanham Md University Press of America 2005

Davies William D and Dale C Allison The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume IIntroduction and Commentary on Matthew IndashVII The International Critical Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

mdash The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume II Introduction and Commentary onMatthew VIIIndashXVIII The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of theOld and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

mdash The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Volume III Commentary on Matthew TheGospel According to Saint Matthew XIXndashXXVIII The International Critical Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments Edinburgh TampT Clark 1997

De Lange Nicholas ldquoOrigins of Anti-Semitismrdquo Pages 21ndash37 in Anti Semitism in Times ofCrisis Edited by Sander L Gilman and Steven T Katz New York New York UniversityPress 1991

mdash ldquoA Fragment of Byzantine AntindashChristian Polemicrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990)92ndash100

De Lubac Henri Medieval Exegesis The Four Senses of Scripture 3 vols Grand RapidsEerdmans 1998ndash2009

Bibliography 359

Deines Roland ldquoCan the lsquoRealrsquo Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus A Review ofthe Popersquos Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debaterdquo Pages 199ndash232 inThe Pope and Jesus of Nazareth Christ Scripture and the Church Edited by AdrianPabst and Angus Paddison London SCM 2009 A longer version of this article is pub-lished in Didaskalia 39 (2009) 11ndash46

mdash ldquoDas Erkennen von Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte bei Matthaumlusrdquo Pages 403ndash441 inHeil und Geschichte Die Geschichtsbezogenheit des Heils und das Problem der Heils-geschichte in der biblischen Tradition und in der theologischen Deutung Edited by JoumlrgFrey Stefan Krauter and Hermann Lichtenberger Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I248 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2009

mdash ldquoDie Verwendung der Bergpredigt im aumlltesten erhaltenen Text der juumldischen Adversus-Christianos-Literaturrdquo Pages 372ndash400 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche WissenschaftStandorte mdash Grenzen mdash Beziehungen Edited by Lutz Doering Hans-Guumlnther Waubkeand Florian Wilk Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-ments 226 Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2008

mdash ldquoNot the Law but the Messiah Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew mdash AnOngoing Debaterdquo Pages 53ndash84 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of MatthewEdited by Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

mdash Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I177 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2004

Denzinger Heinrich and Adolf Schoumlnmetzer Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum etdeclarationum de rebus fidei et morum 35th ed Freiburg Herder 1973

DeVine Charles F ldquoThe Blood of God in Acts 2028rdquo Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947)381ndash408

Dietrich Ernst Ludwig ldquoDas juumldisch-christliche Religionsgespraumlch am Ausgang des 16Jahrhunderts nach dem Handbuch des R Isaak Trokirdquo Judaica 14 (1958) 1ndash38

Donaldson Terrence L Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament Decision Points andDivergent Interpretations London SPCK 2010

Doumlrnyei Zoltaacuten ldquoTransfiguration Beauty and Biblical Interpretationrdquo MA diss Universityof Nottingham 2011

Dudenberg Ismo ldquoThe School of Valentinusrdquo Pages 64ndash99 in A Companion to Second-Cen-tury Christian lsquoHereticsrsquo Edited by Anti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen Leiden Brill2008

Dunn Geoffrey D Tertullian The Early Church Fathers London Routledge 2004Dunn James D G Did the first Christians worship Jesus The New Testament Evidence

London SPCK 2010mdash Jesus Remembered Christianity in the Making 1 Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2002mdash Christology in the Making A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of

the Incarnation 2nd ed London SCM 1989Edwards James R The Hebrew Gospel amp The Development of the Synoptic Tradition Grand

Rapids Eerdmans 2009Edwards John ldquoNew Light on the Converso Debate The Jewish Christianity of Alfonso de

Cartagena and Juan de Torquemadardquo Pages 311ndash26 in Cross Crescent and ConversionEdited by Simon Barton and Peter Linehan The Medieval Mediterranean 73 LeidenBrill 2008

Ehrman Albert ldquoWhen Was the lsquoSefer Nitzakhonrsquo Writtenrdquo Harvard Theological Review71 (1978) 154ndash57

mdash ldquoThe Sefer Nitzahon A Thirteen Century Defense of Judaismrdquo PhD diss New YorkUniversity 1974

360 Bibliography

Eidelberg Shlomo The Jews and the Crusaders The Hebrew Chronicles of the First andSecond Crusade Madison The University of Wisconsin 1977

El Kaisy-Friemuth Maha ldquoAl-Ghazālīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Bibliographical His-tory Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Online

mdash ldquoAl-Radd al-jamīl li-ilāhiyyat ʿĪsā bi-ṣarīḥ al-Injīlrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Biblio-graphical History Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Online

mdash ldquoAl-radd al-jamīl Ghazālīrsquos or pseudo Ghazālīrsquosrdquo Pages 275ndash95 in The Bible in ArabChristianity Edited by David Thomas Leiden Brill 2007

Elliott James K The Apocryphal New Testament A Collection of Apocryphal ChristianLiterature in an English Translation Oxford Oxford University Press 1993

Emery Richard W ldquoNew Light on Profayt Duran lsquoThe Efodirsquordquo Jewish Quarterly Review 58(1968) 328ndash37

mdash Heresy and Inquisition in Narbonne New York Columbia University Press 1941 ReprNew York AMS 1967

Esbroeck Michel van ldquoLe manuscript heacutebreux Paris 755 et lrsquohistoire des martyrs deNedjranrdquo Pages 25ndash30 in La Syrie de Byzance agrave Islam VIIe ndash VIIIe sieacutecles Actes ducolloque international ldquoDe Byzance agrave lislamrdquo Edited by P Canvivet and J-P Rey-Co-quais Damas Institut franccedilais de Damas 1992

mdash ldquoDer von einem Bischof um 514 geschriebene Brief gegen das Christentum und die Ver-folgung von seiten Dū Nuwāsrdquo Pages 105ndash15 in Ausgewaumlhlte Vortraumlge XXIV DeutscherOrientalistentag Edited by Werner Diem and Abdoldjavad Falaturi Zeitschrift derDeutschen Morgenlaumlndischen Gesellschaft Supplementband 8 Stuttgart F Steiner 1990

Evans Craig A ldquoJewish Versions of the Gospel of Matthew Observations on three recentPublicationsrdquo Mishkan 38 (2003) 70ndash79

Fassler Margoth E Gothic Song Victorine Sequences and Augustine Reform in twelfth-cen-tury Paris Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1993

Feldmeier Reinhard Die Krisis des Gottessohnes Die Gethsemaneerzaumlhlung als Schluumlsselder Markuspassion Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II21Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1987

Ferguson Everett Baptism in the Early Church History Theology and Liturgy in the FirstFive Centuries Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2009

Firpo Massimo Antitrinitari nellrsquoEuropa orientale del rsquo500 Nuovi testi di Szymon BudnyNiccolograve Paruta e Iacopo Paleologo Florence La nuova Italia 1977

Fisher JDC Christian Initiation Baptism in the Medieval West Alcuin Club Collections47 London SPCK 1965

Fleischer Heinrich L ldquoUumlber eine juumldisch-arabische Streitschrift gegen das ChristentumrdquoBerichte uumlber die Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 34(1882) 57ndash75 Repr pages 167ndash86 in Kleinere Schriften Vol 3 Leipzig S Hirzel 1883

Fleischmann Stefan Szymon Budny Ein theologisches Potrait des polnisch-weiszligrussischenHumanisten und Unitariers (ca 1530ndash1593) Cologne Boumlhlau 2006

Flusser David Jesus 3d ed Jerusalem Magnes 2001Ford David F ldquoAn Interfaith Wisdom Scriptural Reasoning between Jews Christians and

Muslimsrdquo Modern Theology 22 (2006) 345ndash66Fossum Jarl E ldquoAscensio Metamorphosis The lsquoTransfigurationrsquo of Jesus in the Synoptic

Gospelsrdquo Pages 71ndash94 in The Image of the Invisible God Essays on the Influence of Jew-ish Mysticism on Early Christology Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus 30 GoumlttingenVandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 1995

Frank Daniel Search Scripture Well Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish BibleCommentary in the Islamic East Leiden Brill 2004

Bibliography 361

Frankenmoumllle Hubert ldquoAntijudaismus im Matthaumlusevangelium Reflexionen zu einer an-gemessenen Auslegungrdquo Pages 168ndash98 in Studien zum juumldischen Kontext neutesta-mentlicher Theologie Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbaumlnde Neues Testament 37 StuttgartKatholisches Bibelwerk 2005

Frey Joumlrg ldquoZur Vielgestaltigkeit judenchristlicher Evangelienuumlberlieferungenrdquo Pages 93ndash137 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienuumlberlieferungen Edited by Joumlrg Frey and JensSchroumlter Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testamen I254 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 2010

mdash ldquoDie Scholien nach dem juumldischen Evangelium und das sogenannte Nazo-raumlerevangeli-umrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der aumllteren Kirche94 (2003) 122ndash37

Freyne Seacutean ldquoVilifying the Other and Defining the Self Matthewrsquos and Johnrsquos Anti-JewishPolemic in Focusrdquo Pages 117ndash43 in ldquoTo See Ourselves as Others See Usrdquo ChristiansJews ldquoOthersrdquo in Late Antiquity Edited by Jacob Neusner and Ernest S Frerichs ChicoCal Scholar 1985

Frick David A ldquoSzymon Budny and Sacred Philology Between East and Westrdquo Pages 309ndash49 in Vol 3 of Biblia Slavica Series II Polnische Bibeln Vol 3 Budny Part 2 (com-mentary) Edited by R Olesch and H Rothe Paderborn F Schoumlningh 1994

mdash Polish sacred philology in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation Berkeley Univer-sity of California Press 1989

Frimer Norman (Nachman) E and Dov Schwartz The Life and Thought of Shem Ṭov IbnShaprut [ שפרוטאבןטובשםרשלהגותוכתביודמותוהאימהבצלהגות ] JerusalemBen-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East 1992 [Hebrew]

Funkenstein Amos ldquoPolemics Responses and Self-Reflectionrdquo Pages 170ndash219 in Percep-tions of Jewish History (Berkeley University of California Press 1993

mdash ldquoReflections on Anti-Judaism 3 Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewis Polemics in the LateMiddle Agesrdquo Viator 2 (1972) 373ndash82

mdash ldquoChanges in Patterns of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in the Twelfth Centuryrdquo[ היבבמאהלנוצריםיהודיםשביןהדתבווכוחהתמורות ] Zion 33 (1968) 125ndash44[Hebrew]

Gadamer Hans-Georg Truth and Method 2nd ed Translated by Joel Weinsheimer andDonald G Marshall London Sheed amp Ward 1989

Gager John G ldquoDid Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islamrdquo Pages 361ndash72 in The Waysthat Never Parted Edited by Adam H Becker and Anette Yoshiko Reed Texts and Stud-ies in Ancient Judaism 95 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2003

mdash The Roots of Anti Semitism Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian AntiquityOxford Oxford University Press 1983

Garshowitz Libby Review of Joseacute-Vicente Nicloacutes Šem Ṭob Ibn Šapruṭ ldquoLa Piedra deToquerdquo (Eben Bohan) Una Obra de Controversia Judeo-Cristiana Jewish Quarterly Re-view 90 (2000) 457ndash65

mdash ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Gospel of Matthewrdquo Pages 299ndash306 in vol 1 of TheFrank Talmage Memorial Volume Edited by Barry Walfish Jewish History 6 HaifaHaifa University Press 1993

mdash ldquoShem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shaprutrsquos Even Bohan (Touchstone) chapters 2ndash10 based onMS Plutei 217 (Florence Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana) with collations from othermanuscriptsrdquo 2 vols PhD diss University of Toronto 1974

Gaon Solomon The Influence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the PentateuchCommentary of Isaac Abravanel New York Ktav 1993

Gathercole Simon J The Pre-existent Son Recovering the Christologies of Matthew Markand Luke Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2006

362 Bibliography

Gaudeul Jean-Marie Encounters and Clashes Islam and Christianity in History 2 vols Stu-di arabo-islamici del PISAI 15 Rome Pontificio istituto di studi arabici e islamici 2000

Gebhardi Brandanus Henricus Centum Loca Novi Testamenti quae R Isaac ben Abrahamin suo אמונהחזוק ie Munimine Fidei depravaverat vindicata Greifswald LitterisDanielis Benjaminis Starckii 1699

Geiger Abraham ldquoIsaak Troki Ein Apologet des Judenthums am Ende des sechszehntenJahrhundertsrdquo Pages 178ndash223 in vol 3 of Abraham Geigerrsquos Nachgelassene SchriftenEdited by Ludwig Geiger 5 vols Berlin Louis Gerschel 1876

Gero Stephen ldquoThe Nestorius Legend in the Toledoth Yeshurdquo Oriens christianus 59 (1975)108ndash20

Gloumlckner Richard Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der WundertatenGottes in den Psalmen Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Verwandtschaft zwi-schen neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen Walberberger Studien der Al-bertus-Magnus-Akademie Theologische Reihe 13 Mainz Matthias-Gruumlnewald 1983

Golb Norman The Jews in Medieval Normandy A social and intellectual history Cam-bridge Cambridge University Press 1998

mdash Jewish Proselytism A Phenomenon in the Religious History of Early Medieval EuropeThe Tenth Annual Robbi Louis Feinberg Memorial Lecture Cincinnati Judaic StudiesProgram University of Cincinnati 1987

mdash ldquoNew Light on the Persecution of French Jews at the Time of the First Crusaderdquo Proceed-ings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 34 (1966) 1ndash63

Goldstein Morris Jesus in the Jewish Tradition New York Macmillan 1950Gondreau Paul The Passions of Christrsquos Soul in the Theology of St Thomas Aquinas

Muumlnster Aschendorff 2002 Repr Scranton Scranton Press 2008Gousset Jaques Jesu Christi Evangeliique veritas salutifera demonstrata in confutatione libi

Chizzuk Emunah a R Isaaco scripti Edited by Arnold Borst Amsterdam J Borstius1712

mdash Controversiam adversus Judaeos ternio Dordrecht Ex Officina Viduae Caspari ampTheodori Goris 1688

Graetz Heinrich Geschichte der Juden Von den aumlltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart4th ed 11 vols Leipzig Oskar Leiner 1897 Repr Darmstadt WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft 1998

Grayzel Solomon The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1198ndash1254 Vol 1Philadelphia Dropsie College Press 1933

mdash ldquoThe Papal bull Sicut Iudeisrdquo Pages 243ndash80 in Studies and Essays in Honor of AbrahamA Neumann Edited by Meir Ben-Horin Bernard D Weinryb and Solomon Zeitlin Lei-den Brill Philadelphia Dropsie College Press 1962

Grayzel Solomon and Kenneth Stow The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century 1254ndash1314 Vol 2 New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1989

Grillmeier Aloys Christ in Christian Tradition Volume 2 mdash From the Council of Chalcedon(451) to Gregory the Great (590ndash604) Part Four Translated by OC Dean LondonMowbray 1996

mdash [Alois] Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche Band 1 mdash Von der Apostolischen Zeitbis zum Konzil von Chalcedon (451) 3d ed Freiburg Herder 1990

mdash Christ in Christian Tradition From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) Translated byJohn S Bowden London Mowbray 1965

Grindheim Sigurd Godrsquos Equal What Can We Know About Jesusrsquo Self-UnderstandingLibrary of New Testament Studies 446 London TampT Clark 2011

Gross Heinrich Gallia Judaica Dictionnaire geacuteographique de la France drsquoapregraves les sourcesrabbiniques Paris L Cerf 1897

Bibliography 363

Grossman Avraham ldquoThe Commentary of Rashi on Isaiah and the Jewish-Christian DebaterdquoPages 47ndash62 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History Festschrift inHonor of Robert Chazan Edited by David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman and Eliot RWolfson Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15 Leiden Brill2012

mdash ldquoThe Jewish-Christian Polemics and Jewish Bible Exegesis in the Twelfth-CenturyFrancerdquo [ לפרשת(יבבמאהבצרפתלמקראהיהודיתוהפרשנותהיהודי־הנוצריהפולמוס

)הפולמוס אל קרא רי של זיקתו ] Zion 51 (1986) 29ndash60 [Hebrew]Gundry Robert H The Use of the Old Testament in St Matthewrsquos Gospel With Special

Reference to the Messianic Hope Leiden Brill 1967Gutwirth Eleazar (Eliezer) ldquoConversions to Christianity amongst fifteenth-century Spanish

Jews An alternative Explanationrdquo Pages 97ndash121 in Shlomo Simonsohn Jubilee VolumeStudies on the History of the Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance Period Edited byDaniel Capri et al Jerusalem Tel Aviv University Rav Chen 1993

mdash ldquoReligion and Social Criticism in Late Medieval Rousillon An Aspect of Profayt DuranrsquosActivitiesrdquo Michael 12 (1991) 142ndash45

mdash ldquoHistory and apologetics in XVth century Hispano-Jewish thoughtrdquo Helmantica 35(1984) 231ndash42

Hagner Donald A The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus An analysis amp critique of the modernJewish study of Jesus Eugene Or Wipf amp Stock 1997

Hahneman Geoffrey Mark The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the CanonOxford Theological Monographs Oxford Oxford University Press 1992

