Christologies & the historical reception of a divine Jesus / Χριστολογίες & ιστορική πρόσληψη του Ιησού ως θεοειδούς

 

 

Catacombs of Commodilla,
4th cent.

 

Debate over the origins of the belief on Jesus’s divinity remains vibrant. A spectrum of theological ideas has been proposed for centuries, extending from so-called high Christologies that uphold that Jesus was actually God or divine in some way to the low Christologies that endorse that Jesus was virtually a charismatic human being, either an inspired prophet or an exceptional teacher. Adjusting the prism that has produced this range of views affects the way that we receive the historical data. As regards the following discussion, this is emphatically true for the paths that have been followed for reconstructing the actual development of Judaism and Christianity. More specifically, Daniel Boyarin interestingly observed that, “if all the Jews—or even a substantial number—expected that the Messiah would be divine as well as human, then the belief in Jesus as God is not the point of departure on which some new religion came into being but simply another variant (and not a deviant one) of Judaism.” The roots of such beliefs date back to a few centuries BCE.

Η αντιλογία σχετικά με την προέλευση της πίστης στη θειότητα του Ιησού παραμένει ζωηρή. Ένα φάσμα θεολογικών ιδεών έχει προταθεί στο πέρασμα των αιώνων, το οποίο εκτείνεται από τις λεγόμενες υψηλές Χριστολογίες που υποστηρίζουν ότι ο Ιησούς ήταν στην πραγματικότητα Θεός ή θεοειδής κατά κάποιον τρόπο μέχρι τις χαμηλές Χριστολογίες που υποστηρίζουν ότι ο Ιησούς ήταν ουσιαστικά ένας χαρισματικός άνθρωπος, είτε εμπνευσμένος προφήτης είτε εξαιρετικός δάσκαλος. Η θέση που τίθεται το πρίσμα, το οποίο έχει δημιουργήσει αυτό το εύρος απόψεων, επηρεάζει τον τρόπο με τον οποίο προσλαμβάνουμε τα ιστορικά δεδομένα. Όσον αφορά την συζήτηση που ακολουθεί, αυτό ισχύει εμφατικά για τα μονοπάτια που έχουν ακολουθηθεί για την ανασύνθεση της πραγματικής εξέλιξης του Ιουδαϊσμού και του Χριστιανισμού. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, είναι ενδιαφέρουσα η παρατήρηση του Daniel Boyarin ότι, «εάν όλοι οι Ιουδαίοι—ή ακόμη και ένας σημαντικός αριθμός—ανέμεναν ότι ο Μεσσίας θα ήταν θεϊκός καθώς και ανθρώπινος, τότε η πίστη στον Ιησού ως Θεό δεν είναι το σημείο απόκλισης στο οποίο μια νέα θρησκεία ήρθε σε ύπαρξη αλλά απλώς μια ακόμη παραλλαγή (και μάλιστα όχι αποκλίνουσα) του Ιουδαϊσμού». Οι ρίζες τέτοιου είδους πεποιθήσεων χρονολογούνται λίγους αιώνες ΠΚΧ.

* Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Review of: Andrei A. Orlov, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the Origins of Early Jewish Mysticism (September 2017, Mohr Siebeck), Review of Biblical Literature, June 6, 2020.

Eric Osborn: On the three kinds of divine agents who shared in God's rule in Judaism of the 1st century CE /Περί των τριών ειδών θεϊκών φορέων που μετέχουν της θεϊκής εξουσίαςστον Ιουδαϊσμό του 1ου αιώνα ΚΧ

* Eric Osborn,
The Emergence of Christian Theology,
Cambridge University Press,
pp./σσ. 23-25.

Παγανιστικής προέλευσης η διάκριση της θεότητας σε υποστάσεις κατά τον Ιωάννη τον Δαμασκηνό / Of pagan origin the distinction into hypostases (persons) according to John of Damascus

*

Οὕτως διὰ μὲν τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἑνότητος ἡ πολύθεος τῶν ῾Ελλήνων ἐξαφανίζεται πλάνη, διὰ δὲ τῆς τοῦ Λόγου παραδοχῆς καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τῶν Ἰουδαίων καθαιρεῖται τὸ δόγμα, ἑκατέρας τε αἱρέσεως παραμένει τὸ χρήσιμον, ἐκ μὲν τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ὑπολήψεως ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἑνότης, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ῾Ελληνισμοῦ ἡ κατὰ τὰς ὑποστάσεις διάκρισις μόνη.


Έτσι από τη μια μεριά με την κατά φύση ενότητα εξαφανίζεται η πλάνη του πολυθεϊσμού των Ελλήνων, από την άλλη με την παραδοχή του Λόγου και του Πνεύματος ανατρέπεται το δόγμα των Ιουδαίων και από την καθεμιά αίρεση παραμένει η ωφέλεια, από την ιουδαϊκή πίστη η ενότητα της φύσεως και από τον Ελληνισμό η μόνη διάκριση κατά τις υποστάσεις.

