Anti-Christian Polemic in Leviticus Rabbah Author(s): Burton L.

Visotzky Reviewed work(s): Source: Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 56 (1990), pp. 83-100 Published by: American Academy for Jewish Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622644 . Accessed: 21/10/2012 11:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Academy for Jewish Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

http://www.jstor.org

ANTI-CHRISTIAN

POLEMIC

IN LEVITICUS

RABBAH

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

By the timeLeviticusRabbah (LR) reachedits finalliterary the redaction,' Land of Israelin whichit was composedhad
The text: Midrash ed. Rabbah, M. Margulies (Jerusalem, Wayyikra 1972). A variety studies it of have been done on LR, generally dating to the fifth M. sixth centuries. Basic bibliography: Margulies, "Introduction, op. through Jubilee Rabbah,"Louis Ginzberg cit.,H. Albeck,"Midrash Volume, Vayikra eds. S. Lieberman, al. (New York,1946) Hebrew et volume25-43,J.Heine"Profile a Midrash," of Journal the 39 mann, of American of Academy Religion "Leviticus Judaica Rabbah," (1971) 141-50,idem, Encyclopaedia (Jerusalem, Judaism Scripture and 1972) 11: 147-50,J.Neusner, (Chicago,1986).On the of "Toward NewAgendum," a Studies... in literary quality LR seeR. Sarason, of J.Heinemann 55-73, N. Cohen,"Leviticus Memory (Jerusalem, 1981) RabbahPar. 3," Jewish Review (1981) 18-31,idem,"Structure 72 Quarterly and Editing," Review (1981) 1-20,D. Stern, 6 AJS "Midrash theLanguage and ofExegesis," Midrash Literature, G. Hartman S. Budick in and eds. and (New Haven,1986) 105-24. I am much with suggestion mystudent, taken the of RabbiRobert Kasman, who sees two redactive one stagesin LR's literary history, forthepetihta materials and a second,laterstage,forthe finalredaction withthe gufa On materials. petihta J.Heinemann, see: 22 "Proem," Scripta Hierosolymitana "The Petihtot LR,"Journal Jewish in Studies 33 (1971) 100-22,R. Sarason, of "Die Petichta," Kairos3 (1970) 216-19,A. Shinan, (1982) 557-67,P. Schafer, "On the Petihta," Jerusalem Studiesin Hebrew 1 Literature (1981) 133-43 M. "The to Proem," [Hebrew], Jaffee, Midrashic Approaches Ancient Judaism, ed. W.S. Green (Chico, 1983) 4:95-112, M. Bregman, "CircularProems," Studies... in Memory J.Heinemann 34-51 [Hebrew], Fox, "Circular H. of Research (1982) 49 Proem," Proceedings theAmerican of Academy Jewish for 1-31. On gufa, "On alongwiththeabove,see A. Goldberg, theterm gufain 38 LR," Leshonenu (1974) 163-69[Hebrew]. the of in and and Following assumption tworedactors hints Shinan Goldberg I am tempted see theterm to gufaas meaning like, something 'Now we've finished petihta the material theopening on verse thechapter, us turn of let to midrashim to in shel relating verses thebodyofthelection (gufa parashah).

84

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[2]

become a ChristianHoly Land.2 The rabbis of the many foundthroughout Land of Israel3could no the synagogues in afford ignore to the longer Christianity thehopesthat heresy wouldgo away- they to as had,instead, confront Christianity theImperial The confrontation sucha power with was religion. took the form indirect and often of careful, subtle, polemic. and of of Rabbis,cautious delators fearful bothlegaland mob used and as meansofcombating reprisals,4 homily sermon their in to exclusivity religion theEmpire.5 of Christian pretensions A numberof rabbinictextspreserve eitherfragments of redactions rabbinic of actualsermons more or, securely, literary homilieswhichpolemicizeagainstChristianity. Amongthe in collected MidrashEcclechainsof materials encyclopediac 6 is an entire ifyouwill, the Rabbah under heading siastes entry,

A R. Palestine: Christian Holy Land," Biblical recently, Wilken, "Byzantine 51 Archeologist (1988) 214-17,233-37. 3 Assuming and thesesynagogal leaders there somerelationship is between in literature. the prudent See the sagesof rabbinic warnings S.J.D.Cohen, of Rabbis," "Epigraphical JQR 72 (1981-82) 1-17. For thewidedistribution in of see, e.g., the surveys Palestinian synagogues L.I. Levine, synagogues Judaism Stone in Revealed Ancient 1981),H. Shanks, (Jerusalem, Synagogues Architecture (Chico, (New York, 1979), M. Chiat,Handbookof Synagogue Judaism 35 in "Ancient 1982),idem, Synagogues ErezYisrael,"Conservative in 4-18, and thosewithinscriptions J.Naveh,On Stoneand Mosaic (1981) 1978)[Hebrew]. (Jerusalem, and The Conflict theChurch theSynagogue 4 See J.Parkes, of (New York, Israel(Paris,1964),chapter esp. 264-74. 8, reprint 1969),M. Simon,Verus 5 Thesubtlety these for even of is appreciated now, responses notsufficiently the to socialhistorical homilies and sermons literary require exegesis illuminate and winks nods.See,e.g.,my"Hillel, and variedveiledallusions, Hieronymus Near East Society16-17 (1984-85) Journal theAncient Praetextatus," of 217-24. 6 Ed. M. Hirschman, Ph.D. dissertation, JTSA,1982.The characterization is chainsof materials suggested Rabbahas encyclopediac of Ecclesiastes by of Formats and "The GreekFathers theAggadaon Ecclesiastes: Hirschman, in HUCA 59 (1988) 155. Exegesis LateAntiquity,"

