places idiosyrcratic, accaunt of the transformation

of allegory in light of its emplol,ment by Christlan

scholars.prudtl, Pascal, ed. Bruno de Cologne, Ludolphe le Char-

trew, Denys le Chartreux, Le Commentaire des Psaumes

des Montdes. Paris: Beauchesne, zoo6, A presentation,

with introduction, translation of texts, and commen-tary which allows the flavor and the details of intense

medieval monastic exegesis to be received.

Thiselton, L C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, eooo. A commentaryby a scholar informed by hermeneutical theory and

the history of the tradition of interpreting Paul's

Epistle.Treier, Daniel. "Typology." ln Dictionary for Theological

- Interpretation oJ the Bible, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoo-zer, 823-BzZ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic,

zoo5. Usefrrl account of a way of reading that is olderthan the terrn "typology' itself, with a focus on themoral import of biblical texts.

Turner, Denys. "Ailegory in Christian Late Antiquity."lt Cambridge Companion to Allegory, edited by RitaCopeland and Peter R. Struch 7t-82. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press, zoro. A collection ofessays on allegorys place through history from theAncient Stoics to Walter Benjamin.

Via, Dan A$o The Parables: Their Literary and Existen-tial Dirnension Philadelphia Fortress, t967. Clear andinsightfirl account of how New Testament parablesare both alike and different from Hellenistic allego-ries, along with an attempt to bring out their theo-logical mearing.

Watson, Francis. "Allegorie." ln Religion in Geschichte

und Gegenwart. q. .Lufl., Vol. r, 3o8-3o9. Tiibingen,Germany: Mohr Siebech 1998. Concise and stimulat-ing account of a practice of reading the Bibie thatgoes beyond the obvious sense.

rr/y'hitman, Jon, ed. Interpretation and Allegory: Antiquity

to the Mod.ern Period. Leiden: Brll, zoo3. A collectionof essa,vs rnapping the move from allegory in ancient,'pagan"

literature through biblical interpretation ineariy and medieval Christianity and on to its uses inWestern Christian and post-Christian literatwe.

Mari< W Elliott

Axrr-Juoersm AND Alwr-$rrvrursM rN TrrE

Nnw TnsrmmNT AND Irs llvrrnpmrarroN

There have been various attempts to define how theterms anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism differ from

ArWl-JmerSy elu AN:rr-StHntISM IN TI{E NsW TrSTfo4rlfl AND ITS ll,qnpnrrenoiv 27

each other. Many have followed political theoristand philosopher Hannah Arendt who, in her The

Origins of Totalitarianism, made a sharp distinction

between modern and quite often openly atheist and

anti-Christian anti-Semitism and "the old religious

Jew-hatred" based on traditional forms of Christian

anti-Judaism (New York World Publishing Com-

pany, ry51,, p. 7). This distinction captures the idea

that modern anti-Semitism has to do with racial

theories that emerged in late eighteenth- and nine-

teenth-century Europe, while more traditionalChristian forms of anti-Judaism have focused on

Judaism as a religion.

However, the distinction between modern, secu-

lar, and racial anti-semitism and Christian, reli-giously motivated anti-Judaism is not as complete

as has been suggested. Uriel TaI has argued thatmodern anti-Semitism had both religious and anti-religious roots and was able to attract the support ofthe masses only when racial theories were con-

nected to the classical themes of Christian anti-

Judaism ("Religious and Anti-Religious Roots ofModern Anti-Semitism," in Religion, Politics and lde-

ologr in the Tltird Reich: Selected Essays, by Uriel Tal,

pp. t7r-1,go; New Yorlc Routledge, 1984). It has

become clear that the rise of modern, racial anti-Semitism cannot be aptly explained if we do nottake into account earlier forms of religious, racial,,

economic, and political anti-Semitism (William I.

Brustein, Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe

before the Holocaust:, Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press, zoo3).

According to John Gqer, anti-Semitism desig-

nates hostility against Jews by complete outsiders,while Christian anti-Judaism is a rnatter of theolog-ical and religious disagreement that reflects the

strong family ties different early Christian groups

had with Judaism (rs8e, pp. 8-9). Gager also makes

a distinction between "intra-Jewish polemic" and

anti-Judaism and thus conveys a view that has

become much used in recent discussions of therelationship between the New Testament (NT) andanti-Judaism.

The idea that the poiemic against Jews in the NT

is another variant of intra-Jewish polemic of the

28 Aryrr-JUDAIsM AND ANTr-sEMrrrsrvr rN THE NEw TssrArvrar\"r' AND ITS IwrEn-pnEtaloN

time echoes the current scholarly consensus that

Jesus and his followers should be placed in thematrix of the manifold Second Temple Judaism,From this perspective, Luke Timothy Johnson has

compared the NT's polemic against Jews to thepolemic betrveen different Second Temple Jewishgroups and concluded that "the NT's slander against

fellow Jews is remarkably mild" $g89, p. aat).According to Craig Evans, the NT's polemic con-tinues-even if in a milder form-the propheticcriticism of the Hebrew Bible, while the shift fromthe in-house criticisrn to "bludgeoning' of outsiderstakes place only after the NT writings (Evans and