[μετάφρ. Ν. Ματσούκας (1976)]


Thus, on the one hand, the unity in nature exposes the polytheistic error of the Greeks; on the other hand, the doctrine of the Word and the Spirit demolishes the teaching of the Jews. At the same time, the good in both of these heresies remain: from the Jewish opinion the unity of nature; and from Hellenism the unique distinction according to persons.

[transl. Dr. Chase (1958)]

* Ιωάννης ο Δαμασκηνός / John of Damascus,
Έκδοσις Ακριβής της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως /
Expositio accurata fidei orthodoxae 1:7.

* Βλέπε επίσης:
Αγία Γραφή και Πρωτοχριστιανισμός,
Φιλοσοφία και Εκκλησιαστικοί Πατέρες:
Μια κριτική στις θέσεις του Νίκου Ματσούκα.

The sign of the cross: An originally Jewish symbol reinterpreted in Christianity /Το σημείο του σταυρού: Ένα αρχικά ιουδαϊκό σύμβολο επανερμηνευμένο στον χριστιανισμό

* Nicholas De Lange,
Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in third-century Palestine,
[Ο Ωριγένης και οι Ιουδαίοι: Μελέτες στις Ιουδαιο-Χριστιανικές Σχέσεις στην Παλαιστίνη του τρίτου αιώνα]
Cambridge University Press 1978,
pp./σσ. 116, 117.

@

The "anti-Jewishness" of John: Being not children of Abraham any more but of God /Ο «αντιουδαϊσμός» του Ιωάννη: Όχι πλέον παιδιά του Αβραάμ αλλά του Θεού

Anyone reading certain parts of the New Testament, John’s Gospel especially, will soon discover negative attitudes being expressed towards Judeans (for example, in John 8:31-59). It is entirely appropriate to investigate the extent to which, over the centuries, such passages have provided resources for anti-Jewish and (since the late nineteenth century) anti-Semitic views. Anti-Semitism is a vicious reality in our world and needs to be opposed in a vigorous and informed way. But the moral seriousness of this endeavor is no excuse for interpreting anything in the Fourth Gospel as “anti-Semitic.” That would be a gross anachronism. We owe it to the cause of historical truth to do all we can to understand phenomena in terms appropriate to them. While the framework of ethnicity is appropriate to the first century CE world, that of “race” and anti-Semitism is not. What we find in John is antipathy being expressed to a populous and impressive ethnic group, the Judeans, by a small group needing to differentiate themselves from them and whose identity was certainly not ethnic however we might choose to describe it. John wanted his readers to accept that they were born “not (in the ethnic language of shared descent) of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man” but of God; he wanted his readers to regard themselves not as Ioudaioi (= children of Abraham) but as children of God.

Ενώ το πλαίσιο της εθνικότητας είναι κατάλληλο όσον αφορά τον κόσμο του πρώτου αιώνα Κ.Χ., εκείνο της «φυλής» και του αντισημιτισμού δεν είναι. Αυτό που βρίσκουμε στο [ενν. Ευαγγέλιο του] Ιωάννη είναι αντιπάθεια προς μια πολυπληθή και εντυπωσιακή εθνότητα, τους Ιουδαίους, από μια μικρή ομάδα που ένιωθε την ανάγκη να διαχωρίσει τον εαυτό της από αυτούς και της οποίας η ταυτότητα σίγουρα δεν ήταν εθνοτική όπως κι αν επιλέξουμε να την περιγράψουμε. Ο Ιωάννης ήθελε να αποδεχτούν οι αναγνώστες του ότι ήταν γεννημένοι «όχι (με την εθνοτική γλώσσα της κοινής καταγωγής) από αίμα ούτε από το σαρκικό θέλημα ούτε από θέλημα άντρα» αλλά από τον Θεό· ήθελε να θεωρούν οι αναγνώστες του τους εαυτούς τους όχι ως Ιουδαίους (=παιδιά του Αβραάμ) αλλά ως παιδιά του Θεού.

* Philip F. Esler,
"“Race” and Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World?",
The Bible and Interpretation,
May/Μάιος 2012.

Neoplatonism, its triads/trinities & the Trinity /Ο Νεοπλατωνισμός, οι τριάδες του & η Τριάδα

Plotinus / Πλωτίνος

Judaism and Christianity were both profoundly influenced by Neoplatonism, which described creation in terms of emanation from “The One” and encouraged the idea that this emanation occurred through triads or “Trinities.” In explaining how The One became the many, Plotinus introduced the concept of the three Hypostases, a Greek term interpreted as meaning “origin,” “substance,” “real nature” or “first principle.” According to Plotinus’ formulation in his great work The Enneads, the first of these Hypostases was The One (to hen), the second, Intellect or Mind (Nous) and the third, Soul (psuche) (Enneads 5.1.) While Plotinus saw these as three separated entities, each one emanating from the previous one, Proclus tended to abolish any absolute distinction between them and “telescope” them into one. Christians were happy to see prefigurations of the Trinity in these triadic formulations (Proclus was especially helpful in this respect), and, indeed, it has been suggested that neoplatonic philosophy helped Christian theologians formulate the doctrine of the Trinity. Such triads made their way into Judaism and Islam through the infiltration of neoplatonic ideas, thus opening the way for Trinitarian interpretations of these rival religions by proselytizing Christians.