Halkin Abraham Solomon ldquoSaadiah (ben Joseph) Gaonrdquo Pages 606ndash14 in vol 17 of Ency-clopaedia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik DetroitMacmillan 2007

Hamilton Jr James M ldquolsquoThe Virgin Will Conceiversquo Typological Fulfillment in Matthew118ndash23rdquo Pages 228ndash47 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of Matthew Editedby Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

Hamori Esther J When Gods where Men The Embodied God in Biblical and Near EasternLiterature Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuumlr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384 BerlinWalter de Gruyter 2008

Hannah Darrell D Michael and Christ Michael Traditions and Angel Christology in EarlyChristianity Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II109 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1999

Hanson Richard P C The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God The Arian Controversy318ndash381 Edinburgh TampT Clark 1988

Harnack Adolf ldquoGeschichte eines programmatischen Worts Jesu (Matth 517) in der aumlltestenKirche Eine Skizzerdquo Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften(1912) 184ndash207

Harris Murray J Jesus as God The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to JesusGrand Rapids Baker Book House 1992

Hengel Martin Die Zeloten Untersuchungen zur juumldischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeitvon Herodes I bis 70 n Chr Leiden Brill 1961 2nd rev ed 1976 3rd rev and repub-lished ed by Roland Deines and Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-gen zum Neuen Testament I283 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

mdash ldquolsquoSetze dich zu meiner Rechtenrsquo Die Inthronisation Christi zur Rechten Gottes und Psalm1101rdquo Pages 281ndash367 in Studien zur Christologie Kleine Schriften IV Edited by Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I201 Tuuml-bingen Mohr Siebeck 2006

364 Bibliography

mdash ldquoDie ersten nichtchristlichen Leser der Evangelienrdquo Pages 99ndash117 in Beim Wortnehmen mdash die Schrift als Zentrum fuumlr kirchliches Reden und Gestalten Friedrich Milden-berger zum 75 Geburtstag Edited by Michael Krug Ruth Loumldel and Johannes RehmStuttgart Kohlhammer 2004 Repr pages 702ndash724 in Jesus und die Evangelien KleineSchriften V Edited by Claus-Juumlrgen Thornton Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zumNeuen Testament I211 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007

mdash ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israel The Debate about the lsquoMessianic Missionrsquo of Jesusrdquo Pages323ndash49 in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig AEvans Leiden Brill 1999

mdash ldquoJesus the Messiah of Israelrdquo Pages 1ndash72 in Studies in Early Christology EdinburghTampT Clark 1995

mdash ldquolsquoSit at my right handrsquordquo Pages 119ndash225 in Studies in Early Christology Edinburgh TampTClark 1995

mdash The Zealots Investigations into the Jewish freedom movement in the period from Herod Iuntil 70 AD Translated by David Smith Edinburgh TampT Clark 1989

mdash ldquolsquoChristosrsquo in Paulrdquo Pages 65ndash77 and 179ndash88 in Between Jesus and Paul Studies inEarliest Christology London SCM 1983

mdash The Son of God The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic ReligionTranslated by John Bowden London SCM 1976

Herford R Travers Christianity in Talmud and Midrash London Williams amp Norgate1903

Heer Joseph M Die Stammbaumlume Jesu nach Matthaumlus und Lukas Biblische Studien 1512Freiburg Herder 1910

Herbst Adolf Des Shemtob ben Schaprut hebraeische Uumlbersetzung des Evangliums Matthaeinach den Drucken des S Muumlnster und J Du Tillet-Mercier neu herausgegeben Goumlttin-gen Dietrich 1879

Hofius Otfried ldquoJesu Zuspruch der Suumlndenvergebung Exegetische Erwaumlgungen zuMk 25brdquo Pages 38ndash56 in Neutestamentliche Studien Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament I132 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2000

mdash ldquoGesetz und Evangelium nach 2 Korinther 3 Hartmut Gese zum 60 Geburtstagrdquo Pages75ndash120 in Paulusstudien Band I 2nd ed Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament I51 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1994

Holmeacuten Tom ldquoJesusrsquo Inverse Strategy of Ritual (Im)purity and the Ritual Purity of EarlyChristiansrdquo Pages 15ndash32 in Anthropology in the New Testament and its Ancient ContextPapers from the EABS-Meeting in PiliscsabaBudapest Edited by Michael Labahn andOuti Lehtipuu Contributions to Biblical Exegesis amp Theology 54 Leuven Peeters 2010

Hood Jason B The Messiah His Brothers and the Nations (Matt 11ndash17) Library of NewTestament Studies 441 New York TampT Clark 2011

Hood John Y B Aquinas and the Jews Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press1995

Horbury William ldquoThe Strasbourg Text of the Toledoth Yeshurdquo Pages 49ndash59 in ToledotYeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited by Peter SchaumlferMichael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

mdash ldquoDie juumldischen Wurzeln der Christologierdquo Early Christianity 2 (2011) 5ndash21mdash ldquoThe Hebrew Text of Matthew in Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Boḥanrdquo Pages 729ndash38 in

Matthew 19ndash28 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to SaintMatthew by W Davies and Dale C Allison The International Critical Commentary onthe Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments London TampT Clark 2004

Bibliography 365

mdash Hebrew apologetic and polemical literaturerdquo Pages 189ndash209 in Hebrew Scholarship andthe Medieval World Edited by Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 2001

mdash ldquoThe Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Studyrdquo Pages 106ndash31 in Hebrew Study From Ezra toBen-Yehuda Edinburgh TampT Clark 1999

mdash Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ London SCM 1998mdash ldquoThe Basle Nizzahonrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983) 497ndash514 Repr and rev

in pages 243ndash261 in Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy Edinburgh TampTClark 1998

mdash ldquoThe Revision of Shem Tob Ibn Shaprutrsquos Eben Bohanrdquo Sefarad 43 (1983) 221ndash37mdash Review of David Berger The Jewish-Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages Journal

of Theological Studies 34 (1983) 329ndash37mdash ldquoThe Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian Controversyrdquo Journal of

Theological Studies 33 (1982) 19ndash61mdash ldquoThe Trial of Jesus in Jewish Traditionrdquo Pages 103ndash121 in The Trial of Jesus Cambridge

Studies in honour of CFD Moule Edited by Ernst Bammel Studies in Biblical Theology213 London SCM 1970

mdash ldquoA Critical Examination of the Toledoth Yeshurdquo PhD diss University of Cambridge1970

Horowitz Elliot ldquolsquoAnd It is Turned Aroundrsquo Jews against their Enemies in the Festivities ofPurimrdquo [ הפוריםבחגיגותשונאיהםמוליהודיםהואנוהפוך ] Zion 59 (1994) 129ndash68[Hebrew]

Horst Pieter Willem van der ldquoBirkat ha-Minim in recent researchrdquo Pages 113ndash24 in Hel-lenism-Judaism-Christianity Essays on Their Interaction 2nd ed Contributions to Bibli-cal Exegesis and Theology 8 Kampen Kok Pharos 1994 First published in The Exposi-tory Times 105 (1993ndash94) 363ndash68

Howard George ldquoShem Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthew A Literary Textual and Theological Pro-filerdquo Pages 177ndash234 in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Macon Ga Mercer UniversityPress 1995

mdash ldquoThe Textual Nature of Shem-Tobrsquos Hebrew Matthewrdquo Journal of Biblical Literature108 (1989) 239ndash57

mdash ldquoThe Textual Nature of an Old Hebrew Version of Matthewrdquo Journal of Biblical Litera-ture 105 (1986) 49ndash63

Hughes Peter ldquoIn the footsteps of Servetus Biandrata David and the Quranrdquo Journal ofUnitarian Universalist History 31 (2006) 57ndash63

mdash ldquoServetus and the Quranrdquo Journal of Unitarian Universalist History 30 (2005) 55ndash70Hulen Amos B ldquoThe lsquoDialogues with the Jewsrsquo as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument

against Christianityrdquo Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932) 58ndash70Hurtado Larry W How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God Historical Questions about

Earliest Devotion to Jesus Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2005mdash Lord Jesus Christ mdash Devotion in Earliest Christianity Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2003Hurtado Larry W and Paul L Owen lsquoWho is this son of manrsquo The Latest Scholarship on

a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus Library of New Testament Studies 390Edinburgh TampT Clark 2011

Instone-Brewer David ldquoBalaam-Laban as the Key to the Old Testament Quotations inMatthew 2rdquo Pages 207ndash37 in Built Upon a Rock Studies in the Gospel of MatthewEdited by Daniel M Gurtner and John Nolland Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2008

Isaac Jules Jesus and Israel Translated by Sally Gran Edited by Claire Huchet BishopNew York Holt Rinehart amp Winston 1971

366 Bibliography

Jacob Irving The Midrashic Process Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic JudaismCambridge Cambridge University Press 1995

Jastrow Marcus A Dictionary of Targumim Talmud and Midrashic Literature London WC Luzac 1886ndash1903 Repr Peabody Hendrickson 2005

Johansson Daniel ldquoJesus and God in the Gospel of Mark Unity and Distinctionrdquo PhDdiss University of Edinburgh 2012

Johnson Marshall D The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with special Reference to theSetting of the Genealogies of Jesus Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series8 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1969

Jordan William C The French Monarchy and the Jews From Philip August to the LastCapetians Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press 1989

Jouassard Georges ldquoLrsquoabandon du Christ en croix dans la tradition Greque des IV et Vsiegraveclesrdquo Revue des sciences religieuses 5 (1925) 609ndash33

mdash ldquoLrsquoabandon du Christ drsquoapregraves saint Augustinrdquo Revue des sciences philosophiques ettheacuteologiques 13 (1923) 310ndash26

Juel Donald Messianic Exegesis Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in EarlyChristianity Philadelphia Fortress 1988

Juumlngel Eberhard ldquoVom Tode des Lebendigen Gottesrdquo Pages 105ndash25 in Unterwegs zurSache Theologische Bemerkungen Beitraumlge zur evangelischen Theologie 61 MunichKaiser 1988

Kahn Zadoc ldquoEacutetude sur le livre de Joseph le Zeacutelateurrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 1 (1880)222ndash46 3 (1881) 1ndash38

Kamen Henry The Spanish Inquisition An Historical Revision New Haven Yale Uni-veristy Press 1998

Kannengisser Charles Arius and Athanasius Two Alexandrian Theologians CollectedStudies 353 Aldershot Variorum 1991

mdash ldquoAthanasius of Alexandria vs Arius The Alexandrian Crisisrdquo Pages 204ndash15 in The Rootsof Egyptian Christianity Edited by Birger A Pearson and James E Goehring Philadel-phia Fortress 1986 Repr in Arius and Athanasius Two Alexandrian Theologians Col-lected Studies 353 Aldershot Variorum 1991

Kaplan Joseph ldquoPablo de Santa Mariardquo Pages 563ndash63 in vol 15 of Encyclopaedia Judaica2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Kasher Rimon ldquoThe Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literaturerdquo Pages 547ndash94 inMikra Text Translation Reading amp Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Juda-ism amp Early Christianity Edited by Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling Compendia re-rum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 21 Assen Van Gorcum 1988 Repr PeabodyHendrickson 2004

Katz Jacob Exclusiveness and Tolerance Oxford Oxford University Press 1961Kealy Seaacuten P Matthewrsquos Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation Book 1 Mellen

Biblical Press Series 55a Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1997Kehrer Hugo Die Heiligen drei Koumlnige in Literatur und Kunst Erster Teil Leizpig

E A Seeman 1908Kelly John N D Early Christian Doctrines 5th rev and repr ed London Continuum 2011mdash Early Christian Creeds 3d ed London Longman 1972Kesich Veselin ldquoThe Antiocheans and the Temptation Storyrdquo Studia Patristica 7 (1966)

496ndash502mdash ldquoHypostatic and Prosopic Union in the Exegesis of Christrsquos Temptationrdquo St Vladimirrsquos

Seminary Quarterly 9 (1965) 118ndash37Kessler Edward An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations Cambridge Cambridge Uni-

versity Press 2010

Bibliography 367

Kessler Gwynn Conceiving Israel The Fetus in Rabbinic Narratives Philadelphia Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Press 2009

Kidder Richard A Demonstration of the Messias In which the Truth of the Christian Reli-gion is defended especially against The Jews 3 vols London J H for W Rogers at theSun amp M Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1699

Kingsbury Jack D Matthew Structure Christology Kingdom Philadelphia Fortress 1976Kisch Guido The Jews in Medieval Germany A Study of their Legal and Social Status

Chicago The University of Chicago Press 1949Kissinger Warren S The Sermon on the Mount A History of Interpretation and Bibliogra-

phy Metuchen NJ Scarecrow 1975Klatzkin Jacob Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris 4 vols

Berlin Eschkol 1928 Repr Hildesheim Olms 2004Klauck Hans-Josef Apocryphal Gospels An Introduction Translated by Brian McNeil Lon-

don TampT Clark 2003Klijn A F J Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 17

Leiden Brill 1992Klostermann Erich Das Matthaumlusevangelium 4th ed Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 4

Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971Kobler Franz ed Letters of Jews through the Ages From Biblical Times to the Middle of the

Eighteenth Century 2nd ed 4 vols London Ararat 1953Koumlhler Wolf-Dietrich Die Rezeption des Matthaumlusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaumlus

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II24 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck1987

Koumlppen Klaus Peter Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter Besonderer Beruumlck-sichtigung der alten Kirche Beitraumlge zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese 4 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1961

Krauss Samuel ldquoUn Fragement poleacutemique del la Guenizardquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 63(1912) 63ndash74

Krauss Samuel and William Horbury The Jewish-Christian Controversy From the EarliestTimes to 1789 mdash Volume I History Edited and rev by William Horbury Texts and Stud-ies in Ancient Judaism 56 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1995

Krey Philip D W and Lesley Smith eds Nicholas of Lyra The Senses of Scripture Studiesin the History of Christian Thought 90 Leiden Brill 2000

Kupp David D Matthewrsquos Emmanuel Divine Presence and Godrsquos People in the FirstGospel Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 90 Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press 1996

Labarge Margaret Wade Saint Louis Louis IX Most Christian King of France Boston Lit-tle Brown 1968

Lagrange Marie-Joseph Eacutevangile selon Saint Luc Eacutetudes Bibliques Paris V Lecoffre1921

Lahey Lawrence L ldquoJewish Biblical Interpretation and Genuine JewishndashChristian Debate inthe Dialogue of Timothy and Aquilardquo Journal of Jewish Studies 51 (2000) 281ndash96

Langmuir Gavin I ldquoMission to the Jews and Jewish-Christian ContactsScholarship and In-tolerance in the Medieval Academy Commentrdquo American Historical Review 91 (1986)614ndash24

Lapide Pinchas E Hebrew in the Church Foundations of Jewish Christian Dialogue GrandRapids Eerdmans 1984

mdash ldquoDer laquoPruumlfsteinraquo aus Spanien Die einzige rabbinische Hebraisierung des Mt-Evangeli-umsrdquo Sefarad 34 (1974) 227ndash72

368 Bibliography

Lasker Daniel J ldquoJewish Knowledge of Christianity in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Cen-turiesrdquo Pages 97ndash109 in Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History Fest-schrift in Honor of Robert Chazan Edited by David Engel Lawrence H Schiffman andEliot R Wolfson Supplements to the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 15Leiden Brill 2012

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianity In Search of a New Narrativerdquo Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 6 (2011) 1ndash9

mdash Jewish Philosophical Polemics against Christianity in the Middle Ages 2nd ed OxfordThe Littman Library of Jewish Civilization 2007

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Christian Debate in Transition From the Lands of Ishmael to the Lands ofEdomrdquo Pages 53ndash65 in Judaism and Islam Boundaries Communication and Interac-tion mdash Essays in Honor of William M Brinner Edited by Benjamin H Hary John LHayes and Fred Astren Jewish Studies 27 Leiden Brill 2000

mdash ldquoMajor Themes of the Jewish-Christian Debate God Humanity Messiahrdquo Pages 107ndash130 in The Solomon Goldman Lectures Perspectives in Jewish Learning mdash Vol 7 Editedby Dean Phillip Bell Chicago Spertus College of Judaica 1999

mdash Popular Polemics and Philosophical Truth in the Medieval Jewish Critique of Christi-antyrdquo Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 8 (1999) 243ndash59

mdash ldquoTeaching Christianity to Jews The Case of Medieval Jewish Anti-Christian PolemicsrdquoPages 73ndash86 in Judaism and Education Essays in Honor of Walter I Ackerman Editedby Haim Marantz Beer Sheva Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press 1998

mdash ldquoJewish Polemics against Christianity in Thirteenth-Century Italyrdquo Pages 251ndash63 in Ḥa-zon Naḥum Studies in Jewish Law Thought and History Edited by Yaakov Elman andJeffrey S Gurock New York Yeshiva University Press 1997

mdash ldquoJewish Philosophical Polemic in Ashkenazrdquo Pages 195ndash214 in Contra Iudaeos Ancientand Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews Edited by Ora Limor and GuyStroumsa Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 10 Tuumlbingen MohrSiebeck 1996

mdash ldquoJewish-Christian Polemics at the Turning Point Jewish Evidence from the Twelfth Cen-turyrdquo Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996) 161ndash73

mdash ldquoJudeo-Christian Polemics and Their Origins in Muslim Countriesrdquo הפולמוס]האסלאם בארצות ומקורוריו היהודי־נוצרי ] Pelsquoamim 57 (1993) 4ndash16 [Hebrew]

mdash ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Nestor Ha-Komer The Earliest Arabic and Hebrew Jew-ish Anti-Christian Polemicsrdquo Pages 112ndash18 in Genizah Research After Ninety Years TheCase of Judaeo-Arabic Papers read at the Third Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Ara-bic Studies Edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C Reif Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress 1992

