61 Madhhab; the word may apply both to theological doctrine
and to religious rites.
62 This word has been added, as apparently a word is
missing in the manuscript.
63 A'ajim;the
term is often applied to people who do not speak Arabic.
64 Literally: 'upon whom the books had descended'.
65 The Jacobites, the Nestorians and the Orthodox.
66 A word may bemissing
in the manuscript.
67 Presumably the various shortcomings of the Gospels
referred to above are meant.
68 Akhbar(in
the plural); the word may also apply to the history, or story, of Jesus.
69 Sahib; a word which means, inter alia,'companion'.
70 Sahib; see above, n. 69.
71 This quotation differs to some extent from Luke i:1-4.
72 In the singular in Arabic.
73 Madhahib; the word also applies to religious
rites.
74 I.e., not in Arabic.
75 Versions which, as we know from the patristic literature,
did exist.
76 As shall be explained below, oertain texts of the
sect appear to be distortions and someumes parodies of the Acts of the
Apostles.
77 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iii, 5, 4.
78 Panarion, 29, 7; 30, 2; De Ponderibus,
15. Cf. SCHOEPS, op. cit. (above, n. 31), p.265. Strecker believes that
the story found in Epiphanius is dependent, as far as the essential points
are concerned, on Eusebius, but holds that an allusion to the exodus to
Pella exists in the Pseudo-Clementines; see G. STRECKER, Das Judenchristentum
in den Pseudokiementinen, Berlin 1958, pp.229 f.
79 Other reasons for disbelief in the story of the exodus
to Pella are given by STRECKER, ibid., pp.230 f.
80 Cf. Schoeps, op. cit. (above, n. 31), pp.120 f.
81 Historia Ecclesiastica,ii,
23, 4: 'when Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome by Festus, the
Jews were disappointed of the hope in which they had devised their plot
against him and turned their attention to James the Lord's brother, who
had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem.
This is the crime they committed against him' (translated by G. A. WILLIAMSON).
It may be a significant point that our texts do not manifest any regard
for James the Just, mentioned only in quotations from Gospels, one of which
is from an unknown Gospel (see below).
82 James, who is very much in evidence in the Pseudo-Clementines,
and is regarded in various other sources as the bead of the Jewish Christians,
is not mentioned in our texts as a religious leader.
83 Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iii, 39,16. Williamson's translation has been used in a modified
form.
84 The most recent contribution to this debate has been
made by R. GRYSON in: 'A Propos du témoignage de Papias sur Matthieu-Le
Sens du mot logia ches les pères du second siècle', Analecta
Lovaniensia, Ser. IV, Fasc. 27 (1965). Gryson, who gives a history
of the discussion, shows that the Christian authors of the second century
used the word logia in the sense of inspired writings in general, but he
admits that this evidence is not conclusive with regard to the point at
issue, i.e., the meaning which Papias gave the word logia.
85 See P. CORSSEN, Monarchianische Prologe
zu den vier Evangelien-Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kanons (Texte and
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,
xv), Leipzig 1896, pp.7, 17 if.; cf. p.113, the quotation from EUSEBIUS,
Historia Ecciesiastica, m, 24, 5, 6.
86 There is a curious analogy, which is probably not
entirely due to chance, between the attitude adopted towards the canonical
Gospels by the Jewish Christians on one hand, and by Marcion, who with
respect to doctrine was their bitterest antagonist, on the other. Marcion
did not believe that the immediate disciples of Jesus had written anything.
In other words, he denied that the Gospel of Saint Matthew and that of
Saint John were written by the apostles bearing these names. Moreover,
according to him all the four Gospels were falsified by the Judaists. See
A. VON HARNACK, Marcion-Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Texte
and Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, XLV),
Leipzig 1924, pp.40-41.
87 The Orthodox, the Jacobites and the Nestorians.
88 Bi'l-masih wa-akhbarihi. Akhbar may signify 'information' (concerning Christ).
89 Jesus.
90 I.e., they observed the commandments of the Mosaic
Law.
91 Ila an kharaja min aI-dunya;literally: 'went out of this world'.
92 Cf. Matthew xxviii: 19-20. But the quotation in the
text---if indeed it corresponds to the verses---has been amplified.
93 Or: 'heresies' (bida').
94 Literally: shifah (healing).
95 Kitab
'fraskas.
They called upon the people
(to obey) the law (al-sunna) of the Torah, to forbid offering sacrifices
to those who have not the necessary qualifications (laysa min ahliha)
(to practise) circumcision, to observe the Sabbath, to prohibit pork
and other things (forbidden) by the Torah. These things were regarded as
burdensome by the Gentiles 96 and they
took little notice (of the exhortations). Thereupon, the Christians of
Jerusalem forgathered to take counsel as to the stratagems which were to
be employed with regard to the Gentiles in order (to make) the latter respond
and obey them. They were of the opinion that it was necessary to mix with
the Gentiles, to make them concessions (rukhs), to descend to (the
level of) their erroneous beliefs,97to
eat (a portion) of the sacrifices they offer,98 to
adopt their customs and to approve of their way (of life). And they composed
a book on this.'99
The events related in this quotation seem to correspond more
or less to those referred to in Acts xi: 17-22 (or 21; cf. also xv:1-29).
However, the attitude of the canonical Acts towards the conversion of the
Gentiles in Antioch which they welcome, is diametrically opposed to that
of the quotation which deplores the abandonment of the exigencies of the
Mosaic Law with a view to this conversion.
It is possible that this quotation belonged to Jewish
Christian Acts of the Apostles100-the Praxeis of
our text. However, as far as this particular text is concerned, the Praxeis
in question seem to derive from the canonical
Acts. Unlike our first historical text, they do not belong to an independent
tradition.
The other two historical
texts will not be translated in full in this paper. Like the passage which
has just been discussed, some portions of the first part of the biography
of Saint Paul which is found in our texts (73a if.) clearly derive from
the Acts.
Paul, who is described as
a villainous Jew with a passion for dominion, is said to have at first
helped the Jews against the Christians. However, when he returns to Jerusalem
after a prolonged absence, he changes sides, helps the Christians and tells
them to separate themselves from the Jews [26]
and to associate with peoples hostile to the Jews. Asked by the latter
why he had become a Christian, he related the vision on the road to Damascus
(Acts ix). But in this version darkness envelopes him, instead of the heavenly
light of the Acts (ix : 4); he is addressed not by Jesus (Acts ix : 5)
but by 'the Lord' (al-rabb), who asks him why he ill-treats the
disciples of His son, and is given back his eyesight not by 'the disciple'
Ananias, but by the Jew Hayyim 101 the Kohen.102
Paul (who as a Jew was called Sha'ul) also says to the Jews
that he spent fourteen days with God in heaven, who gave him many injunctions
and told him 'many shameful (qabiha) things
about you, which I will not tell you'. The last statement, concerning Paul's
sojourn in heaven, probably derives from II Corinthians xii: 24. According
to our text, the Jews were amazed at these stupid tales and took him to
the companion (sahib) of Caesar (qayxar) who was their
king, 103 having been appointed by the Romans (al-Rum). The
king ordered him to be beaten, but learning from him that he was a Roman,
sent him instead to Constantinople. 104 There he associated
with the Romans and tried to stir them up against the Jews. Inter alia,
he scraped an acquaintance with the queen. 105
He denied validity to the laws of Moses which were repugnant
to the Romans, declaring, inter alia, that circumcision was an obligation
for the Jews only and that the eating of pork was permitted, as nothing
which enters into man is forbidden. He also denied validity to the cornmandments
concerning ritual cleanliness. In accordance with the Roman usage 106
he prohibited polygamy and divorce, and thus won over the women.
In short, no Roman customs 107 and also no beliefs held by Romans
[27] were opposed by him, whereas the Torah
was described by him as being wholly evil.
Paul spoke to the Romans of the asceticism, the grace
and the miracles of Jesus and people listened to him. However, if one considers
that he denied the religious teachings of Christ 108 and adopted
those of the Romans, one must come to the conclusion that the Christians
became Romanized (tarawwamu), whereas the Romans were not converted
to Christianity. It was in consequence of Paul's anti-Jewish propaganda
that the Romans, led by Titus, marched against the Jews, killing great
multitudes and carrying away their treasures.
This increased Paul's popularity. His prestige was high
among the common people as he practised magic and medicine. For both the
Romans and the Armenians 109 are excessively ignorant, though
they are skilful in certain crafts. However, their kings were very able
administrators.
One of these kings, Nero, found out what kind of a person
Paul was, had him brought into his presence, and asked him about circumcision.
Paul expressed his disapproval of this rite and of those who practised
it, but had to admit that Jesus and the apostles were circumcised. And
he was found to be circumcised himself. Thus, the king discovered that
Paul encouraged the Romans to practise a religion opposed to the religion
of Christ. The king ordered him to be crucified after various indignities
had been inflicted on him. His wish that he be crucified horizontally,
rather than vertically, as was Jesus, was granted.
This last trait seems to be a variation upon the story
of the crucifixion of Saint Peter, told in the Acts of this apostle.110
The reason for Paul's execution was obviously invented
by Jewish Christians; his shameful end was thus a direct consequence of
his great betrayal.
The following are some of the salient points in the biography
of the Emperor Constantine figuring in the text (74b ff.):
His father is said to have been a Roman king called Bilatus.
The spelling of the name of Pontius Pilate found in our texts is different,
namely Fi1at.s, and no attempt is made to identify the two; the
father of Constantine is said to have lived a long time after Jesus. After
the death of his first wife, he married Helena (Hilaniya), a
girl of Harran who worked in an inn ( funduqiyya); as
Saint Ambrosius says,111 she was a stabularia. The
author of our texts mentions the point several times; he clearly does [28]
so because it casts an unfavourable light upon Helena, whom he dislikes.
The statement that Helena was a native of Harran appears
to be false, but may conceivably have been a local legend. The name of
the town of Harran crops up several times in these texts. Their author
or authors must have had some connection with this locality (see below).
Helena was also a Christian, and she induced her husband to favour her
coreligionists to whom the Jews were giving a bad name. Constantine, who
as far as outward appearances went, professed the Roman religion, had been
brought up by his mother to love the cross (whose worship as well as that
of the crucifix seems to be repugnant to our texts) and had accustomed
him to Christian ways. Later he succeeded to the throne,112 he
was afflicted with leprosy, a disease which, according to Roman usage,
disqualified the man suffering from it for kingship. In consequence, Constantine
made a secret of it. He also decided to destroy the authority of the Roman
religion, whose notions placed him in this predicament, and to replace
it by Christianity.
It may be noted in parenthesis that the theme of Constantine's
leprosy is found in various Christian texts, both eastern and western.113
However, in these texts his cure is brought about by baptism. It
is not certain whether this version antedates that of our text, which is
derogatory to Constantine.
According to this Jewish Christian version, Constantine,
using various stratagems, caused his soldiers to think that the sign of
the cross brought them good fortune in war. In consequence, they replaced
in their flags the emblem of the crescent by that of the cross.114
[29]
Hereupon Constantine began to kill Pagan philosophers,
of whom there were many in the country. It is indicative of the
Jewish Christian position that the author of our texts, who appears
to execrate Constantine, also disapproves of these victims of his. The
philosophers' books were burnt and monks were lodged in their temples,
which were transformed into churches (or monasteries).115
Constantine's mother Helena, the monks and the Christians
in general, were overjoyed at these measures.
She made them116 come to her and turned them into informers
and assistants for her son.
However, Constantine, while
professing to venerate the cross, did not put an end to the observance
of the Roman religious rites; one of them was the custom to turn to the
east when praying. Nor did he prohibit the worship of the stars. On the
other hand, worship of the Christ and of Jesus and belief in the latter's
divinity tended to spread. The Romans, who worshipped dead bodies such
as the stars, did not find it difficult to worship a man. The inhabitants
of the West (al-maghrib) in particular, such as the Copts,
took very readily to the idea, for they were accustomed to worship the
pharaohs. A description of a massacre of Pagans in Harran,
who had brought upon thein Constantine's anger by bruiting abroad the fact
that he was a leper, occurs at this point, and this is matched a little
further on in this tale by the account of another slaughter of Harranian
Pagans.117 The author may have used a local chronicle.
Constantine called a gathering
of Christian monks with a view to the formulation of obligatory religious
beliefs, deviation from which would be punished by death. Approximately
two thousand religious leaders assembled118 and composed a text
which came close to the symbol of [30]
faith. However, some of them disagreed with this text, holding that the
Word of God was a created thing and that Christ was this word.