Ο ιουδαϊσμός και ο χριστιανισμός αμφότεροι επηρεάστηκαν βαθιά από τον νεοπλατωνισμό, ο οποίος περιέγραφε τη δημιουργία μέσω της απορροής από «Το Ένα» και προωθούσε την ιδέα ότι αυτή η απορροή συνέβη μέσω «Τριάδων». Στην εξήγηση τού πώς Το Ένα έγινε περισσότερα, ο Πλωτίνος εισήγαγε την ιδέα των τριών Υποστάσεων, ελληνικός όρος που ερμηνεύεται ως «προέλευση», «ουσία», «αληθινή φύση» ή «πρώτη αρχή». Σύμφωνα με τη διατύπωση του Πλωτίνου στο σημαντικό έργο του Εννεάδες, η πρώτη από αυτές τις Υποστάσεις ήταν Το Ένα, το δεύτερο ήταν ο Νους και το τρίτο η Ψυχή. (Εννεάδες 5:1) Ενώ ο Πλωτίνος τις θεωρούσε ως τρεις ξεχωριστές οντότητες, καθεμιά από τις οποίες απέρρεε από την προηγούμενη, ο Πρόκλος έτεινε να καταργήσει οποιονδήποτε διαχωρισμό μεταξύ τους και να τις συμπτύξει σε μία. Οι χριστιανοί ήταν ευτυχείς θεωρώντας αυτές τις τριαδικές διατυπώσεις ως προτυπώσεις της Τριάδας (ο Πρόκλος ήταν ιδιαίτερα υποβοηθητικός ως προς αυτό), και πράγματι έχει υποστηριχτεί η άποψη ότι η νεοπλατωνική φιλοσοφία βοήθησε τους χριστιανούς θεολόγους ώστε να διατυπώσουν το δόγμα της Τριάδας. Τέτοιες τριάδες εισχώρησαν στον ιουδαϊσμό και στο Ισλάμ διαμέσου της διείσδυσης νεοπλατωνικών ιδεών, ανοίγοντας έτσι το δρόμο για τριαδολογικές ερμηνείες από αυτές τις αντιμαχόμενες θρησκείες μέσω του προσηλυτισμού χριστιανών.

* Allison P. Coudert,
"Judaizing in the Seventeenth Century: Francis Mercury van Helmont and Johann Peter Späth (Moses Germanus)"
[«Το Ιουδαΐζειν τον Δέκατο Έβδομο Αιώνα: Φράνσις Μέρκιουρι βαν Χέλμοντ και Γιόχαν Πέτερ Σπεθ (Μωυσής Γερμανός)»],
στο Martin Mulsow & Richard H. Popkin,
Secret conversions to Judaism in early modern Europe (Brill’s studies in intellectual history, vol. 122)
[Μυστικές μεταστροφές στον Ιουδαϊσμό κατά την πρώιμη νεωτερική Ευρώπη],
Brill 2004,
pp./σσ. 97, 98.

The connotations of the phrase 'son of God' /Οι έννοιες της φράσης "γιος Θεού"

Το δεύτερό μου παράδειγμα είναι η φράση "γιος Θεού". Για κάποιον ελληνόφωνο της Αλεξάνδρειας, της Αντιόχειας ή της Αθήνας κατά την μετάβαση στη νέα χρονολογική περίοδο, η ιδέα περί υἱοῦ θεοῦ θα έφερνε στο νου είτε κάποιον απόγονο των Ολύμπιων θεοτήτων ή πιθανώς τον θεοποιημένο Αιγύπτιο-Πτολεμαϊκό βασιλιά ή τον θεϊκό αυτοκράτορα της Ρώμης, απόγονο του αποθεωμένου Ιουλίου Καίσαρα. Αλλά για έναν Ιουδαίο, η αντίστοιχη εβραϊκή ή αραμαϊκή φράση δεν θα εφαρμοζόταν σε κανέναν από αυτούς. Για αυτόν, η φράση γιος Θεού θα μπορούσε να αναφέρεται, κατά ανιούσα σειρά, σε οποιοδήποτε από τα παιδιά του Ισραήλ· ή σε κάποιον καλό Ιουδαίο· ή σε κάποιον χαρισματικό άγιο Ιουδαίο· ή στον βασιλιά του Ισραήλ· ή συγκεκριμένα στον βασιλικό Μεσσία· και τελικά, με μια διαφορετική σημασία, σε κάποιο αγγελικό ή ουράνιο ον. Με άλλα λόγια, η φράση "γιος Θεού" πάντα κατανοούνταν μεταφορικά στους ιουδαϊκούς κύκλους. Στις ιουδαϊκές πηγές, η χρήση της ποτέ δεν υπονοεί συμμετοχή του εν λόγω ατόμου στη θεϊκή φύση. Μπορεί με ασφάλεια να υποτεθεί ότι αν το μέσο εντός του οποίου αναπτύχθηκε η χριστιανική θεολογία ήταν εβραϊκό και όχι ελληνικό, δεν θα είχε παραγάγει ένα δόγμα ενσάρκωσης όπως κατανοείται αυτό παραδοσιακά.