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Critique of Christianity under Islam in the Middle Agesrdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Jewish Research 57 (1990ndash1991) 121ndash53

Lauterbach Jacob Z ldquoSubstitutes for the Tetragrammatonrdquo Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy of Jewish Research 2 (1930) 39ndash67

Le Jeune Martin Evangelium Matthaei ex Hebraeo fideliter redditum Translated into Latinby Jean Mercier Paris 1555

Leff Gordon Heresy in the Late Middle Ages 2 vols Manchester Manchester UniversityPress 1967

Leford Louis-Theacuteophil ldquoAgrave propos de lsquoLrsquoHistoire de Joseph le Charpentierrdquo Le Museacuteon 66(1953) 201ndash23

Levine Amy-Jill and Marc Z Brettler eds The Jewish Annotated New Testament NewYork Oxford University Press 2011

Bibliography 369

Levinger Jacob S and Irene Garbell ldquoDuran Profiatrdquo Pages 56ndash57 in vol 6 of Encyclopae-dia Judaica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan2007

Levy B BarryldquoWhy Bar-nash Does Not Mean lsquoIrsquordquo Pages 85ndash101 in vol 1 of The FrankTalmage Memorial Volume Edited by Barry Walfish Jewish History 6 Haifa Haifa Uni-versity Press 1993

Lewis Bernhard The Jews of Islam Princeton Princeton University Press 1984Lichtenstein-Herschensohn Yechiel Tzvi אמתאמונתחזוק Befestigung im wahren Glauben

an Jesum Christum den Sohn Gottes Leipzig C W Vollrath 1879 [Hebrew]Limor Ora ldquoJudaism examines Christianity The Polemic of Nestor the Priest and Sefer

Toledot Yeshurdquo [ ישותולדותוספרהכומרנסתורפולמוסבנצרותמתבוננתיהודות ]Pelsquoamim 75 (1998) 109ndash28 [Hebrew]

mdash Ed Jews and Christians in Western Europe Encounter between Cultures in the MiddleAges and the Renaissance [ ראשיתעדאירופהבמערבונוצריםיהודיםלנוצריםיהודיםבין

החדשה העת ] 5 vols Tel Aviv The Open University of Israel 1993ndash98 [Hebrew]Limor Ora and Israel I Yuval ldquoJudas Iscariot Revealer of the Hidden Truthrdquo Pages 197ndash

220 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Editedby Peter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Lindars Barnabas New Testament Apologetic The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testa-ment Quotations London SCM 1961

Lods Marc ldquoEtude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les chretiensrdquoRevue drsquohistoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941) 1ndash33

Loeb Isodore ldquoPoleacutemistes Chreacutetiens et Juifs en France et en Espagnerdquo Revue des eacutetudesjuives 18 (1889) 43ndash70 219ndash42

mdash ldquoLa Controverse religieuse entre les Chreacutetiens et les Juifs au moyen acircge en France et enEspagnerdquo Revue de lrsquohistoire des religions 17 (1888) 311ndash37 18 (1888) 133ndash56

mdash ldquoLa controverse de 1240 sur le Talmudrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 1 (1880) 247ndash61 2(1881) 248ndash70 3 (1881) 39ndash57

Loewe Raphael ldquoHebraists Christianrdquo Pages 510ndash551 in vol 8 of Encyclopaedia Judaica2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

mdash ldquoThe Medieval History of the Latin Vulgaterdquo Pages 102ndash54 in The Cambridge History ofthe Bible Volume 2 mdash The West From the Fathers to the Reformation Edited by GWHLampe Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1969

Longegravere Jean ldquoRaymond of Pentildeafortrdquo Pages 1213ndash14 in vol 2 of Encyclopedia of the Mid-dle Ages Edited by Andreacute Vauchez Barrie Dobson and Michael Lapidge J Clarke2000

Lossky Vladimir ldquoChristological Dogmardquo Pages 95ndash118 in Orthodox Theology An Intro-duction Translated by Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson Crestwood NY St VladimirrsquosSeminary Press 1978

mdash ldquoRedemption and Deificationrdquo Pages 97ndash110 in In the Image and Likeness of God Editedby John H Erickson and Thomas E Bird Crestwood NY St Vladimirrsquos SeminaryPress 1974

Lotter Friedrich ldquoGermanyrdquo Pages 293ndash304 of Medieval Jewish Civilization An Encyclope-dia Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages Edited by Norman Roth New YorkRoutledge 2002

mdash ldquoHostienfrevelvorwurf und Blutwunderfaumllschung bei den Juden-verfolgungen von 1298(lsquoRintfleischrsquo) und 1336ndash1338 (lsquoArmlederrsquo)rdquo Pages 533ndash83 in vol 5 of Faumllschungen imMittelalter Teil V Fingierte Briefe Froumlmmigkeit und Faumllschung Realienfaumllschungen6 vols Monumenta Germaniae Historica Schriften 33V Hannover Hahn 1988

370 Bibliography

Louth Andrew ldquoFrom Doctrine of Christ to Icon of Christ St Maximus he Confessor on theTransfiguration of Christrdquo Pages 260ndash75 in In the Shadow of the Incarnation Essays onJesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E Daley SJ Edited by Peter WMartens Notre Dame University of Notre Dame 2008

Lukaszewski Albert L ldquoIssues Concerning the Aramiac Behind ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ACritical Review of Scholarshiprdquo Pages 1ndash27 in lsquoWho is this son of manrsquo The LatestScholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus Edited by Larry W Hurtadoand Paul L Owen Library of New Testament Studies 390 Edinburgh TampT Clark 2011

Lukowski Jerzy and Hubert Zawadzki A Concise History of Poland 2nd ed CambridgeCambridge University Press 2006

Luther Martin ldquoProtokoll und handschrifliche Eintraumlge Psalm CXXVIIrdquo Page 574 in vol 3of D Martin Luthers Werke Kritische Gesammtausgabe Die Deutsche Bibel WeimarH Boumlhlaus Nachfolger 1911

Luz Ulrich Matthew 1ndash8 Hermeneia Rev ed Minneapolis Fortress 2007mdash Matthew 8ndash20 Hermeneia Minneapolis Fortress 2001mdash Matthew 21ndash28 Hermeneia Minneapolis Fortress 2005mdash The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1995Maccoby Hyam Judaism on Trial Jewish-Christian Disputations in the Middle Ages Lon-

don Associated University Presses 1982Mackintosh Hugh R The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ 2nd ed Edinburgh TampT

Clark 1956Madigan Kevin The Passions of Christ in High-Medieval Thought An Essay on Christo-

logical Development Oxford Oxford University Press 2007mdash ldquolsquoChristus Nesciensrsquo Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment Arian and Orthodox

Interpretation of Mark 1332 in the Ancient Latin Westrdquo Harvard Theological Review 96(2003) 255ndash78

Maier Johann Juumldische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike Ertraumlge derForschung 117 Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982

Mangenot Eugegravene ldquoBlasphegraveme contre le Saint-Espritrdquo Pages 910ndash16 in vol 2 of Diction-naire de theacuteologie catholique 18 vols Edited by Alfred Vacant and Eugegravene MangenotParis Letouzey at Aneacute 1905

Marx Alexander ldquoThe Polemical Manuscripts in the Library of the Jewish TheologicalSeminary of America with Appendices on the Eben Bohan and on the Earlier HebrewTranslations of Matthewrdquo Pages 247ndash73 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and RelatedSubjects In memory of Abraham Solomon Freidus 1867ndash1923 late Chief of the JewishDivision New York Public Library New York The Alexander Kohut Memorial Founda-tion 1929 Repr pages 444ndash71 in Bibliographical Studies and Notes on Rare Books andManuscripts in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Edited byMenahem H Schmelzer New York Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1977

Massaux Eacutedouard The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Be-fore Saint Irenaeus 3 vols New Gospel Studies 51ndash3 Edited by Arthur J BellinzoniTranslated by Norman J Beval and Suzanne Hecht Macon Ga Mercer University Press1990ndash1993

McAfee Moss Carlene The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew Beihefte zurZeitschrift fuumlr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156 Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2008

McCulloh John M ldquoJewish Ritual Murder William of Norwich Thomas of Monmouth andthe Early Dissemination of the Mythrdquo Speculum 72 (1997) 698ndash740

McFarlane Kenneth B John Wycliffe and the Beginnings of English Nonconformity LondonEnglish Universities Press 1952

Bibliography 371

McGrath James F ldquoJesus as False Prophetrdquo Pages 95ndash110 in Who do my opponents say thatI am An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus Edited by ScotMcKnight and Joseph B Modica Library of New Testament Studies 327 New YorkTampT Clark 2008

mdash Johnrsquos Apologetic Christology Legitimation and Development in Johannine ChristologySociety for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 111 Cambridge Cambridge Uni-versity Press 2001

McGrath James F and Jerry Truex ldquolsquoTwo Powersrsquo and Early Jewish and ChristianMonotheismrdquo Journal of Biblical Studies (2004) 43ndash71

McGuckin John A The Transfiguration of Christ in Scripture and Tradition Studies in theBible amp Early Christianity 9 Lewiston NY The Edwin Mellen Press 1986

McKnight Scot ldquoA Loyal Critic Matthewrsquos Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspec-tiverdquo Pages 55ndash79 in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity Issues of Polemic and FaithEdited by Craig A Evans and Donald A Hagner Minneapolis Fortress 1993

McVey Kathleen E Ephrem the Syrian Hymns Mahwah NJ Paulist Press 1989Meerson Michael ldquoMeaningful Nonsense A Study if Details in Toledot Yesurdquo Pages 181ndash

96 in Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Edited byPeter Schaumlfer Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch Texts and Studies in AncientJudaism 143 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Menocal Mariacutea Rosa The Ornament of the World How Muslims Jews and Christians cre-ated a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain Boston Little Brown amp Company 2002

Merḥavia Ḥaim M Christianityrsquos Image of the Talmud The Attitude to the post-biblical Lit-erature of Israel in the Christian World of the Middle Ages (500ndash1248) [ בראיהתלמוד

)1248ndash500(בימי־הבינייםהנוצריבעולםהמקראשלאחרישראללספרותהיחסהנצרות ]Jerusalem Bialik 1970 [Hebrew]

Merkel Helmut Die Widerspruumlche zwischen den Evangelien ihre polemische und apologe-tische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin Wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-gen zum Neuen Testament I13 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1971

Metzger Bruce M The Canon of the New Testament Its Origin Development and Signifi-cance Oxford Oxford University Press 1987

Miller James ldquoThe Roots of Polish Arianismrdquo The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985)229ndash56

Mimouni Simon Claude Le judeacuteo-christianisme ancien Essais historiques (Patrimoines)Paris Cerf 1998

Mitchell Leonel L Baptismal Anointing ACC 48 London SPCK 1966Modica Joseph B ldquoJesus as Glutton and Drunkardrdquo Pages 50ndash75 in Who do my opponents

say that I am An Investigation of the Accusations Against the Historical Jesus Edited byScot McKnight and Joseph B Modica Library of New Testament Studies 327 NewYork TampT Clark 2008

Moltmann Juumlrgen The Crucified God The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticismof Christian Theology Translated by RA Wilson and John Bowden London SCM1974 Repr 2001

Moses A D A Matthewrsquos Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 122 Sheffield Sheffield Academ-ic Press 1996

Moyise Steven Old Testament in the New London TampT Clark 2001Muller Earl ldquoA lsquoSubordinationistrsquo Text in Origenrsquos De Principiisrdquo Studia Patristica 41

(2006) 207ndash12

372 Bibliography

Muumlller Johannes Judaismus oder Juumldenthum das ist Ausfuumlhrlicher Bericht von des juumldis-chen Volcks Unglauben Blindheit und Verstockung 1st ed 1644 2nd ed HamburgZ Haumlrtels 1707

Muumlller Mogens The Expression lsquoSon of Manrsquo and the Development of Christology A His-tory of Interpretation Sheffield Equinox 2008

Muumlnster Sebastian Evangelium secundum Matthaeum in Lingua Hebraica cum vesioneLatina atque succinctis annotationibus [ המשיח תורת ] Basle 1537

Mutius Hans-Georg von Die christlich-juumldische Zwangsdisputation zu Barcelona Judentumund Umwelt 5 Frankfurt P Lang 1982

mdash ldquoEin Beitrag zur polemischen juumldischen Auslegung des Neuen Testaments im MittelalterrdquoZeitschrift fuumlr Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 32 (1980) 232ndash40

mdash ldquoDie Beurteilung Jesu und des Neuen Testamentes beim spanisch-juumldischen Religions-philosphen Josef Albordquo Freiburger Zeitschrift fuumlr Philosophie und Theologie 27 (1980)457ndash64

Najman Hindy Seconding Sinai The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second TempleJudaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 77 Leiden Brill 2003

Narinskaya Elena Ephrem a lsquoJewishrsquo Sage A Comparison of the Exegetical Writings of StEphrem the Syrian and Jewish Traditions Studia Traditionis Theologiae 7 TurnhoutBrepols 2010

Nemoy Leon ldquoTroki Isaac Ben Abrahamrdquo Pages 155ndash56 in vol 20 of Encyclopaedia Juda-ica 2nd ed Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Nes Solrunn The Uncreated Light An Iconographical Study of the Transfiguration in theEastern Church Translated by Arlyne Moi Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2007

Netanyahu Benzion The Marranos of Spain From the late XIVth to the early XVIth centuryaccording to contemporary Hebrew sources New York American Academy for JewishResearch 1966

Neubauer Adolf S R Driver and E B Pusey The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah accordingto the Jewish Interpreters 2 vols Oxford and London James Parker 1876ndash77

Neusner Jacob A Rabbi Talks with Jesus 2nd ed Montreal McGill-Queenrsquos UniversityPress 2000

mdash The Incarnation of God The Character of Divinity in Formative Judaism PhiladelphiaFortress 1988

Newman Hillel I ldquoThe Death of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu Literaturerdquo Journal of Theolo-gical Studies 50 (1999) 59ndash79

Nicholls Rachel Walking on the Water Reading Mt 1422ndash33 in the Light of its Wirkungs-geschichte Biblical Interpretation Series 90 Leiden Brill 2008

Nicloacutes (Albarraciacuten) Joseacute-Vicente ldquoLa disputa religiosa de D Pedro de Luna con el Judiacuteo deTudela D Shem Tob ibn Shaprut en Pamplona (1379) El contexto en la vida y la predi-cacioacuten de Vicente Ferrerrdquo Revue des eacutetudes juives 160 (2001) 409ndash33

mdash ldquoLrsquoEacutevangile en Heacutebreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut Une traduction drsquoorigine judeacuteondashcata-lane due agrave converti replaceacutee dans son Sitz im Lebenrdquo Revue biblique 106 (1999) 358ndash407

Nirenberg David Review of Israel Jacob Yuval Two Nations in Your Womb American His-torical Review 112 (2007) 562ndash64

Norden Joseph David Deutsch (1810ndash73) Rabbiner in Myslowitz und Sohrau O-S EinLebensbild Myslowitz Verein fuumlr juumldische Geschichte und Litteratur 1902

OrsquoCallaghan Joseph F Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain Philadelphia Universityof Pennsylvania Press 2004

Ochs Peter and Nancy Levene eds Textual Reasonings Jewish Philosophy and Text Studyat the End of the Twentieth Century Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2003

Bibliography 373

OrsquoCollins Gerald Christology A Biblical Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus 2nd edOxford Oxford University Press 2009

Osborne Thomas P ldquoLes femmes de la geacuteneacutealogie de Jeacutesus dans lrsquoevangile de Matthieu etlrsquoapplication de la Torahrdquo Revue theacuteologique de Louvain 41 (2010) 243ndash58

Osburn Caroll D ldquoThe Greek Lectionaries of the New Testamentrdquo Pages 61ndash74 in The Textof the New Testament in Contemporary Research Essays on the Status Questionis Editedby Bart D Ehrman and Michael W Holmes Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1995

Ostmeyer Karl-Heinrich ldquoDer Stammbaum des Verheiszligenen Theologische Implikationender Namen und Zahlen in Mt 11ndash17rdquo New Testament Studies 46 (2000) 175ndash92

Otto Randall ldquoDealing with Delay A Critique of Christian Copingrdquo Biblical TheologyBulletin 34 (2004) 150ndash60

Pahl Theodor Quellenstudien zu Luthers Psalmenuumlbersetzung Weimar H Boumllaus Nachfol-ger 1931

Parkes James W The Jew in the Medieval Community A Study of his political and economicSituation 2nd ed Judaic Studies Library New York Hermon 1976

mdash Conflict of Church and Synagogue A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism London Son-cino 1934

