Center for Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions(CISMOR)Doshisha University

> Past Research Activities > Presentation 1: “『使徒教父文書』に見るユダヤ教からの教会分離：プロレゴメナ”／ Presentation 2: “福音書のユダヤ人―歴史か物語か”

Past Research Activities

Presentation 1: “『使徒教父文書』に見るユダヤ教からの教会分離：プロレゴメナ”／ Presentation 2: “福音書のユダヤ人―歴史か物語か”

Summary：
Date：	2011/10/30 9：00－12：00
Place：	Conference Room, Shisei-kan, Imadegawa Campus, Doshisha University
Speaker：	Presentation 1:　Atsuhiro Asano, Professor, The Graduate School of Theology Kwansei Gakuin University Presentation 1:　Atsuhiro Asano, Professor, The Graduate School of Theology Kwansei Gakuin University
Commentator：	Presentation 1　Moriyoshi Murayama, Associate Professor, School of Theology, Doshisha University Presentation 2:　Ritsu Ishikawa, Professor, School of Theology, Doshisha University
n the morning session, Prof. Asano and Mr. Maekawa both gave presentations. In Prof. Asano’s presentation, a broad overview of the process of the separation of Judaism from the Christian Church was given, focusing on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of St. Ignatius, selected from among the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers in light of religious and cultural assimilation and dissimilation. Based on past research achievements, Prof. Asano has reached the conclusion that the negative descriptions about the Law of Paul and Judaism in these Epistles represent the attempt of a small Christian community to build a positive identity to ensure its own survival. Along with the change in the social position of the religious community as it pursued such an attempt, the role of the community’s identity shifted from “ensuring survival” to “exercising political rule.” In this presentation, Prof. Asano discussed his view focusing on the process of the separation of the Christian Church from Judaism. The Christian community behind the Epistle of Barnabas is considered to have felt the need to maintain some distance from the Jewish community, which was associated with social instability in the Gentile World, as well as to draw a clear line between them. Through the spiritual interpretation characteristic of Christology, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas redefined the meanings of the Hebrew Bible, the covenant, and the temples, and offered the Christian community an identity that was distinguishable from the identity of Judaism, which was condemned for taking an incorrect approach to God. On the other hand, the Epistles of St. Ignatius can be interpreted to aim, in part, to protect the Christian Church from observers of the Law and Docetists. St. Ignatius feared that Jewish Christians and the Gentiles observing the Law might prevent the unity of the Christian community, and he had to make a distinction between the Christian identity and the Jewish identity. To establish the identity of the Christian community, St. Ignatius attached greater importance to the record of Jesus Christ as an“old document” than the Hebrew Bible, and, in doing so, denied the Jewish interpretation of the Gospels, while justifying the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. These Epistles have a commonality in that they both discuss the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. As Christianity is deeply rooted in Judaism, the identity of the newly emerging religious community was affected by the way in which this Jewish sacred book was treated. The Epistle of Barnabas taught the invalidity of the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in light of the destruction of the Temples, and, rather, legitimized Christological, allegorical interpretation. It also emphasized the necessity to prioritize the interpretation by the Church as the “Voice of the Lord.” The Epistles of St. Ignatius, on the other hand, stressed the legitimacy of the typological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, on the grounds that the “old document (Hebrew Bible)” was designed for the Gospel. After discussing the process of the separation of Christianity from Judaism based on these Epistles, Prof. Asano concluded his presentation by indicating the necessity to study a wider range of Christian documents, including those written after the 2nd century A.D. Mr. Maekawa focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and discussed whether numerous references to Jews found in these Gospels represent historical facts or are fictional descriptions, using the methodology of literary criticism. The Gospels contain various kinds of descriptions that virtually refer to Jews. Mr. Maekawa conducted a detailed analysis of each of the four Gospels to find out how Jews are described in them and discussed the literary functions played by these descriptions. The term “Jews” is seldom found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which are referred to specifically as “Synoptic Gospels,” while the terms “scribes,” “chief priests,” and “the Pharisees” are seen in many parts of these Gospels. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, the term “Jews” is used very frequently, while other terms that refer to Jews are hardly seen. This fact indicates that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels thought that the term “scribes” was understandable by readers, while the author of the Gospel of John opted to use the term “Jews” to refer to “scribes.” Those who debated with Jesus were mainly Roman leaders, who, according to the Gospels, confronted Jesus in a manner different from the masses. When describing the Roman leaders, the authors of the Gospels had the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus in mind. Probably, they inserted the descriptions of the Roman leaders in the respective texts to suit their purposes of writing, rather than to be faithful to the oral traditions regarding them. “Chief priests,” who are among the Roman leaders, are given an important role in the Passion Narrative of each of the Gospels. From this fact, it can be presumed that there existed a fairly established tradition about the Passion Narrative in the days when the Gospels were written. People referred to as “the masses” and the “crowd” appear in all of the four Gospels. At first, they all marvel at and admire Jesus and become his followers, but in the Passion Narrative, they demand that Jesus be crucified, agitated by the Roman leaders. It is difficult to discuss these people in historical terms, as we may reasonably say that the descriptions about them can largely reflect the intention of the authors of the Gospels. These people are depicted as having faith in Jesus and following him at first without regard to the will of the Roman leaders. The Gospels repeatedly mention