Peter Kirby

I found this passage to be striking, as it is a summary of Judaism that is neither from within nor exceedingly hostile, though obviously from a Christian perspective. It is in a work dealing with the opinions of various sects by Hippolytus, who lived around the turn of 200. As a written source, it provides a relatively early window on messianic belief in talmudic times.

Hippolytus of Rome, The Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 25

Since, therefore, we have explained even the diversities among the Jews, it seems expedient likewise not to pass over in silence the system of their religion. The doctrine, therefore, among all Jews on the subject of religion is fourfold-theological, natural, moral, and ceremonial. And they affirm that there is one God, and that He is Creator and Lord of the universe: that He has formed all these glorious works which had no previous existence; and this, too, not out of any coeval substance that lay ready at hand, but His Will-the efficient cause-was to create, and He did create. And (they maintain) that there are angels, and that these have been brought into being for ministering unto the creation; but also that there is a sovereign Spirit that always continues beside God, for glory and praise. And that all things in the creation are endued with sensation, and that there is nothing inanimate. And they earnestly aim at serious habits and a temperate life, as one may ascertain from their laws. Now these matters have long ago been strictly defined by those who in ancient times have received the divinely-appointed law; so that the reader will find himself astonished at the amount of temperance, and of diligence, lavished on customs legally enacted in reference to man. The ceremonial service, however, which has been adapted to divine worship in a manner befitting the dignity of religion, has been practised amongst them with the highest degree of elaboration. The superiority of their ritualism it is easy for those who wish it to ascertain, provided they read the book which furnishes information on these points. They will thus perceive how that with solemnity and sanctity the Jewish priests offer unto God the first-fruits of the gifts bestowed by Him for the rise and enjoyment of men; how they fulfil their ministrations with regularity and stedfastness, in obedience to His commandments. There are, however, some (liturgical usages adopted) by these, which the Sadducees refuse to recognise, for they are not disposed to acquiesce in the existence of angels or spirits.

Still all parties alike expect Messiah, inasmuch as the Law certainly, and the prophets, preached beforehand that He was about to be present on earth. Inasmuch, however, as the Jews were not cognizant of the period of His advent, there remains the supposition that the declarations (of Scripture) concerning His coming have not been fulfilled. And so it is, that up to this day they continue in anticipation of the future coming of the Christ,-from the fact of their not discerning Him when He was present in the world. And (yet there can be little doubt but) that, on beholding the signs of the times of His having been already amongst us, the Jews are troubled; and that they are ashamed to confess that He has come, since they have with their own hands put Him to death, because they were stung with indignation in being convicted by Himself of not having obeyed the laws. And they affirm that He who was thus sent forth by God is not this Christ (whom they are looking for); but they confess that another Messiah will come, who as yet has no existence; and that he will usher in some of the signs which the law and the prophets have shown beforehand, whereas, regarding the rest (of these indications), they suppose that they have fallen into error. For they say that his generation will be from the stock of David, but not from a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but from a woman and a man, according as it is a rule for all to be procreated from seed. And they allege that this Messiah will be King over them,-a warlike and powerful individual, who, after having gathered together the entire people of the Jews, and having done battle with all the nations, will restore for them Jerusalem the royal city. And into this city He will collect together the entire Hebrew race, and bring it back once more into the ancient customs, that it may fulfil the regal and sacerdotal functions, and dwell in confidence for periods of time of sufficient duration. After this repose, it is their opinion that war would next be waged against them after being thus congregated; that in this conflict Christ would fall by the edge of the sword; and that, after no long time, would next succeed the termination and conflagration of the universe; and that in this way their opinions concerning the resurrection would receive completion, and a recompense be rendered to each man according to his works.

best,
Peter Kirby

RED DAVE

Thanks for the post, Peter.

Here we have the antisemitic core of xtianity:1. The only trouble Jews had with Jesus was with his followers, who developed a nasty habit of murdering us.

2. Jews have no shame over not believing Jesus was the Messiah.

3. Jews, over the years, have had teachers who exposed hypocrisy within, again and again, on a religious or secular basis.