Among those present who regarded the Word of God as created
were Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Apollinaris (?) and companions 119
of theirs (a list which is indicative of knowledge
of the names of important theologians who manifested a tendency to Arianism
but does not take into account chronological probabilities).120 There
was a scission and the symbol of faith which had been formulated was not
regarded as valid.
Thereupon, three hundred
and eighteen men gathered in Nicaea and formulated a symbol of faith, which
was accepted and made obligatory by Constantine. People who dissented from
it were killed and professions of faith differing from it suppressed.
In this way people who professed
the religion of Christ came to do all that is reprehensible: they worshipped
the cross, observed the Roman religious rites and ate pork. Those who did
not eat it were killed.
Constantine continued for
fifty years121 to put to death people who did not worship the
cross and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus; thus the religion he
favoured became consolidated. He also left a testament, in which he recommended
to worship Christ122 rather than the stars or the opinions of
the philosophers.
The Romans appreciated Constantine's
vigour and firmness and said that his role among them was similar to that
of Ardeshir son of Babak123 among the Persians. [31]
A long time after Constantine one of the Roman kings established
Sunday as a feast-day. This was also resolved by a synod.
The Romans and the Greeks had a feast, called the Nativity
of Time, which celebrated the return of the sun in January. They introduced
into it various modifications and called it the Nativity of Christ or the
Nativity. This feast was unknown at the time of Jesus and of his companions.
This evidently refers to the feast of Epiphany on 6 January,
which during a certain period was celebrated more particularly in the East,
but according to sporadic evidence, also in the West, as the birthday of
Christ, and is still celebrated for this reason by the Armenian Church.124
In the Syrian Church, this signification seems to have been attached to
the feast up to the end of the fourth century. This was also the period
in which Epiphanius stated (Panarion, II, 51, 22, 8-11) that the
date of the feast of Epiphany coincided with that of the birth of Aion
celebrated in Alexandria. The fact that our text, which presumably refers
to the Syrian Church, asserts that the Christians celebrate the birth of
Christ in January and that it is informed about the connection between
this feast and the birth of Aion seems to make it probable that it goes
back to a period which was close to the end of the fourth century, i.e.,
to the fifth or perhaps the sixth century.
When the Romans adopted the religion which professes belief
in the divinity of Jesus they kept (according to our text) their Pagan
fast-days. 'At present' they fast fifty days till sunset, at which time
they break on certain days their fast.
The use of incense in Christian churches is also denounced
in our text as an adaptation of a Pagan custom.
No reference is made in the historical texts to the Moslem
conquests of the seventh century, which, in the lands with which presumably
the author of these texts was particularly concerned, put an end to the
Byzantine rule, which he detests.
In the course of this preliminary investigation of these
texts, we have had reason to believe that certain parts of them transmitted
a tradition which, however distorted, went back, at least as far as its
nucleus was concerned, without a break in its continuity to a very early
period of Christianity, namely, to a period when the Jewish Christians
had memories of the Jerusalem community and of the flight from Jerusalem.
This supposition is supported by the fact that their account of the events
which led up to this flight seems quite independent of the patristic sources.
[32]
Some of the statements they make concerning the early
liturgy and the decision of the community to compose Gospels according
to a certuin pattern may also reflect early tradition. Above all, the importance
they attribute to the Hebrew language and the fact that they deplore that
it was given up-because its abandonment, while it led to the Christianization
of many nations, destroyed the opportunity of converting the Jews---seems
to prove that they and their positions derived without a hiatus, though
probably---as far as the doctrines are concerned not without some modification,
from the early (or earliest) Jewish Christians. It may not even at this
stage of our exposition be superfluous to add that quite evidently the
historical traditions predate the advent of Islam and that the attitude
of the texts to the conversion of the Jews and to the Hebrew language prove
that their greater part was not written by a Moslem but by a Jewish Christian
writer. Thus the examination of the historical texts reinforces the theory
suggested by the polemical texts.
These conclusions do not of course answer the question
as to the time when all the texts were composed. Another question however
should perhaps be discussed first; it can be formulated as follows: did
our texts, if we abstract from the additions of 'Abd al-Jabbar---which
in many cases, though not in all, can be distinguished from the other portions---form
before they were adapted by this Moslem theologian, part of one treatise
which, while drawing upon various textual elements, amalgamated them into
unity. No absolutely certain answer can be given, but the fact that the
same dominant themes and the same references recur through-out the main
part of the text (this expression will be presenfly explained) seems to
indicate that such a treatise did exist, and that it must have comprised
both the doctrinal-polemical and the historical portions (which in conjunction
form what I have just called the main part of the original Christian texts).125
This conclusion does not necessarily apply to the satirical and other
stories,126 which because of the inside knowledge of Christian
ways which they denote, are probably, and in some cases quite certainly,
of Jewish Christian origin. Some of them appear to be earlier than [33]
others (see below). Their connection with the main part is a relatively
loose one.
Some chronological pointers may be found in the doctrinal-polemical
and the historical texts. Thus, to begin with the least convincing point,
the resemblance in detail of a considerable portion of the argumentation
of our texts with that of Epiphanius' Arians may, but need not, indicate
chronological proximity.127
Conclusions based on the historical texts seem to me to
carry greater weight. These texts carry on the tale to the successors of
Constantine who continued his policy of persecution, and who instituted
the observance of Sunday. The fact that the Pagan origin of the Epiphany
is still remembered is also an indication.
The celebration of the Epiphany as the birthday of Christ
appears to have been widespread in the East in the second half of the fourth
century, but not later.128 Incidently, we may remark that this
period is also that of John Chrysostom's anti-Jewish sermons in Antioch129
in which he vehemently denounced the Judaizing tendencies of Christians
who celebrate the Jewish rather than the Christian feasts and, inter
alia, laid stress upon the observance
of the Christian forty or, according to our texts, fifty days' fast.130
In this connection, the importance which our texts attach to the
observance of the Jewish feasts and their rejection of the fifty days'
fast seems to be suggestive. Christian Judaizantes may
well [34] have been under the influence
of the sectarian doctrine set forth in our texts. 131
Thus, as far as can be judged, the polemics of our texts
turn on points which may be supposed to have been in the forefront of discussion
at the end of the fourth, in the fifth and probably also in the sixth centuries.
The historical texts, or at least some of them,132
were quite evidently written some time after the death of Constantine.
Probably (but this is by no means certain), the supposition that they go
back to the end of the fourth century would excessively shorten this period
of time. On the other hand, the historical texts do not refer or allude
in any way to the advent of Islam. I cannot conceive that this could have
been the case if they had been composed after the Arab conquests which
in the territories with which the authors of the texts were mainly concerned
put an end to Byzantine rule, which they hated, and the persecutions which
went with it. It is also very unlikely that 'Abd al-Jabbar would have omitted
all such references, which presumably would not have been uniformly hostile
to the Arabs.
In addition, the fact that the parallel drawn by the Byzantines
between Constantine and Ardeshir son of Babak (or Papak) is referred to,
appears to prove that the text was written before the downfall of the Sassanid
dynasty brought about by the Moslem conquest. For, in this comparison,
Ardeshir appears as the greater man. This parallel also suggests that the
text was written in a locality such as Harran, which was connected both
with the Persian and the Roman Empires. On the whole it seems probable
(and more than probable) that what I have called the main part of the texts
was composed either in the fifth, or the sixth or the beginning of the
seventh century.133 It is virtually certain that it was written
[35] in Syriac. It is also clear that its
author or authors had some connection with the region of Harran (and perhaps
also with the district of Mosul).
The satirical and other stories added to these texts evidently
date from different periods. At least one of them is clearly pre-Islamic,
as it names the Arabs, with the Armenians and the Copts, as a people converted
or partly converted to Christianity,134 a statement which would
claim some degree of truth only in the days of the pre-Islamic Arab Christian
kingdoms Hira and Ghassan.135 In other stories Islam is mentioned,136
or alternatively the events they refer to fall into the Islamic period.
This is the case with regard to the passage concerning the conversion of
the Khazars to Judaism, of which more hereafter. It is not clear whether
these stories were amalgamated with the main part already in the Syriac
original, or by the persons who translated these texts into Arabic or by
'Abd al-Jabbar himself in his wish to use the Jewish Christian materials
which he had been provided with to the best advantage.137 [36]
'Abd al-Jabbar appears to give one or two hints as to
the way these texts reached him. Thus he speaks in one passage of Syriac
texts kept in the churches or monasteries of Ahwaz (a region which roughly
corresponds to the present-day Khuzistan) which were translated into Arabic.138
It is true that in the context these words seem to apply in the first
place to Nestorian texts; but there is a distinct possibility that they
also applied to Jewish Christian writings which may have been preserved
by the Nestorians.139 Indeed, some of the latter may have been
crypto-Jewish-Christians (see also below). [37]
A less equivocal passage (54b) refers to Christians, who,
after a perspicacious investigation, having embraced Islam, had engaged
in the study of the sayings attributed to Jesus, which are quoted in proof
of the latter's divinity; their thesis was that the Gospel texts on which
the Christian thesis was based were either spurious or required a correct
interpretation. As the examples cited by 'Abd al-Jabbar show, they illustrated
the application of their method of interpretation by means of examples
of which one at least is drawn from the Old Testament.140 There
can be little doubt that these converts to Islam were Jewish Christians
who may be supposed (this of course is a mere hypothesis) to have decided
to exchange a clandestine existence as official members of the three universally
known Christian sects for an equally official profession of the Islamic
religion.
Our information concerning the Jewish Christians is on
the whole surprisingly scanty. In part, the heresiographical schemas141of the patristic
authors may be responsible for this fact.
But the hypothesis that some of the Jewish Christians led a clandestine
existence could provide a contributory explanation
for the dearth of information concerning them. It would also account
for the relatively rapid disappearance from the historical scene, especially
if one accepts G. Strecker's view that as late as the first half of the
third century the status of 'the Catholic doctrine' [38]
was not as yet recognized in Syria as indubitably superior to that of the
Jewish Christians who lived in that country, and that in certain regions
these sectarians had a preponderant position.142 This view is
based on the data concerning these Jewish Christians which may be gleaned
from the Syriac Didascalia.143 The Jewish Christians
in question resemble Epiphanius' Nazarenes rather than his Ebionites; they
are not vegetarians, and they do not reject certain portions of the Old
Testament. 144 Like the Jewish
Christians of our texts, they are, as far as the observance of commandments
is concerned, orthodox Jews. The fact that they thus carned on the old
tradition of the first Christian comrnunity of Jerusalem, 145
or of a part of that community, need not before the time of Constantine
have necessarily led to excessive friction with the rest of the Christians
in Syria.146 However, when Christianity became the State religion,
the position of the Jewish Christians in question must have radically changed
for the worse; they may have had either to accept without any reservation
the orthodoxy imposed by Constantinople or lead a clandestine existence
within the orthodox Church or within sects that were more powerful or more
energetic than their own. These repercussions of Constantine's religious
policy may account for the importance which our texts accord to this emperor
and for their bitter hostility towards him. It has been suggested above
that there are some indications that Jewish Christians may have lived in
some degree of clandestinity among the Nestorians.147 The relation
of the Jewish Christians to the Arians and later heretics (other than the
Nestorians mentioned above) who made a great stir in the world should also
be investigated in the light of these new texts.
The hypothesis postulating a clandestine existence of
the Jewish Christians in the Byzantine Empire can clearly account for their
brief reappearance under Moslem rule.
There is some reason to think that at some time during
the Islamic period there were Jewish Christians who wished to go out of
hiding and declare their beliefs openly. This tendency may have been furthered
or even brought into being by the shake-up of the Christian establishment,
com[39]prising
===========================================
96 Al-umam; literally: 'the people' (ta
eqnh).
97 Ahwa'; the word may also mean 'errant desires and caprices'.
98 Or: '(animals) they slaughtered'. Cf. also Acts xv :15-21.
99 Two quotations from the Epistles of Saint Paul follow, one of which
is quoted above.
100 On the Ebionite Acts of the Apostles mentioned by Epiphanius, see
SCHOEPS, op. cit.(above, n. 31), pp. 381-456. The biographical
details concerning Saint Paul, which as Epiphanius heard were given in
these Acts, do not agree with those mentioned in our texts, but the two
stories are equally derogatory.