Hagner ry93,p,6.)These comparisons are helpful in putting the NT's

polemic against the Jews into a wider socio-

rhetorical and historical context. However, even ifall the NT writers were Jewish-a debated assump-

tion, for example, in the case of the writers of Markand Luke-Acts-it does not follow that the NT's

polemic could be completely separated from Chris-tian anti-Judaism. The notion that NT writings can-not be anti-Jewish because their writers themselves

were Jews overlooks a well-knor+,n phenomenon

that disagreements between members of the same

group quite often lead to growing alienation andeven hostility and hate. Proximity does not exclude

antagonism but, on the contrary, quite often fuels

and escalates it. The much discussed phenomenonof 'Jewish anti-Semitism" or "self-hating Jews" is acase in point, how some Jews, rightly or not, have

come to be seen as enemies of their ovm people byother Jews (Levine zoo6, p. ro5).

Furthermore" the distinction between inside and

outside polemic can be maintained only if the mean-

ing of a literary work is seen to be defined solely bythe intentions of its authors and its original tristoricalcontexL The rise of various reader-oriented literarytheories in recent decades has suggested, however,

that this view is too simplistic and that due weightshould be given the reader"s input into the interpre-tation process. The emergence and use of variousNT writings and eventually the NT canon in an

increasingly Gentile contexl meant that the same

material that originated in a contexb of inner-Jewish

disputes could be interpreted in anti-Jer.r,ish wayswithout any change in wording (Donaldson zoro,

p. 150).

Ambivalent Fortraits of Jews and Judaism inSome NT Writings. The poftraits of Jews and Juda-ism in NT nritings are much more ambivalent than

is often acknowledged in the current research thatemphasizes the Jewishness of all NT writings. Thisobservation bears directly on the evaluation of therelationship between anti-Judaism and the ir[T.

PaaL lt is weli knornrn that Paul's stance towardthe lawwas often ambiguous (I{eikki Raisanen, Pauland the Law; zd ed,; Minneapolis: Fortress, rg87).

Paul himself quite clearly expresses his continuingidentification with the people of Israel in Romansgiz-S,but his letters were directed to congregationswhere Gentile Christ believers were prevalent. Inthis situation, Paul's ambivalent statement aboutthe law (Gal g:ro-r+) or his words about the Jewswho killed Jesus and persecute Christ believers andthus deserve God's punishment (i 'Ihess z:t4-t6,regarded as an interpolation by some scholars)

open the way for the denunciation of Jews and

Judaism. As Terence Donaldson remarks, "in hisletters, Gentile readers encountered a portrait ofTorah religion that no Jews wouid recognize andthat would inevitably produce misapprehensionand misunderstanding" (Donaldson, p. 13E),

Mark The remark in Mark 7g,"For the Pharisees,

and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughlywash their hands," suggests that at least some inMark's audience, if not the writer too, were Gentiies.

This perspective is also seen in Marks treatment ofvarious details of theJewish law (Wilson 1995, pp.36-+6) Mark's position as an outsider in relation to theiaw is most clearly seen as the lrlarkan narator com-ments on Jesus's words in Mark 7:r9. First, Jesus says

that what goes into a person does not defile, and, afterthese words, the narratoradds an oplanatoryremark,"Thus he declared all foods clean." This comment inpractice cancels out jewish food laws. However,

because food regulations continued to be a recurrenttopic in various early Christian controversies longafter Jesus's death (Acts ro-tr; Rom 74t1-4; Gal ztz),the comment in Mark 7:tg probably does not

-

r€present the position of the historical Jesus but is a

bter develapment occasioned by the increasing num-

ber of Gentile believers in early "Christian" comrnuni-

fies. In this kind of contexq such ter'ts as the parable of

the tenants (Marktz:r-tz), with its closingwords, "He

will come and destroy the tenants and gve the vine-

yard to others," could easily be read as supporting the

replacement of Israel as God's vineyard by the new

community of Jesus's followers, even though Mark

does not spell this out in his narrative.

Matthew" Matthew's Gospel is often described as

the "most Jewish" of all the Gospels, but still Mat-

thew's position in relation to Jewish iaw is fiercely

debated among scholars.

Some scholars agree with Anthony Saldarini

who describes the Matthean community as a Law-

observant community and interprets Matthew's

polemic against the scribes and the Pharisees (Mat

z3) as an intra-Jewish debate (Anthony J. Saldarini,

Matthew's Jewish-Christian ConnmuniY, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp. rz4-164).

