[1] Origen, , Contra Celsum 3, 1. ed.Chadwick, H. (Cambridge) 1953.Google Scholar See also Contre Celse Vol. 2, ed. Borret, M. (Paris: Cerf) 1976.Google Scholar For the proverbial expression Borret cites Plato, Phaedo 260c and Suidas (lexicon) II, 15 sub ὄνου σκία. This proverbial expression should not be confused with the well-known anti-Semitic jibe that Jews worship the ass and that this is why there was an ass's head in their Temple. See Sevenster, J. N., The Roots of Pagan Anti-Semitism in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[2] See especially Simon, M.'s now classic study, Verus Israel: Étude sur les Relations entre Chrétiens et Juifs dans l'Empire Romain (135–425) (Paris: E. de Boccard) 2nd ed. 1964.Google Scholar In his postscript Simon claims that in the 15 years since the publication of the first edition (1948) his central thesis has not been refuted: ‘le judaïsme, très loin encore d'avoir achevé son repli, a été pour le christianisme, tout au long de la période envisagée, un concurrent réel, actif, souvent efficace.’ 477. See also the opening chapter of Wilken, R.'s fine study, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: a Study of Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis (New Haven and London: Yale, 1971).Google Scholar

[3] This view is especially associated with A. Harnack; see further below and note 9. Harnack's position has recently been defended by Rokeah, D., Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1982).Google Scholar Rokeah argues that with the partial exception of Justin, 135 AD marks a turning point in relations between Christians and Jews. Before 135 Christians and Jews were engaged in ‘polemic’, which Rokeah defines as a campaign or conflict having the aim of changing an opponent's view or his religion; after that date there was only a ‘dispute’ - ‘an interchange of words aiming at the clarification of various matters’. (9) This distinction is artificial. M. Simon and R. L. Wilken (n. 2) show clearly that between the second and fifth centuries Christians and Jews were engaged in rather more than ‘clarification’. Justin's Dialogue is seen by Rokeah as ‘the last Christian treatise which, like the Synoptic Gospels, attempted to persuade the Jews to put an end to their stubbornness and to admit the divinity of Jesus’. (66) Rokeah believes that after 135 the Jews were ‘middlemen’ - almost ‘neutral’ in the pagan-Christian conflict. (78, 83)

[4] See Hyldahl, N., ‘Tryphon und Tarpho’, Studia Theologica 10 (1956) 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] See especially the detailed and learned study by Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, dissertation printed by the University of Oslo, 1982.Google Scholar This study, which the author kindly sent to me following my Basel paper, is to be published shortly. See also Sigal, P., ‘An Inquiry into Aspects of Judaism in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho’, Abr-Nahrain 18 (1978–1979) 74–100Google Scholar; Stylianopoulos, T., Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Barnard, L. W., ‘The Old Testament and Judaism in the writings of Justin Martyr’, VC 14 (1960) 395–406Google Scholar; Hulen, A. B., ‘Dialogues with the Jews as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument against Christianity’, JBL 51 (1932) 58–71.Google Scholar

[6] See Hoffmann, M., Der Dialog bei den christlichen Schriftstellern der ersten vier Jahrhunderte (Berlin: Akademie, 1966)Google Scholar; Voss, B. R., Der Dialog in der frühchristlichen Literatur (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1979).Google Scholar

[7] Eusebius, , H.E. 4, xviii, 6.Google Scholar

[8] Kraabel, A. T., ‘The Diaspora Synagogues: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik’, ANRW 2, 19, 1 (1979) 477–510.Google Scholar

[9] Harnack, A., Judentum und Judenchristentum in Justins Dialog mit Tryphon (Leipzig, 1930).Google Scholar Harnack contrasts Justin with Matthew, Paul and the fourth evangelist; the latter all reflect a vigorous struggle in everyday life, but in Justin this appears to be over.

[10] Goodenough, E. R., The Theology of Justin Martyr (Jena, 1923)Google Scholar; Hyldahl, N., Philosophie und Christentum: eine Interpretation der Einleitung zum Dialog Justins (Copenhagen, 1966).Google Scholar On this approach, see Stylianopoulos, T., Justin, 34.Google Scholar

[11] Here I agree with M. de Jonge who has accepted for some time that the Testaments have had a long history as Jewish writings prior to Christian redaction. See, for example, ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the NT’, Studia Evangelica (T.U. 73, 1959) 550, and his 1960 article (from NovT 4) reprinted in ed. de Jonge, M., Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 196.Google Scholar I am grateful to Professor de Jonge for allowing me to read typescript copies of two forthcoming articles, ‘The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Central Problems and essential Viewpoints’, ANRW 2, 20Google Scholar; and ‘The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in the Writings of Justin and Irenaeus’, to be published in VC.