RED DAVE

Peter Kirby

Hippolytus may or may not be classified as an antisemite. Many of the church fathers clearly were, and a large part of that stems from the idea that "the Jews killed God" and refuse to see the truth that he is the Messiah, which beliefs can be found in Hippolytus--and which, taken literally and simply, most Christians hold to this day ("some Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, and Jesus was God; Jesus was Messiah, and Jews have heard of this but reject it"). I agree that Hippolytus has misrepresented Jews as being "ashamed" to confess Jesus as Christ, though they understandably may have been reluctant to take as gospel that which imputes "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Hippolytus as a Christian warps the relationship between Jesus and the Jews--of which he was one, in a religion with a prophetic tradition of exposing hypocrisy--though this is taken in the direction of antisemitism already in the four Gospels. Any other inaccuracies concerning Judaism in this passage, I would be quite interested to hear about.

In particular, I would be very interested in identifying other sources for the idea, "in this conflict Christ would fall by the edge of the sword," as I believe it is connected to the Messiah ben Joseph, but I am unsure of its antiquity and origin. Here Hippolytus seems to imply that the Messiah ben David (the delivering conqueror) and the Messiah ben Joseph (with his tragic death) are one and the same. References from the Talmud and other Jewish literature of late antiquity or even earlier on similar or related concepts would be most welcome.

What really struck me at first was the Argumentum ad Iudaeum. "Inasmuch, however, as the Jews were not cognizant of the period of His advent, there remains the supposition that the declarations (of Scripture) concerning His coming have not been fulfilled. And so it is, that up to this day they continue in anticipation of the future coming of the Christ,-from the fact of their not discerning Him when He was present in the world." That is, Hippolytus recognizes one of the real reasons that Jews in the third century rejected Jesus as a true Messiah: Jews at the time of Jesus didn't realize that there was a Messiah out and about (the first sentence) or didn't understand Jesus as the Messiah when they saw him in the world (the second sentence). It is only after mentioning this argument--one which is heard to this day--that Hippolytus must interject with the standard Christian idea that the Jews are guilty for killing Christ and obstinate in their disbelief. Hippolytus goes on to mention two more arguments of the Jews against the Messiahship of Jesus: "For they say that his generation will be from the stock of David, but not from a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but from a woman and a man, according as it is a rule for all to be procreated from seed. And they allege that this Messiah will be King over them,-a warlike and powerful individual, who, after having gathered together the entire people of the Jews, and having done battle with all the nations, will restore for them Jerusalem the royal city." The fact that the Argumentum ad Iudaeum and these arguments against the Messiahship of Jesus are even elaborated, and the first paragraph that doesn't read like that of any raving semitophobe, lead me to think that Hippolytus has taken some pains to be factual, at least as he understood the facts at his time.

best,
Peter Kirby

RED DAVE

Peter, although I only received a very mediocre jewish education, I'll try, briefly and off the top of my head, to try to pick apart the selection of Hyppolytus that you quoted. I'll also elaborate on the points made previously.

Essentially correct.

Not sure about this sovereign Spirit although it might be a flaw in the translation. There are hierarchies of angels, and although the purpose of some of them is, purely and solely, to contantly praise God, I never heard of any such soereighn angel as Hyppolytus describes.

Not true. There is a clear division between the orders of the living, nonliving and godly, and clear divisions within each order.

True about the religious. However, there was, of course, a strict class division among the ancient Jews, and the poorer people were, of course, much laxer in their observances (and were expected to be so, and this was tolerated).

Basically true but ignores, of course, the rampant corruption of the priesthood and its tyranny, which is typical of any religion.

[QUOTE]There are, however, some (liturgical usages adopted) by these, which the Sadducees refuse to recognise, for they are not disposed to acquiesce in the existence of angels or spirits.[QUOTE]

I assume Hyppolytus knows what he's talking about in terms of divisions among various Jewish factions.

Not too sure about this "about to be." Of course, in times of national stress, as in the time around the rise of xtianity, messianic hopes were raised. But as to any official time table, I don't know. (The Lubavicher Chasidism are expecting his arrival imminently, even as I write this.)

Two points here. Yes, the anticipation continued (and continues). But the wording here, "the fact of their not discerning Him," can mean either lack of knowledge or lack of appreciation. At the time of Jesus' ministry, in a small country like Judea, infested with prophets, etc., I assume Jesus was judged like every other crazy prophet from the hills (like John the Baptist) and eventually found wanting. His miserable death would have done nothing to change this. I assume that in Hyppolytus' time, Jews in general were well aware of the facts of Jesus' career and the subsequent behavior of his followers over the centuries, and had rejected him on that basis.