101 H.y.m., with a tashdid over they. As far as is known
at present, no person bearing this narne antedates the ninth century. The
father of the Ga'on Semah, who belongs to this century, is called Hayyim.
See 3. Kutscher, Kedem, i(1942), p.44.
102 Al-kahin; the reading of the kafis
not certain.
103 Malik; in these texts this word may perhaps
sometimes signify 'governor'. In this context it may however be applied
to Agrippas who is called 'king' in Acts xxv:13, 26; xxvi:2, 19, 30.
104 Qustantiniya. He is sent there in answer to his request
to be sent to 'the country of the Romans' (bilad al-Rum). The substitution of Constantinople for Rome, the city to which
Paul was sent according to the Acts, as well as various other flagrant
anachronisms found in this biography of Paul, seem to indicate that this
text was evolved in a popular, rather ignorant, milieu. The
western Roman Empire seems to have been beyond the ken of the author or
authors of our texts, who also in some cases tended to assimilate the customs
of Pagan Rome to those of the Byzantines.
105 This may refer to Poppaea.
106 This text clearly confuses the Romans with the Byzantines.
107 One of which consisted in turning to the east when praying. On this
Greek, Roman and Christian custom, see F.J. Dolger, Sol Salutis,
Munster 1925.
l08 According to whom the Mosaic commandments had to be observed.
109 The juxtaposition of these two people pinpoints the geographical
perspective of the authors or transmitters of these texts.
110 See E. HENNECKE, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ii 3,
Tübingen 1964, pp.219 f.
111 See De Obitu Theodosii Oratio, 42 (MIGNE, Patrologia Latina, xvi, Col. 1399).
112 His half-brothers, the sons of his
father's nrst wife, reigned before him.
113 One of the latter is found in Actus Silvestri (second
half of the fifth century). See, for instance, W. LEVISON, 'Konstantinische
Schenkung und Silvester-Legende', Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, ii
(1924), p.172. Scholars who have studied this legend disagree as to whether
it is of eastern or western origin (see LEVISON, pp. 234-239, who himself
favours the latter). The oldest known Syriac version of the legend may
be approximately contemporary with the western ones. All of these versions---both
the eastern and the western---which were studied up to now, are intended
to glorify Constantine as well as the Pope, who is replaced at least in
one case by a bishop. The Judaeo-Christian version has a hostile attitude
towards Constantine. The possibility should be considered that the story
concerning the Emperor's leprosy originated among his antagonists rather
than among his partisans.
114 Peterson (op. cit. [above, n. 31], pp.15 if.) attempts
to prove that the worship of the cross and the custom to face the east
when praying (both of which are rejected in our texts) are connected. Certain
sects which criticize the use of the cross are mentioned by him on p.25. The Marcionites-who prayed facing the west are one of these sects,
and thus agree in this point as well as in their belief that the text of
the Gospels was falsified (see above) with their antagonists, the Jewish
Christians. Cf. also M. SULZBERGER, Op. cit.(above, n. 49),
pp.349 f. and 391 f.
115 The statements of our text may be regarded as a piece of evidence
to be used in the discussion concerning the attitude of Constantine after
his conversion towards the Pagan cults. But the possibility that our text
confused, with regard to this point, Constantine with some of his successors
should be kept in mind.
116 The monks or the Christians in general.
117 This second account (fol. 77a) may be summed up as follows: Some
Harranian Pagans did not eat beans, holding that, being of a cubic shape,
they were enemies of Heaven, which has a spherical shape. Beans were therefore
placed near the gates of churches; people were assembled in these churches,
were told to go out and were warned that unless they ate the beans they
would be killed. And this threat was carried out.
118 The assembly referred to may have been the Synod of Antioch in 325,
which immediately preceded the Council of Nicaea. Three dissenters
from the proposed creed, who to a certain extent may have sympathized with
Arius, were present at this Synod. They were excommunicated, but were given
the possibility to recant their errors within a certain time. This episede
may have given rise to the assertion of our
text concerning the presence at this assembly of various heresiarchs,
some of whom could not have been there for chronological reasons. On this
Synod see for instance H. LIETZMANN, Geschichte der alten Kirche,iii2, Berlin 1953, pp.102f. A short account of this
Synod and of the Council of Nicaea is also given in a non-historical section
of our texts, fol. 43a.
119 The names are misspelt in various ways, but there can be no doubt
as to the identity of the heresiarchs in question except in the case of
Apollinaris. The name which I have conjectured to be his is rather more
distorted than the others, being written ulufiryanus.Moreover,
Apollinaris (of Laodicea) regarded the Logosas uncreated.
Similar lists are frequently encountered in orthodox theological writings.
All the theologians named in the text (as well as many others) were denounced
by the fifth occumenical Council convoked in Constantinople in 553.
120 The date of the Council of Nicaea is 325. Eunomius was active in
the second half of the fourth century; Apollinaris died in 390. Macedonius
was bishop of Constantinople from 342 to 359, when he was deposed.
121 Constantine was appointed Augustus in 307 and died in 337.
122 Or: 'the cross'.
123 The founder of the Sassanid dynasty, who lived in the third century
of the Christian era.
124 On the whole subject, cf. for Instanee LIETZMANN, op. cit.(above, n. 118), pp. 321-329.
125 In all probability, this treatise was intended to prove the opposition
between the prevalent Christian doctrines and the religion of Christ and,
to judge by our texts, was composed aceording to the following order: (1)
a section polemizing against the Christology of the 'three' Christian sects,
(2) the historical texts, (3) a section polemizing against the abandonment
of the commandments of the Mosaic Law. However, this division was not carried
out completely, as far as the subject-matter is concerned: themes belonging
to one section tend to appear in another.
126 These stories cannot be discussed here; I intend to edit and translate
them together with the rest of the texts.
127 In the course of his polemic against the Arians (Panarion,
iii, 69, 68), Epiphanius states that the fact that in the words hli
hli lhma sabacqani uttered by Christ the last two words are
in Aramaic suriakh dialektw, while the first
two are in Hebrew was intended to diminish the claims of the partisans
of Hebrew, other languages being also accorded the dignity of serving to
fulfil that which was said about Jesus. The
inclusion of this assertion in this particular chapter is interesting but
need not necessarily signify that the Arians cherished the Hebrew language.
The assertion does however indicate that a group of people had adopted
this attitude and affirmed the superiority of Hebrew over all the other
languages, including Aramaic. As our texts show, this was the position
of the Jewish Christians.
128 Except in the Armenian Church.
129 Preached in 386 and 387. See M. SIMON, Verus Israel,Paris
1964, p. 256, n. 2. On John Chrysostom's sermons against the Jews, see
also E. E. URBACH, Tarbiz,XVII (1946), pp.10 f.
130 This apparent discrepancy is, no doubt, due to the fact that when
the fast, which was originally a western custom, was introduced in the
east (in Egypt in 337), it lasted six weeks and was for this reason called
quadragesima. Later however, namely, as far as the region
of Antioch and of Cappadocia are concerned, in the second half of the fourth
century, this fast was extended to seven weeks (see LIETZMANN, op. cit.[above, n. 118], pp.317 f.). This fact appeals to account for the
appellation 'the fifty days' fast' used in our texts.
131 The massive return---combatted by Chrysostom---to Judaizing observances
seems surprising on any other hypothesis. As far as I know, no theory proposed
by modern scholars offers an acceptable explanation of this curious phenomenon,
which active though clandestine Jewish Christian propaganda would account
for.
132 It is clearly possible that the first two historical texts, those
which are translated in full above, were written at a much earlier period
than the one suggested here---and at some later date were inserted into
the same section of the treatise as the others.
133 An objection to this chronological hypothesis may be formulated
on the basis of a historical passage in one of the non-historical sections
of our texts. This passage states (43a) that the Council of Nicaea was
convoked by Constantine approximately five hundred years after Jesus. It
may be argued that men who were close to the year five hundred could not
have made such a mistake. The objection is a serious one, but the erroneous
date may be a gloss added a long time after the composition of the original
Syriac texts by their translator, by 'Abd al-Jabbar, or by some third person.
There also exists the possibility that the Jewish Christian author of the
text was ignorant, even with regard to his own time, of the chronology
of the Christian era. [It should be remembered that
the "Christian era" was not devised by the Christians until after mid-fourth
century.]
134 In a description of Christian customs a Christian gathering is described
(fol. 98a) in the course of which the people are asked: Why are the Christians
among the Arabs (fi'l-`arab), the
Copts, the Abyssinians and so on. Further on the question is formulated
in the following manner: 'Why were the Armenians, the Arabs, the Copts,
and the Abyssinians converted to Christianity?' The correct answer is that
'the first fathers' (al-aba' al-awa'il) learnt in the course of
a single night the language of the people they were destined to convert,
and then went to the country of that people and operated the conversions.
135 The conversion of the Arabs of Ghassan is mentioned:
(99b) 'The Romans (al-Rum) associated
in Syria (al-Sham) with Arab tribes (belonging) to Ghassan
and others and called upon them (to be converted) to Christianity. They
bestowed upon them royalty (al-mulk; this appears to be the vocalization
of the text; al-milk means 'property') and told them about
the religion of Christ and about the miracles in which they believed. (The
Arabs) accepted this easily, for they worshipped idols, and (therefore)
did not (regard) these (tales) as incredible (lam yab`ud `alayhim dhalika).'
136 One scurrilous story mentions (90b) that when a woman confesses to
a Christian priest that she has had intercourse with a man, the priest
asks her if the man was a Christian or a Moslem. In the latter case, as
the sin is greater, he demands a bigger sum for granting absolution. Stories
of this kind, which must have been widespread, were evidently added by
'Abd al-Jabbar, his Jewish Christian assistants or the translators of the
original Syriac texts. 'Abd al-Jabbar is obviously interested in the sexual
habits of the Byzantines, inter alia, in prostitution, and he may
have got information on the subject from Moslems whom he knew and who had
been, as he mentions, for many years in Constantinople as prisoners of
war and also, as regards some of them, as Christian converts; according
to 'Abd al-Jabbar it was an outward conversion only.
137 As far as possible, the influence on 'Abd al-Jabbar of Moslem polemists
against Christianity, whose names he quotes, should also be investigated.
However, most of the writings to which he alludes are lost. 'Abd al-Jabbar
refers in this connection mainly, though not exclusively, to Mu'tazilite
authors, such as al-Nazzam, al-Jihiz, al-Iskafi, Abu 'Ali (al-)Jabbar,
Abu Hashim and Ibn al-Ikhshid who is probably Ahmad b. 'Ali al-Ikhshid.
The possibility that 'Abd al-Jabbar became acquainted with the Jewish Christian
sect through the intermediary of the Moslem writers mentioned by him is
a very slight one.
138 'Abd al-Jabbar says:
(68a) 'This is clear from the church books in Syriac characters
which may be found in the districts of Ahwaz and in other districts of
Iraq. A translation (from these books) is
made in an epistle addressed by 'Abdishu' Ibn Bahrtz(?), who was
bishop (usquf)of Harran
and of al-Raqqa and who afterwards was appointed Metropolitan (matran) of Mosul and of the Jazira, to a Jacobite priest named Badusi(?).
You will not deny that the Pure Virgin is (not) a God, as you believe (literally:
'see', tarahu) but a human being (insan) as we believe (literally: 'see').'
The Nestorian Metropolitan 'Abdishu' Ibn Bahrtz (the last name is sometimes
written in other sources B.h.rtn, and
deformed in our text in which it appears
to be written Y.h.r.y.n)is an author who lived
at the time of the Caliph al-Ma'mun in the lhrst half of the ninth century.
He translated for this Caliph several works of philosophy and
of logic. The name of the Jacobite priest to whom the Epistle quoted
here is addressed, is read, usually, Badawi. On 'Abdishu' see G. GRAF,
Geschichte der Christlichen arabischen Literatur,n, Citta
del Vaticano 1947, pp. 119f.; IBN AL-NADIM, Fihrist (edited
by FLUGEL), Lleipzig 1871,1, pp. 23 f., 244,248 f.; II, pp. 12f. According
to IBN AL-NADIM, I, p.24: 'Ibn was in his wisdom (or philosophy) close
to the wisdom of Islam.' This may, though need not necessarily, mean that
this Nestorian priest tended in his polemics against the Jacobites and
perhaps against others to abandon certain of the positions which were common
to the 'three' Christian sects. It may be a significant point that after
having been bishop of Harrin, he became Metropolitan of Mosul and of the
Jazira. Mosul, and possibly the Jaltira, are the places to which, according
to our texts, the members of the nrst Christian community of Jenssalem
betook themselves after having been obliged to leave Palestine. As for
Harran, it is evident that the authors of our texts are very much interested
in the town.