Other scholars emphasize the ner,r,ness of Matthew's

description ofJesus as the sole authoritative inter-preter of the Torah anci clairn that Matthew signals

a break with different strands of first-centuryJuda-ism (Douglas R. A. Hare, "HowJewish is the Gospel

of Matthew?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 6z {zooo7:z6q-zZZ). The end of the Gospel (Matt z8:16-zo)shows that Jesus's message is meant for all people,

including Gentiles, and that baptism is crucial for-those who become disciples, whereas circumcision

ts not mentioned here at all. This indicates that even

Matthew is aware of and takes part in the develop-ment that led to the gradual partition of most Chris-tian communities from their fellow Jews,

Luke-Acts, Joseph B, Tyson has summarized hisreview of scholarship on Luke-Acts and Judaismby saying that there is "an impressive if generallyunacknowledged agreement" that "there are bothpro-Jewish and anti-Jewish materials in Luke-Acts"(rSsg, p. r4o). Those who want to emphasize thecontinuity of Luke-Acts with Judaism find supportfor their case in Lulce r-2, where different characterspersonify righteous Jews who see in Jesus the fulfiil-ment of the scriptures. However, especially the end

AlrI-JlDArsM aND ANrr-SnNrlrrsNI IN THE Nnw Tnsraunur A-ND ITs INTERPRETATIoN 29

of the double work in Acts z6tz6-27 supports those

who urge that NT scholarship should not explain

away the anti-Jewish potential in Luke's portrayaibut accept this portrayal as "a condemnation ofthem [the Jews] for rejecting the offer of salvation

in Christ (for which God has rejected them) and forbeing Christ-Killers" (Sanders 1998, p. 3u). Tyson

evaluates these two opposing trends in Luke-Acts

from the point of view of the Gentile implied readerof the worh 'who would find in the text much thatwould confirm a positive view of the Jewish peo-

ple. . . [but] would finally be persuaded to agree

with the negative judgment that Paul expressed

through the quotation of Isaiah 6 in Acts z6:26-27" (Tyson, p.145).

Iohn. The attitude of the Johannine Jesus to the

temple, worship, the Sabbath, circumcision, the rev-

elation at Sinai, law, Moses, and Abraham is highly

ambivalent, thereby implying a growing separation

{rom Jewish ethos (Hakola zoog, pp. zt5-zzt).In

John, the Jewishness of different festivals and cus-

toms is underlined (e.g., z:6; 4igi 5:1, 6:4), and the

JohannineJesus refers to the law as "your law' (8:tz;

to:34; cf. Ttg, zz; t5:25) or to Abraham as "your

father" (8:56). This is in line with how John uses

mainly the term "the Jews" for Jesus's opponents.

The indiscriminate use of the term "theJews" shows

that, even in those instances where "the Jews" could

be understood as a speciflc group ofJewish leaders

or Judeans, the conflict between these groups and

Jesus is raised to a new and more general level

(Hakola, pp. zz5-z3r).

Scholars have quite commonly erplained John'sharsh portrait of Jews and Judaism by placingJohnin a context in which the post-7o c.a rabbinic move-

ment persecuted early Christians and finallyerpelled them from the spragogue (John g:22;

tz:42; 16:z; John L. Mart).n, History and Theologr in

the Fourth Gospel. gd ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westmin-

ster John Knon zoo3). However, the external evi-

dence for this kind of conflict is meager, and many

scholars a"re now revising their views concerning the

influence and power of the early rabbinic movement(Hakola, pp. ar-86). In light of these revisions, it is

simply rnisleading to suppose that the rabbis were

30 Allrr-Junelstvt e,rr,o Anryt-SrpnrlsNl IN THI NEV/ TESTAMENTT aro Irs lvrrnpnrr,q,uol

the instigators of any kind of systematic oppressionof the suspected heretics in general, or early Chris-

tians in particular. It is preferable to see in John'sambivalent portrayal of Jews and Judaism a moreprolonged and gradual process of separation than a

traumatic and one-time expulsion from thesynagogue.

The earlier sketches illustrate that the seeds forthe development that led groups of Jesus's Jewishfollowers to turn into more and more Gentile Chris-tian congregations were sown, at least to someextent, in the writings of NT, If this developmentwas well under way, it is all the more complicated tomake an exact separation between insider and out-sider polemic and locate the shift from the former tothe latter in the post-NT period,

The Passion of Jesus and the lews. The passion

narratives of the Gospels provide a framework thathas a strong influence on how different individualGospel passages are read.It is clear that crucifixionwas a Roman way to execute in a most brutal and

humiliating manner those who were regarded as

criminals or political troublemakers. It is probable

that the role of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate,jointly with the Jewish priestly establishment

close to him, was great in Jesus's execution. How-

ever, scholars have long been aware that one ofthemajor trends in the passion narratives is to empha-

size the involvement and responsibility of Jewishleaders or sometimes evenJews in general inJesus's

crucifixion.Mark's depiction of Jesus's trial before the

Jewish council (Mark 4:59-65) is problematic his-

torically but contains a clear apologetic tendency

to prove that Jesus was unjustly sentenced todeath (Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary.

Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, zoo7, p. 699).

The trial scene narrates that the chief priests

had Jesus arrested and handed him to Pilate "out

of jealousy" (r5:ro). A clear tendency is to showthat the reasons for Jesus's death were primarilyreligious, even though it was most probablythe political aspects of Jesus's public activity thatcaught the eye of Roman officials and their priestlyallies.

In his account of Jesus's trial before Piiate (l5rr-

r5), Mark illustrates how Pilate believes Jesus to be

innocent while the pressure from the chief priests

and eventually from the crowd manipulates Pilate

to condemn Jesus to death (Collins, p. 213). The

amnesty of Barabbas (rS:6-rS) further underlines

the presentation ofJesus's innocence and the culpa-bility of those who desired his death, even thoughthere is no evidence outside the Gospels for a cus-

tom to release a prisoner dunng festivals.