Pennells Stephen ldquoThe Spear Thrust (Matt 2749b vl Jn 1934)rdquo Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 19 (1983) 99ndash115

Petersen William L ldquoThe Vorlage of Shem-Tobrsquos lsquoHebrew Matthewrsquordquo New Testament Stud-ies 44 (1998) 490ndash512

mdash Tatianrsquos Diatessaron Its Creation Dissemination Significance amp History in ScholarshipLeiden Brill 1994

Pines Shlomo ldquoJudeo-Christian Materials in an Arabic Jewish Treatiserdquo Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Jewish Research 35 (1967) 187ndash217

mdash ldquoThe Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New SourcerdquoProceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 213 (1966) 1ndash73

Podet Alan H A Translation of the Magen Wa-Hereb by Leon Modena 1571ndash1648 Lewis-ton NY The Edwin Mellen Press 2001

Pollmann Karla ldquoPrudentiusrdquo Brillrsquos New Pauly Leiden Brill 2012 Brill OnlinePopkin Richard H Disputing Christianity The 400-Year-Old Debate over Rabbi Isaac ben

Abraham of Trokirsquos Classic Arguments New York Humanity Books 2007Porter Stanley E ed The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments Grand Rapids Eerdmans

2007mdash Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2006Posnanski Adolf Schiloh ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre Erster Teil mdash Die

Auslegung von Genesis 4910 im Altertume bis zu Ende des Mittelalters Leipzig J CHinrichs 1904

Pritz Ray A Nazarene Jewish Christianity From the End of the New Testament Period untilits Dissapearance in the Fourth Century Jerusalem Magnes 1988

Przybilski Martin Kulturtransfer zwischen Juden und Christen in der deutschen Literaturdes Mittelalters Quellen und Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte 61 (295)Berlin Walter de Gruyter 2010

Puig i Tagraverrech Armand Jesus An Uncommon Journey Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament II288 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2010

Pulcini Theodore Exegesis of Polemical Discourse Ibn Ḥazm on Jewish and ChristianScriptures American Academy of Religion The Religions 2 Atlanta Scholars Press1998

Rankin Oliver S Jewish Religious Polemic Edinburgh TampT Clark 1956 Repr New YorkKtav 1970

374 Bibliography

Ratzinger Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI) Jesus of Nazareth From the Baptism in the Jordanto the Transfiguration Translated by Adrian J Walker New York Doubleday 2007

Ray Jonathan S The Sephardic Frontier The Reconquista and the Jewish Community inMedieval Iberia Ithaca NY Cornell University Press 2006

Reacutegneacute Jean ldquoEacutetude sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du Ve aux XIVe siegraveclerdquo Revue deseacutetudes juives 55 (1908) 1ndash36 221ndash43 58 (1909) 75ndash105 200ndash25 59 (1910) 58ndash89 61(1911) 1ndash27 248ndash66 63 (1912) 75ndash99

Reimarus Hermann Samuel Apologie oder Schutzschrift fuumlr die vernuumlnftigen VerehrerGottes Edited by Gerhard Alexander 2 vols Frankfurt Insel 1971

Reinhardt Klaus ldquoDas Werk des Nikolaus von Lyra im mittelalterlichen Spanienrdquo Traditio43 (1987) 321ndash58

Reinke Laurenz Die Weissagung von der Jungfrau und von Immanuel Jes 714ndash16Muumlnster Coppenrath 1848

Reiser Marius ldquoAufruhr um Isenbiehl oder Was hat Jes 714 mit Jesus und Maria zu tunrdquoPages 277ndash330 in Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift Beitraumlge zur Geschichteder biblischen Exegese und Hermeneutik Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestament I217 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2007

Rembaum Joel E ldquoMedieval Jewish Criticism of the Christian Doctrine of Original SinrdquoAssociation for Jewish Studies Review 78 (198283) 353ndash82

mdash ldquoA Reevaluation of a Medieval Polemical Manuscriptrdquo Association for Jewish StudiesReview 5 (1980) 81ndash99

mdash ldquoThe Influence of Sefer Nestor Hakomer on Medieval Jewish Polemicsrdquo Proceedings ofthe American Academy of Jewish Research 45 (1978) 156ndash85

mdash ldquoThe New Testament in medieval Jewish anti-Christian polemicsrdquo PhD diss Universityof California 1975

Rengstord Karl Heinrich and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch eds Kirche und Synagoge Hand-buch zur Geschichte von Christen mit Juden 2 vols Stuttgart Klett 1968 Repr Munichdtv 1988

Renoux Athanase ldquoLe Codex Armeacutenien Jeacuterusalem 121rdquo In Patrologia Orientalis 351 and362 (1969ndash1971)

Robinson Neal Christ in Islam and Christianity The Representation of Jesus in the Qurrsquoānand the Classical Muslim Commentaries Albany State University of New York Press1991

Rosen Klaus ldquoJesu Geburtsdatum der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldische Steuer-erklaumlrung aus dem Jahr 127 nCrdquo Jahrbuch fuumlr Antike und Christentum 38 (1995) 5ndash15

mdash ldquoZur Diskussion um Jesu Geburtsdatum Der Census des Quirinius und eine juumldischeSteuererklaumlrung aus dem Jahr 127 nCrdquo Pages 41ndash58 in Qumran und die EvangelienGeschichte oder Geschichten Edited by Walter Brandmuumlller Aachen MM Verlag 1994

Rosenkranz Simone Die juumldisch-christliche Auseinandersetzung unter islamischer Herr-schaft (7ndash10 Jahrhundert) Judaica et Christiana 21 Bern P Lang 2004

Rosenthal Erwin I J ldquoJuumldische Antwortrdquo Pages 307ndash62 of vol 1 of Kirche und SynagogeEdited by Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Kortzfleisch 2 vols Stuttgart Klett1968 Repr Munich dtv 1988 Also pages 187ndash242 in Studia Semitica Volume 1 Jew-ish Themes Edited by Erwin I J Rosenthal Cambridge Cambridge University Press1971

mdash ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in Medieval Bible Commentariesrdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 11(1960) 115ndash35 Repr pages 165ndash85 in Studia Semitica Volume 1 Jewish Themes Editedby Erwin I J Rosenthal Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1971)

Bibliography 375

Rosenthal Herman ldquoCasimir IV Jagellonrdquo Pages 598ndash99 in vol 3 of The Jewish Ency-clopedia A Descriptive Record of the History Religion Literature and Customs of theJewish People from the Earliest Times to the the Present Day Edited by Isidore Singer12 vols New York Ktav London Funk Wagnalls 1901ndash1906

Rosenthal Judah M ldquoOn lsquoSefer Yosef HaMeqanersquo with the Publication of a New CriticalEditionrdquo Immanuel 2 (1973) 68ndash72

mdash ldquoMarcin Czechowic and Jacob of Bełżyce Arian-Jewish Encounters in 16th CenturyPolandrdquo Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 34 (1966) 77ndash97

mdash ldquoThe Translation of the Gospel according to Matthew by Jacob ben Reubenrdquo [ שלתרגוםראובןבןליעקבמתיעל־פיהבשורה ] Tarbiṣ 32 (196263) 48ndash66 [Hebrew] Repr pages

123ndash39 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography History and Literature in Honor of I EdwardKiev Edited by Charles Berlin New York Ktav 1971

mdash ldquoThe Anti-Christian Polemical Literature to the End of the Eighteenth Centuryrdquo ספרות]השמונה־עשרההמאהסוףעדהאנטי־נוצריתהיווכוח ] Areshet 2 (1960) 130ndash79 3

(1961) 433ndash39 [Hebrew]mdash ldquoProlegomena to a critical edition of Milḥamot Adonai of Jacob ben Reubenrdquo Proceed-

ings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 26 (1957) 127ndash37mdash ldquoThe Talmud on Trial The Disputation at Paris in the Year 1240rdquo Jewish Quarterly

Review 47 (1956) 58ndash76 145ndash169Rosner Fred ed Abraham Maimonidesrsquo Wars of the Lord and the Maimonidean Contro-

versy Haifa The Maimonides Research Institute 2000Roth Cecil ldquoThe Feast of Purim and the Origins of the Blood Accustationrdquo Speculum 8

(1933) 520ndash26Roth Norman Conversos Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain Madison

University of Wisconsin Press 2002mdash ldquoNew Light on the Jews of Mozarabic Toledordquo Association for Jewish Studies Review 11

(1986) 189ndash220Rothfuchs Wilhelm Die Erfuumlllungszitate des Matthaumlus-Evangeliums Eine biblisch-theolo-

gische Untersuchung Beitraumlge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 58(88) Stuttgart Kohlhammer 1969

Rowland Christopher and Christopher R A Morray-Jones The Mystery of God Early Jew-ish Mysticism and the New Testament Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testa-mentum 12 Leiden Brill 2009

Rubin Miri Gentile Tales The Narrative Assault on Late Medieval Jews New Haven YaleUniversity Press 1999

mdash ldquoDesecration of the Host The Birth of an Accusationrdquo Pages 169ndash85 in Christianity andJudaism Papers read at the 1991 Summer Meeting and the 1992 Winter Meeting of theEcclesiastical History Society Edited by Diana Wood Studies in Church History 29Oxford Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical History Society 1992

Ruderman David B The World of a Renaissance Jew The Life and Thought of Abraham benMordecai Farissol Monographs of the Hebrew Union College 6 Cincinnati HebrewUnion College Press 1981

Russell Norman The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition OxfordOxford University Press 2004

Ruether Rosemary Faith and Fratricide The Theological Roots of Anti-SemitismMinneapolis Seabury 1974

Saacutenchez Caro Joseacute Manuel Rosa Mariacutea Herrera Garciacutea and Inmaculada Delgado Jara Al-fonso de Madrigal el Tostado Introduccioacuten al evangelio seguacuten San Mateo Fuentes Doc-umentales 3 Aacutevila Institucioacuten Gran Duque de Alba Salamanca Universidad Pontificia deSalamanca 2008

376 Bibliography

Sandmel Samuel A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament 3d ed Woodstock VtJewish Lights Publishing 2008

Saeligboslash Magne ed Hebrew BibleOld Testament I From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages(Until 1300) Part 2 The Middle Ages Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht 2000

Saenger Max ldquoUeber den Verfasser des polemischen Werkes הכלימהס oder כלימתrdquoהגוים Monatsschrift fuumlr Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 4 (1854) 320ndash275 (1855) 197ndash202

Sanz Artibucilla Joseacute Mariacutea ldquoLos Judios En Aragoacuten y Navarra Nuevos datos biograacuteficosrelativos a Sem Tob ben Ishaq Saprutrdquo Sefarad 5 (1945) 337ndash66

Schaumlfer Peter ldquoThe Jew who whould be Godrdquo (review of Daniel Boyarin Jewish GospelsThe Story of the Jewish Christ) The New Republic (May 18 2012) Online httpwwwtnrcomprintarticle103373books-and-artsmagazinejewish-gospels-christ-boyarin

mdash Jesus in the Talmud Princeton Princeton University Press 2007Schaumlfer Peter Michael Meerson and Yaacov Deutsch eds Toledot Yeshu (ldquoLife Story of

Jesusrdquo) Revisited A Princeton Conference Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 143Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Schaller Berndt ldquoPaul Billerbecks Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud undMidrasch Wege und Abwege Leistung und Fehlleistung christlicher Judaistikrdquo Pages149ndash74 in Zwischen Zensur und Selbstbesinnung Christliche Rezeptionen des JudentumsEdited by Christfried Boumlttrich Judith Thomanek and Thomas Willi Greifswalder theo-logische Forschungen 17 Frankfurt P Lang 2009

Schlichting Guumlnter Ein juumldisches Leben Jesu Die verschollene Toledot-Jeschu-FassungTam ū-mūrsquoād Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament I24 TuumlbingenMohr Siebeck 1982

Schlosberg Leacuteon אלאסקףמגאדלהקצה Controverse drsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee agrave un deses colleacutegues vers lrsquoan 514 texte arabe Vienna Chez lrsquoeacutediteur 1880

mdash Controverse drsquoun Eacutevecircque Lettre adresseacutee a un de ses collegravegues vers lrsquoan 514 Traduite enfranccedilais du texte arabe Publieacutee drsquoapregraves un ancien Manuscrit de la Bibliotheacuteque Natio-nale de Paris (No 755 du Catalogue) Versailles F Vieweg 1888

Schmitz Rolf ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten y su obra Milḥamot ha-Šemrdquo Pages 45ndash58 in PoleacutemicaJudeo-Cristiana Estudios Edited by Johann Maier and Carlos del Valle RodriacuteguezIberia judaica 1 Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1992

Schoeps Hans-Joachim The Jewish-Christian Argument A History of Theological ConflictTranslated by David E Green London Faber amp Faber 1963

Schonfield Hugh J According to the Hebrews a new translation of the Jewish life of Jesus(the Toldoth Jeshu) London Duckworth 1937

mdash An Old Hebrew Text of St Matthewrsquos Gospel Translated with an Introduction Notes andAppendices Edinburgh TampT Clark 1927

Schreckenberg Heinz Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und his-torisches Umfeld (1ndash11 Jh) Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 172 Frank-furt P Lang 1982 Repr and rev 4th ed 1999

mdash Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte (11ndash13 Jh) Mit einer Ikonographie des Juden-themas bis zum 4 Laterankonzil Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 335Frankfurt P Lang 1988 Repr and rev 3d ed 1997

mdash Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld(13ndash20 Jh) Europaumlische Hochschulschriften 23 Theologie 497 Frankfurt P Lang1994

Bibliography 377

Schreiner Stefan ldquolsquoEin Zerstoumlrer des Judentumsrsquo Mose ben Maimon uumlber den his-torischen Jesusrdquo Pages 323ndash45 in Trias of Maimonides Jewish Arabic and Ancient Cul-ture of Knowledge Edited by Georges Tamer Studia Judaica Berlin Walter de Gruyter2005

mdash ldquoIsaiah 53 in Sefer Hizzuq Emunah (lsquoFaith Strenghtenedrsquo) of Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham ofTrokirdquo Pages 418ndash461 in The Suffering Servant Isaiah 53 in Jewish and ChristianSources Edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher Grand Rapids Eerdmans2004

mdash ldquoIsaac of Trokirsquos Studies of Rabbinic Literaturerdquo Polin 15 (2002) 65ndash76mdash ldquoIbn Kammucircnas Verteidigung des historischen Jesus gegen den paulinischen Christusrdquo

Pages 453ndash479 in Geschichte mdash Tradition mdash Reflexion Volume 1 Judentum Festschriftfuumlr Martin Hengel zum 70 Geburtstag Edited by Hubert Cancik Hermann Lichtenbergerand Peter Schaumlfer Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1996

Schubert Kurt ldquoDas christlich-juumldische Religionsgespraumlch im 12 und 13 JahrhundertrdquoKairos 19 (1977) 161ndash86

Shatzmiller Joseph ldquoJewish Converts to Christianity in Medieval Europe 1200ndash1500rdquoPages 297ndash318 in Cross Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period Essays Pre-sented to Aryeh Grabois on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday Edited by Michael Goodich SophiaMenache and Sylvia Schein New York P Lang 1995

Segal Alan F Two Powers in Heaven Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnos-ticism Leiden Brill 1977

Shereshevsky Esra Rashi the Man and his World New York Sepher-Hermon Press 1982Repr Northvale NJ J Aronson 1996

Shmuel (Kaufman) Yehuda Even Sermons of Redemption The Chapters of Jewish Apoca-lypse from the Finalization of the Talmud to the Beginning of the Sixth Century מדרשי]

הששיהאלףראשיתועדהבבליהתלמודמחתימתהיהודיתהאפוקליפסהפרקיגאולה ]Tel Aviv Bialik Institute Massada 1943 Repr 1953 1968 [Hebrew]

Siegfried Carl ldquoRaschirsquos Einfluss auf Nicolaus von Lira und Luther in der Auslegung derGenesisrdquo Archiv fuumlr Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1869 (1869)428ndash45 2 (1871) 39ndash65

Sievert Rosemarie Isaak ben Abraham aus Troki im christlich-juumldischen Gespraumlch der Re-formationszeit Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Muumlnsteraner Judaistische Studien17 Muumlnster Lit 2005

Sim David C ldquoMatthewrsquos Use of Mark Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to ReplaceHis Primary Sourcerdquo New Testament Studies 57 (2011) 176ndash92

Simon Marcel ldquoChristian Anti Semitismrdquo Pages 202ndash33 in Verus Israel A Study of the Re-lations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire Oxford Oxford UniversityPress 1986 Repr pages 131ndash73 in Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Con-flict From Late Antiquity to the Reformation Edited by Jeremy Cohen New York NewYork University Press 1991

Simonson David ldquoEine Sammlung polemischer und apologetischer Literaturrdquo Page 114ndash20in Festschrift fuumlr Aron Freimann zum 60 Geburtstage Edited by Alexander Marx andHerrmann Meyer Berlin Soncino-Gesellschaft der Freunde des juumldischen Buches eV1935

Siqueira Reinaldo ldquoThe Delay of the Parousia in Modern Interpretationrdquo Kerygma 3 (2011)23ndash42