* Géza Vermès,
Jesus in his Jewish context
[Ο Ιησούς στο ιουδαϊκό του περιβάλλον],
Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2003,
p./σ. 66.




Also, in: / Επίσης, στο:

* "Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation"
["Η μελέτη του Ιουδαϊσμού και η Ερμηνεία της Καινής Διαθήκης']
The Journal of Jewish studies,
Vol./Τόμ. 31, Issue/Τεύχος 1, Spring/Άνοιξη 1980,
p./σ. 15.

Sabbatai Ṣevi, the Ottomans & the rivalry between Jews & Orthodox Christians /Ο Σαμπατάι Τσεβί, οι Οθωμανοί & ο ανταγωνισμός μεταξύ Εβραίων & Ορθόδοξων χριστιανών

Shabbatai Tzevi’s messianic calling could not have come at a worse time for the Jewish elite in Istanbul. It confirmed for the Ottomans that Jews were untrustworthy and helped convince them to turn to the Jews’ rivals, Orthodox Christians, as the two groups struggled for positions of power and influence. Jews appeared to be a volatile and untrustworthy group because they so wholeheartedly endorsed Shabbatai Tzevi. Their actions threatened to undermine the social order and directly challenged the sultan’s uncontested rule when he was facing serious military and fi nancial problems, including the siege of Venetian Crete, a fact noted by a late Ottoman historian. Shabbatai Tzevi’s attempt to dethrone the sultan and his inciting Jews to sedition worsened already negative palace opinion of Jews. The decade of the 1660s was thus a crucial turning point for the fortunes of Istanbul Jewry. Shabbatai Tzevi’s mission to the city, initially met with such hope and even cockiness on the part of some Jews who felt their persecutors would soon taste their just reward, ended with most of the rabbi’s original followers in despair and many eventually converted to Islam. It benefited Orthodox Christian physicians, translators, diplomats, and advisors, to whom Ottomans would thereafter entrust their lives and political affairs.

Due to the dissemination of prophecies concerning Shabbatai Tzevi, many Jews in Istanbul expected a “quick transfer of the sultan’s power” to the rabbi. Especially those from Iberia believed Shabbatai Tzevi would dethrone the sultan and crown himself king sometime in the autumn of 1665 or winter of 1666: “Jews printed prophecies of rescue from the tyranny of the Turk, and leading the Grand Signior [the sultan] himself captive in Chains.” He referred to himself as “the High King, above all the kings of the Earth,” and told the Jews not to fear, “for you shall have Dominion over the Nations.” According to the Frenchman Chevalier De La Croix, Jews expected “the imminent establishment of the kingdom of Israel” and the subsequent “fall of the Crescent and of all the royal crowns in Christendom.” Christians such as the Armenian historian and priest Arakel of Tabriz feared the Jews would then destroy other peoples. A French Catholic priest wrote that Jews threatened Christians “with dire disaster if we failed to join them as soon as possible, and of our own good and free will walked in front of the king who would rule over them, acknowledging his kingdom and submitting to the religion and the laws which he would establish in the world.” As a result of this fervor, Jews exhibited a “peculiar atmosphere of feverish expectation” that was a “psychological and social reality.”

* Marc David Baer,

Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe

[Τιμημένος με τη Δόξα του Ισλάμ: Μεταστροφή και Κατάκτηση στην Οθωμανική Ευρώπη],

Oxford University Press, 2011

p./σ. 123.

What if circumcised Christians had become the majority in Jewish Palestine & obtained coercive power? / Τι θα γινόταν αν οι περιτμημένοι Χριστιανοί γίνονταν η πλειονότητα στην Ιουδαϊκή Παλαιστίνη & αποκτούσαν δύναμη πίεσης;

Optimism concerning the possibility of converting at least a significant minority in Israel was evident at the time of the private conference involving Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church. At that time (probably the mid 50's), it was mutually agreed that Peter should continue to lead the mission to the Jews while Paul headed the mission to the gentiles (Gal. 2:7-9). Yet the lack of response to Peter's side of the two-fold mission is clearly reflected in Romans 9-11, written perhaps two or three years later. In retrospect we can say that Paul's pessimism was more responsive to the historical evidence than Peter's optimism, and in view of this we must assume that the optimism was theologically grounded in the intensely held conviction that the God whose eschatological messenger had been refused by Israel had nonetheless not abandoned his people.

Was it the addition of this motif of the rejection of God's ultimate messenger that produced an anti-Judaism which granted no theological space for a continuing Judaism? The answer is clearly no. The negative stance toward "establishment" or rank-and-file Judaism had already been assumed before Jesus' death. As Ruether herself observes, it was characteristic of Jewish messianic sects, such as the Essenes, to regard unconverted Jews as outside the covenant (p. 55). Had either the Qumran community or Jewish Christianity acknowledged the authenticity and continuing validity of the religion of the majority, it would immediately have lost its character as a conversionist sect and therewith its original raison d'être.