The tendency to presentJewish leaders as culpa-ble forJesus's death is not restricted to the passion

narrative. In the beginning of his Gospel, Mark pre-

sents a series of conflict stories (Mark z:t-g:6),r,vhich culminates, after Jesus has healed a man on

the Sabbath, in the Pharisees and the Herodians

conspiring on how to destroy Jesus (g:6). Whilethe death sentence was not routinely enforced inthe case of Sabbath transgressions in Jesus's time(Damascus Document tztg-6. m. Sqbb. Zt, m, Sa.nh,

7:8), the willingness of these groups to kill Jesuscontributes to an important feature in Nlark's nar-

rative plan whereby Jewish religious authoritiesact as one character in opposing Jesus and finallyin handing him over to be crucified (Wilson,

pp. 38-39). However, it is noteworthy that the Phar-

isees do not appear in Mark s passion nanative atall, and in Matthew and John only in passing (MattzZ :6 z; J ohn r 8 :3; cf. also John n: 4 5- 5z). This probablyreflects the Pharisees' limited historical role in thefinal events leading to Jesus death.

Other evangelists accentuate in various ways the

Jewish responsibility for Jesus's death. Matthewadds the scenes of Pilate's wife's dream and begging

of her husband not to harmJesus (MattzZtg) and ofPilate's washing of his hands (27:24), both of whichhighlight how unwillingly Pilate takes parL in Jesus'sexecution. In this connection appears a notoriousact where "the people as a whole answered, 'His

trlood be on us and on our children!'" (zz:zs).

In the Gospel of l-uke, Pilate pronounces three

times his verdict ofJesus's innocence {Luke zZ:+, tS-1,4, 2z). Luke also introduces a scene in which Jesus

appears before Herod Antipas who also testifies to

Jesus's innocence (zztil. In various speeches in

A,r'ut-Jmarsu ,11\D ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE Nrw Tmr,*mNT AND ITS INTER?RETATI0N

Acts, the blame for Jesus's crucifixion is repeatedly

Dut on Jews (Acts 3:tz-zo; 4:to)''

,rJnhn, the conflict betweenJesus and his oppo-

nents, who are mostly called "theJews," is developed

in a consistent way already from the beginning of

the narrative. It is noteworthy that Jesus's words to

his opponents, 'You are from your father the devil,"

are direclly connected to the theme of Jesus's death

$ohn 8t++). The devil is called "a murderer," and in

the course of ihe dialogue in John 8:3r-59 even the

Jews who initially are said to believe in Jesus (8:3r)

are erposed as seeking to kill him' The Johannine

Jesus here lumps the believing Jews together with

the Jews who openly seek Jesus's death in such a

way that these different groups lose their distinctive

characteristics (Hakola, pp. r8o-r87).

We should not underestimate the power of the

passion narratives to direct the reader's interpreta-

tion of other Gospel materials" The myih that the

Jer,vs are "Christ killers" has had far-reaching and

tragic consequences for Jewish-Christian relations

(Cohen zooT).In light of the larger narrative flame-work of the Gospels, individual words and scenes

are easily interpreted in an anti-Jewish way. As such,

it is defensitrle that there are, in the background ofthe Gospel controversy stories, genuine disputes

between Jesus and his fellow Jews. However, these

disputes were taken out of their original context and

systematized as a part of the narrative plot thataccentuates Jesus's disagreements with his contem-

^poraries and presents these disagreements as a.nain reason why Jesus was killed. Through thisprocess, inner-Jewish disputes and polemic wereplaced into a literary context in which the words,first spoken to Jews, were quite easily understood tobe directed against Jews (Levine, p. ur).

Anti-Judaism in the Critical Study of NT.Beginruings af Critical NT SchoLarship, Many

recent studies have revealed how anti-Jewishthought rnodels have found their way into the aca-demic study of the NT from its beginnings. JohannSalomo Semler {t725-t7gr),who has been describedas "the founder of the historical study of the NewTestament" (Werner Georg Kiimmel, The NewTestarnent: The History of the Investigation of lts

Problems. Nashville: Abingdon, tg72, p. 68; English

translation of Das Neue Testament: Geschichte derErforschung seiner Probleme, t97o), in his writingsadvocated the free investigation of each of the NT

writings in their own, distinctive historical contexts"

However, Anders Gerdmar has revealed how many

anti-Jewish themes that became prominent among

later scholars already appeared in Semier's writings(Gerdmar zoog, pp. gg*4il. Semler described the

Jews and Judaism as the foil for Christianity: The

Old Testament has a Jewish-national character, and

the Jewish religion is characterizedby particularismand outward w-orship, while Christianity as the true

religion supersedes bothJewish and Gentile religions

and is, therefore, truly universal. Despite his tendency

to denounce the Old Testament and the religion ofthe Jews, Semler, in the spirit of the Enlightenment,

fought for religious tolerance, publicly defendedJews,

and argued against antiJewish prejudices (Gerdmar,

p. z7). This situation shows that there is not always a

direct continuation from theological anti-Judaism topolitical anti-Jewish actions, a paradox that is typical

of some other scholars too.