139 This is perhaps suggested in the Jewish work entitled Toldot
Yeshu; see below. Schoeps believes (op. cit. [above, n. 31],
p. 185) that a Jewish Christian work figures in a list of the texts found
among the Nestorians of Syria.
A very interesting position is made clear by the Nestorian Patriarch
Timothy I (780-823)in the discussion which he is said to have had (in 780
or 782) with the 'Abbassrid Caliph al-Mahdi (Timothy's Apology for Christianity
[ed. by A. MINGANA], Woodbrooke Studies, ii, Cambridge
1928; the facsimile edition and the translation are of the Syriac version).
In pp.88f. of the translation, Timothy illustrates his point of view with
the aid of the foliowing parable: This world is compared to a dark room
in the middle of the night, into which a precious pearl has fallen. The
people in the room, who are aware of this having happened, try to pick
up the pearl. But only one man succeeds in doing so. Among the others,
one gets hold of a piece of glass, another of a stone or a bit of earth,
but everyone of them is as happy and as proud as the real possessor of
the pearl. In this parable, the pearl figures the true religion, whose
truth can, however, become evident to all only in the other world, just
as the pearl can only be clearly seen when day comes. The example implies
that as far as human knowledge is concerned, there is nothing to choose
between the various religions. It is true that, in answer to a question
of the Caliph, the Patriarch somewhat qualifies this conclusion. Nevertheless,
the parable has an evident similarity with the parable of the three rings,
as used for instance, by Lessing. A community in which such views were
current might well provide safety of some sort for Jewish Christians who
chose to practise dissimulation.
140 They quote the verse of Exodus (vii: I) in which Moses is said to
be the God of Pharaoh and of Aaron. The provenance of the second example
in which Joseph is quoted is unknown to me.
141 Cf. G. STRECKER's Appendix (p.246 and passim) to W.
BAUER, Rechtglaübigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum2,
Tübingen 1964.
142 Ibid., pp.252 and 260.
143 Composed in the first half of the third century.
144 See G. STRECKER, Op. Cit.(above, n. 141), pp.256f.
145 Strecker (ibid., p.245) points out that the Jewish Christian
doctrine started out by being the Christian Church doctrine and became
a heresy only in the wars of historical evolution. Cf. also the views he
cites, ibid., n. 1.
146 Or in the other Christian communities; cf. the attitude of Justin
in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, 47.
147 But this may have happened in the Sassanid rather than in the Byzantine
Empire; see below.
comprising the hierarchy
of the three sects, which may have been a consequence of the Arab conquests
or of later convulsions of the Islamic Empire. At any rate, we find in
our texts at least once the statement that there exists a Christian sect
(fariq) which considers that 'their Lord' (rabb) was a Jew,
that his father was a Jew and his mother a Jewess, and that his mother
was the wife of his father. The statement adds that the members of this
sect are the elite (khassa) among the Christians. This last remark
may indicate that the statement derives directly or indirectly from members
of the sect.148 The following statement
of the Jewish author Sa'adia (d. 942) is even more relevant in this context.
The passage occurs in K. al-amanat wa'li`tiqadat (S.
LANDAUER [ed.], Leiden 1880, p.90):
'These people (the Christians)
(are divided) may God have pity upon you (into) four sects; three of them
are more ancient (aqdam) (whereas) the fourth came out (kharajat)
(only) recently (qariban)... The fourth gives him (i.e., Jesus,
called a few lines above their Messiah) only the rank of a prophet, and
interprets the Sonship which according to them is attributed to him just
(p.91) as we interpret (the verse): My son my first born Israel being only
(an indication of) his being honoured (tashrif) and preferred (tafdil)
and just as others than we (i.e., the Moslems) interpret the expression
"Abraham, the Friend of God" (khalil allah).'
The interpretation given here, in the name of this sect,
of the Christian concept of Sonship is identical with the one proposed
in our Jewish Christian texts (see above). And even the example illustrating
this interpretation as quoted by Sa'adia and by 'Abd al-Jabbar is the same,
namely, Exodus iv : 22. The fact that Sa'adia states that the sect in question
only appeared or 'came out' recently need not, as I see it, mean that the
sect had not existed before (whatever Sa'adia may have believed), but that
it had come into the open not too long before his time, which probably
means after the advent of Islam.
It is possible that the fact that the Jewish Christian
texts were translated into Arabic is connected with the attempt ---apparently
hinted at by Sa'adia---made by members of this sect to assume a more active
role than they had played for some centuries. These sectarians may have
also been interested in providing 'Abd al-Jabbar, who was a very well-known
theologian, with these materials for his anti-Christian polemics.
No mention of an independent existence of the sect after
the tenth century [40]
is known to me; its members may have been assimilated by the bigger Christian
or other communities, but further inquiry with regard to this point is
needed.149
Our new texts have also a bearing on Jewish history in
the narrow sense of the word and on Jewish writing.
I shall start with the curious Jewish work called Toldot
Yeshu (The History of Jesus).
As shall be stated, one of the accounts of the passion
found in our texts resembles to a certain extent in one detail (which is
not found in the canonical Gospels) the account of the Toldot.
The main resemblance is however in the description of
conditions in Jerusalem, or in Palestine as a whole, after the death of
Jesus. Both a histoncal Jewish Christian text translated above150
and the Toldot emphasize one and the same point: there was hostility
between the Jews and the followers of Jesus, and yet the two prayed and
worshipped God in the same places.
Our historical text says (see above):
'After him (i.e., Jesus)
his disciples were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter's
synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the
same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them
and the Jews with regard to Christ.'
Toldot Yeshu put the emphasis on the hostility and
the fighting:
'There was a great war
between them and great slaughter, many cases of confusion, many killings
and loss of money, everyone was killing his relatives without pity. And
yet they did not abandon the Torah of Israel. And the Jews could not enter
the Temple because of the reprobates.'
The version of the Toldot in which this passage occurs
was published by S. KRAUSS in
Das Leben Jesus nach jüdischen Quellen, Berlin 1902, p.82.151
[41]
The Jewish Christian text describes the situation in a
milder way than the Toldot. But it picks out the same traits as
essential. This has no exact counterpart in the canonical Acts of the Apostles
or in other Christian or Jewish texts. The fact is that in a characteristically
fantastic way the author of Toldot seems to have been aware, as
was the author of the Jewish Christian historical texts, that events in
Jerusalem and elsewhere after the death of Jesus determined the answer
to a historical question of the greatest importance, namely, the question
as to whether the Jewish Christians would continue to live as Jews and
with the Jews, or whether there would be a clean split.
On this point the wishes of the author of the last section
of Toldot, who is in favour of the separation of the two religions,
are diametrically opposed to those of the Jewish Christian author of the
historical texts dealt with in this paper. Indeed, there is some reason
to think that these chapters were written in reply to the Jewish Christian
texts. Paul, who is denounced by the Jewish Christians for having brought
about this separation, is approved of in Toldot for this very reason,
and described as an agent of the Jewish Sages.152 His
original name is said to have been Elijah.153
He is said to have given the Christians commandments which were not in
accord with the Mosaic law and to have enjoined upon them to avoid the
society of the Jews. Inter alia, he is supposed to have declared:154
'Jesus wishes (to impose) another commandment:
You should call the Jews (Yehudim) Hebrew ('Ibhrim) as they
(come) from the (other) side of the river and you will be called Gentiles
(goyyim).'
In all likelihood this is an allusion to the appellation
Hebrews (Hebraioi) by which at an early period the Jewish Christians
were designated.
This conception of the role of Paul in the evolution of
Christianity is (if one abstracts from the legend that he was an agent
of the Jewish Sages) to a great extent in accord with that of the Jewish
Christian texts, though the latter are hostile to him, while the relevant
chapters of Toldot, apparently written in reaction to these texts,
are friendly and approbatory. The New Testament and patristic texts do
not, as far as I can see, present as clearly as the Jewish Christian texts
and the Toldol the separation of Christianity from Judaism as the main
purpose and effect of Paul's activity.
On the one hand, their notion of
the latter is less restricted; on the other, they do not, in contradiction
both to Toldot and to our Jewish Christian texts, seem to consider
that there had existed a real possibility of avoiding the separation of
the two religions.
A passage in the last section of
Toldot155 treats
of the heresiarch Nestorius, who is supposed to have lived in the Persian
Empire, to have enjoined upon the Christians in opposition to Paul to follow
the example of Jesus in observing the commandments of the Mosaic Law and
to have taught that Jesus was not a God but a man inspired like the prophets
by the Holy Ghost. The fact that Nestorius was denounced by the Council
of Ephesus and by various Catholic polemists as a Jew does not, as it seems
to me, account for these statements. A reason for the latter could be found
in the hypothesis referred to above) according to which the Nestorian community
may have contained Jewish Christians. The teachings which Toldot, in the
passages quoted above, attributes to Nestorius are those of our Jewish
Christian texts. On one point this analogy breaks down. In the Toldot156
Nestorius is said to have had great influence upon women, because, in contradistinction
to Paul,157 he enjoined
monogamy. On the one hand, this passage contradicts our Jewish Christian
biography of Paul which ascribes to the latter the establishment of mono-
gamy in accordance with Roman usage. On the other hand, the passage is
clearly connected in some way with this biography and probably derives
from it in an indirect way. It is certainly related to a definite historical
situation within the Nestorian community, on which a further investigation
may shed some light.
To sum up, the last section of
the Toldot seems in a great measure to have been composed in reaction to
the Jewish Christian view of the events which led to the separation of
Judaism and Christianity, and in order to counteract this view. It seems
to pre-suppose knowledge of Jewish Christian historical texts similar to
those quoted above. A passage in this section seems to corroborate the
hypothesis that the Nestorian Church included Jewish Cbnstians or crypto-Jewish
Christians. However, the point requlres further investigation.
The hypothesis that Jewish Christians
may have led a more or less clandestine existence within various Christian
communities does not exclude [43]
a second hypothesis, namely, that some of them may have intermingled
with and exercised a certain influence on Jewish sects. In fact, coexistence
with Jews may have been easier for them than with Christians, because of
their observance of the Mosaic commandments. Moreover, the importance of
Jesus for their religious thought tended perhaps to diminish because of
their exacerbated antagonism against dominant Christianity.
Now, it is a fact that in the early period, i.e., at a
time when the Jewish political and religious hierarchy, as well as the
Christian, may not yet have completely adapted itself to the new situation
brought about by the Arab conquest, certain Jews appear to have had pro-Christian
proclivities. This could not have been a mere matter of political expediency
as these sectarians lived under Moslem rule, and could hypothetically be
accounted for by the influence of Jewish Christians of various kinds.
It is not certain whether the sect of Abu `Isa al-Isfahani,
a Jewish heresiarch of the ninth century, should be mentioned in this connection.
The fact that he admitted the prophethood of Jesus and of Mohammed (while
claiming to be a prophet himself)158 cannot,
because of the possible in fluence of Islamic doctrine, serve as an indication
of a pro-Christian tendency on his part. The existence of such a tendency
would, however, be proven, if it could be shown that 'the expected masih',159
who, if we may believe al-Shahrastani,160
was regarded by Abu 'Isa as the most excellent of the children of Adam,
and as greater than the prophets of the past should be indentified with
Jesus rather than with the Jewish Messiah. This last identification seems
to be more probable.161 Like Epiphanius'
Ebionites Abu `Isa prohibited sacrifices and the eating of meat. And as
Qirqisani puts it,162 (p.51) 'like the
Sadducees and the Christians' he abolished divorce. The founder of another
Jewish sect, which originated in the ninth century---I refer to the Mishawites163
who were still strong in the eleventh century---was charged in violent
terms with having abandoned Judaism for Christianity. Apparently, he is
accused of professing the doctrine of the Trinity;164 he
is also taxed with belonging to the company of Matthew, Luke, John and
Aba Sha'ul (i.e., Paul). 165 In other words,
the Christianity alluded to does not seem to be of the Jewish Christian
variety. However, in this connection various other points must be considered.
This cannot be done in this preliminary paper.