2 On the"Christianization" Palestine theSth-6th in of centuries most see,

[3]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

85

of minut.7 The YerushalmiBerakhot9: 1 collectsanti-Christian materialsbeginning withan extendedanti-Trinitarian polemic8 and endingwitha seriesofpatrontextseach ofwhichincludesa formof death (crucifixion, burningand exposure to drowning, wild animals [in the arena]) associated with Christianmartyrdom. In a more scatteredformthereare anti-Christian polemics dotted throughout Genesis Rabbah and other Palestinian Midrashim.9 edited, literarily redacted,selfTurningto LR, a coherently conscious midrashqua book, one mightpossiblyexpectto find anti-Christianpolemic in some formatof note - either an entirechapterdevoted to the themeor a structural component a givenpetihtaor a sectionofgufain each chapter)devoted (viz. to the topic. There is a motif which compares Israel to the gentiles and there are other scattered texts which might,if be or stretched, construedas relatingto Christianity even as in anti-Christian character.'0 fivesegments Nevertheless,only
7 See in the of mytreatment thissegment "Overturning Lamp,"JJS38 (1987) 72-80,esp. 76-77. 8 J.Ber9: 1 Union Testimonies," (12d- 13a). See my"Trinitarian Seminary 42 Review (1988) 73-85. Thepatron texts merit treatment. Quarterly separate 9 See R. Travers in Herford, Christianity Talmudand Midrash (London, which a remains useful collection. can pointto clusters One of 1903)passim, in texts theBabylonian as but the Talmud, well, itsprovenance itbeyond puts boundaries thisessay.See, H. Strack, of die und Jesus, Haretiker die Christen (Leipzig,1910). 10Israel LR with compared gentiles: 1: 12,1:13, 1: 14(?),5:7, 13:2. LR 1:5 a carries phrase in with parallel Lk 14:7-11, butis morelikely text a a about Hellenistic thanone related Christianity. 6:5 offers angel to LR an etiquette in the of salvation, appearing theguiseof Moses to bring raising possibility on debate aboutdocetism; given large but the of number angelic parody Church in LR appearances worldly guise,the anti-docetistic angleis remote. 23:5 contains geography a Jewish towns their and rival enumerating centers, nearby of are It in of many which Christian. is offered a context coming redemption towns perish fire), carries further than remark will in but no barb the (therival thattheJews "likea lilyamongthorns" are the (Song2:2). LR 13:3 carries news of a new Torah in messianic times- of interest onlyforthe not to and but its permission eatbehemoth leviathan, for useinanti-Jewish polemic

86

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[4]

Eventhese ofLR discernably as polemic. qualify anti-Christian are notwithout problems. methodological I The first thesetexts willdiscussexemplifies methodoof I the in text antidifficultiestreating rabbinic as necessarily a logical Christian."LR 6:6 contends that Be'erah12 prophesied two were inverseswhich,insufficient separatepublication, for of cludedamongtheprophesies Isaiah (8:19-20): Nowshould and that toyou,"Inquire the spirits peoplesay of ghosts familiar and of chirp moan; a peoplemayinquire itsdivine beings for and of the dead on behalfof the living- for instruction "surely, onewho thus there shallbe nodawn. speaks for message, LR comments: R. of Ofthedeadon behalf theliving, Levi said:[Thisis like the case of] one who lost his child and wentto inquire A the abouthimamong graves meansofnecromancy]. [by askedhim,'Your son whomyou wiseacre who was there lost,is he dead or alive?' He said,'Alive.' It The other fool! is thewayofthedead said,'You cosmic the aboutthem that makesinquiry one among living do of thequickhaveneed,then, thedead?' for ThusourGod livesand endures all eternity...while is thegod[s]ofthegentiles [are?]dead. Thus is it written, but but see; speak,eyes, cannot Theyhavemouths, cannot
theyhave ears, but cannot hear ... (Ps. 115:5-6)they
LR Martini. 29:1 offers ofthe one such disputants as Raymundo bymedieval hoursof Adamand Eve, a textwhich rabbinic versions thetwelve of many versions thesame,see L. Ginzberg, of with Christian seemsto be in dialogue is however, notparticularly of Legends theJews5:106, n. 97. LR's version, to LR to dialogue. Finally, 3:2 and 5:3 refer theTen apposite anti-Christian to See Jewish-Christians. my"Prolegomenon the Studyof Tribes, probably in Rabbinic 14 AJS Jewish-Christianities Literature," Review (1989),47-70. 1 Thesepitfalls commonly with are violated, byHerford hisassumption e.g. anti-Christian. be text that minut must considered any to of 12See Margulies' ad name, apparently comments, loconthereading this 5:6. chieftain 1 Chron. of with be identified theReubenite