The theology of Johann Gottfried Herder bzqq-r8o3) exemplifies how some forms of Christian theo-

logical antiJudaism may present appreciative state-

ments of Old Testament religion, and, at the same

time, provide a distorted and biased portrait of

Judaism in Jesus's time. Herder describes the Jews

as "the original carriers of divine revelation" and the

religion of the patriarchs as "the pure religion of

the fathers" that was genuinely universally minded

(Gerdmar, p. 53). However, Herder develops the

hypothesis that Judaism degenerated after Moses

and tumed into particularistic, legalistic, and ritual-

istic religion that only Jesus was able to restore' Insubsequent scholarship, the degeneration hypothe-

sis was widely used to preserve the continuitybetween the Old Testament and Christianity, butthere is no place for the positive role of later forms

ofJudaism in this scheme.

It is now well documented how antiJewishthemes and structures, presented already at these

early stages of critical biblical studies, continued toappear in the works of such leading biblical scholars

ts-

32 ANI-Jrurusu AND ANTI-SEIVIITSNI IN THE Nrw Ttstiwmut AND ITS INTERPRETATI0N

as Wilhelm M. L. de Wette bzSo-t8+g), Ferdinand

Christian Baw (t792-t86o), David Friedrich Strauss

(r8o8-r874), and Ernst Renan Q9z3-t8gz) (Heschel

1998, pp.to6-r6r; Gerdmar, pp. Z?-131). De Wettedeveloped the degeneration hlpothesis by rnaking a

distinction tretween Hebraism and Judaism. Hebra-

ism is characterized by practical monotheism and

love for truth and becomes evident in the first books

of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, whereas thelegalistic and particularistic Judaism started in theBabylonian exile with the compilation of the book ofDeuteronomy (Gerdmar, pp. Z g-U). These theolog-ical ideas were coupled with the philosophically

based racial distinction between Oriental and West-

ern cultures when Baur applied the dialectical phi-losophy of history of Georg W. G, Hegel (ry7o-r83t)to the study of early Christianity. In Baur's grand

historical scheme, Judaism becomes the antithesis

of Christianity and embodies the Orient with itsempty ritualism, extemal ordinances, inward nation -

alism, and particularism. In contrast, Christianify isuniversal, fllled with the spirit of freedom, and con-

tinues the best Western traditions established by the

Greeks (Kelley, pp. 64-88).

Pharisees and thn Degenarated Late ludnism- Susan-

nah Heschel has shown how Abraham Geiger (r8ro-1874) was one of the flrst who offered a thorough

criticism of the anti-Judaism evident in mainstream

biblical scholarship. While Geiger's scholarly workhas often been dismissed by Christian scholars as

apologetic, Heschel proves how Geiger anticipated

the major scholarly trend of the last decades of the

twentieth century by presentlngJesus consistently as

a Jew, and even as a Pharisee, whose message wa"s

not unique in his Jewish context and who did notbreak with Judaism (Heschel 1998, pp. rz7-$t\Geiger demonstrated that Christian scholarly por-

traits of first-century Judaism in general and the

Pharisees in particular were based to a great extent

on uncritical reception of hostile attacks against the

Pharisees in the Gospels (e.g., Mt zg) and the selective

nse ofhistorical sources. Geiger also saw clearly thatthe Christian religious faith in Jesus's unique status

is quite often turned into a historical argument,

in which case "the Judaism of his time must be

M

portrayed bleakly so that he rises radiantly atrove

it" (translation quoted from Heschel t998, p. 196),

Responses to Geiger's challenge reveal how deep

seated a traditional portrait of the Pharisees-andconsequently all Jews-as dishonest, arrogant, and

hypocritical was among Christian scholars. One ofthe most vehement critics of Geiger was JuliusWellhausen (r8++-rgr8). -Wellhausen's rebuttal ofGeiger's views on the Pharisees appeared already

in 1874, but his quite short book was translatedinto English only in 2oo1, with the publisher ac-

ciaiming it as "a masterpiece of interpretation" and"a milestone in biblical studies" that "provides a

firm foundation for understanding Judaism's influ-ential Pharisees and Sadducees" (fulius Wellhausen,

The Pharisees and tlte Sad.ducees: An Examination

of Internal Jewish History, Macon, Ga.: Mercer Uni-

versity Press, zoor; English translation of Die Phar-

isiier und die Sadducrier: Eine Untersuchung zurinneren Geschichte, first published, in t824, gd ed.

$62).Wellhausen continues the Christian tradition

that presents Judaism in legalistic terms by saytng

that "the Pharisees killed nature through statute"

and thus "left no place for the conscience" (pp. r4-rs). In his writings, Wellhausen develops a theoryof degenerated "late Judaism," a concept that isindebted to de Wette's distinction tretween Hebra-

ism and Judaism (cf. above). The Pharisees become

the prime examples af late Judaism when Wellhau-

sen colorfirlly states, "the once young and ferment-

ing wine settled on the iees'" {p. r5). Wellhausen

rebuts the claims against the authenticity of Jesus's

vehement condemnation of the Pharisees in Mat-

thew z3 by sayng that "even aJew will not deny thatthe urath in Matthew is juotified" (p. rr3). This wrath

is without doubt based on Wellhausen's description

of the Pharisees as the "most outstanding represen-

tatives of Jewish educational arrogance" who are

"very unattractive as soon as they set themselves

up as models for everyone" (p. 16).