Since the eighth century the Qaraites formed the Jewish
sect par excellence: or only were they the only sect which presented
a serious threat to Rabbinical Judaism; some of them, Qirqisani, for instance,
to judge by the first part of his magnum opus: Kitab al-anwar
wa'l-maraqib, had the perhaps vague idea that the Qaraites could to
some extent regard themselves as the legitimate heirs and successors of
many of the sects of the past which had been rejected by Rabbinical Judaism.
A clear reference to the Qaraites occurs in 'Abd al-Jabbar's chapter on
the Christians. The passage may be rendered as follows:
(66b) 'A sect among the
Jews considers that Jesus, son of Maryam, who is regarded by the Moslems
as a prophet and by the Christians as the Lord, he who was crucified and
killed, was the son of Joseph the Carpenter. He is considered by them to
have been a just and pious (man) and to have had a leading position among
the Jews. Some of the latter, being jealous of him because of his position,
slandered and vilified him until he was unjustly killed.
(According to the opinion of this
sect which is) in contradiction to the allegations of the Christians or
of the Moslems, he did not claim to be the Christ166
or a prophet.
They say: Do you not see that he
was examined as to this point) by Herod (Hiridus) and Pilate (Filat.s)
and that be has denied all this. If he had been a prophet he would
have proved it by means of a demonstration and of miracles. As for the
annunciation concerning him and (the belief that) he was born without (fecundation
by) a male, they say: What is the confirmation for this? The Christians
[45]
say in the Gospels that this Jesus (Ishu') said to his disciples: "What
do people say about me?" They said: "Some say that you are Elijah. Others
say that you are John the Baptist." And he said: "And you my companions,
what do you say about me?" And they said: "In our opinion, you are Christ."167
And he said: "Do not say this."168
Do you not see that be himself forbade
them to say that he was the Christ (al-masih)? Hereupon what (is
it that) remains clear? They say:
The Jews have harassed him with
their quarrels for three years and have lodged with the kings a complaint
against him. (And yet) (no)169
declaration (which affirmed) to his prejudice that he had claimed to be
the Christ170 or a
prophet could be obtained. Neither his friends (67a) nor his enemies have
testilied against him on this point. As for the prodigies and miracles
which as the Christians claim (were worked) by him, all this is baseless.
He himself did not claim (to have worked) them. Nor is there in his time
or in the generation which followed any disciple who claimed (that Jesus
had worked miracles). This was first claimed only a very long time (ba`d...
al azman wa'l-ahqab) after his death and after the death of
his (direct) disciples; similarly the Christians have claimed that the
Jew Paul (Bul.s al-yahudi) (has worked miracles and this)
in spite of his being known for his tricks (hiyal), his lying
(kadhb) and his baseness;171
they have done the same for George (J.urj.s) and for Father Mark,172
and they do the same at all times with regard to their monks and nuns.
All this is baseless.'
The conception of the Jewish sect referred
to in this passage, according to which Jesus was a righteous man whose
death was encompassed by some Jews because of their envy,173
is similar in essentials to that of [46]
certain Qaraites (qawm min al-qara'in) mentioned
by Qirqisani.174 According to this group,
Jesus was a pious man, whose teaching was similar to that of Zadoq175
and to that of 'Anan, the founder of the Qaraite sect. The Rabbanites sought
to kill him as they sought to kill 'Anan, succeeding in the first case
and. failing in the second. Immediately afterwards Qirqisani states that
Christian religion as it is now (al-an) was founded by Paul, who
taught the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus and dispensed altogether with
legal commandments. Both the hostility to Paul and the conception of Christianity
as an antinomistic religion are, as we have seen, characteristic of the
authors of our Jewish Christian texts. While the extract from 'Abd al-Jabbar
quoted above is indicative of some awareness of Qaraite views, the text
of Qirqisani appears to point to a certain influence of Judaeo-Christian
views on the Qaraites.176
This extract from 'Abd al-Jabbar follows in the MS nearly,
though not quite, immediately upon 'Abd al-Jabbar's discussion on the longer
of the two accounts of the passion translated below; I refer to the one
which occurs in the MS, fols. 65a-6a. This account is very different
from those found in the canonical Gospels, and, in view of the nature of
the text in which it is quoted, may, as it seems to me, be prima facie
attributed with a reasonable degree of likelihood to a Jewish Christian
source.177[47]
Now the arguments of the Qaraites as set forth in the
MS (and there is no reason to question the correctness of this exposition)
clearly refer to this particular account. This can easily be proved by
the fact that this argumentation mentions Jesus' examination by Herod as
well as by Pilate and his denial in the course of this examination (of
the claims made on his behalf); these are details which are found in the
account in question. In other words, one group among the Qaraites seems,
when engaging in religious debates, to have made use of an account of the
passion which derived from the Jewish Christians.178
I have tried to show that there exists some
reason for thinking that at a certain period close relations existed between
groups of Qaraites and groups of Jewish Christians.179
The Qaraite liturgy possibly provides further
evidence for this hypothesis. I refer to the fact that in the Qaraite prayers
the congregation is sometimes called nosre 'edothaw.'180
This clearly refers to Psalm xxv:10. However,
the fact that the Qaraites occasionally use in speaking of themselves an
appellation in which figures the word noserim,'181
i.e., the Hebrew name for Christians, suggests
the absence of certain taboos which exist in Rabbinical Judaism, and perhaps,
in addition, the possibility that the Qaraites may have taken over from
Jewish Christians who intermingled with them some of their prayers.182
An instance of sympathetic interest in, and perhaps solidarity
with, Judaism, manifested by Jewish Christians or one of their sects, may
be found in the account of the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism occurring
in 'Abd al-Jabbars' chapter on Christianity (fol. 88a).183
[48]
It is, as far as is known, the earliest text which seems
deliberately to stress the role and extol the personal qualities of the
Jewish missionary who was responsible for this conversion. The latter is
used to illustrate the point that the propagation of Christianity by means
of persuasion only and without the use of coercion (even if for argument's
sake this view of the spread of Christianity is supposed to be true)184
has its counterpart in the annals of Judaism. It is
virtually inconceivable that a Moslem theologian (as our treatise shows,
'Abd al-Jabbar was second to none in his religious zeal, and as his chapter
on Judaism shows, he was very anti-Jewish) would not have rather cited---if
the text had been really conceived and not merely adopted by him---some
suitable example of conversion to Islam. Our text does not, however, refer
to any such episode; it does not even mention the well-known story that
a Moslem and a Christian missionary, as well as the Jewish one, engaged
in the attempt to convert the Khazars to their respective religions. There
is sufficient reason for believing that the account of the Judaization
of tile Khazars is not an interpolation of 'Abd al-Jabbar, but is due to
Jewish Christians. It may be regarded as a later addition-there seem to
be several (see above---to the older portions of our text) which were composed,
I believe, in the fifth or the sixth century, or perhaps, as far as certain
sections are concerned, even earlier.
The question may, however, be asked whether this origin
by itself can be regarded as accounting for the evident complacency with
which this historical event is regarded. This supposition would quite evidently
postulate a high, perhaps improbable, degree of identification on the part
of the Jewish Christians with the Jews in general. Accordingly, an alternative
hypothesis could perhaps be tentatively envisaged. For various reasons
the supposition has occasionally been advanced that the Khazars were converted
by the adepts of some unknown sect. Inter alia, this would of course
explain the fact 185 that this important
event aroused in the period which was close to it no interest and no enthusiasm
among the Qaraites and the Rabbinical Jews of the East. This indifference
contrasts) as we have seen, with the attitude of the Jewish Christians.
It is at least a possible supposition---admittedly it is nothing more---that
the sympathy of the latter may have gone out to a Jewish sect which was
in some way doctrinally akin to them.[49]
This supposition would entail another one, namely, that
at some later period the influence of this sect must have been superseded
in the Jewish portion of the Khazar people by that of Rabbinical Judaism
and of Qaraism. All these are of course mere hypotheses.
As far as the conversion is concerned, the additional
evidence provided by our texts, though very suggestive, is too scanty to
permit us to move to more solid ground.
At the end of this section I wish to mention a point which
cannot be discussed here and which will form the subject of a separate
paper. I refer to the probability that Jewish Christians who, as we know,
cultivated the Hebrew language, were the authors of at least one text included
in the medical work attributed to Asaph the Physician.
II
In this section some quotations (most of which are not
cited above) from the canonical and other Gospels occurring in our Jewish
Christian texts will be translated.186 In
the case of quotations which in general agree with the canonical text,
sometimes only the salient points on which they differ will be indicated.
(94b) 'It (is said) in
the Gospel that when Christ was born he was circumcised after eight days
187 and that Joseph the Carpenter took
him (together) with his mother and went off with them (kharaja bihima)
to Egypt.188 He
stayed there twelve years, then he took them and returned with them to
Jerusalem.
It (is also said) there: Joseph
entered his house and asked Maryam:189
"Where is the boy (sabi)?" that is to say, Jesus Christ.190
She said to him: "I thought he was with you." And he said: "I thought he
was in the house and beside you." Both were worried, being afraid that
he was lost, and they went together to search for him. And Joseph the Carpenter
said to Maryam: "Take one road, and I shall take another. Perhaps (fa-la`alla)
one of us will find him." And they went full of anxiety.191
Maryam, his mother, found him and said: "My
son, where have you been? I thought you were with your father, and your
father thought you were with me. When he did not see you, we were anxious.
Your father took (another) road, and I took this road. Where were you and
with whom? Your father is full of anxiety192
on your account." He said: "I was in Jerusalem,193
and I studied (ata'allam)." '194
[51]
In our text the beginning of the temptation which is quoted
(78a-78b) reads as follows:
(78a) 'It is written in
your Gospel: Satan imprisoned Christ and held him captive in order to subject
him to a trial; and Christ refrained from eating and drinking because of
his fear that Satan's stratagem with regard to him would be carried out.'
In the continuation of the story which, in the greater part
of the text, differs only slightly or not at all from the canonical texts,
tile order of the temptations is that of Matthew iv :1-11 and not that
of Luke iv: 1-13. The beginning of the second temptation is recounted as
follows:
(78a) 'Then Satan brought him to
the town of Jerusalem 195 and placed him
on the roof (?) of the Temple.' 196
In the third temptation Satan says to Jesus:
(78b) 'if you will fall
down upon your face in order to worship me, I will give you all this world,
just as I gave to those who were before you.'197
[52]
After giving Jesus' answer to
this proposal, our text has:
(78b)
'Then God sent an angel, who removed Satan from his place and threw him
into the sea, and who freed the road before Christ.'198
The account of the passion
which follows is apparently the one which was used by the Qaraites in order
to prove that Jesus denied being prophet or the Messiah. The same story
is used by 'Abd al-Jabbar, or a Moslem assistant of his, in order to prove
that not Jesus, but some other man, was crucified. This contention is clearly
formulated in the introductory remarks of the story:
(65a)
.... If the Christians would refer to the information (they have) and to
what is written in their Gospels, they would know, as they give credence
to the latter, that it was not Christ who was killed and crucified.'
The quotation follows:
(65a) 'When
the Gospels speak of him who was killed and crucifiec and of the crucifixion199
they say:200
On the Thursday
of Passover, the Jews went to Herod (Hayridh.s), a
companion of Pilate (Filat.s) the king of the Romans, and said to
him: "There is a man here, one of us,201
who has corrupted and led astray our brethren.
We stipulate accordingly with regard to you that you should give us power
over (the man) whose way is (as described) so that we should carry out
our judgment on him." Accordingly, Herod said to his auxiliaries: "Go with
them, and bring their opponent (here)." Thereupon the auxiliaries went
forth with the Jews and came to the gate of that government house.202
The Jews turned to the auxiliaries an asked them:203
"Do you know our opponent?" They said: "No. The Jews said: "Neither do
we know him. However, come with us. We shall not fail to find somebody
who will show him to us." Accordingly they went, and Judas Iscariot204
met them. He was one [53]
of the intimates and followers205
of Christ, one of his greatest disciples,
one of the Twelve. He said to them: "Do you search for Jesus the Nazarene
(Ishu` al-nasiri)?" They
said: "Yes." He said:
"What
shall I get from you, if I show him to you?" One of the Jews wanted to
give him monies206
which he had with him, counted thirty pieces
and said: "They are yours." Judas said to them: "As you know, he is my
friend, and I would be ashamed to say: that one, that's he. However, be
with me and look at (the man) to whom I shall give my hand and whose head
I shall kiss. Take hold of him as soon as my hand will let go his and lead
him away."