[12] The ‘interpolation’ theory is defended in H. C. Kee's introduction and translation of the Testaments in ed. Charlesworth, J. H., The OT Pseudepigrapha 1 (Garden City: Doubleday; London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1983) 775–828.Google Scholar See also Jervell, J., ‘Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der zwölf Patriachen’ in Studien zu den Zwölf Patriachen ed. Eltester, W. (Berlin: Topelmann, 1969) 30–61.Google Scholar

[13] Jervell, J., ‘Ein Interpolator’ 54 f.Google Scholar, suggests that the Christian interpolations were added towards the end of the first century. He makes four main observations: (i) the motif of the church as the new Israel is not yet found; (ii) the interpolations are Jewish-Christian, but not yet of the later heretical type; (iii) salvation of the Jews is a major concern, but that theme all but disappeared from later Christian writings; (iv) the Christology is early and Jewish-Christian. These comments presuppose a rather wooden view of the development of early Christianity. As we shall see below, the close links with Justin suggest a Christian redaction in the latter half of the second century. Additional support for this dating is provided in the forthcoming publications by O. Skarsaune (note 5) and de Jonge, M., ‘Pre-Mosaic Servants’ (note 11).Google Scholar

[14] ‘The Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NTS 26 (1979–1980) 508–24.Google Scholar

[15] Otto's, J. C. T. Greek text is used (Jena, 1877)Google Scholar, but for the sake of convenience the usual verse numbers are used, rather than the line numbers of Otto's text. Where an English translation is quoted, the useful edition by Williams, A. Lukyn has been used. (London: SPCK, 1930).Google Scholar

[16] In order to establish this point I have checked the references listed under αίρεσις by Good, E. J. speed, Index Apologeticus sive Clavis Iustini Martyris Operum (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1912).Google Scholar

[17] See Horbury, W., ‘The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy’, JTS 33 (1982) 19–61, esp. 20 n. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar for earlier literature; Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 2nd ed. 1979) 54–5, n. 69.Google Scholar

[18] See Stanton, G. N., ‘The Gospel of Matthew and Judaism’, BJRL 66 (1984) 264–84.Google Scholar

[19] See Martyn, J. L. (n. 17) 73–81Google Scholar for a stimulating discussion.

[20] Schneider, G., ‘The Political Charge against Jesus’ in eds. Bammel, E. and Moule, C. F. D., Jesus and the Politics of his Day (Cambridge: CUP, 1984) 403–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[21] So Strobel, A., Die Stunde der Wahrheit (Tübingen: Mohr, 1980).Google Scholar See also the important discussion by Catchpole, D. R., The Trial of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 1–71.Google Scholar On p. 9 Catchpole allows that it is just possible that Jesus was condemned on the basis of a charge derived from Deut. 13. 6–11; in conversation about this point Professor Catchpole has told me that he now considers this highly unlikely.

[22] The English translation is taken from Hennecke, E., New Testament Apocrypha 2, ed. Wilson, R. (London: Lutterworth, 1965).Google Scholar The Greek text is from Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha 2/2ed.Bonnet, M. (Hildesheim: Olms, 1903, repr. 1959).Google Scholar The reference in ch. 48 to Jesus as ὸ πλάνος is noted, but without discussion, by J. L. Martyn (n. 17) 79 n. 110, and by A. Strobel 90, but they do not refer to chs. 96 or 106–7. Klijn, A. F. J., The Acts of Thomas (Leiden: Brill) 271Google Scholar, includes a note on the ‘sorcerer’ accusation which is made against Thomas in numerous passages, but does not comment on the πλάνος accusation or on the combination of μάγος and πλάνος noted above.

[23] See, for example, chapters 2, 11 and 45.

[24] For the Greek text of the Acts of Philip see M. Bonnet's edition (n. 22).

[25] For the translation of the Syriac version quoted here, see Wright, W., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 2 (1871) 69–82.Google Scholar

[26] For a fuller discussion than is possible here, see Catchpole, D. R. (n. 21) 1–71Google Scholar; Martyn, J. L. (n. 17) 73–81Google Scholar; Horbury, W. (n. 17)Google Scholar; Maier, J., Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1978).Google Scholar

[27] See Martyn, J. L. (n. 17) 78–9 n. 108 and n. 110.Google Scholar

[28] See especially Segal, A. F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977).Google Scholar Segal, however, discusses the πλάνος material only briefly, at p. 97 n. 128.

[29] On the μάγος charge, see esp. Poupon, G., ‘L'accusation de magie dans les Actes apocryphes’ in eds. Bovon, F. et al. Les Actes Apocryphes des Apotres: Christianisme et Monde Païen (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 71–94.Google Scholar Poupon does not discuss the combination of μάγος καί πλάνος referred to above.

