Jewish-Christian Polemics

The products of a period in which Judaism was considered to have been superseded by Christianity and Jews were treated as inferiors, the Talmud and Toledot Yeshu literature developed a biting, farcical retelling of Jesus’ story, which, at the same time, reveals the Jewish struggle to explain his massive impact on world religion. Yet, medieval rabbis also responded to Jesus’ death in a serious way, noting that ultimately, things turned out for the best: Jesus always planned to be crucified, and Jesus asked God to forgive everyone involved.   

In Ezekiel’s graphic metaphor of a girl abandoned in the blood of her afterbirth, God sees baby Jerusalem and urges her to live (Ezekiel 16:6–7) but leaves her there until she is older. The verse’s inclusion in the Haggadah (ca. 16^th century) hinges on Mekhilta’s radical reinterpretation and regendering of the blood as representing Israel’s first mitzvot in Egypt: circumcision and the paschal offering. In response to Christian supersessionism, women’s menstrual blood was added as a third example of Israel’s blood-based mitzvot.

Sarah is absent from the biblical account of Isaac’s binding, and there’s no indication that Abraham even discussed God’s command with her. Would she have been an active participant, a faithful supporter, or a grief-stricken mother? Later interpreters filled in her role according to their religious and cultural contexts.

In the 2nd century C.E., when Christianity emerged as a religion, theologians such as Justin and Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s letters to mean that Christians with faith in Jesus are Abraham’s spiritual descendants through Sarah. Jews, in contrast, are only his flesh descendants, banished like Hagar. Genesis Rabbah responds that after Sarah’s death, Abraham remarried Hagar—now called Keturah, “adorned” (kitra) with commandments and good deeds—and had many more children with her than he did with Sarah.

Origen (3rd century C.E.) read the Song of Songs as an allegory expressing the love between Christ and his “bride,” and many Christian interpreters followed suit. Rashi (11th century C.E.), utilizing his two-pronged method of midrash aligned with peshat, developed a consistent Jewish allegory for the Song: Israel is an exiled wife, who pines for the time of her youthful love with God. Could Rashi have been contending with the Christian interpretation?

In his Peri Pascha, the 2^nd century Bishop Melito of Sardis critiques the Jews with a list that begins, "Ungrateful Israel, come to trial with me concerning your ingratitude." Centuries later, the song Improperia, inspired by the theme of Jewish ingratitude to God, entered the Catholic liturgy. Scholars have long noted its similarity to Dayenu, a song that first appears in Saadiah Gaon's Haggadah in the 10^th century. Which song is responding to which?

Muslim scholars like Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, Ibn Hazm (11th c.), and Salih b. al-Husayn al-Gafari (13th c.), and Jewish scholars like Ibn Ezra, Joseph Kimchi (12th c.), Hasdai Crescas, and Profiat Duran (14th c.) viewed the Trinity as a troubling departure from pure monotheism. Spurred by religious competition that was often intertwined with political competition or coercion, they sought to refute it, drawing on philosophy, the Hebrew Bible, and even the New Testament.

​​In late 2nd century Carthage, Tertullian, the first church father to write in Latin, composed Adversus Iudaeos to argue that Christianity’s interpretation of the Hebrew Bible was better than that of the Jews. While his depictions of Jews deal only with biblical verses, from his comments elsewhere about veiled women, Nazarenes, fasting, etc., he was clearly familiar with Jewish practice of his day.

The Haggadah’s insistence that God, without an intermediary, saved the Israelites from Egypt is a veiled retort to the Christian belief that God relied on Jesus as an agent of redemption. Moreover, the midrash replaces the Arma Christi tradition of recounting the weapons Jesus used to save humanity during the Crucifixion with its own distinctively Jewish arsenal of redemption: pestilence, a sword, the Shechinah, the staff, and blood.

The manner in which Haman’s execution was depicted had real world consequences.

YHWH declares to the Davidic king, “You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). For the New Testament, this verse is a prooftext for Jesus’s divinity, but what did it mean in its original context, and how did Jewish interpreters understand it?

Why does Esau in Jewish tradition come to be known as עשו הרשע “Esau the Wicked”? The answer has to do with the history of Judea’s relationship with Esau’s eponymous descendants, the Edomites, and the connection Jews made between them, Rome, and Christianity. The negative view of Esau is expressed nowhere more forcefully than in Rashi’s commentary.

In the creation story, God tells humans to eat plants. Only after the flood, does God permit them to eat animals. Interpreters have understood this to mean that vegetarianism was God’s original plan for humanity. Gersonides found the claim that God changed His mind scandalous, but this is more about countering Christian claims than the simple meaning of the text.

The Israelite men are commanded to separate from their wives before the revelation at Sinai. The rabbis learn from this that Moses permanently separated from his wife (Numbers 12), to be available to speak with God at all times. However, Joseph ibn Kaspi in the 14^th century claims that this interpretation distorts the plain meaning of the text and that celibacy is an affront to Jewish values.

In the Bible, Esau is the ancestor of the Edomites who live on Mount Seir, southwest of Judah. So how did the rabbis come to associate Esau and Edom with Rome? Two main factors are at work here: Christianity and Herod.

According to Deuteronomy, a false prophet who has no message from God, and advocates worshiping other gods, can still successfully perform miracles and predict the future.

Moses promises that if Israel forsakes the covenant, God will destroy them permanently (Deut 4:25-26). Drawing on a midrash, Rashi explains that God exiled Israel early to avoid having to wipe them out; thus, God never actualized this threat. Considering Rashi’s responses to Christian ideas in other biblical texts, Rashi's comment on Deut 4:25 may well be an apologetic effort to prove that God’s covenant with the Jews remains intact.

In a polemical response to Christian and Jewish allegorical interpretation of the Torah’s laws, Bekhor Shor writes that just as God speaks to Moses “clearly and without riddles” (Num 12:8), so too the Torah is clear and means what it says, and should not be interpreted allegorically.

To counter Christian exegetes who saw the paschal lamb as symbolizing Jesus, medieval rabbinic commentators offered new rationales for the details of this ritual.

How Jews responded to the celebration of Jesus’ birth by creating a cynical version of Christmas Eve lampooning him.

Maʿoz Tzur is an intense anti-Christian text reflecting the mood and experience of Ashkenazi Jews during the Crusades, when dozens of Jewish communities were slaughtered in the name of the cross.

Will the gentiles really say that because Israel “forsook the covenant that YHWH, God of their fathers, made with them when He freed them from the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 29:24) that YHWH is punishing them?

What does the root ר.צ.ח actually mean: to kill or to murder? A look at Rashbam’s attempted (and failed?) solution highlights the ethical ramifications of Bible translation.

A Surprising Midrashic Portrait of Abraham