Sivan Hagith ldquoFrom Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem Jewish Perspectives and Jewish-Chris-tian Polemicsrdquo Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000) 277ndash306

Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Believers in Jesus The Early Centuries Peabody Hendrickson2007

378 Bibliography

Smith R Payne A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St Luke Part II OxfordOxford University Press 1859

Specht Walter F ldquoChapter and Verse Divisionsrdquo Pages 105ndash107 in The Oxford Companionto the Bible Edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan Oxford Oxford Uni-versity Press 1993

Spinka Matthew Matthew Spinka John Hus A Biography Princeton Princeton UniversityPress 1968

mdash John Husrsquo Concept of the Church Princeton Princeton University Press 1966Spinks Bryan D Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism From the New

Testament to the Council of Trent Aldershot Ashgate 2006Stacey Robert C ldquoFrom Ritual Crucifixion to Host Desecration Jews and the Body of

Christrdquo Jewish History 12 (1998) 11ndash28Stein Siegfried Jewish-Christian Disputations in Thirteenth Century Narbonne London

University College London H K Lewis 1969mdash ldquoA Disputation on Moneylending between Jews and Gentiles in Mersquoir b Simeonrsquos

Milḥemet Miṣwah (Narbonne 13th Cent)rdquo Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959) 45ndash61Steinsaltz Adin The Talmud mdash The Steinsaltz Edition A Reference Guide New York Ran-

dom House 1989Steinschneider Moritz Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwis-

chen Muslimen Christen und Juden Kunde des Morgenlandes 63 Leipzig Brockhaus1877

mdash Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century With an Introduction on Tal-mud and Midrash mdash A historical essay from the German of M Steinschneider LondonLongman Brown Green Longmans amp Roberts 1857

Stillman Norman A The Jews of Arab Lands A History and a Source Book PhiladelphiaThe Jewish Publication Society 1979

Stow Kenneth R Jewish Dogs An Image and Its Interpreters mdash Continuity in theCatholic-Jewish Encounter Stanford Stanford University Press 2006

mdash Popes Church and Jews in the Middle Ages Confrontation and Response AldershotAshgate Publishing 2007

Strack Hermann L and Paul Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud unMidrash 6 vols Munich C H Beck 1922ndash61

Strecker Georg ldquoThe Problem of Jewish Christianityrdquo Pages 241ndash85 in Orthodoxy andHeresy in Earliest Christianity Second German edition with added appendicies by GeorgStrecker by Walter Bauer Edited by Robert A Kraft and Gehard Krodel PhiladelpiaFortess 1971

Stroumsa Sarah ldquoJewish Polemics Against Islam and Christianity In the Light of Judaeo-Arabic Textsrdquo Pages 241ndash50 in Judaeo-Arabic Studies Proceedings of the FoundingConference of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies Edited by Norman Golb Studies inMuslim-Jewish Relations 3 Amsterdam Overseas Publishers Association 1997

mdash ldquoQiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf A case study in polemical literaturerdquo Pages 155ndash59 inGenizah Research After Ninety Years The Case of Judaeo-Arabic Papers read at theThird Congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies Edited by Joshua Blau andStefan C Reif Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1992

Suciu Alin ldquoNew Fragments form the Sahidic Version of the Historia Josephi FabriLignariirdquo Le Museacuteon 122 (2009) 279ndash89

Suler Bernard ldquoMartini Raymondrdquo Pages 584ndash85 in vol 13 of Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nded Edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik Detroit Macmillan 2007

Szyszman Simon ldquoDie Karaumler in Ost-Mitteleuropardquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Ostforschung 6 (1957)24ndash54

Bibliography 379

Swartz Michael D Mystical prayer in ancient Judaism An analysis of Maʻaseh MerkavahTexte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 28 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1992

Sweetman J Windrow Islam and Christian Theology A Study of the Interpretation of Theo-logical Ideas in the two Religions Part 2 Volume 1 mdash The Mediaeval Developmentssignificant for comparative Study Historical Survey of the Second Period London Lut-terworth 1955

Swenson Kristin M ldquoPsalm 2217 Circling around the Problem Againrdquo Journal of BiblicalLiterature 123 (2004) 637ndash48

Synan Edward A The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages New York Macmillan 1965Talmage Frank E Introduction to Sefer HaNizzahon Yom-Tov Lipmann Muumlhlhausen ldquoKun-

tresimrdquo Texts and Studies 59ndash60 Jerusalem Hebrew University Dinur Center 1983ndash84[Hebrew]

mdash ldquoThe Polemical Writings of Profiat Duranrdquo Immanuel 13 (1981) 69ndash85 Repr pages281ndash97 Apples of Gold in Settings of Silver Studies in Medieval Jewish Exegesis andPolemics Edited by Barry Dov Walfish Papers in Medieval Studies 14 Toronto Pontifi-cal Institute of Medieval Studies 1999

mdash Ed Disputation and Dialogue Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter New YorkKtav 1975

mdash Review of Isaac ben Abraham of Trokirsquos Faith Strengthened Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion 41 (1973) 430ndash32

Tanner Norman P Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 2 vols London Sheed amp Ward1990

Taylor Miriam S Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity A Critique of the ScholarlyConsensus Studia Post-Biblica 46 Leiden Brill 1995

Thiselton Anthony C Hermeneutics of Doctrine Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2007Thomas David ldquoAbū l-Ḥasan lsquoAlī ibn Sahl Rabban al-Ṭabarīrdquo Christian-Muslim Relations

A Bibliographical History Leiden Brill 2012 Brill Onlinemdash ldquoAl-Radd lsquoalā l-Naṣārārdquo Christian-Muslim Relations A Bibliographical History Leiden

Brill 2012 Brill Onlinemdash Christian Doctrines in Islamic Theology History of Christian-Muslim Relations Leiden

Brill 2008mdash Early Muslim Polemic against Christianity Abū ʻĪsaacute al-Warrāqrsquos lsquoAgainst the Incarna-

tionrsquo Oriental Publication 59 Cambridge University of Cambridge Press 1996Thomas David Barbara Roggema and Alex Malett Christian-Muslim Relations A Biblio-

graphical History 3 vols Leiden Brill 2009ndash2011Torrance Thomas F Incarnation The Person and Life of Christ Edited by Robert T Walk-

er Downers Grove IVP amp Paternoster 2008Trautner-Kromann Hanne Shield and Sword Jewish Polemics Against Christianity and the

Christians in France and Spain from 1100ndash1500 Texts and Studies in Medieval and EarlyModern Judaism 8 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 1993

Tuckett Christopher M Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition Synoptic Tradition in theNag Hammadi Library Studies of the New Testament and Its World EdinburghTampT Clark 1986

Trench Richard C Sacred Latin Poetry Chiefly Lyrical selected and arranged for use withnotes and introduction 3d rev ed London Macmillan 1874

Unterseher Lisa A The Mark of Cain and the Jews Augustinersquos Theology of Jews andJudaism Gorgias Dissertations 39 Early Christian Studies 9 Piscataway NJ Gorgias2009

Urbach Ephraim E ldquoEacutetude sur la litteacuterature poleacutemique au moyen-agerdquo Revue des eacutetudesjuives 100 (1935) 49ndash77

380 Bibliography

Vall Gregory ldquoPsalm 2217B lsquoThe Old Guessrsquordquo Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997)45ndash56

Valle Rodriacuteguez Carlos del ldquoJacob ben Rubeacuten de Huesca Polemista Su patria y su eacutepocardquoPages 59ndash65 in Poleacutemica Judeo-Cristiana Estudios Edited by Johann Maier and Carlosdel Valle Rodriacuteguez Iberia judaica 1 Madrid Aben Ezra Ediciones 1992

Vermes Geza Jesus the Jew A Historianrsquos Reading of the Gospels New York Macmillan1974

Visotzky Burton L Golden Bells and Pomegranates Studies in Midrash Leviticus RabbahTexte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 94 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2003

mdash ldquoAnti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbahrdquo Proceedings of the American Academy ofJewish Research 56 (1990) 83ndash100

Vogt Peter Der Stammbaum bei den Heiligen Evangelisten Matthaumlus Biblische Studien123 Freiburg Herder 1907

Vose Robin Dominicans Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon CambridgeStudies in Medieval Life and Thought Fourth Series 74 Cambridge Cambridge Univer-sity Press 2009

Waysblum Marek ldquoIsaac of Troki and Christian Controversy in the XVI Centuryrdquo Journalof Jewish Studies 3 (1952) 62ndash77

Webb Robert L ldquoJohn the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesusrdquo Pages 179ndash230 in Studyingthe Historical Jesus Evaluations of the State of Current Research Edited by BruceChilton and Craig A Evans Leiden Brill 1994

Weinandy Thomas G In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh An Essay on the Humanity of ChristLondon TampT Clark 1993

Wilken Robert L The Christians as the Romans Saw Them 2nd ed New Haven Yale Uni-versity Press 2003

mdash ldquoThe Baptism of Jesus in the Late Fathersrdquo Studia Patristica 11 (1972) 268ndash77Willi-Plein Ina and Thomas Willi Glaubensdolch und Messiasbeweis Die Begegnung von

Judentum Christentum und Islam im 13 Jahrhundert in Spanien Forschungen zumJuumldisch-Christlichen Dialog 2 Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Verlag 1980

Williams A Lukyn Adversus Judaeos A Birdrsquos-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until theRenaissance Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1935 Repr 2012

mdash Christian Evidences for Jewish People 2 vols Cambridge W Heffer 1911 Repr Eu-gene Wipf and Stock 1998

Williams Jacqueline A Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from NagHammadi Atlanta Scholar Press 1988

Williams Rowan Arius Heresy and Tradition 2nd ed London SCM 2001Wolfson Harry A ldquoAn Unknown Splinter Group of Nestoriansrdquo Revue drsquoeacutetudes augustini-

ennes et patristiques 6 (1960) 249ndash53mdash ldquoMore about the Unknown Splinter group of Nestoriansrdquo Revue drsquoeacutetudes augustiniennes

et patristiques 11 (1965) 217ndash22Wright N T ldquoJesusrsquo Self-Understandingrdquo Pages 47ndash61 in The Incarnation An Interdiscipli-

nary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God Edited by Stephen T Davis DanielKendall and Gerald OrsquoCollins Oxford Oxford University Press 2002

mdash ldquoForeword to the New Editionrdquo Pages ixndashxxvi in Conflict Holiness and Politics in theTeachings of Jesus by Marcus J Borg 2nd ed London Continuum 1989

Wyschogrod Michael ldquoIncarnation and Godrsquos Indwelling Israelrdquo Pages 165ndash78 in Abra-hamrsquos Promise Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations Edited by R Kendall SoulenGrand Rapids Eerdmans 2004

Bibliography 381

mdash ldquoWhy is the Theology of Karl Barh of Interest to a Jewish Theologianrdquo Pages 211ndash24 inAbrahamrsquos Promise Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations Edited by R KendallSoulen Grand Rapids Eerdmans 2004

mdash ldquoA Jewish Perspective on Incarnationrdquo Modern Theology 12 (1996) 195ndash209Yarbro Collins Adela and John Joseph Collins King and Messiah as Son of God Divine

Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature Grand RapidsEerdmans 2008

Yuval Israel Jacob Two Nations in Your Womb Perceptions of Jews and Christians in LateAntiquity and the Middle Ages Berkeley University of California Press 2006

Zajączkowski Ananiasz Karaims in Poland History Language Folklore Science WarsawPaństwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe 1961

Zellentin Holger M Rabbinic Parodies of Jewish and Christian Literature Texte undStudien zum Antiken Judentum 139 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2011

Zunz Leopold Zur Geschichte und Literatur Erster Band Berlin Veit 1845Zwiep Irene E ldquoJewish scholarship and Christian tradition in late-medieval Catalonia Profiat

Duran and the art of memoryrdquo Pages 224ndash39 in Hebrew Scholarship and the MedievalWorld Edited by Nicholas De Lange Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2001

382 Bibliography

Index of Literature

Hebrew Bible

Genesis11 299 302126 205 299126ndash27 302128 8022ndash3 7127 80 232224 283411 1461911 1451917 1463320 2774910 3

Exodus41 110422 2321025 2471313 1951516 243175 277193 2332011 712012 1482312 713311ndash23 1123320 50 833428 1883429ndash35 2283430 140 3084034 339

Leviticus1312 261199ndash10 1201918 236 2832523 193

Numbers121ndash8 112127 2671422 22817 2612319 60 144 192 343369 107 223365ndash9 107

Deuteronomy424 82434 82436 49 82 233512ndash15 71516 148521 23664 6564ndash5 288613 229 283616 28383 188 190 228817 22893 48 8299 188911 188918 188925 1881010 188131ndash5 2411315ndash17 139141 2811815 2811815ndash17 139 1432223ndash24 1432319 1442319ndash20 1332419ndash20 120349ndash12 112

Joshua11 2671012ndash15 232

Judges637 110639 110

2 Samuel1910 261

1 Kings134 1451717ndash24 231 2321722 2321824 110 2321836ndash38 232198 344

2 Kings48ndash38 23158 110 228510 230 232514 232618 1451321 232

Isaiah18 26169ndash10 2837 2997ndash9 10 298711 228712 228713 228714 7 8 10 11 12 22 53

72 106 143 144 154 224 235 259 277 278 283 298 300 305 306 307 320 323 328

716 27783 283823 2839 29991 30095 25996 279 306 30711 49111ndash3 183 2831419 283

296 822913 2832915 261387ndash8 2324114 253421ndash4 61 68 196 283449 2854413 234491ndash15 46519ndash11 75213 298 303601 2476010ndash12 247628 2436211 283

Jeremiah175 192 236 309236 2773114 2833115 299 3003227 61

Ezekiel710 2612127 261371ndash14 231 233

Hosea85 153111 300

Joel227 31331 313

Amos37 221 237ndash38911 261

Micah51 283 29952 225 226

Zechariah213 7199 283 299 3431112ndash13 284 301147 59


Malachi31 283310 110 22845ndash6 299

Psalms2 56 6322 46 6326ndash7 45 68 29828 12137 7148 7176 7186 7919 71177 2431713 7122 63 203ndash204 253221(2) 53 115 205 206 253

254 343222 253226 2532216 2532220 253 254241 193 309316 200339 161352 713522ndash23 71373 2363725 203 343444 2434423 714426 715113 2045522 236

594ndash5 71681 717217 2597422 71825 285826 274 275828 719112 268110 7 46 56 64 2991101 7 46 63ndash65 28311611 1921214 49 71 148 179 34213213ndash14 711356 16113812 851463 192 309

Proverbs2027 162268 236

Job920 2851118ndash19 711617 2462228 114 199256 2533723 249

Daniel31ndash30 119327 202713 57 299

2 Chronicles2420ndash21 284


2 Baruch218 59

JosephusAntiquitates judaicae4325ndash26 235

Targum Ruth315 105

Philo of AlexandriaDe vita Mosis1158 235

De plantatione50 243

Wisdom of Solomon71 232


New Testament

Matthew1 30011 1 24011ndash16 48 53 103 104 124

178 220 223 32111ndash17 181ndash8211ndash223 712ndash16 17713 18215 18216 182115ndash16 182116 106 137 139 142 143

178 183117 1 177 223118 7 139 142 183118ndash24 7118ndash25 235 321119 144120 7 48 49 73 339120ndash23 1 106 305120ndash25 305121 139 142 320122 7 9 300122ndash23 7 53 72 272 277

283 288 299123 1 7 11 140 143 144

306 339124 7124ndash25 178 300 305125 7 51 76 139 143 181

183 287 306 32021ndash2 28321ndash12 22521ndash22 49 23125 22525ndash6 9 28326 225 299211 283213 145213ndash14 139 145 178 184213ndash15 220 227214 145 342214ndash15 270 300214ndash20 343215 9 227216ndash18 283 300

216ndash20 342217 9217ndash18 299219ndash23 283222ndash23 7223 9 30033 935ndash6 178311 236313 178 185313ndash17 103 104 108 124 186

220 227 321314ndash15 109 186 321315 1 186 320316ndash17 178 185317 50 63 23741 28841ndash10 300 30841ndash11 51 103 104 110 124

178 188 220 222 228 255 268 321

42 50 18043 111 189 191 22843ndash4 270 28845 28846 111 189 191 22846ndash7 268 287 28847 28348 288410 283411 111 230412 342413ndash15 283 300414 9418ndash19 293423 18051ndash84 219517 11 12 178 320517ndash18 180517ndash19 22 43 177 300 318517ndash30 320518 178520ndash24 236527 236533ndash39 103533ndash42 236538 44


539 181539ndash40 103543 283 300543ndash48 236543ndash44 103543ndash47 44544 12061ndash4 23665ndash15 23669 304 305618ndash19 245619ndash23 236624ndash34 236625ndash26 140 146 14776ndash12 236716 112720 112724ndash29 21981ndash4 103 139 141 147 178

220 230819 301817 9818 149818ndash20 139 147 149 150 178819 301819ndash20 300 302 309 321820 138 147 150 191ndash93