The criticism that Jesus is simply a magician is not found explicitly in the NT passages referred to above. As Martyn, J. L. (n. 17) notes in passing on p. 77Google Scholar, one possible exception is John 8. 48.

[30] J. Maier (n. 26) has claimed that b. Sanh 43a did not originally refer to Jesus: that identification was made only in post-Talmudic redaction. W. Horbury (n. 17) however, has argued strongly that the sentences ‘on Passover Eve they hanged Jesus’ and ‘Jesus the Nazarene … practised sorcery and deceived and led astray Israel’ may be older than their immediate context. (57)

[31] Earlier editions of Aland's Synopsis read incorrectly ναόν for νόμον.

[32] Perhaps it is just possible that the longer reading at Luke 23. 2 is original; it may have been abbreviated at a very early stage as a result of Christian sensitivity to this very accusation from Jewish opponents.

[33] See Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 3rd ed, 1971) 276.Google Scholar See also Stanton, G. N., ‘The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel’, ANRW 2, 25, 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 1908–10.Google Scholar

[34] Moule, C. F. D., ‘St Matthew's Gospel: Some Neglected Features’ now reprinted in his Essays in NT Interpretation (Cambridge: CUP, 1982) 69.Google Scholar

[35] See esp. Kee, H. C. (n. 12) 779–80.Google Scholar

[36] For a fuller discussion than is possible here see T. Stylianopoulos (n. 5).

[37] See, for example, J. Jervell (n. 12): Becker, J., Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (Leiden: Brill, 1970)Google Scholar; Hultgård, A., L'Eschatologie des Testaments des Douze Patriarches (Uppsala: Almqvist + Wiksell, 1, 1977) 82 n. 1.Google Scholar

[38] The emphasis is my own since many still misunderstand de Jonge's position.

[39] O. Skarsaune (n. 5) has also observed (independently) that the S-E-R pattern of the Testaments is found in Justin; on p. 256 of his dissertation he refers to I Apol 52. He does not refer to Dialogue 108 in this connection. On p. 456 n. 3 he lists phrases which Justin and the Testaments shaie, but he does not suggest literary dependence. On p. 263 he seems to confuse the S-E-R pattern with the ‘killing of God's messengers’ theme.

[40] I owe this reference to Allison, D. C., ‘Matt 23:39 = Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy’, JSNT 18 (1983) 75.Google Scholar Allison cites a number of exegetes who adopt a similar interpretation.

[41] In Luke the lament over Jerusalem (13. 34–5) is separated from the ‘woes on the scribes and Pharisees’ at 11. 37–54, and the lament precedes the citation of Ps 118. 26 in 19. 38. So the exegetical problem does not arise in quite the same way as it does in Matthew.

[42] See Senior, D. P., The Passion Narrative according to Matthew (Leuven: Peelers, 1975) 207Google Scholar: ‘Even if the pericope had a positive meaning, in Mt this traditional Heilsruf is now associated with an unconditional recognition of judgement.’

[43] Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968) 115.Google Scholar

[44] See de Jonge, M. in ANRW 2, 20Google Scholar (n. 11) with reference to the work of Baltzer, K., Das Bundes-formular (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen, 1960).Google Scholar See esp. Deut 4. 25–31; 28. 45–68 and 30. 1–10.

[45] Steck, O. H., Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen, 1967).Google Scholar See also Skarsaune, O. (n. 5) 263–9.Google Scholar

[46] In his stimulating article, ‘The Christian additions to the Apocryphal Writings’ in ed. Sanders, E. P. et al. , Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 2 (London: SCM, 1981) 27–55Google Scholar, J. Charlesworth also suggests that the polemical passages in the Christian ‘interpolations’ in the Testaments ‘help us to understand the scribe's (and probably his community's) search for self-definition’. (40)

[47] See especially Richardson, G. P., Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: CUP, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[48] For details see de Jonge, M. in ANRW 2, 20 (n. 11).Google Scholar

[49] See Jervell, J. (n. 12) 46 n. 58.Google Scholar

[50] Stanton, G. N. (n. 18) 277–8.Google Scholar

[51] E. F. Osborn makes the interesting suggestion (but without detailed discussion) that Justin's work ‘may be best understood as the continuation of the apologetic of the first evangelist’. Justin Martyr (Tübingen: Mohr, 1973) 109.Google Scholar

[52] In the discussions which followed this paper at the 1984 Basel SNTS meeting and also at a Senior Seminar at the University of Sheffield in February 1985, it was suggested that Rom 11 offers another example of the S-E-R pattern. While there are some broad similarities, it seems to me that Paul's argument is moving along rather different lines.

[53] For the opposite view, see, for example, Senior, D. P. (n. 41) 208.Google Scholar See also Stanton, G. N. (n. 18) 275.Google Scholar