[5]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

87

One andbowtothe aredead!Shallwe abandontheEternal dead?... R. Shimonb. Laqish said, 'If this[dead god] cannot shedanylight how upon uponhimself, shallhe shedlight others?' R. Abba b. Kahana said, 'Darknessand gloompervade Where willthey thisworld, notchaos and emptiness. but In pervade[theworldin themessianic future]? thegreat of city Rome... One is tempted see anti-Christian to polemichere for a of reasons.Firstthereis the confusion whether the variety "son" is dead or alive - an apt way fora Jewto view the and Secondis thesneering paradoxofcrucifixion resurrection. aboutthevalueoflooking thedead (i.e. a crucified to question for Third, god who could not even help himself) assistance. theremaybe an allusionto the Christian customof congretheir at gatingin cemeteries the gravesof martyrs, seeking fun Resh Laqish seemsto be poking at intercession.'3 Fourth, Jesus'statement Mt. 5:14, "You are thelight theworld," in of andrepeated in that is statements thegospels Jesus, himself, the there AbbabarKahana'shopethat is chaosand Light.'4 Finally, will befall(new?) Rome - capitalcityof Chrisemptiness tianity. This reading particularly is to tempting giventhefifth sixth redaction date of LR. Treating as the document a century redacted wholepushesone to interpret Rome as Christian and as anti-Christian rather thananti-pagan.15 polemics religious Butredactive dateis a necessary notsufficient for but cause the of In above interpretationanti-Christian polemic. theinstance Rome could easilybe pagan,dead gods be pagan gods,the cemeteries In this would pagancemeteries. fact, latter reading
The 13See Peter Brown, CultoftheSaints(Chicago,1981)passim. '4 E.g.John 3:19-20, and esp. 9:5. 1:4-9, 15 These are the assumptions whichinform Neusner'sreadings the J. of in polemicmaterials GenesisRabbah and LeviticusRabbah conveniently in summarized his What Midrash (Philadelphia, is ? 1987)45-67.

88

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[6]

have LR offering reasonably a accurateexegesisof the two neither versesof Isaiah - forsurely Isaiah nor Be'erahwas In of Christianity. fact, need not evenbe thecase it speaking of thatRabbi Levi or Rabbi Abba bar Kahana werespeaking both before Empire the became Christianity; rabbisflourished while longer no flourishca. Christian, 300 C.E. Andpaganism, of as lateas thefirst redaction LR, say ing,persisted probably to fifth C.E.16 latefourth early century for Whenreading between linesofa midrash the looking antimorespecific evidences shouldbe brought Christian polemic, to bear thanredactive date alone. The rabbisoftenmay be to responding a hot issue in the Church.Wherethe rabbis in a perceive weakness Christian dogma,it is theretheywill attack.When the rabbisfindan issue of the Churchto be absurdin theireyes,it is thentheywill engagein patently Whentherabbis ad and reductio absurdum parody argument. will itis then that of the feel weakness a Christian position, they in an attempt drivetheir off to and thrust parry opponents the their audience Thusdo they seekto convince mark. synagogue of and of Christianity (or readership) thefoolishness Imperial of theirsense of the basic rightness rabbinic to reinforce can of Christianity Onlycareful study contemporary religion.17 the of obscure rabbinic illuminate targets otherwise adequately polemic. II of In some cases, the rabbistake up the gauntlet Christian which to of and respond exegeses HebrewScripture argument
of see of Forthepossibility tworedactors above,n. 1. Forthepersistence in Last Century theWestern see Empire of paganism, S. Dill,RomanSociety the H. 19582), Bloch,"The PaganRevivalin theWestat theEnd ofthe (reprint, ed. in in Fourth Century, Century," Paganismand Christianity theFourth on era, detail bibliography the see and A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1963).Formore and (n. mynotesin "Hillel,Hieronymus Praetextatus" 5, above). and 17 I attempt demonstrate tendency "Trinitarian in Testimonies" this to the "Overturning Lamp."
16

[7]

ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

89

attemptto justifyChurchpracticeor dogma. A case in point is LR 25:6, wherethe sages relatea series of textsabout circumcision and priesthood to the meetingbetween Abraham and Melchizedek recountedin Genesis 14. Now the Melchizedek narrative Genesis and mentionof Melchizedekin Psalm 110 of had already been put to use in Christianargumentas early as the Epistle to the Hebrews. There, however, the argument pertained to Christ as high priest who serves to replace the Aaronides and the Law. In the Talmudic/Patristic period both the Hebrew Bible text and the Hebrew verses were offered as proofof the validityof a gentileChristianpriesthoodmeantto replace the Jewish community(which annoyinglypersisted even afterdestruction the priestly of cult) in serviceto God. The rabbis respondquite simply, Melchizedek is not proofof the validityof gentileChristianpriesthood.Au contraire, the Genesis and Psalms mentions of Melchizedek prove that a priesthoodonce vestedamong all thenationsnow residessolely circumcisedoffspring Abraham.'8 of among the properly III There is anotherinstance in LR where the rabbis seem to be to responding Christianpolemic againstthe Jews.Beforeofferexegesis of the passage one must note, however,that the ing sectionof LR in whichthe textis redacted(LR 27:8) is among thosetheMidrash shareswithPesikta deRab Kahana. Since the of it relationship thesetwo textsremainsunclear,19 followsthat
R. Travers Herford in the nature thetext of already recognized polemical in 338-40. He, however, assumes pothe Christianity Talmudand Midrash lemicto be directed either or of to against gnostics thecommunity theEpistle the Hebrews. The patristic side of the argument admirably is detailedin M. Simon, Verus nn. annotation patristic of Israel,110-111, 3-5, 1-4. Simon's and secondary obviates needfor the extended discussion here. bibliography 19The of in is relationship thesemidrashim explored Albeck, 36-39,Mar"The Priority LR over PesiktaDerab Kahana," of guliesxiii, J.Neusner, PAAJR54 (1987) 141-68, J.Heinemann, of "Chapters LR withDubious A. to Sources,"Tarbiz 37 (1968) 339-54 [Hebrew], Goldberg, responding
18

90

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[8]

thepolemicmaynotbe viewedwithabsolutesecurity the as anti-Christian ofLR. In anyevent, certainly it polemic belongs to LR at itsfinal redaction so, merits and here. inspection The nations theworld of derideIsraeland say,'You made the [Golden]Calf.' So God checkedintothe matter and found groundless rather wasthesojourners it ... it (gerim) who came out of Egyptwiththe Jews[who made the Golden Calf],Moreover mixedmultitude a wentup with them(Ex. 12:38). Theymade the Calf and thenderided Thisis your Israelsaying, god,0 Israel(Ex. 32:8). Here the argument seemsto be: thosewould-be Israelites, thoseJohnny-come-latelies, who seek thebenefits reof they without hardships enslavement theyare the of demption idolaters. the Further, theyseek to ensnare Jews:theyentice their hand-made falsegod. and Israelto worship for of The apologetic offered is surprising, thepeshat the here the of the biblicaltextseemstojustify accusation thenations; did Israelites make the Golden Calf. What is at stakehere, blamelaying abouttheCalf, a rather but is however, notsimple the of complex patristic by argument which making theCalfis is the for seento be a crime, punishment which thecommandThis the ments argu(beyond Ten Commandments). ingenious ment at one blow explainsthe Churchto be True Israel while to the only perform Ten Commandments, false obligated for are Israel,those idolaters, disciplined theirsin withsix thirteen commandments. hundred in is ThisChristian presented theDidasfully argument most transcalia Apostolorum (viz.Aramaic) Syriacae (DA), a Syriac in lation of a Greek ecclesiasticaltract (originating a Jewish-Christian witha law-observant presence) community in whichenjoyedwide circulation the Eastern Empirein the
are Threebasicpermutations Tarbiz38 (1969) 184-5 [Hebrew]. Heinemann, from of on found amongscholars therelationship thesetexts:1) LR borrows a source. ownguess from 3) Bothshare common LR, My PRK, 2) PRK borrows 1 between and 3. wavers

[9]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

91

in centuries. it is explained the As late third and earlyfourth 26: DA, Chapter The SecondLegislation imposed themaking the was for of calfand for But idolatry. you[Christians] through baptism and fromthe Second have been set freefromidolatry, which was (imposed)on account idols,you of Legislation, havebeenreleased. Or again,citing first of Ex. 32:8 (thesameversewith the part LR DA which concludes response) argues: its to sacrificed a graven image. Therefore Lordwas angry; in His hotanger... the and He bound themwiththe Second Legislation, and laid heavyburdensupon them,and a hard yokeupon their neck. DA concludes diatribe its Law observance against (presumably in itsowncommunity, thiswas an argument but which equally of the explained error theJews): to who the Everyone strives be under {second}Legislation of becomesguilty calf-worship; theSecondLegislation for was imposed nothing butidolatry.20 for else TrueIsraelwhich theChurch, is runstheargument, only need observe Ten Commandments, the The Law thenconsists the Ten Wordsand the Judgof whichGod spokebefore peoplemade thecalf ments the ButwhenthepeopledeniedGod ... He boundthem with theSecondLegislation.21
DidascaliaApostolorum R.H. Connolly SyriacaeCh. 26, trans. (Oxford, in texts P. de LaGarde, Didascalia(Leipzig,1854) 1929)224,222,232. Syriac and A. transla108ff., morerecently, Voobus,CSCO 1979 (withan English on and of tion).For moreinformation thedate,provenance diffusion DA, see theintroductions these to volumes. 21DA 26, Connolly 218-22.
20

andthey a madethem molten andworshipped itand calf

Himthey deniedand said:We haveno godto gobefore us;

and served idols ... So then the Law is easy and light...