Not then, or now, am I aware of any large-scale anxiety among Jews as to the possibility that we might have blown it 2000 years ago.

Xtian projection. Jews have never been ashamed of having rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Part of the xtian mythos: that the Jews killed Jesus because he exposed the collective hypocrisy. It is definitely true that Jesus had many points about the hypocrisy in Judaism. However, these same points were made by many within Judaism, Hillel, for example. The literature is full of these criticisms.

Essentially correct. I guess the last sentence refers to mistaken interpretation of signs and prophecies.

I'm not conversant enough with Jewish theology to say if this is correct or not, but I think that, in terms of Jewish eschatology, it's essentially right. Not my field. My eschatology is secular.

Hope this helps.

RED DAVE

Peter Kirby

Thanks, Red Dave, your perspective and information is helpful. I speak of Judaism from the outside--not to say objective!--so it is good to hear from someone with a Jewish rather than a mainstream Catholic upbringing. (Your average American Catholic is certainly sensitive about anyone making statements of Jews being evil, blind, etc.--generally speaking, whatever antisemitism they have today is inherent in Christianity. I have since switched to atheism, though I continue to read Jewish and Christian and Buddhist literature like nobody's business.)

Re: "And (they maintain) that there are angels, and that these have been brought into being for ministering unto the creation; but also that there is a sovereign Spirit that always continues beside God, for glory and praise."

There is a variety of Jewish material from the Second Temple period on a being higher than angels but lower than God. See, for example, Philo of Alexandria on the "Logos" doctrine, who is eternal and through whom God created the earth and orders and sustains it. Several documents including "Wisdom of Solomon" and "Proverbs" use more-than-angel language about a figure called "Wisdom," anthropomorphized as a woman. Such an idea is given little to no emphasis by Jews today--and could easily be seen as foreign to the classical Old Testament idea that "God is one." Of course, these particular Jews saw this being as mediator, servant, or metaphorical extension of God--not as another god beside the Father.

That is not to say that the description of Hippolytus is wholly accurate. Hippolytus may have reasoned that Jews have a God the Father, expect a Christos Messiah--and we Christians read the references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament in a trinitarian way--so the Jews must have a sovereign Spirit. I am not aware of a Jewish statement that would justify the description of such as Wisdom or Logos as "sovereign."

Re: "And that all things in the creation are endued with sensation, and that there is nothing inanimate."

Isn't it a darn curious statement all the same? I'd love to know where he pulled it from.

Re: "and that they are ashamed to confess that He has come,"

H. doesn't say "they are ashamed about not confessing that He has come." I think that H. is saying that Jews would be ashamed to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, since Jews were responsible for Christ's death, hence they disbelieve. Of course, that's still based on Christian dogma.

Re: "And they affirm that He who was thus sent forth by God is not this Christ (whom they are looking for); but they confess that another Messiah will come, who as yet has no existence; and that he will usher in some of the signs which the law and the prophets have shown beforehand, whereas, regarding the rest (of these indications), they suppose that they have fallen into error."

Those who suppose are clearly the Jews--Hippolytus is right, Christians don't suppose, and "they" in the subject of a sentence are consistently the Jews. They who are supposed to have fallen into error cannot be the Jews in the day of Hippolytus--for would the Jews say of themselves "we have fallen into error"? So the sentence reads, "the Jews suppose that Moses and the prophets have fallen into error." In reality the misinterpretation lies with the Christians, who suppose that their interpretation of the Messiah allegedly in Isaiah 53 is accurate and complete for the Old Testament Messiah concepts. But Hippolytus is certain that the Old Testament prophets speak of the Messiah in both of his advents--first as unbecoming and suffering, then as conquering and glorious. So the Jews must be saying that the Old Testament prophets were wrong about the statements on the Messiah in his role as the "suffering servant" in the first of two acts. Hippolytus is misrepresenting here--Justin shows that Jews disputed Christian interpretations of the OT (even if Trypho is won over in the course of the Dialogue)--but I still think that H. is trying to present the straight dope, not a tendentious anti-Jewish diatribe, based on what he "knows."

Good comments overall and mostly spot-on. Thanks for taking the time.

best,
Peter Kirby