Geiger's criticism against biased portraits of the

Pharisees andJudaism was advanced by laterJewish

scholars who tried to demonstrate that the Phari-

sees lvere the very opposite of what Christian

,r*cholarship says about them' These Jewish scholars

|*vre often quite disillusioned by the reception of

'ihetr recurcent criticism among Christian scholars'

For example, Israel Abrahams wrote in gz4 that

Matthews attack against the Pharisees "belongs to

,',apeflod later than Jesus ' ' ' [and] is too indiscrimi-

naft ta be effective. It has been often pointed out

how forcibly Pharisaic leaders themselves satirized,and denounced hlpocrisy. . . 'It is disappointing to

have again andagainta argae this point" (studies in

Pharisaism and the Gospels, zd Series; Cambridge,

UIC Canrbridge University Ptess,tgz4: repr., Eugene,

Ore.: WiPf & Stock, 2oa4' PP.30-31)'

Iranscond,ent lwdaism, George Moore (l9zr) and

later E. P. Sanders (rgzz, zz-sg) have shown that

these early Jewish critics of Christian scholarship

were right and that Christian theological anti-

Judaism continued to flourish in twentieth-century

NT research. They have pointed to the influential

interpretation by Ferdinand Weber (18g6-18Zg),

who shared a comrnon understanding that legalisrn

is the essence of Judaism. For Weber, the logicalconclusion from this is that, in Judaisrn, God's holi-ness is emphasized to ihe extent that God becornes

absolutely exalted above this world and separatedfrom hurnan beings. Moore and Sanders demon-strate how the idea of the remoteness of God wasvariously developed in subsequent scholarship bysuch scholars as Emii Schrirer !9++-tgro) and Wil-helm Bousset (1865-19zo). Bousset, a leading figurein the history of religions school of biblical studies,asserts that the God of Judaisrn in Jesus's time waswithdrarnm from the world, which justifies the defi-nition of Judaism as "an abstract, transcendentmonotheism" (Moore, p.242), This idea gained wide-spread circulation among NT schoiars, especiallybecause it was adapted and developed further byRudolf Bultmann (t8}a-ry76), one of the mostinfluential biblical critics in the twentieth century(Sanders, pp. +z*4fl. The image of the remote Godhas become especially usefirl in later scholarship asscholars have sought to prove the superiority ofChristianity to Judaism by maintaining that Jesus'steaching of God as the Father was an innovation thatchallenged traditional Jewish transcendentalism,

ANrI-JuDfsM Atvo ANTi-SEMursM rN THE New Tpsr.q&rsr'tr arr,o Irs INTEnpnETArroN 33

Conseryative Christian Anti-Judaism. Theologicalanti-Judaism did not appear only among liberal-minded, eniightenment theologians but influencedmany of their more conservative opponents as

r,vell. Anders Gerdmar has shown how many conser-

vatiye, salvation-historical oriented biblical scholars

developed various anti-Jewish themes in their works(Gerdmar, pp. ztg-gz6} Franz Delitzsch (r8r3-r89o),

the founder of Institutum Iudaica in the r87os, wasrenor,rmed for his study of Hebrew philology andvarious Hebrew primary sources. He even defended

the Jewish community against anti-Semitic attacksbut, however paradoxically, fell prey to standardCl'rristian anti-Judaism. Delitzsch gives a specificplace for Israel in God's salvation plan and describes

Jesus as a Jew but also "talks about the narrow

Judaism of the Pharisees and people having become

fanaticized (fanatisiertes Volk), which led to Jesus'sdeath" (Gerdmar, p.2Zo).IrA/hen discussing the role

of the Jews in ]esus's crucifixion, Delitzsch bravely

says that the time when every Jew is held responsi-ble for it should be over. But he continues that "we

cannot evade the conclusion that the handing overcf Jesus to the Romans . . . is a national debt thatweighs on the Jewish people" (as quoted by Gerd-

mat, p, zz7),

Another scholar who was both a vehement criticof iiberal biblical studies and highly learned in var-

ious Jewish sources was Adolf Schlatter (r8Sg-r898).

ln a manner similar to Wellhausen (cf. above),

Schlatter develops the degeneration hypothesis and

the opposition between prophetic and later legalistic

Judaism represented by the Pharisees (Gerdmar,

256-z6o). Schlatter emphatically describes Jesus as

a Jew but, by the same token, repeats highly defam-

atory classic charges by describingJews as examples

of greed, pride, and double standards (Gerdmar,

p. z7il.Schlatter, like Delitzsch, holds Jews guiltyof deicide.