It is therefore beside the point for Ruether to suggest that "A Jewish Christianity which did not define itself as a new covenant... might have remained as a form of Judaism" (p. 56). If she means that such a Jewish Christianity would have been tolerated more easily by the majority, we will of course agree, and point to the evidence that a Christian sect persisted on the fringes of Judaism for three or four centuries. If, however, she means that such a Jewish Christianity would have been more tolerant of Judaism than were the writers of the New Testament, we must disagree. Had circumcised Christians become the majority in Jewish Palestine and obtained coercive power, it is not unlikely that they would have exercised repressive force against the synagogues of rabbinic Judaism. As a conversionist sect, it could grant validity to the religion of its opponents as little as today's Jehovah's witnesses can acknowledge the authenticity of the established churches.

Just as it was not christology that produced the anti-Judaism which denied a place in the covenant to unconverted Jews, so it was not christology which produced the parting of the ways. Ruether is mistaken, I would argue, in maintaining that:

It was the raising up of faith in Messiah Jesus as a supersessionary covenantal principle—the view that one was not within the true people of God unless one adopted the faith in this form—that caused the break between the Church and Israel (p. 56).

The Jewish community has always shown itself able to tolerate a wide variety of haggadic and halakic nonconformity within its midst, albeit with vigorous protest and healthy disagreement. Intolerance has been severe only when the majority felt that nonconformists were eroding Israel's sense of identity in a way that would lead to gentilization and assimilation. Consequently, it was not the conversionist anti-Judaism with its insistence that faith in Jesus was essential to participation in God's eschatological people that caused the parting of the ways. It was rather that this troublesome thorn in the side of Judaism seemed to challenge the central symbols of the nation's identity. It was not Peter's sermons demanding faith in Jesus, but rather his practice of eating with gentiles that endangered the church in Jerusalem. It was not Paul's proclamation of Jesus that aroused the deepest animosity against him in Jerusalem, but the report, perhaps largely untrue but not entirely without basis, that he was teaching Jews in the Diaspora "to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs" (Acts 21:21). The customs here referred to, we must assume, were those that were felt to constitute the irreducible minimum needed as protection against the ever-present threat of assimilation.

* Douglas R. A. Hare,
"The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts"
["Η Απόρριψη των Ιουδαίων στα Συνοπτικά Ευαγγέλια και τις Πράξεις"],
in/στο:
Alan T. Davies,
Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity
[Ο Αντισημιτισμός και τα Θεμέλια του Χριστιανισμού],
Paulist Press, 1979 / Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004,
pp./σσ. 30, 31.

The Sermon on the Mount & the Christians in the 2nd cent. /Η Επί του Όρους Ομιλία & οι Χριστιανοί του 2ου αι.

What, then, did Christianity seek to achieve vis-a-vis Greco-Roman society? Today, we may feel a sense of disappointment that, with heretical exceptions, the church sanctified the status quo in both eastern and western parts of the empire, though maintaining different theories concerning the relations between church and state. Just occasionally, as with Justin's and Clement of Alexandria's pleas against the state raising money from taxes on prostitution, one discerns a glimmer of practical idealism, but such examples are not common. The causes lie partly in the Christian aim of individual salvation, the attainment of which involved avoidance of sin rather than furthering social reform, and partly in attitudes prevalent in the Judaism of the Second Commonwealth era, whence the Christians drew much of the model for their own morality. This involved precise duties, such as seeing to the welfare of widows and orphans, regular giving of alms, and securing a proper burial for the dead. These traditions the Christians continued faithfully, to the admiration of their critics, including the Emperor Julian, but they never added up to a program of social reform, a determination to end extortionate taxation, exploitation of man by man, and corruption in justice. Celsus had been right. Christians in the second century tended to be more Judaistic than they or their successors cared to admit. Tobit rather than Luke proved to be the handbook of early Christian ethics. The Sermon on the Mount was read but in practice ignored. Reform of society, even as a sign of preparation for the Coming proved to be beyond the imagination of the time. To Augustine, the powers that be were "the most authorized" (ordinatissimae) by God, and to desire a change in the status quo was the hallmark of the heretic. For him, to think that his Lord had shown that the Kingdom would be established by destroying many of the moulds accepted by society would have seemed altogether fanciful.

* W. H. C. Frend,
"Early Christianity and Society: A Jewish Legacy in the Pre-Constantinian Era"
["Πρωτοχριστιανισμός και Κοινωνία: Μια Ιουδαϊκή Κληρονομιά στην Προκωνσταντίνεια Εποχή"],
The Harvard Theological Review, Vol./Τόμ. 76, No./Αρ. 1 (Jan./Ιαν., 1983),
p./σ. 71.

Κ. Ζάρρας & D. Daube: Το «σημείο» του Ιεζ 9:4 /The "mark" of Eze 9:4

Παλαιοεβραϊκό τάου (ταυ) /
Paleo Hebrew taw

Καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν·
δίελθε μέσην τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ
καὶ δὸς τὸ σημεῖον ἐπὶ τὰ μέτωπα τῶν ἀνδρῶν
τῶν καταστεναζόντων καὶ τῶν κατωδυνωμένων
ἐπὶ πάσαις ταῖς ἀνομίαις ταῖς γινομέναις ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς.