314821ndash22 179 191821ndash25 139 147 148 335822 148823ndash25 49823ndash26 179 191823ndash27 71824 79 336824ndash25 179 191828ndash36 103829 189830 5791ndash5 14792ndash8 33596 57 139 147 149 150

151 178 191ndash93 32198 4199 28399ndash13 219911 177913 139 143 147918ndash26 220 231920 139 147 152

932ndash38 220 222 231 255923 240934 342101 140 165109ndash10 140 1651018 3291023 571025 2401032 103

1034 177 299 3061034ndash35 3001037 491040 68 300 303 305 309

3101041 68112ndash6 18117ndash15 299119 681110 2831111 138 153 237ndash381111ndash15 221 236 2551113ndash14 3001114ndash15 2371116ndash19 1551119 53 57 138 1551125ndash27 103 104 111 124 125

3211125ndash30 112 178 193 221 238

246 2551127 59 112 238 24412 122121ndash7 179121ndash8 18 103 219128 571210ndash12 1791215 3421215ndash21 2831217ndash21 91218 46 56 61 68 180 195

1961222ndash23 1231222ndash29 221 239 2551224 240 270 3421227 2401230ndash32 103 104 121 122 125

3211230ndash37 221 2411231 123


1231ndash32 138 140 141 155 157158 166 180 194ndash95 244

1232 57 299 300 302 305 310 322

1238 2431238ndash45 221 240 2421240 57 1801246 1791246ndash50 2401247ndash1318 179131ndash4 179138ndash13 1791310 103 1211310ndash13 1231310ndash15 2401312ndash15 103 1211313ndash15 2831314ndash15 1791314ndash16 91316 1791335 91337 57 139 158ndash1591341 57 243 245 3231343 2451353ndash58 137 178 2351354 49 691354ndash57 46 68 691355 48 3001355ndash56 51 76 300 3291357 50 68 180 195141ndash2 49141ndash12 240145 68148ndash10 501413 3421419ndash20 1801425 1801425ndash33 3351432ndash41 1241433 244 2451435 112151ndash10 219151ndash21 300157ndash9 2831517 79 1391521 3421521ndash25 103 1211521ndash28 1791521ndash29 240

1524 68 1231529ndash38 221 2421531 411539ndash1612 2361613 57 2451613ndash17 268 287 2881613ndash20 221 243 255 2641616 189 240 243 2451617 2451620 180 1951620ndash21 1951621 2401627 323171ndash8 221 245 335172 189172ndash3 189175 63 189 246179 57 3231712 57 1121712ndash13 2991714ndash17 1651717 3061720 49 1801722 571724ndash27 501727 3431811 571811ndash13 103 1211818 2641818ndash20 81820 306193ndash5 2831913ndash16 2191916ndash17 46 65 661916ndash21 140 179 196 269 301

310 3211917 270 287 288 3211922 1791928 57 3232018 57 3042020 3212020ndash23 49 77 782021 2702022 1602022ndash23 139 1602023 78 160 301 311 3142028 49 57 68 140 143

144 145 178 191 192 271 299 301 304 305 311 321


211ndash5 50 283214ndash5 9 299 3432110ndash22 221 2462111 682115ndashiexcl5 2832117ndash19 179 1972118f 3012118ndash19 103 104 119 124 125

3212118ndash21 2692118ndash22 3132120 269 2882137 1892146 682215ndash22 222 246 2472221 3432223ndash2425 2192241ndash45 2832241ndash46 63ndash642244 7 2992323ndash24 1812335 284 3012337 138 161243 1802415 92424 592427 572427ndash36 222 2482429ndash33 179 1982430 57 60 299 3232434 2482436 57 59 60 179 180 198

301 303 314 3292437 572439 57 602444 46 57 602531 57 323262 57266 3012617ndash20 2842621 180 1952624 572629 306 3432631ndash44 222 248 2552636 3072636ndash40 103 104 113 1242636ndash45 1242636ndash46 67 179 1992638 50 116 138 157

161ndash62 332

2638ndash39 1662638ndash42 512638ndash46 3212639 46 113 116 138 140

143 144 162 178 192 301 312 329 342

2641 68 118 138 161ndash62 249 328

2645 57 103 113 124 180 193

2647ndash50 235 2842647 2842652ndash54 2312650 3432654 2502663 1892664 7 57 299 323273ndash10 284279 301279ndash10 92711 682711ndash13 752725 1462727ndash66 222 2512734 274 2872738 2842739ndash43 2842741ndash42 682742ndash43 2002745ndash46 179 2022746 46 61 140 163 177

179 191 203 205 206 254 279 280 281 288 301 307 312 321 329 343

2749 812751ndash53 2842754 812762ndash66 2312811ndash15 2312816ndash19 103 104 125 137 141

164 1652816ndash20 106 120 139 164 179

206 222 3212818 178 193 206 301 312

3142818ndash19 1252818ndash29 1652819 2402820 7 206 306


Mark11ndash3 1012 28315 13919 32119ndash11 186112ndash13 51111 50210ndash11 1503 223322 342327 139328 302328ndash29 121435ndash43 71438 49 79 336519ndash20 10361ndash4 46 6963 48 76 269 288 32964 50 68615 6876ndash7 283719 18831ndash33 24993ndash4 189914f 140914ndash17 165914ndash20 165917 159919 165919f 140919ndash20 165921 159937 68 310107 2831017ndash18 66 2701017ndash19 461017ndash21 140 159 179 196

3101018 70 274 287 321

1035 3211035ndash40 49 77 78 2701037 2701038 1601038ndash40 781040 160 287 3111045 68 271 287 311111ndash6 501111ndash14 179 189 197

1112 1191112ndash14 3011112ndash40 3131113ndash14 271 288127 3431229ndash30 2881232 1221235 3121235ndash37 641236 7 46134 180 1991324ndash34 179 1981326 57 601332 46 59 60 70 180 198

199 301 303 305 314 322 329

1432ndash34 681432ndash37 103 1131432ndash38 511432ndash42 67 179 1991433 113 1141434 50 116 2001435 1131435ndash36 461436 144 192 3421438 68 118 3281440 1141440ndash41 104 1131441 180 1931462 7 57 2351464 329151 68152 681531 2001531ndash32 681533ndash34 179 2021534 46 61 254 312 3431539 811619 7 235

Luke126ndash28 80128 276130 48134ndash35 721ndash5 75221 306221ndash35 49241ndash48 272243ndash48 181


248 49 288321ndash22 51 76 178 186321ndash31 182322 50 77 323ndash25 220 223328ndash38 51331ndash32 220 22341ndash2 5041ndash3 5141ndash13 5143ndash4 270 288421 10422ndash24 69424 46 68524 150627ndash89 1987 79714ndash15 180716 68726 68 70734 53739 68823 79 336823ndash24 49823ndash27 71929ndash30 189932 189952ndash53 178957 302 3091016 3101022 591115 3421210 121 180 194ndash95 302

3101219 3021222ndash24 140 146 1471331ndash33 46 681333 68 701818ndash19 46 3221818ndash20 661818ndash22 3101819 2741843 411928ndash35 501937 412041ndash44 642042 462042ndash43 72127 572231ndash32 46 180 195

2233 2352239ndash46 502240ndash46 672241 3122242 3422244 50 2492246 68 3282269 72270 752334 1402335 2002346 2002347 812419 68 702444 10

John11 267 33811ndash2 26715 85112 281 287114 267 339117 189129ndash34 186145ndash46 178 18321 15421ndash4 14021ndash11 4922ndash4 13823 15423ndash4 15424 15427ndash9 18029 155335 7045ndash7 179 19147 15247ndash9 14047ndash15 138419 68422 181423 138525ndash30 140526ndash27 70530 147 271 287530ndash31 180530ndash32 46536ndash38 46 68537 46 68614 68


720 342740 68752 6883ndash11 144826 140826ndash17 46840 303 305854 139 158ndash59917 68929 18910 267106 2751017 691017ndash18 249 3431019ndash36 274 287 2881029 701030 2731033 181 3291034 274 275 2771034ndash36 2751035 2751035ndash36 2751036 2751038 120 309 310114 411144 1801214ndash15 501238 101249 1951249ndash50 46 68131ndash11 68133 301 314135ndash20 491316 701320 310147ndash10 120148ndash10 50149 50 77 78 273 2871410 273 2871413ndash14 1381420 273 2871423ndash24 1801428 70 3141522 1421615 301 31417 561725ndash26 461910 2491926 1541934 81

2017 462028 267

Acts116 10233 235233ndash35 73ndash4 281322 143 281 288323 68413 233531 7 235734 281737 68 143755ndash56 71327 101333 63 29815 3002016ndash17 276 2882028 276 338

Romans512ndash14 80515 303 305 332814 281 287834 795 276 288

1 Corinthians123 184ndash6 7086 272 288 337 338153 101525 71525ndash28 641528 701535ndash57 641545ndash49 80 332

2 Corinthians37ndash18 189

Galatians52ndash12 18

Ephesians120 7120ndash22 23526 745 186


Philippians25ndash11 337

Colossians113ndash20 337115 332116 43117 4328ndash9 276 28829 33231 7

1 Thessalonians215ndash16 146

Hebrews11ndash3 18913 7 23515 65113 727ndash8 31431ndash6 18935ndash6 268 287 28855 6381 7

107ndash9 701012ndash13 7121 71229 82

1 Peter322 7 235

1 John316 276 28842 33742ndash3 329412 272 288

2 John7 337

Jude14ndash5 276 288

Revelation117ndash18 276 288321 7512 276 288

Rabbinic Scriptures

MishnaPersquoah11 148

Ketubbot111 148

Avot311 236

Talmud BabliBerakhot24b 236

Shabbat 31a 23688b 236104b 342116a 12 195116b 12

Yoma4a 23521b 8237andashb 236

Rosh ha-Shana6b 192Sotah47a 240

Qiddushin28a 23649b 250

Bava Metzirsquoa85a 236

Bava Batra11a 236


Sanhedrin37a 23638a 24343andashb 240104b 240107b 240 270

Hullin133a 236

Niddah31a 232

Talmud YerushalmiTarsquoanit65b [2124] 60

Hagiga77d [227] 75

Sanhedrin23c [694] 75

MidrashimTanḥuma Yitro16 82

Tehillim49 105

Prsquosikta Rabbati11 82

Bereshit Rabbah65 232810 71319 232

Vayyiqra Rabbah156 232

Muslim Scriptures

Qurān297 72355 53359 41358ndash59 804157 53

575 5316102 721930 531933ndash34 534359 53

Christian Writings

1 Early Christian

Acts of Nicodemus Acts of Pilate16 81

Apostolic Constitutions 625 164

Barnabas129b 61

Dialogue of Athanasius amp Zacchaeus1 4022 7828ndash34 1130ndash34 5343 76

Dialogue of Simon amp Theophilus12ndash14 11312ndash13 53


Dialogue of Timothy amp Aquila512ndash18 328ndash2985ndash6 11 53186ndash10 11186ndash30 53266 11 533414ndash20 11 53

Gospel of Thomas44 122 123

History of Joseph the Carpenter2 767 749 7611 7673ndash74 7377 7378 7379 7399 73

Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew13 233

Infancy Gospel of Thomas15 47

Shepherd of Hermas565 108

Protoevangelium of James 92 891414ndash21 233171ndash2 89181 8920 79 89

Vita Sylvestry (Donation of Constantine)2 18

Kebra Nagast96 83

2 Patristic

Ambrose of MilanDe fide ad Gratianum55 160516 595139 59

Expositio Ev sec Lucam10 [317] 105865ndash67 6788 [1210] 122

Enarrationes in XII Psalmos39 272

AthanasiusDe decretis23 83

De incarnatione546 65

Epistulae festales 6 146

Orationes contra Arianos271 243342ndash50 59343 60 66

AugustinContra Faustum Manichaeum1211 146

De symbolo ad chatechumenos8 83

De Trinitate112 59123 59

Sermones7114 157

Basil of CaesareaEpistulae236 59


BedeExp in Ev S Matthaei24 5927 (28) 164

ChrysostomHomiliae in Matthaeum41 122631 67

Clement of AlexandriaStromata3593 79

CyprianAd Quirinum testimonia adv Jud24 243

Cyril of AlexandriaCommentarii in Lucam 122ndash23 67

Homiliae paschales173 83

Quod unus est Christus83

Cyril of JerusalemCatechesis36 154

EphremCom Diatessaron (ed McCarthy) 4 sect7 110ndash1115 sectsect1ndash11 6716 sect1 119 12016 sect3 11916 sectsect2ndash5 119 12020 sect1 116ndash117

EpiphaniusPanarion2994 215303 713037 21530131ndash224 21569(19) 160 3296958 16078 (58) 89

EusebiusHistoria ecclesiastica1717 1073246 2153255 2153273 21533916 2155103 2156254 215

Gregory of NazianzusOratio in laudam Basilii2918 59 279

Gregory of NyssaLibri contra Eunomium122 27234 272

HegemoniusActa Archelai59 109

Hilary of PoitiersIn Ev Matthaei Com86 151264 59

IgnatiusEpist ad Phld 3 11

IrenaeusAdversus haereses1261 712286 60311 21539 11 109392 753102 3233163 75 3233167 3233168 643171 3233183ndash4 323319 113191ndash2 3233193 8ndash9321 11322 75


3222 1174123 67423 114332 2725 655211 2725212 1885283 243531 64

JeromeAdv Helvidium de Mariae virg perp14 89

Adversus Pelagianos 32 109 215

Com in Matthaeum 125 2251211 22521111 15421213 21531917 6742436 59

De viris illustribus3 215

Epistulae205 2151208 215

Homiliae in psalmos108 146

John of DamascusDe fide orthodoxa38 83

Justin MartyrApologia I133 7032ndash35 113538 253

Dialogus cum Tryphone43 1145 7548ndash49 72

54 1159ndash60 8361 8363 1166ndash68 1166ndash69 5367 72681 327688 10697 240713 1077 1184 11841ndash3 10842 8884 109952ndash4 25197 25399 199992 117100 751003 2721003ndash4 3231011ndash2 661023 1461038 117104 253127ndash28 83128 83

LactantiusDivinae Institutiones422 6252 23353 41

Macarius MagnesApokritikos32 32834 66422 87

Nestoriusfrag24 110

OrigenHomiliae Genesium 143 226


Comm in ev Matthaei1510ndash11 6755 60

Contra Celsum16 240128 240 327131 249133ndash35 11134 53137 324161 146162 233166 146 184 227169 87170 18929 117211 249224 115232 75234 249236 81246 23333 41322 41336 41473 249442 41520 41669 156673 86ndash87

Frag ex comm in ev Matthaei487 59

Homiliae Lucam144 109

PrudentiusApotheosis (ed Thomson)pp 121ndash29 330

Pseudo-ClementHomiliae1811ndash3 67

Recognitiones1601ndash3 153

TertullianAdversus Judaeos9 1192 9 226

Adversus Marcionem3101 79312ndash13 113132 226410 323

Adversus Praxeam8 83

Apologeticus21 832115 3

De carne Christi4 875 32317ndash23 8718 61

De idololatria91 226

De resurrectione carnis51 64

Theodore of MopsuestiaIn ev Lucae com frg4 111

Hom catech1525 110



Julian ldquothe ApostaterdquoContra Galileos213A 73209Df 328253Ef 328262Cf 53 328

Photinus55 87 328

Porphyry (ed Berchman)sect28 11sect57 62sect62 41sect73 11sect96 79sect166 66sect175 68 328sect208 87

4 Medieval

Alcuin of YorkDe symbolo 509 (41) 155

Anselm of LaonEnarrationes in Mattheaum11 154

Sententiefol 86d 156

Isidore of SevilleEtymologiae7223 243

Petrus AlfonsiDialog cum Moyse judaeo8 277

Peter LombardSententiae4 264473 (45) 1874131 (72) 265

StraboGlossa Ordinaria Evang Matt2436 59

Thomas AquinasCatena AureaMatt 1111 154

Summa contra gentiles43429 2804391 280

Summa theologiae133 2803164ndash5 2803191 28034612 280

Vincent of BeauvaisSpeculum historiale891 264



Abramowski Luise 62Abulafia Anna Sapir 93 94 129

131ndash33Accad Martin 32 122Adler Michael 328Akhiezer Golda 293Aland Barbar 319Aland Kurt 319Allen W C 321Alexander Gerhard 291Alexander Philip 33 54Allison Dale 59 106 109 112 122

148 153 188 189 248 310Atiya Aziz 72Avneri Zvi 98 173 174 210

Bacher Wilhelm 17 25 323Baer Yitzhak 94 97 211 257 259

260 265Baltes Guido 215 318Bammel Ernst 42 47 54 81 327Banitt Menahem 129Bar-Ilan Meir 243Bat Yersquoor 35Battenberg Friedrich 171 174Batto Bernhard 71Bauckham Richard 4 233 337Bauer Walter 42 64 75 81 214Beaumont Mark 273Becker Eve-Marie 321Becker Hans-Juumlrgen 20 34Bedenbender A 20Beeson Charles 109Beinart Haim 210 211Ben-Chorin Shalom 17Benedict XVI 17Ben-Sasson Haim 169ndash71Ben-Shalom Ram 172Berchman Robert 11 41 62 66 68 79