Assessment. The preceding discussion has sug-

gested that il is difficult to maintain a precise dis-

tinction between anti-Judaism, anti-Semitism, andintra-Jewish polemic. \Mhile these concepts can be

separated in theory the survey of Christian scholar-

ship shows how intra-Jewish polemic is quite easily

34 .t'vrt-Jt;l,tistvt alu ANt-Srmns&I IN THE Nnw Tnsrz$.rsNT e-r-o Its INTER?n-ET rioN

turned into anti-Judaism, especially because intra-

Jewish debates appeff already in the NT within thelarger canonical context that reflects the increas-

ingly Gentile character of Christianity.There are obvious risks if NT polemic is identified

as intra-Jewish and characterized as harmless and

mild, It has been extremely hard for scholars repre-

senting various theologicai positions to avoid anti-

Jewish themes in their scholarship if they are notready to distance themselves from the NT's portraitsof Judaism and the most virulent attacks against

Jews. If these attacks and the passion narratives inthe Gospels are accepted as unbiased and authentic

reports, it is difficult if not irnpossible to fightagainst Christian anti-Judaism.

Christian, theological anti-Judaism has taken dif-ferent forms. Some scholars have followed Marcion(second century c.r.), who criticized heavily the OldTestament and saw a clear break between Judaismand Christianity. The attempt to puriSr Christianify&om all that refers to Judaism reached its culmina-

tion when some Nazi theologians developed fantas-

tic theories of Jesus's Aryan pedigree and thus

dejudaized Christianity (Heschel, zoo8).

We should not, however, regard the efforts tountie the bond between Christianity and Judaismas the standard of Christian anti-Judaism. Stephen

Wilson has remarked that Marcion, when subjecting

the Hebrew Bible to severe criticism and finallyrejecting it, "attacked the sl,mbols but Ieft the peo-

ple alone," while his orthodox opponents "took over

the symbols and attacked the people. Judaism was

the loser in either case" (Wilson, p. zzt). Many laterscholars have followed Marcion's opponents when

they have attacked either the Jews in Jesus's timeor modern Jews but emphasized the continuitybetween the Old Testament and Christianity. For

this form of Christian anti-Judaism, Jesus's Jewish-ness has never been a real problem. Therefore, while

the emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus and early

Christianity in recent scholarship is a genuine

advancement, this emphasis is not a sufficient anti-

dote to all forms of theological anti-Judaism.

Christian theological anti-Judaism is not neces-

sarily a thing of the past, even though, since the

appearance of E. P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian

Judaism bszz), the majority of scholars have

become increasingly sensitive to the polemical

nature of the traditional Christian picture of first-century Judaism. However, there is always a temp-tation to present a distorted and biased portrait offirst-centuryJudaism if the defense of the historicityof the NT is coupled with an attempt to give histor-ical reasons for a Christian theological conviction ofJesus's exceptional, divine status"

Amy-lill Levine has exposed how various recentattempts to elevate Jesus atrove his historical con-

text have resulted in biased portraits of Judaism(pp. rr9-r9o). \44een various feminist or postcolonial

approaches have been applied to the NT, scholars

have repeatedly representedJesus as the spokesman

of the poor, the suppressed, and women whileJuda-ism appears as hierarchical, repressive, and misog-

lmistic. These portraits bring into Life and replicate

one of the basic assumptions of theological anti-

Judaism, an idea that, despite its Jewish origins,

Christianity su{passes its predecessor and makes

clear its fauits.

lSee also Historical Criticism, subentry New Testa-

ment; Historical Jesus, Quest for the; Rabbinic

Exegesis; and Redaction Criticism, subentry New

Testament.]

BIBLIOGRAPHYCohen, Jeremy. Christ Killers: The Jews and the Passion

from the Bible to the Big Seeen. Odord: Oxford Uni-versity Press, zooT.Traces the Christ-killer rnyth fiomantiquity to the present day and exposes anti-Judaisminherent in Christian renderings of the passion

narratives.Dayies, Alan T., ed. Antisemitism and the Foundations of

Christianigr. New Yorlc Pau-list, 1979. Essays thatrespond to and debate with the thesis in RosemaryRadford Ruether's Faith and Fratricide; includes a

concluding response from Ruether herself.

Donaldson, Terence L. Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New

Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpreta'tions. London and Waco, Tex.: SPCK and Baylor

University Press, aoto. A nuanced and perceptivediscussion of the wa1.s scholars have interpreted theNew Testament in relation to anti-Judaism'

fivans, Cra-ig A., and Donald A. Hagrier' eds' Anti'

Setnitisrrr ancl Early Christianity: lssues of Palemic

attcl f'aitJz" Ulinneapolis: Fortress. r993' Essays discuss-

ing prophetic critique in the Hebrew Bible and tire

qr:estion of anti-Sernitisrp in relation to Jesus' diff'er-

ent NT r,lr:itings, early Church Fathers' Ner'rr Testa-

n'rent Apocrypha, ancJ Gnostic ttifings'f,armer, Wiliiain R., ed.. Anti-Jud,aism and tlze Gaspels'

Harrisburg, Iia.: Trinitn r9q9. A coilection of essays

and responses to them thai cliscuss each of the

canonical Cospels, the inlerpretation of the Gospels

in iire early Church, and anti-lrrdaism in the critical

sludl" rif the Gospels.

f,iager, John G. T'he Arigitts oJ ,lnti-Serniiism: Attitudesn ''.'an'cl Jtt:lais*t in iagan ancl Christian '4ntiquitlr'

-w York and Oxforcl: bxford Universlty Press' t983'

;Lrgues tha,t Christian anti-Juclaisnr and Greco-Roman

bigoiry against Jelvs e,,'ident in sonre autho-rs (Apion'

facitus, Seneca) are trvo rlifferent things; ciaims that

Paui's thealogv is nol at aU anti-Jewish'