– Ιεζεκιήλ 9:4, Ο'.


And he said to him,
"Pass through the middle of Ierousalem,
and give the mark upon the foreheads of the men
who sigh and have been afflicted
over all the lawless acts that happen in their midst."

– Ezekiel 9:4, NETS.

 

* Κωνσταντίνος Ζάρρας,

«Η Ιουδαϊκή μυστική παράδοση του Θρόνου»,
Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης (ΑΠΘ),
Σχολή Θεολογική, Τμήμα Θεολογίας, 1998,
σ. 49.

 

* David Daube,
The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism,
University of London, Athlone Press, 1956 /
Ayer Publishing, 1973,
pp. 401-403.

Henry Chadwick: Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) / Ο Ιουδαϊσμός μετά την πτώση της Ιερουσαλήμ (70 μ.Χ.)

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 the Pharisees became prominent in the reconstruction of Jewish society, and the form in which Jesus’ criticisms have come to be expressed in Matthew 23 evidently represents the sense of rivalry between Pharisees and Christian Jews about the need for precise observances of the Law. With the Temple destroyed the prescribed sacrifices could not be offered unless ‘sacrifice’ was redefined to include prayer and Bible study. There was a sad general conviction that true prophecies had come to an end (bSot. 48b and elsewhere). There might still be false prophets. The Christian notion that a second Moses could come to replace the original Torah was abhorrent to the conservative rabbis (Deut. Rabbah 8. 6). So Temple cultus was now to be succeeded by disciplined study of the Torah and of the oral tradition, which was hardly less respected as given on Sinai. The Sayings of Rabbi Nathan (4. 9b) declare that ‘the study of the Torah is dearer to God than burnt offerings’. Good works make as good an atonement as sacrifices. Justin in the second century reports that for at least some Jews the destruction of the Temple and the impossibility of sacrifices after Hadrian’s paganization of Jerusalem were accepted as a providential liberation for a religion of the spirit based on the study of the Torah and the traditions with synagogue prayers (Dial. 117. 2). In principle such Jews shared the judgement stated by Jesus (Mark 14: 58) that if the Temple were to be destroyed, satisfactory alternative arrangements could be made within a mere three days, a saying which, in combination with the cleansing of the Temple traders, provoked deep anger among the Temple authorities, becoming an occasion for trial and handing over to Pilate. Nevertheless, in a Judaism without sacrifices or pilgrimages to the holy city it would become difficult for a less strictly observant synagogue to be distinct from a Christian group, or to exclude secret believers in Jesus the Messiah (John 9: 22). The feeling of polarity is evident in Paul’s letter to the Christian Jews in Rome asking for their prayers that in his imminent visit to Jerusalem he may be delivered from ‘unbelievers’ (15: 31) who, at any rate temporarily, have become ‘God’s enemies’ (11: 28). The report in Suetonius of Jews in Rome rioting ‘at the instigation of Chrestus’ implies that anger was running high.

* Henry Chadwick,
The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great
[Η Εκκλησία στην Αρχαία Κοινωνία: Από τη Γαλιλαία έως τον Γρηγόριο το Μέγα],
Oxford University Press, 2001,
p./σ. 19.

The Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited /Η Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ Αναθεωρούμενη

למשומדים אל תהי תקוה
ומלכות זדון מהרה תעקר בימינו
והנצרים והמינים כרגע יאבדו
ימחו מספר החיים
ועם צדיקים אל יכתבו
ברוך אתה יי
מכניע זדים

For those doomed to destruction may there be no hope

and may the dominion of arrogance be quickly uprooted in our days

and may the Nazarenes and the heretics be destroyed in a moment

and may they be blotted out of the book of life

and may they not be inscribed with the righteous.

Blessed are you, O Lord,

who subdues the arrogant.

Για όσους έχουν καταδικαστεί σε καταστροφή ας μην υπάρξει καμιά ελπίδα
και ας ξεριζωθεί η κυριαρχία της αλαζονείας το ταχύτερο στις μέρες μας
και ας καταστραφούν ακαριαία οι Ναζωραίοι και οι αιρετικοί
και ας εξαλειφθούν από το βιβλίο της ζωής
και ας μην επιγραφούν μαζί με τους δίκαιους.
Ευλογημένος είσαι εσύ, Κύριε,
που υποτάσσεις τον αλαζόνα.

(The Twelfth Benediction, commonly known as Birkat Ha-Minim, a phrase that literally (and euphemistically) means ‘the benediction of the heretics’, from the Eighteen Benedictions or ‘Amidah (‘standing prayer’), discovered in the Cairo Genizah.
Η Δωδέκατη Ευλογία, ευρύτερα γνωστή ως Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ, μια φράση που σημαίνει κυριολεκτικά (και κατ' ευφημισμόν) ‘η ευλογία των αιρετικών’, από τις Δεκαοχτώ Ευλογίες ή ‘Αμιντά (‘προσευχή σε όρθια στάση’), οι οποίες ανακαλύφθηκαν στην γκενίζα του Καΐρου.)