92

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[10]

TheJews themselves untrue of prove calf-worshippersvirtue by their observance all thecommandments. of It is tothisargument theChurch LR responds. from that God finds Jews the blameless theblame, and is instead, putuponthe would-be-Israelites serve falseGod and seekto entice who a the Jews intothesameerror. IV The DA offers occasionfor another of polemic LR. In thesame thatlinksthe sin of the Golden Calf to the Second chapter and need onlyobserve the Legislation positsthatthe Church Ten Commandments, DA expounds, the For whereas spoketheTen Words, signified He He Jesus: but Yod is thebeginning the of forTen represents Yod; Now concerning Law theLordtestifies the nameofJesus. in David sayingthus: The law of the Lord is without souls and blemish, converting (Ps. 18[19]: 8). to is The relationship Jesus theTen Words explained of further, whatis theLaw does notundotheLaw,butteaches [Jesus] For and whatthe SecondLegislation. He said thus:I am but them notcometoundothelaw,northe prophets, tofulfil is but the (Mt. 5:17). The Law therefore indissoluble; Now is and Second Legislation temporary, is dissoluble. to of theLaw consists theTen Wordsand theJudgments shall and One Yodletter borewitness saidthus: which Jesus the notpass awayfrom Law (Mt. 5:18). Now it is theYod which the which may passesnotawayfrom Law,eventhat the be knownfromthe Law itself through Ten Words, is which thenameofJesus.22 Christian is to Hereagain,an ingenious exegesis offered justify the whileignoring of observance onlytheTen Commandments the of remainder the Torah, at the same time explicating in Mt. 5:17-18.23Yod is wordsof Jesus otherwise mysterious
22DA 26, Connolly 216-18. 23 These verseswerecontinually to bothersome non-Law-observant (viz. Christians. forinstance, GreatChurch) explaSee, equallyingenious Origen's of nationof Mt.5:18 to meanthatJesussanctions allegorical interpretation

[11]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

93

but the Ten Commandments, concomitantly gematria yields The the Jesus. latter, itwere, as fulfils former, Yodfor validating to whilepointing thepassing theTen Commandments nature of the othercommandments. Thus a New Testament (kaine is diatheke) mayreplacetheOld, whileYod,which bothJesus and theTen Commandments, persists. LR willhave noneof thisargument. UsingSolomonas the the son-of-David, Midrashlaces into the exegetic archtypal offered theDA tojustify antinomian the tendenmentality by in other ciesofitscommunity thenameofthat son-of-David.24 R. Alexandri Agri R. Alexandri b. and Keroba25 said,'Ifall thenations26 theworld of to the of gathered whiten wing a crowthey couldnotdo so. So too,ifall thenations the of worldgathered uprootone wordfrom Torah they to the couldnotdo so.' Fromwhom youlearn do this? FromKing Solomon whotried uproot wordfrom Torahand a to a the him.Whoprosecuted aroseagainst him? YeR. prosecutor hudaben Levi said,'The Yodofyarbeh (Dt. 17:17) prosecutedhim.' R. Shimon Yohai recited: bookofDeuteronomy ben The aroseand bowedbefore Holy, the (lit.SecondLegislation) be of Solomon praised He, and said: Master theUniverse, woulduproot and so render fraudulent plaster) me me (Gk. - foranytestament from which eventwo (Gk. diatheke)
PhilocaliaII 3-4, Comm.in 1 Ps. translated discussed my in and Scripture, "Jotsand Tittles:On Scriptural in Interpretation Rabbinicand Patristic 8 Literatures," Prooftexts(1988) 265 and n. 44, p. 269. 24 See Mt. 1:1 andthe comments Raymond Brown, of E. Birth the of Messiah is characterized David's son in as (GardenCity,1979) 57-95. Jesus regularly see, e.g. Ephraem Syriacsources, Syrus, Hymnson theNativity, HymnIV, "David'ssonandMary's and Nicene Post-Nicene SecondSeries, Lord," Fathers, vol. 13 (NewYork,1905)236. Thistext discussed moredetailbelow. is in 25 Kerobais a title probably functional fora liturgical poet,see Margulies' notes loc,LR 19:2 (pp. 419ff.). Midrash parallels SongofSongs ad in The has Rabbah5:11 (which borrowed is from noteto LR 19:1, LR, see Margulies' seemsto be an expanded and glossed p. 412) and in J.San 2:6 (20c) (which of version ourLR text). later are ad Other, parallels notedin Margulies, loc. 26 the in and the 13thcentury Paris Ms. Following readings theed. princ. 149.Parallelism favors reading. also the