87 328

Berger David 6 16 20 42 88 91 9293 94 136 137 144 149 150 156 163 167ndash206 288 321 324

Berger Samuel 213Berlin Anne 257 258 260 264 265

287Bezold Carl 83Biale David 11Biere Christina 20Billerbeck Paul 20 75 236Bindley Herbert 5Biscioni Antonio 216Blastenbrei Peter 174Blau Joshua 32Bliemetzrieder Franz 156Bloch Reneacutee 235Blumenkranz B 14 18 93 94 129

130 134 146 171 326Bobinchon P 2 26Bockmuehl Markus 148Borg Marcus 231Bowman Robert 337Boyarin Daniel 4 158 335Braude William 82Brayer Menachem 232Brettler Marc 320Breuer Mordecai 175 176 188 192Briggman Anthony 243Brown Raymond 60 75 76 106Broydeacute Isaac 127Burnett Stephen 17Burkett Delbert 57 323Burrell David 333Burton Robert 292Bynum Caroline 64

Cabaniss Allen 325Carlton Paget James 12 326 331Casey Maurice 57Chadwick Henry 75 87 115 146 327

Chapman David 252Chazan Robert 5 24 25 54 85 91 92

94 96ndash99 101 102 105 111123124 129ndash35 137 171 172 173 212341

Chernus Ira 189Chester Andrew 4Chidiac Robert 113 119 275Chiesa Bruno 25 266Chilton Bruce 189Chokr Melhem 32Christensen Michael 65Cohen Jeremy 21 93 94 96 97 134

146 170 172 173 207 251 258265 266 286 288 289

Cohen Mark 94 95Cohen Shaye 23 215Collins John 57 335Cook John G 2 327Cotton Hannah 75Courbage Youssef 35Cragg Kenneth 275Cramer Peter 187

Daacuten Robert 294Dapaah Daniel 238Davies William 59 106 109 112 122

148 153 188 248 310Deines Roland 1 10 17 44 47 186

247 319ndash20De Lacy Phillip 232De Lagarde Paul 74De Lange Nicholas 2 29 146De Lubac Henri 323Delegado Jara I 265Denzinger H 5 60Deutsch David 293ndash315Deutsch Yaacov 12DeVine Charles 276Di Capua Angelo 136Dietrich Ernst Ludwig 291Donaldson Terrence 317 320Doumlrnyei Zoltaacuten 335Driver Godfrey 83Driver S R 3Dunn James 4 63 70 196 268 337Dudenberg Ismo 79

Edwards James 215 318Edwards John 212

Ehrman Albert 137 167 169 175Eidelberg Shlomo 173Eisenstein Judah 6 342El Kaisy-Friemuth M 113Elliott James 318Emery Richard 173 257 258 260Evans Craig 19Evans Ernest 87Evetts B T A 72

Falls T B 327Fargues Philippe 35Fassler Margoth 154Feldmeier Reinhard 68Ferguson Everett 109 187Finkel Joshua 41Firpo Massimo 294Fisher J D C 187Fleischer Heinrich 31Fleischmann Stefan 294Fletcher Charles 41Fletcher-Louis Crispin 335Flusser David 17 320Ford David E C 265Ford David F 339Fossum Jarl 189Frank Daniel 302Frankenmoumllle H 317Frey Joumlrg 318Frick David 293Friedlaumlnder Jonathan 257ndash59Frimer N 209 211 216Freyne Seacutean 317Funkenstein Amos 21 326

Gadamer H-G 2Gager John 54 146Gale Aaron 320Gaon Solomon 265Garbell Irene 258Garshowitz Libby 209ndash219 227 235

252ndash55Gathercole Simon 8 70 335Gaudeul Jean-Marie 98Gebhardi B H 296Geiger Abraham 6 291 292ndash94 297Gero Stephen 30Gloumlckner Richard 71Golb Norman 34 130Goldstein Morris 12 20


Gondreau Paul 329Goodman Alan 63Gousset Jaques 296Graetz Heinrich 127 128 171 174

291 293Grayzel Solomon 94 97 134 173Green F W 5Grillmeier A 5 61 68 82Grindheim Sigurd 196 335 337Gross Heinrich 92Grossmann A 23 323Gundry Robert 9Gutwirth E 211 259 285

Hagner Donald 22Hahneman Ge H 319Halkin Abraham 100Hamilton James 10Hamori Eshter 334Hannah Darrell 72Hanson Richard 5 70 156 329Harnack Adolf 22Harris Murray 276Heer Joseph 76Hengel Martin 3 4 7 23 63 148 247

337Herbst Adolf 214Herford Travers 75Herrera Garciacutea R 265Herskowitz William 25 341ndash42Hebwitt James 215Hodgson Leonard 83Hoffmann Joseph 11 327Hofius Otfried 189 335Holmeacuten Tom 231Hood Jason 106Hood John 96 97 146Horbury William 4 14 15 16 18

23ndash26 29ndash31 91 105 127 128132 134 135 145 151 157 167168 170 175ndash76 192 209 210213ndash216 258ndash60 335 337

Horowitz Elliot 171Hovorun Cyril 249Howard George 214 215 216 219

239 246Hughes Peter 295Hulen Amos 326Hurtado Larry 4 57 337

Instone-Brewer D 9 225Isaac Jules 317

Jacob Irving 114Jastrow Marcus 158Johansson Daniel 71Johnson Marshall 106Jordan William 129 132 133 171 172Jouassard Georges 203Juel Donald 10Juumlngel Eberhard 281

Kahn Zadoc 127 128 137 141Kamen Henry 212Kannengiesser Ch 70Kaplan Joseph 212Katz Jacob 16Kasher Rimon 323Kaufman Y 23Kealy Seaacuten 13 23Kehrer Hugo 226Kelly John 7 38 115Kesich Veselin 111Kessler Edward 20Kessler Gwynn 232Kidder Richard 296Kingsbury Jack 8Kisch Guido 174Klatzkin Jacob 279Klauck Hans-Josef 89Klausner Joseph 17Klijn A F J 318Klostermann Erich 68 321Kobler Frany 259Koumlhler W-D 23Kohn Jakob 257ndash59Komoszewski Ed 337Koumlppen Klaus Peter 111Korobkin Daniel 25Kuumlng Hans 281 333Krauss Samuel 11 14 15 18 23ndash26 29

31 74 76 91 127 128 132134135 167 168 175 209 240 258ndash60

Krey Philip 264Kupp David 8 306

Lagrange M-J 75Lahey Lawrence 329Langmuir Gavin 16


Lapide Pinchas 17 91 127 128 136138 140 141 156 214 215 217 320

Lasker Daniel J 2 3 6 14ndash15 16 1720 21 25 26 29ndash86 92 98 110118 122 140 147 148 150 153168 172 182 199 249 251 258ndash61 325 332

Leff Gordon 265Leford Louis 74Levene Nancy 339Levinger Jacob 258Levine Amy-Jill 17 320Levy Barry 57Levy Joshua 94 101ndash125 143 144 161

182 185 186 196 213 220 224227 230 246 250

Lewis Bernhard 35 95Lichtenstein-H Y 296Limor Ora 14 26 34 36 55 89 168

176Lindars Barnabas 63Littman Gisegravele 35Lockwood W 25 266Lods Marc 327Loeb Isodore 92 134 169 209Loewe Raphael 18 244Loumlfstedt Bengt 154Lona Horacio 327Longegravere Jean 97Loofs Friedrich 39Loserth John 265Lossky Vladimir 337Lotter Friedrich 172ndash74Louth Andrew 335Lukaszewski A 57Lukowski Jerzy 292Luz Ulrich 22 57 59 60 67 106 111

119 148 151 160 161 164 189203 248 306 310

Maccoby Hyam 97 127 134 135 211334

Mackintosh Hugh 38Madigan Kevin 59 329Maier Johann 12Malett Alex 35Mangenot Eugegravene 122Maumlnnchen Julia 20Marx Alexander 214Massaux Eacutedouard 13 23

McAfee Moss C 9McCarthy Carmel 67 109ndash111 116ndash17

119 120McCulloh John 171McDaniel Thomas 215McFarlane Kenneth 265McGrath James 70 158 275McGuckin John 335McKnight Scott 317McVey Kathleen 88Meerson Michael 12 252Menocal Mariacutea Rosa 95Merḥavia Haim 134Merkel Helmut 75Metzger Bruce 319 Miller James 293Mimouni Simon 318Mitchell Leonel 187Mocatta Moses 297Modica Joseph 53Moltmann Juumlrgen 281 337Monferrer Sala J P 275Montefiore Claude 17Morray-Jones C 82Moses A D A 189Moyise Steven 10Muller Earl 70Muumlller Johannes 296Muumlller Mogens 57 151 272 323Murciano Prosper 26 34 226

Najman Hindy 235Narinskaya Elena 330Nemoy Leon 291Nes Solrunn 335Netanyahu Benzion 91 211 257ndash61

285 286Neubauer Adolf 3Neusner Jacob 17 71 334Newman Hillel 252Newman John Henry 154Nicholls Rachel 336Nicloacutes A Joseacute-Vicente 209 210 213

215 218 255 259Nirenberg David 171Nolan Mark 17Norden Joseph 297

OrsquoCallaghan Joseph 95OrsquoCollins Gerald 38


OrsquoNeill John 335Ochs Peter 339Osborne Thomas 106Osburn Caroll 13Ostmeyer K-H 222Otto Randall 248Overman Andrew 319

Pahl Theodor 20Parkes James 79 82 133 146Pennells Stephen 81Peacuterez Gonzalo 72Perlmann Moshe 25 58Petersen William 12 215Pines Shlomo 54 160Podet Allen 26 268Pollmann Karla 330Popkin Richard 291 293 297Porat Dina 171Porter Stanley 10Posnanski Adolf 3 91 92 93 127 175

188 226 257 258 264 269 277Pritz Ray 318Przybilski Martin 129Puig i Tagraverrech Armand 89Pulcini Theodore 275 310Pusey E B 3

Rankin Oliver 167Ratzinger Joseph 17Ray Jonathan 96Reacutegneacute Jean 132Reimarus Hermann 291Reinhardt Klaus 264Reinke Laurenz 8Reiser Marius 8 339Rembaum Joel 2 20 30 31 36 81 91

92 106 122 137 147 167 206 322324 326

Rengstorf K-H 127 130Renoux Athanase 13Resnick Irvin 85 93Robinson Forbes 74Robinson Neal 273Rodriacuteguez Carlos 91 92 259Roggema Barbara 35Rosen Klaus 75ndash76Rosenblatt Samuel 100 115 302Rosenkranz Simone 30ndash36 42 43 79

82

Rosenthal Erwin 23 127 135 258 259 294

Rosenthal Herman 293Rosenthal Judah M 14 91ndash94 100 102

114 118 128 134 136ndash65 169 181 182 185 192 194 206 251 253 294

Rosner Fred 334Roth Cecil 171Roth Norman 3 94 95 96 97 98 210

211 212 217 247 251 257 259Rothfuchs W 9Rowland Christopher 82Rubin Miri 171Ruderman David 268Ruether Rosemary 317Runesson Anders 321Rushdie Salman 102Russell Norman 65

Saeligboslash Magne 323Saenger Max 259Saldarini Antjony 319Saacutenchez Caro J M 265Sanders E P 148Sandmel Samuel 17 320Sanz Joseacute Mariacutea A 211Schaller Bernd 20Schaumlfer Peter 4 11 12 60 110 240 327Schubert Kurt 139Shatzmiller Joseph 34Schlichting Guumlnter 11Schlosberg Leacuteon 31Schmitz Rolf 91Schoeps H-J 20Schonfield Hugh 12 214Schoumlnmetzer A 5 60Schreckenberg H 14 85 91 96 98Schreiner Stefan 24 25 293 298Schwartz Dov 209 211 216Segal Alan 158Shedinger Robert 215Shereshevsky Esra 129Siegfried Carl 19ndash20Sievert Rosemarie 291 294Sim David 319 321Simon Marcel 146Simon Stanislaus 168Simonson David 175Siqueira Reinaldo 248Sivan Hagith 23 29


Skarsaune Oskar 54Slutsky Yehuda 171Smith Lesley 264Smith Payne 67Sourdel Dominique 32Specht Walter 244Spinka Matthew 264 265Spinks Bryan 187Stacey Robert 171Stein Siegfried 25 172Steinsalz Adin 192Steinschneider Moritz 35 167Stillman Norman 95Stoumlkl Ben Ezra D 13Stow Kenneth 94 134 171 173Strack Hermann 20 75 296Strecker Georg 72Stroumsa Sara 29ndash86 110 122 140 147

148 150 182 199 251 325 332Suciu Alin 74Suler Bernard 98Swartz Michael 82Sweetman Windrow 113 119 274 275

310Swenson Kristin 253Synan Edward 94Syszman Simon 292

Talmage Frank 24 74 83ndash84 115ndash116 121 168 226 237 240 251 257ndash59 262 264 266ndash86 288 291 342

Tanner Norman 39Taylor Miriam 331Thiselton Anthony 1 4Thomas David 35 55 98 201Thomson H J 330Thornton C-J 247Torrance Thomas 38Trautner-Kromann H 25 91 92 99 127

128 129 132 135 169 170 172 173 175 209 258 259

Trench Richard 154Truex Jerry 158Tuckett Christopher 13

Unger Christian 297Unterseher Lisa 146Urbach Ephraim 127 136 137 169

175ndash76

Vall Gregory 253Van Bekkum W J 23Van der Horst P J 23Van Esbroeck M 31Varner William 11 40 53 76 87 329Vermes Geza 17 57Vermes Mark 109Visi Tamaacutes 26Visotzky Burton 23Vogt Peter 76Von Kortzfleisch S 127 130Von Mutius H-G 18ndash19 25 97 101

105 107 125Vose Robin 172

Wade Labarge M 133Wagenseil J C 6 174ndash76 196 197

296 297 322Waysblum Marek 291 293Webb Robert 238Weinandy Thomas 38Wickham L 59Wilken Robert 109 266Willi Thomas 222Willi-Plein Ina 222Williams A Lukyn 6 14 93 98 109

115 122 146 212 296Williams F 59Williams Frank 72 160Williams Jacqueline 13Williams Rowen 70Wilms Franz-Elmar 113 119 275Wittung Jeffery 65Wight N T 196 231Wright Wilmer 53Wolfson Harry 30Wyschogrod M 5 6 321 334 338ndash39

Yarbro Collins Adela 57 335Yuval Israel 26 168 171 173 240

Zajączkowski Ananiasz 291ndash93Zawadzki Hubert 292Zellentin Holger 12 153Zunz Leopold 169Zwiep Irene 258



Abelard Peter 97 135 146 156 264Abner of Burgos 93 210 212 217 255

261Abrogation of Torah s Appendix IIAbū Bakr 32Adam of St Victor 154Adversus Christianos 11 14 15 17 19

29Agobard of Lyon 146Alcuin of York 156Alfonsus Petrus 93 264 277Al-Ghazālī 113 119 273 275Al-Jāḥiẓ 41Al-Makarim Abu 72Al-Muqamaṣ D 30 42 62 332Al-Qirqīsānī Yarsquoqūb 25 42 266 302Al-Ṭabarī lsquoAli 32 55rsquoAl Tehi ke-Avoteka 259Albo Josef 25Amiel Pierre 173Anti-Semitism 146 212 317Anselm of Laon 154 156Apocrypha 30 32 48 51 55 72ndash74

76 81 88ndash89 110 144 233 318Apollinarius of Laodicea 115Apollinarian-ism 38 115ndash16 156

162 166 198 202 204 207 272 329 332

Arian-ism 55 67 88 155 160ndash61166 305 329

Aquinas Thomas 67 97 122ndash23154 264 280 281 329 333

Basle Nizzahon 151 168 170 192Ben Abraham of Troki Isaac 15 174

278 291ndash315Ben Hayyim Levi b Abraham 286Ben Isaac of Troyes S [Rashi] 10 19

23 129 130 243 264Ben Meshullam Nathan 128 131

Ben Maimon Abraham b Moses 334Ben Naḥman Moses 97Ben Reuben Jacob 15 24 29 36

91ndash126 128 186 194 210 212 213219 222 224 225 227 250 255

Ben Simon Mersquoir 25 84 124 168 172 173 341ndash44

Ben Solomon Moses 168Ben Solomon Samuel 135Benedict XIII 210Bernard of Clairvaux 130 156Biṭṭul lsquoiqqare ha-Noṣrim 25 260Bodo-Eleazar 325Boleslaw 292Bonet Bonjorn Davi 259Budny Szymon 293 294 298Burton Robert 292

Callixtus II 156Casimir IV 292Cedrenus Gregorius 109Celsus 11 41 53 75 81 86 115 117

146 184 233 240 249 324 327Christiani Pablo 97 325Converts 30ndash31 32 34 55 175ndash76

211ndash13 218 259ndash60 325 329Cornutus Walter 135Crispin Gilbert 92ndash93 118Creed Athanasian et al 4ndash5 7 136

155ndash57 161ndash62 271Crescas Ḥasdai 25 249 259ndash61 266

282 286 333Crusades 35 95 96 130ndash34 173Cur Deus homo 100 118Cyril of Alexandria 39 67 83 154 164Czechowic Marcin 294 315