There
was a great (crowd) of people in Jerusalem where, (coming) from all places,
they gathered to celebrate that feast. Judas Iscariot took the hand of
a man, kissed his head, (65b) and as soon as his band let
go that of (the other), he plunged into the crowd.207
Then the Jews and the auxiliaries seized (the
man). He said to them: "What do you want from me?" and felt a poignant
anguish. They answered him: "The government209
wants you." He said: "What have I to do with the government ?"210
And they led him away and made him come before
Herod. But the man's reason had flown because of his fear and anguish.211
He wept and had no self-control. Having become
aware of his fear, Herod pitied him and said: "Let him be." He asked him
to come nearer, made him sit down and tried to make him feel at ease. Thanks
to him (the man) became calm.212
Herod said to him: "What do you say with regard to the claim (about which
they speak), namely that you are the Christ, king of the Children of Israel?
Have you said this, or appealed to the people on this subject ?"213
He denied that he had said or claimed this.
In spite of this, his perturbation was not quieted, although Herod tried
to tranquillize him. Herod said to him: "Remember what is yours and try
[54]
to convince (people) if it is really yours."
He did not want to make him deny (the thing). For it was not (the man)
who had said it; they, and not he, had said it, and they had wronged him
through what they had claimed and said with regard to him.
Accordingly
Herod said to the Jews: "I do not see that he agrees with you, that he
says what you claim. I only see that you attribute to him utterances (that
were not his) and that you wrong him. There is a basin and water for me
to wash my hand in (so that it should be innocent) of this man's blood."
(Then)
Pilate the great king of the Romans addressed Herod. He said to him: "Information
has come to me that the Jews have had an opponent of theirs, a man of education
(adab) and knowledge, conducted
before you for judgment. Give him over to me, so that I should probe him
and see what is the matter with him." And Herod gave him over to Pilate.
Thus
(the man) who was (still) in a state of perturbation, fear and anguish,
was brought before Pilate. The king tried to tranquillize him and asked
him as to what the Jews had asserted with regard to him, namely that he
was the Christ. He denied having said this. (Pilate however) did not cease
asking him and trying to make him feel at ease, so that he should give
an explanation about himself214
and that (Pilate) should hear from him a witty saying (adab)
or a precept. However, he could not allay
the perturbation,215
fear, anguish,
the weeping and the sobbing (of the man) and he sent him back to Herod,
saying to the latter: "I have found in this man nothing that has been ascribed
to him. There is nothing good in him."216
And he explained this (by referring) to the
man's deficiency (66a) and ignorance.217
Herod said: "It is now night. Conduct him to
prison." And they conducted him (there). The next day the Jews became importunate,218
seized him, proclaimed his infamy,219
tormented him, inificting upon him various tortures,
then at about the end of the day they whipped him and brought him to a
melon-patch (mabtakha) and
a vegetable garden (mabqala). There
they crucified [55]
155 See, for instance, ibid., pp.48 f. and
85 f.
156 Ibid., pp.49 and 86.
157 Ibid, p.86.
158 See AL-QIRQISANI, Kitab
a1-anwar wa'l-Maraqib (edited by L. Nemoy), New York 1939, I,
p. 52; cf. AL-BAQILLANI, Al-Tamhid fi`1-radd `ala'l-mulhida
wa'l-mu'attila wa'l-rafida wa'l-khawari wa'l-mu'tazila (edited by M.
M. AL-KODEIRl & M. A. ABU RIDA), Cairo 1947, pp.147 f.
159 Al-masih al-muntazar.
160 See, Kitab al-milal wa'l-nihal,
II, Cairo 1947, p.24.
161 According to al-Shahrastani, Abu 'Isa believed
that his al-masih would be preceded by five envoys (rusul),
Abu 'Isa himself being one of them. The text does not make it quite clear
whether he considered that he himself (this is the more probable interpretation)
or al-masih was entrusted by God with the mission of delivering
the children of Israel from the impious nations.
162 See QIRQISANI, op.
cit. (above, n. 158), p.52 and SHAHRASTANI, op.
cit. (above, n. 160), p.24. He also forbade to drink wine. See QIRQISANI,
p.51.
163 See S. POZNANSKI, 'Meswi
al-Okbari, chef d'une secte juive', Revue des études
Juives, xxxrv (1897), pp.161-191; Z.
ANKORI, Karaites in Byzantium, New York- Jerusalem 1959, pp.372-415.
164 This is the most probable interpretation of
the passage in POZNANSKI, op. cit., p.182,
quoted in ANKORI, op. cit., p.402, n. 139.
165 Loc. cit.
166 Or: 'the Messiah' (al-masih).
As the passage sets forth the opinions of a Jewish sect, 'Messiah' may
be a more suitable rendering than 'Christ'. The latter word has been chosen
for reasons of consistency, as it is generally used in the translation
of this text, which, in general, is concerned with christians, as an equivalent
of al-masih.
167 Or: 'the Messiah' (al-masih).
168 This quotation roughly corresponds to Matthew
xvi: 13-16 and 20, Mark viii: 27-30, and Luke ix : 1-21. But in our text
Beler is not mentioned, and the prohibition, found in the three Synoptic
Gospels, to speak ahout Jesus being the Messiah, is given an arnbiguous
formulation, which can he interpreted as a denial by Jesus of his being
the Messiah. For a further discussion or this quotation, see below.
169 The Arabic equivalent of this word has heen
added, as it appears to be required by the sense.
170 Or: 'the Messiah' (al-masih).
171 Or: 'his degradation' (suqut).
172 Aba marq.s.-Aba being an Aramaic word
meaning 'father'. George and Mark are Christian saints.
173 Cf. Matthew xxvii :18; Mark xv :10.
174 Cf. op. cit. (above, n. 158), pp.42-43.
175 Apparently the founder of the Zadoqite sect described by Qirqisani
(ibid., p.41). This sect may not be identical with that of the Sadducees.
176 In the last part of the description on Christianity (pp. 44-47)
Qirqisani quotes the description of this religion given by the Jewish philosopher
Da'ud b. Marwin al-Raqqi al-Muqammis (1ived in the first half of
the tenth century). This description is essentially different from that
occurring in the beginning of Qirqisani's section, as it contains the statement
(p. 44) that, according to the Christians, Paul and Peter established the
christian commandments. Al-Muqammis's references to Constantine
the leper, to his mother Ghilani (an obvious deformation of the name Hilaniya
found in our texts), al-fundiqiyya (the innkeeper; this word is
likewise applied to her in our texts) and to the Council of Nicaea which
was attended by three hundred and eighteen bishops (which is the number
mentioned in the same context in our historical texts) seem to show that
al-Muqammis was acquainted with a Jewish Christian account of Constantine
similar to or identical with the one found in the historical section of
our Jewish Christian texts. According to Qirqisani (p. 44), al-Muqammis
was converted in Nisibis through the instrunientality of a Christian philosopher
and physician named Nana to Christianity. Al-Muqammis is said to
have been for many years a student of Nana, to have learnt to know all
the foundations and secrets of Christianity and to have composed two works
criticizing the Christians. The comparison of the extracts from these works
quoted by Qirqisani with our texts suggests that during his Christian period
he may have lived in an at least partly Jewish Christian milieu.
177 It may have been one of several accounts of the passion which were
current among the members of the sect.
178 It may, of course, be argued that some particulars in this story
were modified by the Qaraites for their own purposes. But it is highly
improbable that the account as a whole could have been originated by members
of this relatively late sect.
179 It seems quite clear that Harkavy was wrong in attributing the fact
that the Qaraites were less hostile to Jesus than the Rabbinical Jews to
Moslem influence
(see Altjüdische Alterthümer, St. Petersburg 1876.
p.212, n. 3). Insofar as the
Qaraite attitude was not determined by certain tendencies peculiar
to the sect
(see above), it seems to have been due to contact with the Jewish Christians.
180 See, for instance, Tefillot Haq-qara'im (edited by S.
WEISSCHWITZ), III, Vienna
1854, p. 126. The passage occurs in the Yom Kippur morning prayer.
181 On this term see now CH. RABIN's paper 'Noserim',
Textus, v (l966), pp. 44-52.
182 The fact that the Qaraites habitually call themselves in their prayers
'the poor'--- 'aniyyim, ebhyonnim and various other synonyms
(see for instance Tefillot haqqara'im, III, pp.30, 97, 106, 107,
131, 138 and passim) might be due to the influence of liturgy of
the Jewish Christians, who were probably called Ebionites because of the
value which they attached to poverty. It might, however, be also due to
the adoption of traditions of even earlier sects or to an autonomous development
of a Qaraite tendency.
183 This text was published, translated and discussed by me in a paper
which
appeared in the Journal of Jewish Studies, XIII (1962), pp.
45-55. When writing this paper I was totally unaware of the Jewish Christian
aspect of its subject-matter.
184 Our texts regard this view as false. They consider that the spread
of Orthodox Christianity was mainly due to the intervention of the State,
i.e., the percecution of other religions and of the Christian heresies.
185 Stressed by Ankori (op. cit. [above, n. 163], pp. 60-78).
186 In this preliminary study not all the quotations from the Gospels
occurring in our texts can be given. These will be found in the full translation
of these texts, which I have already completed, and, of course, in the
edition of the Arabic text, which is planned for the near future. No rigorous
rules have been followed in the choice of the texts figuring in the limited
selection included in this section.
187 a. Luke ii :21.
188 a. Matthew ii: 14.
189 Sa'ala li-Maryam; the use in this case of the preposition
li indicates that the text follows an Aramaic original.
190 Ya`ni `Isa al-masih; the use of the form `Isa;
which is the usual Moslem name for Jesus, seems to indicate that the three
words figuring at the beginning of this note were added by or for the benefit
of the Moslem author. In these texts the form Ishu` occurs more
frequently than `Isa (see also above).
191 The Arabic word may be read mutaharriqayni, literally:
'burnt', or mutakharriqayni, literally: 'torn'.
192 Mutaharriq or mutakharriq (cf. above, n. 191).
193 Bayt al-maqdis; literally this expression signifies the Temple.
194 Cf. the various accounts in Luke ii : 43-49; The Gospel of Thomas,
XIX, 1-3; the Arabic Evangelium Infantiae, V.
195 Or: 'The town of the Temple', madinat bayt al-maqdis; see
above. However, in this very phrase, the Temple is called haykal; see
the following note.
196 'Ala q.r.y.at al-haykal. The word q.r.y.at poses a
problem. In the context it is very unlikely that the translator had in
mind tbe word qarya, 'borough', "village',
not even if its meaning is supposed to have been coloured by that of the
Hebrew qirya, 'citadel'. The word could also be read qariyya,
which may mean-like the Syriac--qur', qurita; 'beam', 'rafter',
but this signification is not satisfactory cither. However, this Arabic
could have taken its colouring from the Hebrew qorah, which may
mean 'roof', or from qarya, rendered in JACOB
LEVY, Worterbuch der Talmudim und Midraschim, IV,
Berlin-Vienna 1924, pp.379 f., by Wolbung. Cf. also Aruch
Hash-shalem, VII, Vienna 1926, p.198.
If the last solution were accepted, it would perhaps mean that, as far
as this word is concerned, the quotation from the Gospel given in our text
was translated from an Aramaic (i.e., most probably but not certainly a
Syriac) rendering of the Gospel, which was not translated from the Greek.
The equivalent Greek word both in Matthew (iv : 5) and in Luke (iv : 9)
is pterugion. The Peshitta, which seems
mindful of the etymology of the Greek term, renders this by the word kenpa
whose first meaning is wing. However, an older Syriac translation (The
Four Gospels in Syriac Transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest [edited
by R.L. BENSLEY, J. RENDEL HARRIS & F.C. BURKITT],
Cambridge 1894) has---while using in Matthew iv: 5 (p. 7) the same word
as the Peshitta---in Luke iv: 9 (p.145) the translation qarna,
a word whose first meaning is horn, but which also means 'angle'. There
is accordingly a possibility of a second solution, namely, that the Arabic
q.r.ya should be read (the emendation would be a very slight one),
qurna, which signifies 'projecting angle'.
197 a. Matthew iv:10; Luke iv:6-7.