94

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[12]

orthree items havebeennullified entirely - behold is null Solomon trying uproot Yodfrom is to the me... The Holy, praisedbe He said: Go on withyou! Solomon and a hundred himwillbe nulland void [noteven]a Yodof like will yours everbe nullified. LR argues, theson-of-David all whopretend be like let and to himtry notone letter thelaw is dissolof might, though they as uble.The gentiles try uproot manyYodsas they can to wish - buttheTestament is are they proposing nulland void forit has dissolvedtoo manycommandments. God reassures the don'tmindthem, are nulland void,yourTorahis Jews: they hereforkeepsand willnotbe replaced.
V

Not all polemic is over the issue of VerusIsrael or even for of purposes. competing exegeses Scripture varying dogmatic There were occasions when the dogmaticexegesisoffered absurdto thesagesthatrather thandebate seemedso patently Thiswas particularly Church doctrine. wickedly parodied they the universal so when rabbis knew that doctrine notfind the did to assent in the Church.What could be more delightful a thanto find wedge drivebetween otherwise the a to polemicist of closedranks theopposition? of sin. One suchissuewas the Church doctrine original As founda homein this earlyas themid-third century doctrine in for Africa. Christianity, Though, instance, particularly North will free against likesofthe the the of Tertullian defends notion takesaccountoftheinvolvehe heretic Marcion, nevertheless was in This ment all mankind thesinofAdam.27 involvement of
I C. Marc.1:22, de carn. Chr.,16. Here and forCyprian, dependon Doctrines J.N.D.Kelly,Early Christian (New York, 19602) 175-77. For a of also takesaccount overview which (though ahistoric) therabbinic general R. The see on of Doctrines teachings thesubject, Fredrick Tennant, Sources the Sin of theFall and Original (New York, 1903,rpnt.1968). More recently, SamuelS. Cohon, a Sin,"HUCA 21 (1948) format, "Original followingsimilar 275-330.
27

[13]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

95

articulated successor,Cyprian,who clearlyby Tertullian's writes thatthe Saviourcame to heal thewoundsreceived by Adam. Baptism,he argues,"cleanses us fromthe stain of offers thatoriginal is sin primeval proof contagion."28 Cyprian on from Adamto successive interpassed generations through when cites he course from testimony Psalm50:5 (LXX): Behold I wasconceived iniquity, insindidmymother me.29 in and bear Given the rabbinicpropensity proclaiming for humanreand of to sponsibility freedom will,it is all themoresurprising LR unconsciously find of sin echoing proof original Cyprian's whenit declares, I Behold wasconceived iniquity, insindidmymother in and bearme (Ps. 51:7). R. Aha said,Iniquity written is plene. letter teaches eventhemostpiousis not vav [Theextra us] without somesin.30 This apparent rabbinic intothe thickets original of sin foray mustbe seenin thebroader context Christian of doctrine and resultant anti-Christian polemic.By thefifth century original sin had finally willin doctrinal free discussion. This replaced was fueled thePelagian inwhich British the free by controversy willadvocatefoundhis viewson Adam and Eve attacked by none less than Augustine and Jerome.31 Since Pelagiushad visited Palestine and Jerome livedthere, sincethebishop and ofHippo'sletters writings widely and were in circulated Palesthat even Jewshad heard of the tine, it may be surmised
De 23. Cyprian, op. eteleem.1,De hab.virg. Test.3:54. Fordating document themid-third this to see century, J.Quasten, (Westminster, reprint Md., Patrology 1986)2:363. 30 LR 14:5. The lastwordoftheLR quote,"sin,"is found theed. princ. in text "notwithout some."Ms. Munich reads, (andthe'Aruch) Margulies' simply read:"someabomination," while Oxford the Mss. read,"lust." 31 Ad et contra PelaAugustine, Ad marcellinum, Timasium Jacobum e.g. De et contra et gium, gratiaChristi de peccato originali Pelagium Coelestium, etc.Jerome, See Dialogusadversus Adam,Eve Pelaginos. now,ElainePagels, and theSerpent (NewYork,1988).
29 28