The Genealogy of Birkat Ha-Minim

«It is, moreover, likely that Birkat Ha-Minim can be traced back even earlier than the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods. Indeed, the very Talmudic passage that speaks of its composition at Yavneh, b. Ber. 28b–29a (see above, pp. 525–26), hints at this backdating when it says that at Rabban Gamaliel's request Simeon ha-Paquli organized the Eighteen Benedictions in order (הסדיר שמונה עשרה ברכות…על הסדר). This seems to refer to the reorganization of an existent prayer. A similar nuance may be present when the same passage says that Gamaliel sought someone לתקן ברכת המינים. The Soncino translation of Maurice Simon renders this as ‘[to] frame a benediction relating to the Minim’. But לתקן, which Simon renders here as ‘to frame’ and in the next sentence as ‘to compose’, is actually ambiguous, since it can mean either ‘to ordain’ or ‘to repair’—in the present case, either to invent or to revise a benediction. The English verb ‘to fix’ provides a perfect analogy, since it can mean either to fix something up or to ‘fix’ it for all time, i.e. to set it in stone.

In this particular case, most translations join the Soncino in opting for the nuance of ordaining or promulgating, but the implication of repairing or revising may be preferable, as is suggested by the important early passage t. Ber. 3.25. This text identifies Birkat Ha-Minim as one of several benedictions that were created by melding earlier prayer traditions:

.כולל של מינים בשל פרושין ושל גרים בשל זקנים ושל דוד בבונה ירושלם

One inserts [the benediction] of the heretics into [the benediction] of the separatists and [the benediction] of the proselytes into [the benediction] of the elders, and [the benediction] of David into [the benediction concluding], ‘Builder of Jerusalem’. (my translation)

This implies that Birkat Ha-Minim resulted from editorial activity that incorporated the cursing of the מינים into another imprecation. Lieberman, citing b. Ber. 28b, identifies the point of transition as the meeting at Yavneh.

The general point asserted by t. Ber. 3.25, that Birkat Ha-Minim is a composite benediction, is supported by internal evidence. As Philip Alexander puts it:

The motif of the arrogant kingdom actually forms the framework of the benediction: note how the concluding formula, which normally draws out the central point, refers to ‘humbling the arrogant’ and makes no mention of the minim. It is…likely that the Birkat ha-Minim is a restatement of an earlier benediction calling for the overthrow of Israel's oppressors.

An earlier form of the benediction, then, was probably directed against the pagan empire; indeed, even as late as the Amoraic period, the benediction could be called מכניע זדים (‘he who subdues the arrogant’) from its concluding eulogy. Various later versions of the saying quoted above from t. Ber. 3.25, moreover, speak of intercalating Birkat Ha-Minim not into the ‘benediction of the separatists’ but into ‘he who subdues the arrogant’. The original form of what we now call Birkat Ha-Minim, therefore, probably cursed neither the פרושין (‘separatists’) nor the מינים (‘heretics’), but rather the זדים (‘arrogant’), and was directed against the Romans. At a later stage (under Rabban Gamaliel, according to b. Ber. 28b), it was reformulated to include other targets, resulting in its present hybrid form.

Our confidence in the reliability of the Tosefta passage is increased by a look at the two other benedictions identified by t. Ber. 3.25 as having been intercalated, since these likewise reveal internal evidence of intercalation. The benediction that speaks about the building of Jerusalem is, in the recension that predominates in Jewish prayer books today, separate from the benediction that speaks about the Davidic Messiah (## 14 and 15). In Schechter's Genizah version, however, these two benedictions are melded into one, which ends with a conflated eulogy. The Thirteenth Benediction also seems to be conflated, since it concerns two different groups, pious Jews and converts to Judaism.

Our reconstruction of the tradition history of Birkat Ha-Minim is supported by the observation of Ehrlich and Langer that what they call Branch 6, the largest of the six families of Birkat Ha-Minim texts in the Genizah (24 out of 86 mss), omits entirely the segment against the minim. Ehrlich and Langer acknowledge that this shorter version of the benediction, which owes its popularity to the authority of Saadia Gaon, could be the result of Saadia's abbreviation of a longer form, but they also raise the possibility ‘that this version was itself a received early text that Rav Saadia Gaon chose to adopt for his prayer book. If so, this could be an extremely ancient text, perhaps the earliest preserved. It would then be a witness to the period before the addition of the explicit curse against the noṣerim and minim’.»

* Joel Marcus,
«Birkat Ha-Minim Revisited»
[Η Μπιρκάτ χα-Μινίμ Αναθεωρούμενη],
New Testament Studies, Cambridge University Press,
Volume/Τόμος 55, Issue/Τεύχος 04, October/Οκτώβριος 2009,
doi:10.1017/S0028688509990063,
pp./σσ. 523-551.

Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis?(Ποια σχέση μπορεί να υπάρξει μεταξύ Αθηνών και Ιεροσολύμων;)

«Ο ελληνικός πολιτισμός με την τεράστια δημιουργική, εκφραστική και αφομοιωτική του δύναμη έστω και εάν κλόνισε προς στιγμήν το κατεστημένο των μεγάλων αυτοκρατοριών της Ανατολής, εντούτοις κατάφερε να συνυπάρξει μαζί τους, αφού τουλάχιστον στο επίπεδο της θρησκείας και της μεταφυσικής είχε μαζί τους ταυτόσημες πολυθεϊστικές απόψεις και δοξασίες. Μεταξύ του Ιουδαϊσμού, όμως, και του Ελληνισμού, δυο πολιτισμών που επιβίωσαν μέχρι σήμερα μέσα από τη δίνη του πανδαμάτορα χρόνου, υπήρχε εντελώς διαφορετική θεολογία, ανθρωπολογία, κοσμολογία και πολιτική ιδεολογία. Εν προκειμένω ισχύει μερικώς η ρήση του Τερτυλιανού: Ποια σχέση μπορεί να υπάρξει μεταξύ Αθηνών και Ιεροσολύμων - Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis?

Ο Abram Leon Sachar περιγράφει τις διαφορές μεταξύ των δυο λαών με τον εξής παραστατικό τρόπο: "Ο Ιουδαίος ρωτούσε ‘τι πρέπει να κάνω;’, ενώ ο Έλληνας ρωτούσε ‘γιατί πρέπει να το κάνω;’ [..] η πρωταρχική ιδέα για τον Έλληνα ήταν να δει τα πράγματα όπως ήταν στην πραγματικότητα. η πρωταρχική ιδέα για τον Ιουδαίο ήταν η συμπεριφορά κι η υπακοή. Ο Ιουδαίος πίστευε στην ομορφιά της ιερότητας, ενώ ο Έλληνας στην ιερότητα της ομορφιάς". Και καταλήγει: "η εγκόσμια ζωή θα είχε εξιδανικευτεί αν είχε αναπτύξει ταυτόχρονα το διακαή πόθο για την κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη ενός Αμώς ή Ησαΐα και την καθαρά σοφία ενός Σωκράτη ή Πλάτωνα, τον ηθικό ενθουσιασμό ενός Ιερεμία και την καλλιτεχνική ευφυία ενός Πραξιτέλη. Δυστυχώς το καλύτερο στοιχείο του Ελληνικού πνεύματος δε συναντήθηκε με το καλύτερο στοιχείο του ιουδαϊκού πνεύματος"».

* Σωτήριος Δεσπότης,
Ορθοδοξία και Πολιτισμός [Ελληνικά, DOC],
δημοσιευμένο στον ιστοχώρο του Τμήματος Κοινωνικής Θεολογίας της Θεολογικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών.

Ο Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας και ο αφανισμός του Ιουδαϊσμού της Αλεξάνδρειας / Cyril & the Jewish community of Alexandria

«Cyril did not wait for the prefect to take action. He called together the fanatical mob of the city, that mob to which Hypatia later fell a victim, and led it against the Jews. The synagogues were all captured and turned into churches, the houses of the Jews pillaged, and the Jews themselves expelled en masse from the city.

Thus ended the Jewish community of Alexandria. For seven centuries it had played a great part in the life of the city, contributing largely to its commercial and industrial prosperity, and in intellectual matters permanently influencing the thought of the world; and it had successfully faced more than one dangerous crisis; but in the end Christian fanaticism had accomplished what the devotees of Sarapis could never effect».

[«Ο Κύριλλος δεν περίμενε τον έπαρχο να αναλάβει δράση. Συγκέντρωσε τον φανατικό όχλο της πόλης, εκείνον τον όχλο από τον οποίο έπεσε θύμα η Υπατία αργότερα, και τον οδήγησε κατά των Ιουδαίων. Οι συναγωγές όλες καταλήφθηκαν και μετατράπηκαν σε ναούς, τα σπίτια των Ιουδαίων λεηλατήθηκαν, οι δε Ιουδαίοι εκδιώχθηκαν μαζικά από την πόλη.

Έτσι, έπαψε να υφίσταται η Ιουδαϊκή κοινότητα της Αλεξάνδρειας. Για εφτά αιώνες είχε παίξει σημαντικό ρόλο στη ζωή της πόλης, συνεισφέροντας σε μεγάλο βαθμό στην εμπορική και βιομηχανική ευημερία, και στον τομέα της διανόησης ασκώντας μόνιμη επίδραση στις ιδέες του κόσμου· και είχε αντιμετωπίσει με επιτυχία περισσότερες από μία κρίσεις· αλλά στο τέλος ο χριστιανικός φανατισμός πέτυχε ό,τι δεν θα μπορούσαν ποτέ να καταφέρουν οι λάτρεις του Σάραπη».]

* H. I. Bell, «Anti-Semitism in Alexandria»,
[Ο αντισημιτισμός στην Αλεξάνδρεια]
The Journal of Roman Studies, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Τόμ. 31 (1941), σσ. 17.