198 Cf. Matthew iv :11; Luke iv:13. The belief of the Christians that
Jesus, w~ is regarded by them as a God, was in the power of Satan, and
had to be delive~ by an angel (a detail which does not occur in the canonical
gospel) seems absw to 'Abd al-Jabbir or to his source. (78b) Satan cannot
hold God in his powe He is even unable to do this to a Jew's donkey (himar
al-yahudi).
199 The word which is used might also mean 'the crucifix'.
200 A marginal note may be rendered: 'On the way the Jews crucified
a man as beir Christ'.
201 Apparently these words mean that he was a Jew.
202 Or: 'the ruler's house'.
203 Literally: 'said to them'.
204 Written Y.hudha s.r.huta.
205 I read tiba'ihi instead of tha'b.h. which occurs in
the MS.
206 Darahim, a word which derives from the Greek drachme;
207 Literally: 'people'.
208 Literally: 'said'.
209 Or: 'the ruler' or 'governor' (al-sultan).
210 Ma li wa-li'l-sultan; the expression may mean: What has the
government against me?' Similar expressions exist in Hebrew and Syriac
as well as in Arabic; cf. also Mark iv : 24.
211 As to the fear and anguish attributed to Jesus, cf., inter alia,
the Epistle to the Hebrews v : 7 f. As to the meaning of eulabeia,
cf. for instance, 0. CULLMANN, Die Christologie
des neuen Testaments, Tübingen 1958, pp.95 f.
212 Or: 'he tried to calm him'.
213 Another possible meaning could be: 'Have you claimed this?' But
this interpretation presupposes a slight emendation.
214 More or less literally: 'as to what
was in him and with him' (ma `indahu wa-ma ma'ahu).
215 Another possible translation would be: 'he did not want to add to
the perturbation.'
216 Pilate's disappointment is apparently due to his not having found
in the man the superior intellectual qualities which he had expected.
217 Or: 'stupidity' (ghaba).
218 I read nakada, which may also mean 'molested'. The MS has
nakara, 'disapproved'.
219 Shaharuhu tilka'l-shuhra; the translation is not quite certain.
him and pierced him with lances
in order that he should die quickly. As for him, crucified upon a piece
of wood as he was, he did not cease crying out as loudly as he could: "My
God, why did you abandon me, my God, why did you forsake me" until he died.
Then Judas Iscariot met the Jews
and said to them: "What did you do with the man you seized yesterday?"
They said: "We have crucifled him." Judas was amazed at this, and thought
(the thing) hardly credible (istab'ada). But they said to him: "We
have done it. If you want to know it (for sure), go to a certain melon-patch."
He went there, and when he saw him, he said: "He is an innocent man." He
insulted the Jews, got out the thirty pieces which they had given him as
a reward and threw them in their face. And he went to his (own) house and
strangled himself.'
On the basis of this account, 'Abd al-Jabbar tries to
prove (66a-b) the thesis propounded in his introductory remarks (see above);
namely, that not Jesus but somebody else was crucified. Apparently, he
tries to suggest (rather than explicitly say) that Judas pointed out the
wrong man. While his arguments are by no means convincing, at least they
direct our attention to the fact that the text as quoted does not wholly
put out of court this interpretation. It is, however, most improbable that
if the point of the story had been that somebody else was crucified instead
of Jesus, this all important fact would not have been stated clearly. On
the whole, it seems likely that the Moslem author's thesis is a mere piece
of Islamic apologetics.220
In this account of the passion which we are discussing,
Herod plays one of the parts. This is also the case, though to a much lesser
extent, in Luke xxiii: 6-11221
Herod is given a capital role in the fragment known as the Gospel of Peter.
222
The words translated above 'On the Thursday of Passover'
read in Arabic fi khamis li'l-fish.223
It may be noted in this connection that Epiphanius appears to allude
in De Fide to a tradition according to which the Last Supper took
place on a Thursday.224
In another work he attacks the opinion that
Jesus was arrested on the night from Thursday to Friday[56]
225 and proves thereby
that such an opinion existed. It may be relevant that the founder of the
Jewish Mishawite sect, which, as mentioned above, was attacked because
of its pro-Christian tendencies, considered that Passover should always
fall on a Thursday. 226
H. J. Schonfield has collected various texts which state
that Jesus was crucified or buried, or both, in a garden;227
sometimes, as in our text they speak of a vegetable garden.228
From our point the most significant passage may be the one in which at
the end of the second century, Tertullian cites, as it were, an opinion
of the Jews concerning Jesus: 'This is he whom his disciples have stolen
away secretly, that it may be said that he is risen, or the gardener abstracted
that his lettuces (lactucas) might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors!'229
According to the story of the passion which is under disscusion,
Pilate hoped to enjoy an instructive and edifying conversation with Jesus
and was bitterly disappointed when the latter did not live up to his expectations.
This trait is somewhat reminiscent of the objection against Christianity,
deriving from Porphyry, which is quoted by Macarius Magnes.230
The philosophical critic of Christianity asks why Jesus did not speak to
the (Roman) Governor and to the high priest words worthy of a wise and
divine man; he should have addressed to Pilate wise and earnest words.
[57]
The fact that Pilate is described as malik ('king') may
signify that in a particular milieu this Arabic or the corresponding Syriac
word may also have been applied to a Governor.231
It is possible, however, that at the time of
the final redaction of the text, presumably in Syriac, Pilate was believed
to have been a king. As a matter of fact, he is not infrequently designated
by this title in various Christian texts.232
In spite of the arguments of 'Abd al-Jabbar, we came to
the conclusion that in the account of passion quoted, Jesus is supposed
to have been the man who was crucified. There are, however, passages in
our texts apparently deriving from another story of the passion (which
is not quoted in full) that accredit the view that Jesus was not crucified.
They may be translated as follows:
(67a) '(It is said) in
the Gospel: Christ was standing on one side233
in the place (mawdi') of the crucifixion and Maryam, the
mother of Christ, came to the place. He who was crucified looked at her
and said, (attached) as he was to the piece of wood: "This is your son,"
and he said to Christ: "This is your mother." Then Maryam took his hand234
and went off 235 (leaving
behind her) the people present.
(It is) also (said) in the Gospel:
"Christ died without anything having touched him."'
The second complete account of the passion figuring in our
texts is very different from the first.236
It is much shorter (as it does not include the story of the judgment) and
in several particulars it is reminiscent of the corresponding passage of
Saint John. It may be translated as follows:
(56b) 'Both
the Christians237
and the Jews assert that Pilate (Filat.s)
the Roman, king of the Romans, seized
Christ, because the Jews had maligned him, and delivered him up to them.
They led him away upon an ass, with his face turned towards the ass' hind
quarters, put upon his head a crown of thorns and went around in order
to [58]
make an example out of his punishment. They beat him from behind, attacked
him from before and said to him in mockery: "King of the Children of Israel,
who has done this to you?" Being thirsty because of the fatigue and the
distress which afflicted him, he humbled himself 238
and said to them: "Give me water to drink." And they took a bitter tree,
pressed out its juice, put into it vinegar and gave this to him to drink.
He took it (57a), thinking that it was water, tasted it, and when he perceived
that it was bitter, spat it out. They for their part, made him inhale this
drink (or according to another possible interpretation: "forced him to
drink it") and tortured him one whole day and one whole night. When the
next day came---it was a Friday, the one which they call Good Friday239
they asked Pilate to have him whipped; which he did. Thereupon, they got
hold of him, crucified him and pierced him with lances, while he, being
crucified upon a piece of wood, did not cease from crying: "My God, why
did you abandon me? My God, why did you forsake me?" until he died. (Then)
they brought him down and buried him.'
The giving-over by Pilate240
of Jesus to the Jews mentioned at the end of the first sentence of this
account is perhaps slightly more reminiscent of John xix:16 than of Matthew
xxvii:26 or Mark xv:15, or even Luke xxiii:25. The description of the indignities
and torments suffered by Jesus, which immediately follows up on this sentence,
does not have an exact parallel in the canonical accounts of the passion.
However, the particulars of the episode in which Jesus is given to drink,
have, as it seems to me, a significant relation, both in their similarity
and in their difference, to the account of John. Such a relation does not
exist in this point between the text under discussion and the accounts
of the other canonical Gospels. A resemblance may be found in the fact
that John (xix: 28) is the only canonical Gospel in which Jesus asks, as
he does in our text, to be given to drink.241
However, the way this request is explained is significantly different in
the two texts. According to John, [59]
'Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished,242
that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith,
I thirst', whereas according to our text, 'he humbled himself' in asking
for water. There is, I think, a possibility that one of these explanations
may have been deliberately substituted for the other. While the two texts
do not agree with regard to various particulars concerning the death of
Jesus, both of them mention in this connection the fact that he was pierced
by a lance (John xix: 34) and that it was a Friday (John xix: 31). These
two points are not referred to in the Synoptic Gospels.243
Apart from this account, there are in our texts several other
quotations which seem to have a significant connection with passages in
John. Their tendency is different from that prevalent in this Gospel, and
it is at least a tenable supposition that they, or some of them, may derive
from an earlier redaction.
One of these quotations, already cited above, shall be
repeated here, because it clearly illustrates the problem. It may be rendered:
(52a) 'I shall not judge men,244
nor call them to account for their actions.
He who has sent me will settle (?) this with them.' Our text adds: (52b)
'This is in the Gospel of John.' As has been pointed out above, the antithesis
of this statement is found in John V: 22.
A less clear example is provided by a quotation from John
vii: 16,245 which
starts out by approximating to the canonical text and may be rendered thus:
(52a) 'The speech which you hear is not my own, but his that sent me.'
At this point, however, a sentence is added which does not figure in the
canonical text. It may be rendered: 'Woe to me if I say something of my
own accord (min tilqa' nafsi).'
An interesting problem is presented by the following quotation
which apparently is also regarded as deriving from John: (52b) 'One may
also find there246
that Jesus has said: "They knew, 0 Lord, that
You have sent me, and You have mentioned Your name to them."' This logion
may correspond to John vii: 28-29, a verse which implies a very different
doctrine: 'Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying: "Ye both
know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but [60]
he that sent me is true, whom ye know not." 'This verse is supplemented
by John vii: 29: 'But I know him, for I am from him and he hath sent me.'
In our texts the following saying is attributed to Jesus:
(56a) 'If you had been Abraham's sons, you would have responded to me,
for I am a son of Abraham.' This probably corresponds to John viii: 39:
'If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.' The
fact that in the quotation occurring in our text Jesus declares himself
to be a son of Abraham is especially significant if compared to the last
part of John viii, which contains Jesus' affirmation: 'Before Abraham was
I am.' This is one of the sayings attributed to Jesus whose authenticity
is questioned in our texts.
Certain variations in Jesus' prayer for the resurrection
of Lazarus do not appear to have much doctrinal importance: (52b) 'I
ask you to resuscitate this dead (man), so that the Children of Israel
should know that You have sent me, and that You respond to my prayer.'
The last part of this sentence from 'and that' does not occur in John xi:
42, and there are other small variations. It may be significant that our
text has 'Children of Israel', while John has 'the people which stand by
(ton oclon ton periestwta)'.247
Apparently, quite apart from any of the accounts of the
passion (at any rate no indication of any connection is given), the following
passage is found in our texts:
(95a) 'It is (said) in their
Gospels and in their narratives (akhbar) that, when Christ was crucified,
his mother Maryam came to him with her sons James (Ya'qub), Simon
(Sham'un) and Judah (Yahudha), and they stood before him.248
And he, (while attached) to the piece of wood,
said to her: "Take your sons, and go away (insarifi)."'
This story may appear to have a remote similarity with the
one told in Matthew xii: 47-49, Mark iii: 31-33 and Luke viii: 19-21, as
in both cases Jesus seems to wish to make it clear that he does not acknowledge
any close relationship with the members of his family. But the story in
the Synoptic Gospels is not placed at the time of the crucifixion. In the
canonical Gospels there is only one account of the passion, that of Saint
John, which refers to Jesus' speaking to his mother from the cross (John
xix: 25-27): [61]
'Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and
his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen. When
Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved,
he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple:
Behold thy mother!'
The implications of Jesus' words to his mother as given in
Saint John are obviously quite different from the implications of the words
related in our texts. In other words, there exists between the two passages
the antithetical relation that we noted in confronting other logia of
our text with the corresponding verses of Saint John. It may thus be argued
that one of the two passages may be a substitute for the other. As there
does not appear to be any intrinsic reason for regarding one of them as
prior to the other, this priority can only be determined on the basis of
theories concerning the origin and mode of composition of the Gospel of
Saint John.