96

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[14]

controversyregardingfree will and original sin.32This only serves to make LR's declaration seem more disturbing;one would expect a midrashto supportthe Pelagian stand forfree will and oppose the doctrinalproofsfororiginalsin. The solution to this apparent conundrummay be found in another aspect of Christian doctrine,beginningin the Syriac and Greek East as earlyas the fourth and reachingfull century flower thesixthcentury Mariology.Marywas increasingly by veneratedin theEasternChurch,as intercessor, and protectress as Mother-of-God.33 This last idea, Mary as Mother-of-God, Theotokos,must have been seized upon in equal measure by Jewsand Christians.The Christiansfoundit a solace, a source of hope, a miracle; while the Jews found it an absurdity,a a theologicalimpossibility, source of parody. The Church elevated Mary and particularlyexpanded the New Testament accounts of her virginity. Not only was Jesus conceived while Mary was yeta virgin, but it became a point of (debated) doctrine that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.34 Proklos, bishop of Constantinople,writingin the early fifth had complains that "some persons,Jewsin particular, century questioned the virgin birth and the perpetual virginityof 35 Mary." Ephraem Syrusalso complains,"For mypure conception of thee wicked men have slandered me."36 Ephraem is of aware of the potentialabsurdity his Mariology,forhe writes,
occasion consider to in tendencies PelagianI hopeon another Judaizing ism. 33 in "TheTheotokos Sixth-Century See,e.g.,A. Cameron, Constantinople," 29 Studies (1978) 79-108.Forthefullest treatment and Journal Theological of A see C. ofMariology, M. O'Carroll, S. Sp., Theotokos: Theologibibliography cal Encyclopedia theBlessedVirgin Mary(Wilmington, 1983). of 34 See Theotokos... s.v. of 356-62. Encyclopedia, Virginity Mary, 35Procl. Or. II de Incarn.PG 65:696, cf. Or. IV PG 65:713, quoted in Christmas T.E. Gregory, "The Remarkable Homilyof KyrosPanopolites," GRBS 16 (1975) 322. 36 IV on Fathers, Ephraem, Hymns theNativity (Niceneand Post-Nicene 236).
32

[15]

POLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH ANTI-CHRISTIAN

97

David's daughter, bearing at "whowouldnotmarvel, Mary, 37 and an infant hervirginity kept." of conception Mary Ephraem mayhave had an evenhigher "The young thatcarried He thanperpetual girl virgin. writes, ... Him prophesied spot saying I am without forthee."Again, are of he writes Jesus, "Certainly alone and yourMother you is for from beautiful, there no blemish aspectcompletely every in 38 Mother." WhatEphraem inthee, Lord, no stain thy and my is at be perpetual virginity, mayalready hinting here notsimply If immaculate ofMariology, a different but conception. aspect how could she bear God while Marywas to be Theotokos, sin? the hand,iforiginal carring stainoforiginal On theother how to all mankind, sinis to be transmitted through generation free thestain? of couldMarybe was Thatthere no doubt be that purestatus tiedtothe Mary's addresses sin of doctrine original is madeclearwhen Augustine the suffers saysAugustine, sin, "except holy Everyone Pelagius. for Mary,aboutwhom, thehonorof theLord,I want Virgin In when is mentioned."39 Maryrests sin there be no question to has sin theparadoxoforiginal - everyone it butforshewho was bornimmaculate. Mother-of-God, properpetual virgin, and intercessor, tectress Marywas the focusof speculation, the debate and prayer throughout EasternEmpirefromthe fourth sixth centuries. through we to on One lastcomment Marybefore turn see whatall of of the thishas to do with anti-Christian polemic LR. As stated without and to sin, above,Marywasperceived be immaculate, in as a concomitant Christian perpetually virginal. theology, of amount speculation just how on This gave riseto a certain the Jesusthrough Holy Spirit the miracleof her begetting I from sermon the a of occurred. citebutone example, actually
37
38

VI in Ibid,Hymn (239),Nisbene Hymn CSCO 218:61, 219:76. is a which debated; Theotokos...Encyclope39 Thisremains statement see, dia, s.v.Immaculate 180, Conception, n. 4.

Ibid, Hymn XIV (251).

98

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[16]

early fifth centurybishop of Constantinople, Proklos, mentioned above. He refers Mary as "the onlybridgeformen to to God ... the workshopof the union of natures." As far as her conception, "the Word entered in through obedience (lit. through hearing) and took upon himself humanity." More both pre-and poston explicitly commenting Mary's virginity partum,Proklos writes, As God he did not cleave the portal of virginity, went but out from his mother just as he had come in through hearing.Thus he was born as he was conceived.40 notionof Mary's conceptionofJesusin Given Proklos' extreme it of her virginity, is no wonder he complained, "that defense some persons ... had questioned ... the perpetualvirginity of Mary."41 For the rabbis all thisbrouhaha was just too much. Original sin was offense and theology, but enoughto theiranthropology notions like the immaculate conception,virginbirth,and impregnationthroughthe Holy Spirit (in various body parts!) to beggedfortheirresponse.They answeredin an attempt argue reductio absurdum.In orderto attacka Mariologywhichhad ad even withintheChurchengendered debate,therabbis,forbut a briefrhetorical moment,took up the banner of universalsin. and in sin did mymother BeholdI was conceivedin iniauity, bear me (Ps. 51:7). R. Aha said, Iniquityis written plene [the extralettervav teaches us] even the most pious is not withoutsome sin. For so42David said to the Holy, praised Jesse's intenby He, 'Master of all worlds,it wasn't father
I Oecumenicorum 1 pt. 1 ed. Acta Conciliorum Proklos, E. Schwartz, (Berlin, Leipzig,1927) 103-107,and in PG 65:679-92. The quoteshereapud couldbe translated T.E. Gregory, cit.The ambiguous op. "through hearing" literal more or the obedience" "through ear."The latter, translation, "through in as on. favor Mariancircles timewent gained 41Quotedin full above,n. 35. 42 Mss. See above,n. 30, and the of Following readings theOxford Munich on See information. also n. 27, aboveformorebibliography formoretextual sin. toward attitudes therabbis' original
40