De Lille Alan 97 135De Lyre Nicholas 19ndash20 93ndash94 102

122 264 277 278 283 284 325

De Madrigal Alonso (Tostado) 265De Pentildeafort R 96ndash98De Santa Mariacutea Pablo 98 212 217 259

261 325De Valladolid Alfonso 93 210 212 217

255 261Debates religious 15 25 85 97 127ndash28

132 134ndash135 172ndash73 210ndash11 259ndash60 293ndash94

Dhimmi 35 94Donin Nicholas 135 325Du Tillet Jean 214 218 343Duran Profiat (Efodi) 15 17 19 22 24

211 212 219 225ndash27 257ndash89 293324 332 333 337 338

Duran Simeon b Zemah 16 25 26 34

Eisenmenger J A 6Emunoth ve-Delsquooth 100 115 302Ephrem the Syrian 67 88 109 110 116

119 120 198 330Eshkol ha-Kofer 25Even Boḥan 6 17 22 24 26 93 108

123 209ndash256 269 274 278 286301 303 307 308 312 313 314335 343

lsquoEzer ha-Emunah 25

Farissol Abraham 268Ferrer Vicente 210 211

Gabriel the angel 48 49 51 72 73 7680

Galen 232Gregory I the Great 60Gregory IX 96 135Gregory X 128

Hadassi Judah 25Ḥizzuq Emunah 24 56 68 113 123 174

291ndash315 322 324 333Hus Jan 264Hypostatic Union 17 44 103 279ndash81

289 337ndash38 see also Appendix II

Ibn al-Layth 32 41Ibn Ezra Abraham 11Ibn Ḥazm of Cordova 275 310Ibn Kammūna 24ndash25 58Ibn Musa Hayyim 16

Incarnation s Appendix IIInfancy Gospels 30 32 73ndash74 76 79

88ndash89 144 233Innocent III 96Innocent IV 135

Jaime I 97Jerome 11 34 59 67 79 89 109 122

146 154 203 215 225 226 263264 277 278 284 285

Juan I 258Judah ha-Levi 25Judah of Melun 135Judas Iscariot 51 240 306 343Julian Emperor 11 53 74 75 87

326ndash28

Karaism 292Kelimmath ha-Goyim 19 22 24 26 68

117 219 226 245 249 257ndash89 303 306 308 310 311 312 313 324

Kitāb al-anwār 25

Lateran Council fourth 96 128 134Lectionary 13 52Le Jeune Martin 214Lipmann Muumlhlhausen Y T 26 167 168

324Livyat Ḥen 286Logos-sarx 115ndash16 156 198 204 207

329 332Lombard Peter 187 264ndash65Louis VII 146Louis VIII 131ndash32Louis IX 97 131ndash35Luther Martin 19ndash20 278 298

Magen Avot 26 324Magen va-Ḥerev 16 26 268Magen ve-Romaḥ 16Maimonides 334Marsilius of Padua 265 Martini Raymond 98 214 222 264 286

325Mary s Appendix IIMatthew Gospel ofmdash Hebrew translations 213ndash15 218ndash19

225ndash26 318Milḥamot ha-Shem 19 24 26 29 36 68

91ndash126 141ndash44 147 156ndash58 174


162 164ndash68 182ndash88 194 196ndash202204 206 213 220 224 228 230 269 280 296 307 308 312 313322 324 332

Milḥemet Miṣvah 25 84ndash85 124 137168 172ndash73 185 200 202 204 322341ndash44

Modena Leon 16 26 267Moses of Coucy 135Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas 25 93MS Rome (Or 53) 24 136ndash137 147

149ndash51 154 163 168ndash70 175 176181 182 185 192 193 194 197199 206 322

Muumlnster Sebastian 6 175 214 218343

Nachmanides 97Nestor ha-Komer 23ndash24 29ndash90 99 102

103 106 107 110 113 115 121 122 125 140 142 147ndash50 159ndash65 168176 182 184 186 191ndash200 203 206224 231 250 251 269 270 274 307 308 311 312 322 325 329 333 342

Nestorius of Adiabene 30Nestorius of Constantinople 30 31 39 62

83 110Nicholas III 173Nicholas IV 173Nizzahon Vetus 17 24 26 27 68 109

113 115 119 123 137 143 144 146 147 149ndash52 156 160 163ndash166 167ndash207 224 225 227230 238 242 246 248 250 253269 270 274 280 301 303 306ndash14 322 324 332

Odo of Tournai 85 118

Pedro IV 210Pedro de Luna 210Philip II Augustus 131 171Philip IV 131 170 172Polemicsmdash Christian 11 14 40 53 71 75 76

87 89 115 146 160 327ndash29mdash classification 21mdash definition 14mdash Jewish 35 see Appendix IImdash function 14 18

mdash Muslim 32ndash33 41 55 113 119 273275 310

mdash pagan 2 11 41 53 62 64 66 68 7475 79 81 86 87 115 117 266 146184 233 240 249 324 326ndash28

Postilla perpetua 19 264Porphyry 11 41 62 66 68 79 87 266

326ndash28Pugio Fidei 98 214 222 264 286 325

Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf 23ndash2429ndash9099 102 103 106 107 110 113 115 121 122 125 140 142 147ndash50 159ndash65 168 176 182 184 186191ndash200 203 206 224 231 250 251 269 270 274 307 308 311 312 322 325 329 333 342

Qeshet u-Magen 16 25ndash26 34 226 324Qimhi David 11 19 24 274 293Qimhi Joseph 24 83 93 116 212 213Qirqisani Jacob 25 42 266 302

Rabanus Maurus 154Radd lsquoalā al-Naṣārā 41 55 62Rambam 334Ramban 97Rashi 10 19 23 129 130 243 264Reimarus Hermann 24 291

Saadia Gaon 42 100 115 302Sefer ha-Berit 24 83ndash84 92 115 116

212 251Sefer ha-lsquoIqqarim 25Sefer ha-Niṣṣaḥon 26 167 168 324Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne 24 27 68 78 97

113 115 123 128ndash66 167ndash69 173176 182ndash85 191ndash207 227 236 242 250 270 271 274 280 301 306 307309 311ndash13 323ndash24 332

Servetus Michael 294 295Socinus Faustus 293 294Solomon ha-Levy 212 217 259 261 325ldquoSon of Manrdquo 19 57ndash61 114 139 144

149ndash52 158ndash59 271ndash72 178 180 191ndash93 199 207 221 243 244 253 271ndash72 275 287 300ndash305 309 311 315 322ndash323 334ndash35

suppositum 280ndash81 338


Talsquoanot 168 188 192 199Talmud 12 50 97 110 134ndash35Tanqīḥ 24ndash25 58Tela Ignea Satanae 174ndash75 177 197 296

297 322Teshuvot bersquoAnshei rsquoAwen 259Toledoth Yeshu 11ndash12 15 22 29 30 33

34 48 50 51 54 74 76 105 110145 181 240 252 327 342 343

Trinity s Appendix IIldquoTwo Natures of Christrdquo 5 15 60 111

112 117 125 201 246 249 254 280331 337ndash38

ldquoTwo Powers in Heavenrdquo 99 157ndash58203ndash204

Vikkuaḥ ha-Radaq 24 41 74 116 121237 240 276 342 343

Vincent of Beauvais 264Virgin Birth s Appendix IIVoltaire 291

Wagenseil J C 6 174ndash76 196 197296 297 322

Whitehands William 131William of Champeaux 156William of Ockham 265Wycliffe John 264ndash65


Cover13

Preface

List of Contents

Abbreviations

Chapter 1 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics Against the Divinity of Jesus

11 Introduction

12 The Divinity of Jesus

13 The Gospel of Matthew

14 Jewish Polemics

15 Methodology amp Presentation

Chapter 2 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Qiṣṣat Mujādalat al-Usquf and Sefer Nestor ha-Komer

21 Introduction

22 The Historical Context of Qiṣṣa

23 The Character and Content Overview of QiṣṣaNestor

231 The Narrative Setting (sectsect1ndash8)

232 Better Candidates for Divinity (sectsect9ndash24)

233 Theological Issues with the Trinity (sectsect25ndash32)

234 The Divinity of Jesus and the Law (sectsect33ndash37)

235 Scriptural Proofs against the Divinity of Jesus (sectsect38ndash57)

236 The Law Jesusrsquo Humanity and his Divinity (sectsect58ndash71)

237 The Life of Jesusrsquo Reveals his Utter Humanity (sectsect72ndash109)

238 Miscellaneous Arguments against Jesus (sectsect110ndash138)

239 Arguments from a Different Gospel Sequence (sectsect139ndash158)

24 Underlying Sources in QiṣṣaNestor

25 The Gospel of Matthew in QiṣṣaNestor

251 Jesusrsquo Distinctiveness

2511 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2436 1218 (sect39 sect57)

2512 Jesusrsquo Prayer at the Cross Mt 2746 (sect45)

2513 The Use of ldquoMessianic Psalmsrdquo Mt 2241ndash46 (sect50)

2514 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916f (sect51)

2515 Jesusrsquo Prayer in Gethsemane Mt 2636ndash46 (sect53)

2516 Jesusrsquo Statements of Being Sent Mt 1354ndash57 (sect55)

252 Jesusrsquo Human Origins (sect78 sect77 sect80 sect150 sect97)

253 The Inappropriateness of Incarnation (sect74 sect76 sect82 sect111)

26 Summary

Chapter 3 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jacob ben Reubenrsquos Milḥamot ha-Shem

31 Introduction

32 The Historical Context of Milḥamot ha-Shem

33 Outline and Content Overview of Milḥamot ha-Shem

34 The Gospel of Matthew in Milḥamot ha-Shem

341 Outline of Chapter 11

342 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16

343 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17

344 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a

345 Jesusrsquo Prayer to the Father Mt 1125ndash27

346 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash37a 40bndash41 par Mt 2636ndash40a 45

347 Jesusrsquo Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash19

348 Jesus on the Kingdom and Authority Mt 2816ndash20a

349 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1230ndash32

35 Summary

Chapter 4 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Joseph ben Nathanrsquos Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

41 Introduction

42 The Historical Context of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

43 The Manuscripts of Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

44 Overview of the Use of the New Testament in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

45 The Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Yosef ha-Meqanne

451 Jesusrsquo Mission Mt 116 18 21 (sect16)

452 Jesusrsquo Birth Mt 123 2639 and 2028 (sect37)


454 Jesusrsquo God-given Judgment Lk 1222ndash24 par Mt 625ndash26 (sect24)

455 Jesus was Sleeping Mt 821ndash25 (sect29)

456 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 818ndash20 (sectsect26ndash27)

457 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 (sect7



4510 Jesus and the Hemorrhaging Woman Mt 920 (sect12)

4511 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111a (sect1)

4512 Jesus on Gluttony Mt 1119a (sect4)

4513 Quicunque Vult and Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1231ndash32 (sect9)



4516 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 par Mt 1916f (sect33)

4517 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2022ndash23 (sect15)

4518 Jesusrsquo Lament over Jerusalem Mt 2337 (sect3)

4519 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2638 41 (sect6)

4520 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2639 (sect10)

4521 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2746 (sect38)


46 Summary

Chapter 5 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Sefer Nizzahon Vetus

51 Introduction

52 The Historical Context of Nizzahon Vetus

53 The Textual History of Nizzahon Vetus

54 The Gospel of Matthew in Nizzahon Vetus

541 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash17 25 (sect154 sect88 sect28 sect72)


543 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313 16ndash17 (sect160)

544 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11a (sect162)

545 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 820 96 2028 (sect188 sect168 sect215)


547 Blasphemy against the Spirit Lk 1210 par Mt 1231ndash32 (sect223)

548 Jesusrsquo Statement of Being Sent Mt 1357 and Mt 1218 (sect207)

549 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mk 1017ndash21 par Mt 1916ndash21 (sect184)

5410 Cursing the Fig Tree Mk 1111ndash14a par Mt 2117ndash19a (sect181)

5411 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1324ndash34a par Mt 2429ndash33 36 (sect177 sect194)

5412 Jesus in Gethsemane Mk 1432ndash42 par Mt 2636ndash46 (sect176)

5413 Jesus on the Cross Mk 1533ndash34 par Mt 2745ndash46 (sect178 sect145)


55 Summary

Chapter 6 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Shem Ṭov ben Isaac Ibn Shapruṭrsquos Even Boḥan

61 Introduction

62 The Historial Context of Even Boḥan (and Kelimmat ha-Goyim)

63 The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

64 The Gospel of Matthew in Even Boḥan

641 Jesusrsquo Genealogy Mt 11ndash16 (sect1)

642 Bethlehem Ephratah Mt 21ndash12 (sect3)


644 Jesusrsquo Baptism Mt 313ndash17 (sect6)

645 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash11 (sect7)

646 Jesusrsquo Healings Mt 81ndash4 (sect18)

647 Jesusrsquo Raising of the Dead Mt 918ndash26 (sect22)

648 Jesusrsquo Miracles Mt 932ndash38 (sect23)

649 Jesus and John the Baptist Mt 1111ndash15 (sect24)


6411 Jesusrsquo Exorcisms Mt 1222ndash29 (sect28)


6413 Jesusrsquo Signs Mt 1238ndash45 (sect30)

6414 Peterrsquos Confessions Mt 1613ndash20 (sect37)

6415 The Transfiguration Mt 171ndash8 (sect38)

6416 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2110ndash22 (sect42)

6417 Paying Taxes to Caesar Mt 2215ndash22 (sect44)

6418 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mt 2427ndash36 (sect50)

6419 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2631ndash44 (sect53)

6420 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2727ndash66 (sect56)

65 Summary

Chapter 7 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Profiat Duranrsquos Kelimmat ha-Goyim

71 Introduction

72 The Historical Context of Kelimmat ha-Goyim

73 The Gospel of Matthew in Kelimmat ha-Goyim

731 Jesus was not Called God in the New Testament

732 Jesusrsquo Temptation I Mt 41ndash11

733 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mt 2118ndash21

734 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Matt 1916ndash21

745 Jesusrsquo Temptation II Mt 43ndash4

736 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo Mk 1045 1113ndash14

737 The ldquoTerm Son of Manrdquo John 530

738 Joseph is Jesusrsquo Father Mt 122ndash23

739 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2734

7310 Jesusrsquo Self-Understanding John 1019ndash36

7311 Matthewrsquos Intention with Isa 714 Mt 122ndash23

7312 The Hypostatic Union and Jesusrsquo Death Mt 2746

74 Profiat Duran on Contradictions in the New Testament

75 Summary

Chapter 8 The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Isaac b Abraham of Trokirsquos Sefer Ḥizzuq Emunah

81 Introduction

82 The Text of Ḥizzuq Emunah

83 Content Overview of Ḥizzuq Emunah

84 The Gospel of Matthew in Ḥizzuq Emunah

841 The ldquoSon of Manrdquo and Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (I sect10)

842 Jesusrsquo Nativity and Isaiahrsquos Prophecy Mt 120ndash25 (I sect21)

843 Jesus in Gethsemane Mt 2636 2746 (I sect47)

844 Jesusrsquo Temptation Mt 41ndash10 (II sect7)

845 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 819ndash20 (II 12)

846 Jesus is Sent Mt 1040 (II sect14)

847 Jesus on Blasphemy against the Spirit Mt 1232 (II sect16)

848 Jesus and the ldquoRich Young Rulerrdquo Mt 1916ndash21 (II sect19)

849 Jesus and the Sons of Zebedee Mt 2023 (II sect20)

8410 The Term ldquoSon of Manrdquo Mt 2028 (II sect21)

8411 Jesus in Gethsemane and on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24)

8412 Jesusrsquo Words on the Cross Mt 2639 (II sect24)

8413 Jesus Commissions the Disciples Mt 2818 (II 27)

8414 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Mk 1112ndash40 par Mt 2118ndash22 (II sect30)

8415 Jesusrsquo Ignorance Mk 1332 par Mt 2436 (II sect31)

85 Summary

Chapter 9 Conclusion The Use of the Gospel of Matthew in Jewish Polemics

91 Synopsis of Finds

911 Selectivity of Readings

912 Continuity with Earlier Polemics

913 Avoidance of Doctrinal Engagement

92 Evaluation of Finds

921 The DivineHuman Dichotomy

922 Jesus is Vere Homo Only

93 Epilogue The Central Paradox

Appendix I Mersquoir ben Simeonrsquos Milḥemet Miṣva Reason 11 of the 15 Reasons Why Jews Cannot Believe in Jesus

Appendix II Index and Overview of Common Polemical Arguments

Bibliography


1 Jewish

2 Muslim

3 Pagan

4 Christian


Index of Literature

Hebrew Bible


New Testament

Rabbinic Scriptures

Muslim Scriptures

Christian Writings

1 Early Christian

2 Patristic


4 Medieval



Matthaeus Adversus Christianos · 2018. 4. 24. · Lee, Peter Watts, Michael DiFuccia, David...

Documents

Transcript of Matthaeus Adversus Christianos · 2018. 4. 24. · Lee, Peter Watts, Michael DiFuccia, David...