Gerrlrnar' Anders' Roots t)|', Theological Anti-semitism:

Ge*nan Bi,bticat Intetpietntian ald the Jews' fraruNerrJer and Semler to kittel atrtl Bultrunntt' Studies in

lev,risli liisiorv and Culture zo" Leiden: Briil' zotlg'

. thorough slllneJr of low the Jet's and Jlrdaism

we!:e constructed as the antithesis of Christianity in

itie salvaticn-historical and enli.qhtenment-orientecl

German biblical scholarship fronr the 175os to the

1950s,

Hakola, Raimo. ldentity Matters: Jolm, the Jettts' and Jew-

i slu't e s s. hio-,'llm Testamenturrr: SupPlement r r B' Lei-

den: srill. zoo5" Challenges ihe hlpothesis that John

reflects a violent persJcution of early Christians

'- -'i proposes tl:at Jolin's portra'td of Jridaism is

.---oi.,'alent.

i{eschei, Susannah.;1& rctham Gelger nnd tke t'eu'ish lesus'

Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Prg55' iQlB Discuss-

es how Aturaham Geiuer chailenged anti-Jeluish cur-

reuts evidcnt in ninetJenth-centutT Christian biblica.i

studies arid boklly presentecl Jesus as a Jew- and a

Pha.risee.

,L1esr:hel, Susannah. The Aryan Jesus: Christian Tlrcolo-

gians ttnd the Bible in llazi Germany' Princeton'

N.-|.: Princelon Universilv P1ss5, 2oo8' Iliscusses

the emergence and ir-rfluence of the - efforts b1'

soiae Nazi theoiogians (most notably l'a'/alter Grund-

mann) to "delutlize" Jesus by presenting lrim as an

r\ryan.

Jr-rirnson, i,uke T'irnothy. "The ge.,v Testanrent's Alti-jervisl; Slarder and the Convention'q $f Ancient

Polemic." jaurnal of Bibtical Lircratltre ro8 (i989):

41q*441. Compa,res polemic against jews in the NT

/b-rr""Juoa.rsir,t .ws Axrr-snli[rsNr IN THE Nutt, Tssr.4"vts]{r ANI ITS INTERPRETiTION 3s

io inter-Jer,i.ish disputes and the conventions ofancient rhetoric.

l,er.ine, Amy-Jili. The l,lisunderstood Jew: Tlze Clturth andthe Scandal oJ'lhe Jewish lesus. San Francisco: Harper-SanFrancisco, zaa6. Discusses horv Jesus should beseen in his,Ie"l,vish conte:'t a1d exposes I'row Christiananti-Jewish readings of the NT have presented Juda.^ism in a stark contrast to Christianity

Kelley, Shawn. Racializing lesus: Race, Ideologr and theFormatio n oJ Mo dern Bib I ic al. Scho lctr ship. L,andon andNelv York: Routledge, zooz. Reveais how nineteerrth-century Orientalism anri Romantic Nationalism ,r,vere

coupled nith racial thinking that influenced alsomodern biblical scholarship.

lVloore, George Fcot. "Christian Writers on Judaism."Harva,rd T'h.eolagical Review t4 $gzt): tg7-254. A clas-sic but often neglected article that betrayed the apol-ogetic, biased disposition of mainstream Christianscholarship tor,vard Judaism.

Farkes. James. The ConJlict of tlze Chu,rck and the S1,na-

gogue: A Stucly in the Origins af Antisemitism. London:Soncino, tg14. Ane of the first systematic suweys o1'

Christian anLi-Judaism.

Pruelher, Rosemary Radford. Faith and f'ratricide: The

{heolagical Roots of Anti-Sernitism. Nerv Yorh Seabur"v,

1974. Makes a controversial claim that anti-Judaism is

intrinsic to Cll'isfian faith by analyzing NT te;.ts andlater eariy Christian literature.

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. X4inneapo-lis: ForLress, t977. Atgaes against the earlier scholarlyconsensus that Paul denounces the Judaism of histime because it was fiiled with rabbinic legalism.

Sanders,Jack T, "Can Anlthing Bad Come out ofNaza-reth, or Ilid Luke Think that History Moved in a Lineor in a Circle?" In Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: L)ssttys

in Honor af Joseph B. Tyson" edited by R. P. Thompsonand T. E. Philiips, 2gz-312, Macon, Ga.: Nlercer {.Jni-

versily Press, 1998.

Tyscn, Joseph . P. Luke, ludaism, and the ,Scholars: CriticalApproaches to Luke-Acts. Columbia: University ofSouth Caroiina Press, i999. A-rgues that the Holocaustwas a major turning point in NT scholarship and

shor,vs horv the text's ml-red signals have leff roomibr scholars to emphasize either positive or negativeaspects of Luke's portrayal of Jews andJudaism.

Wilson, Stephen G. Related Strangers: lews and Chris-

tians, 7o*t7o C.i-. Minneapolis: Fortress, r9q5. A bal-

anced discussion of Jewish-Christian relations fror.rrhe NT Gospels to second-century Christian andJew-isii evidence.

Rairno Hakola