[17]

ANTI-CHRISTIANPOLEMIC IN LEVITICUS RABBAH

99

in tionto haveme,he was onlyinterested hisown[sexual] werehaving sex needs.Knowthatthisis so forwhenthey in turned theopposite one turned waywhiletheother one It direction achieving coitus interruptus].wasYou who [so semenand inseminated inserted each and every drop[of This is [themeaning whatDavid said, of] mymother].' abandonme,theLord will and mother Though father my me gather in (Ps. 27:10). in stand both As wesawabove,David andtheDavidicfamily literature the would-be-Davidide, for rabbinic and Christian Christ. Here,LR 14:5 putsthe anti-Mary parodyintoJesus' Firstit is established no one is immaculate, that own mouth. with (evenMary)is besmirched sin.Thenwe aretold everyone - presumably and thattheDavidic mother father and Joseph and coitusinterruptus pleasure performed Mary- had sexfor to avoid conception. or considered this Whether nottherabbis And as faras the a sin thepointis clear,Marywas no virgin. the Holy Spiritwas concerned, onlyrole playedin begetting was thatof artificial Jesus inseminator, carefully up gathering one from sideofthebed and delivering safely it father's sperm to mother theother at on side. No worse, least,a conception thanProklos' notion.43 This vulgar of parodyat once savagesmanyelements doctrinaldebate in the Churchin the fifth sixthcenturies. and
43 I the nature thistranslation interpretation. of and acknowledge tenuous Sometexts ed. read"After hadsex," which a (Ms. Oxford, princ.) they presumes lessefficient ofcontraception. eventhisreading Yet form demands that Jesse andhiswife were sex pleasure rather for than procreation. could One having for understand Midrash a reaction therabbinic this as to thatJesse was opinion without see B. Shab55b = B. BB 17a (andcf.Targ.Isa. 14:29). One must sin, alsonote that rabbis the haveotherwise birth their Jesus' with stock of parodied see Panderalegends, Eccles.Rabba 1: 1:8 (ed. Hirschman 6 above]com[n. to on mentary chapter1, line 413, witha fullbibliography the name and of of However, legends). onlythefull background thedevelopment Mariology and thedoctrines original offered thisreconstruction a context in of sin afford for the as necessarily viewing LR text an anti-Christian polemic. thanks Ms. SusanLazev for to on research assistance thisessay. My

100

BURTON L. VISOTZKY

[18]

birth begetting and sin, Original immaculate conception, virgin theHoly Spirit ribaldly are reduced thecrudest to by possible plot.Thereis no roomfortheology here, onlyscorn. VI A variety anti-Christian of scattered LR polemics through has been explicated:1)the futility whatChristians of would call of of theology thecross(LR 6:6); 2) thebaselessness thegentile claimto priesthood 25:6); 3) the falseaccusations about (LR around the Golden Calf and the conseidolatry centering for quences of thesecharges the bindingpowerof the Law the concomitant of (LR 27:8); 4) futility anyone- even a Davidide - to obviatetheLaw or turn Torahintoan Old the Testament of (diatheke) (LR 19:2), and 5) theabsurdity Marias within doctrinal the context original of sin ology itdeveloped (LR 14:5). Each ofthesepolemics a of betrays sophisticated knowledge the currents Christian of and doctrinal debate in theology Palestine thefifth sixth of and centuries. was Christianity nota merestrawman forthe rabbinic it apologist-darshan; was a met rhetoric aimedat the contemporary challenge bypowerful weakestpointsof nascentChristian doctrine. The futility of in wasexposed thetypically Imperial Christianity unsystematic fashionof the sages; onlywhenoccasion demandeddid the midrashist On the of however, redactor LR respond. thewhole, feltmoreconstrained geton withtheworkof his positive to of Judaism thecoming for centuries. program imagining In conclusion mustbe emphasized it thatthepositive protookthevastmajority theredactor's of interest. Relativegram identifiable anti-Christian polemic can be ly littlesecurely in found LR. For ourdarshan, Jews Judaism and continued to in hold centerstagein the unfolding history the Land of of Israel.