James, the brother of Jesus named in the passage quoted
above, is also mentioned in our texts in this second case, likewise together
with the other brothers, in a quotation (94b-95a) which is described
as deriving from the Gospel of Saint Matthew and which corresponds to Matthew
xiii: 53-57249
In our Jewish Christian texts he is not accorded a special
position. Apparently, the sect which is represented in these texts differed
on this point from the Jewish Christians of the Pseudo- Clementines.
At present we do not dispose of any data which would enable us to determine
whether this absence of reverence for James (and for other members of Jesus'
family) is a trait which goes back to the early period of the sect, or
whether it is a modern development.
Saint Peter, who is the protagonist of the Jewish Christians
of the Pseudo-Clementines, is criticized in our texts (see also
above) for having abrogated the commandments prohibiting the eating of
various animals in consequence of the vision related in a passage of the
Acts (x :10-16), which is quoted verbatim. According
to our texts, he had no right to regard the commandments in question as
abrogated because of what is described as a dream. The reference, in opposition
to this procedure, to what is regarded in Islam as a legitimate mode of
abrogation, called al-naskh, is doubtless due to the Moslem adaptation
of the text. But the objection to dreams as a source of authority is reminiscent
of the [62] Pseudo-Clementines,
Hom., XVII, 14 f., where it is set forth by Peter in his debate with
Simon, who apparently represents Paul.250
The heavenly voice heard when Jesus was baptized is mentioned
twice in these texts:
(47a) 'They say: When John
(Yuhanna) baptized him in the Jordan the gates of heaven
were opened and the Father cried out: "This is my son and my beloved (habibi)
in whom my soul rejoices." '251
(94a) '(According) to their prevalent
(traditions)...252 people
thought that Jesus was a son of Joseph up to the time when John baptized
him in the Jordan and the voice came from the heaven "This is my son in
whom my soul rejoices." '253
As D. Flusser suggested to me, the fact that the words 'my
soul' occur in this version, whereas they are absent from the version found
in th Synoptic Gospels,254
seems to indicate that with regard to this our
text was closer to Isaiah xlii:1, wherefrom the words of the heavenly voice
have been held to derive.255
In the quotation already referred to above, which in our
texts is sai to derive from Matthew, and which in fact corresponds to Matthew
xii 1-5 and to Luke vi: 1-4, there is a point which may require some consideration.
Whereas according to Matthew xii: 1, the disciples plucked
the ears of corn and ate them, and according to Luke vi: 1, they plucked
and at them, rubbing (ywconteV) them with their
hands, our text (92b) does not mention their plucking the ears; according
to this version the rubbed (yafrukun) and ate the ears of corn.
In this particular, the Arabic Diatessaron256
agrees with our text. The point is of some interest, as the Talmud (Shabbath
128a) mentions the opinion of the Sages (hakhamim) according
to which 'rubbing' may be permitted within certain limits on Sabbath.257
[63]
The following quotation also concerns the Sabbath:
(67a) '(It is said) there:258
Maryam al-Majdalaniyya and the other Maryam refrained from sending (ba'tha)
perfume to our master (lisayyidina)
the Christ on a Sabbath day because of the commandment (sunna) with
regard to the observance of the Sabbath.'
This corresponds to Luke xxxiii: 56 (cf. also Mark
xvi: 1).
The following quotation is an interesting example both
of agreement witn and of difference from, the canonical text:
(67b) '(It is said) there:259
He said to the Children of Israel: "0' serpents,
children of vipers,260 you
profess the Scripture, and you do not understand. You wash the outside
of the vessel, and its inside is full of filth.261
You seek on land and on sea, in the plain and in the mountain, a disciple,262
and when you find one, you teach him your ways,263
so that he becomes worse than you.264
You have not entered yourselves the
Kingdom, and you have not let (other) people enter the Kingdom of Heaven---since
you have not entered (it)." '265
As this preliminary study has tried to show, the texts we
are discussing add a good deal to our knowledge of the Jewish Christian
sect, whose conceptions and sentiments they express.
A certain complex of ideas, characteristic of theories,
which is very much to the fore in these texts, but get little mention or
none elsewhere, will in spite of the risk of some repetitiveness, be the
subject of the brief recapitulative observations which follow.
On the evidence of these texts, these Jewish Christian
sectarians were characterized by having a bitter and disenchanted view
of history, or to [64]
be more precise, of the history with which they were mainly concerned,
namely the succession of events---whose landmarks were the early Christian
missionary work in Antioch and the activity of Paul, and after him that
of Constantine and of his successors---events which in their opinion had
brought about the corruption and 'Romanization' of Christianity. At the
time of the composition of the texts this religion in its dominant manifestations
was quite opposed to that of Christ. They believed this decadence to be
due to love of power on the part of the Christian leaders, Paul and others.
Inter alia, this love of power was in their view responsible for
the fateful decision in consequence of which the Christian missionaries
concentrated upon the proselytization of the Gentile nations, described
in these texts as ignorant, as far as religion was concerned, rather than
upon propaganda among those of the Jews who were unbelievers, but who might
have been converted if addressed in their own Hebrew language. According
to their interpretation, the Christian leaders were afraid that the Jews,
a people instructed in the religious law, would see through their pretensions.
While both the Jews, who had done their best to exclude the early Christians
from their community, and the dominant Christian Chruches, who often persecuted
the Jews, considered the separation of Judaism and Christianity as an ineluctable
fact which might be regarded with complacence---and for which the Christians
had been provided with a theological explanation---the Jewish Christian
authors of our texts and presumably other members of their sect may have
been the only people in the world---at the relatively late period (perhaps
the fifth or the sixth century) at which these texts were composed---who
still deplored the split of Judaism and Christianity, two religions which
should have remained one. They also deplored the fact that the Christians
(or perhaps only most of them) no longer read the Gospels in Hebrew, the
language of Jesus, and of all the prophets. Quite clearly, these Jewish
Christians believed that they preserved and continued (perhaps clandestinely)
the traditions of the first not yet corrupted Christian community of Jerusalem
founded by the immediate disciples of Jesus, who professed his religion,
i.e., believed that he was a man and not a divine being, and observed the
Mosaic commandments. [65]
220 The Qaraites (see above) do not seem to be aware of the thesis maintained
by 'Abd al-Jabbir, or do not pay it any attention. It is probable that
they know that, according to the prevalent interpretation, the account
did not imply that Jesus was not crucified.
221 Cf. Acts iv : 27.
222 See L'Évangile de Pierre (edited by L. VAGANAY), Paris
1930, pp.202-206.
223 This last word is often spelt fish. The translation
'On the fifth day of Passover', though perhaps not absolutely impossible,
seems most improbable.
224 De Fide, xxiii. Cf. A. JAUBERT, La Date de la cène,
Paris 1957, p.88.
225 Loc. cit.
226 See QIRQISANI, op. cit. (above, n. 158), p.58. Cf. ANKORI,
op. cit. (above, n. 163) p.377.
227 Op. cit. (above, n. 151), pp.103-105, 125-130.
228 Ibid., p.127.
229 De Spectaculis, xxx (translated by Schonfield, ibid,
p.104).
230 See A. von HARNACK, Kritik des neuen Testaments von cinem
griechisehen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts (Texte and Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der alt. christlichen Literatur, xxxvii), Leipzig 1911,
Fragment iii, 1, p.32. While Herod is not mentioned in this fragment, he
is mentioned in Fragment ii, 14, pp. 24-26, where the question is asked
why Jesus did not appear after his death to Pilate, Herod and the high
priest.
In his early treatise De Philosophia ex Oraculis haurienda, of
which only fragments remain, the distinction between Jesus and the Christians,
which is a main theme of our Jewish Christian texts, is made by Porphyry,
or the oracles he cites and interprets. In a fragment quoted by AUGUSTINE
(De Civitate Dei, xix, 23) and by Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica,
ix, 10), the gods are said to declare that Christ was a very pious man,
but that the Christians are polluted, contaminated and involved in error.
Hecate, asked whether Christ was God, answered, inter alia: his
soul is that of a man of outstanding piety, they worship it because truth
is a stranger to them. Porphyry interprets the answer of the goddess (a
part of which has been omitted) to mean that (Jesus) was a very pious man,
whose soul, like the souls of other pious men, was after death granted
immortality and that the Christians worship it through ignorance.
231 Cf. also the use of the word above, in the section on Paul's biography.
232 As well as in the Mandaic Right Ginza (29, 8), where he is
mentioned as Paltus malka d-alma (Pilate, the king of the
world).
233 Nahiya; one side or one part of a given piece of land
is meant.
234 I.e., Jesus' hand.
235 Literally: 'went off from the people present' (madat min
bayna'l-jama'a).
236 It should be noted that the account designated here as 'the second'
occurs in the MS before 'the first'.
237 Hadhihi al-nasara; literally: 'these Christians'.
But in all probability hadhihi is a rendering of the Syriac haw,
which in certain eases virtually has the function of the article.
238 Istakhdha; that is the way the word is written in the MS.
The omission of one diacritic point would give the reading istakhda,
which has a similar meaning: 'he submitted'.
239 Jum'a h.n.ta; the reading of the second word may vary
to a certain extent. This second word may be a corruption of the Arabic
hazina, al-jum'a al-hazina being the Arabic name of Good
Friday, or a corruption of the Syriac nyahta or danyahta.
The second supposition seems to me rather more probable than the first.
240 Who here too is called 'a king' (see above).
241 The fact that in Jolin he puts this request in an indirect way by
saying 'I thirst', seems to me to be of no conscquence.
242 Panta tetelestai.
243 The fact that Jesus was pierced by a lance is mentioned in certain
MSS of Matthew (xxvii: 49). But the words seem to be an interpolation deriving
from John It may be noted that neither of the two complete accounts of
the passion of Jesus occurring in our texts tends---if compared to the
canonical Gospels---to minimize the part played by the Jews in the crucifixion.
If anything, the contrary is true
244 Literally: 'the servants' ('ibad; a Moslem expression, applied
to the 'servants of God', i.e., to men).
245 In this case this Gospel is not explicitly mentioned in the text.
246 Apparently in John.
247 I am not certain whether any importance attaches to the fact that
our text speaks of the Children of Israel knowing, whereas Saint
John refers to the people believing. But the fact should be noted.
248 I.e., before Jesus.
249 As well as in Mark vi: l-4. The Arabic equivalent of the word patriV
occurring (with a pronoun denoting possession) in Matthew xiii: 53 and
56 (and also in the other Gospels) is the word madina ('town') used
with a possessive suffix.
250 Cf. Schoeps, op.cit. (above,n. 31), pp. 130f.
251 Alladhi surrirat bihi nafsi.
252 Akthar ma `indahum.
253 Alladhi surrirat bihi nafsi; as written in the MS, the second
word may suggest the reading Tasarrarat, which does not involve
a change of meaning.
254 Matthew iii: 17: en w eudokhia; cf. Mark
i: 11, Luke iii: 22.
255 Cf., for instance, J. Jermias, Theologisches Wörterbuch
zum Neuen Testament, v, Stuttgart 1954, pp. 698 f.
256 See Diatessaron de Tatien (edited by A.S. Marmardji), Beirut
1935, p. 66. In most cases the quotations from the Gospels figuring inour
texts markedly differ from the text of the Diatessaron.
257 I am indebted for this reference to S. Safrai and D. Flusser. The
opinion of the Sages is preceded by that R.Yehudah, according to which
plucking is also permitted within limits. It should be noted that both
opinions refer to spices. This is, of course, not the justification proposed
in our texts for the action of the disciples. As we saw, the Jewish Christians
with whom we are concerned held that the action was legitimate, because
they were compelled by the circumstances to act in this manner. Cf. also
J.N. Essmmi, Prolegomena ad Litleras Tannaitkas (in Hebrew), Jerusalem
1957, p.280.
258 I.e., in the Gospel.
259 I.e., in the Gospel.
260 Cf. Matthew xxiii: 33.
261 Matthew xxiii: 25.
262 Sahib; the word may also mean 'a companion'. Matthew xxiii:15
has proshluton.
263 Tar'aiq; the word may mean 'rule of life'.
264 Cf. Matthew xxiii: 15.
265 Matthew~xxiii :13.