how Jesus was supported by people, which may provide readers with the basis of their appraisal of Jesus. In the Passion Narrative, however, they completely change their attitude and begin denouncing Jesus. According to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, chief priests persuaded and urged the people to accuse Jesus. This is not the case for the Gospels of Luke and John, which say that people demanded the crucifixion of Jesus based on their own will. Such discrepancy in the descriptions can be reasonably attributed to the difference of views among the authors of the Gospels. The analysis of the descriptions about “Jews” in the four Gospels using the methodology of literary criticism has revealed that the descriptions vary among these Gospels and that they are largely fictional, reflecting the individual intentions of the authors. Of course, it cannot be denied that some historical facts are behind the incidents written in the Gospels, which are considered to have been based on traditions. Yet, we have to be fully cautious in our attempt to explore historical backgrounds directly from the texts of the Gospels that we have today. In conclusion, Mr. Maekawa remarked that, while the image of “Jews” depicted in the Gospels reflects historical reality in part, much of it should be understood to be fictional.n the morning session, Prof. Asano and Mr. Maekawa both gave presentations. In Prof. Asano’s presentation, a broad overview of the process of the separation of Judaism from the Christian Church was given, focusing on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of St. Ignatius, selected from among the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers in light of religious and cultural assimilation and dissimilation. Based on past research achievements, Prof. Asano has reached the conclusion that the negative descriptions about the Law of Paul and Judaism in these Epistles represent the attempt of a small Christian community to build a positive identity to ensure its own survival. Along with the change in the social position of the religious community as it pursued such an attempt, the role of the community’s identity shifted from “ensuring survival” to “exercising political rule.” In this presentation, Prof. Asano discussed his view focusing on the process of the separation of the Christian Church from Judaism. The Christian community behind the Epistle of Barnabas is considered to have felt the need to maintain some distance from the Jewish community, which was associated with social instability in the Gentile World, as well as to draw a clear line between them. Through the spiritual interpretation characteristic of Christology, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas redefined the meanings of the Hebrew Bible, the covenant, and the temples, and offered the Christian community an identity that was distinguishable from the identity of Judaism, which was condemned for taking an incorrect approach to God. On the other hand, the Epistles of St. Ignatius can be interpreted to aim, in part, to protect the Christian Church from observers of the Law and Docetists. St. Ignatius feared that Jewish Christians and the Gentiles observing the Law might prevent the unity of the Christian community, and he had to make a distinction between the Christian identity and the Jewish identity. To establish the identity of the Christian community, St. Ignatius attached greater importance to the record of Jesus Christ as an“old document” than the Hebrew Bible, and, in doing so, denied the Jewish interpretation of the Gospels, while justifying the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. These Epistles have a commonality in that they both discuss the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. As Christianity is deeply rooted in Judaism, the identity of the newly emerging religious community was affected by the way in which this Jewish sacred book was treated. The Epistle of Barnabas taught the invalidity of the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in light of the destruction of the Temples, and, rather, legitimized Christological, allegorical interpretation. It also emphasized the necessity to prioritize the interpretation by the Church as the “Voice of the Lord.” The Epistles of St. Ignatius, on the other hand, stressed the legitimacy of the typological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, on the grounds that the “old document (Hebrew Bible)” was designed for the Gospel. After discussing the process of the separation of Christianity from Judaism based on these Epistles, Prof. Asano concluded his presentation by indicating the necessity to study a wider range of Christian documents, including those written after the 2nd century A.D. Mr. Maekawa focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and discussed whether numerous references to Jews found in these Gospels represent historical facts or are fictional descriptions, using the methodology of literary criticism. The Gospels contain various kinds of descriptions that virtually refer to Jews. Mr. Maekawa conducted a detailed analysis of each of the four Gospels to find out how Jews are described in them and discussed the literary functions played by these descriptions. The term “Jews” is seldom found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which are referred to specifically as “Synoptic Gospels,” while the terms “scribes,” “chief priests,” and “the Pharisees” are seen in many parts of these Gospels. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, the term “Jews” is used very frequently, while other terms that refer to Jews are hardly seen. This fact indicates that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels thought that the term “scribes” was understandable by readers, while the author of the Gospel of John opted to use the term “Jews” to refer to “scribes.” Those who debated with Jesus were mainly Roman leaders, who, according to the Gospels, confronted Jesus in a manner different from the masses. When describing the Roman leaders, the authors of the Gospels had the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus in mind. Probably, they inserted the descriptions of the Roman leaders in the respective texts to suit their purposes of writing, rather than to be faithful to the oral traditions regarding them. “Chief priests,” who are among the Roman leaders, are given an important role in the Passion Narrative of each of the Gospels. From this fact, it can be presumed that there existed a fairly established tradition about the Passion Narrative in the days when the Gospels were written. People referred to as “the masses” and the “crowd” appear in all of the four Gospels. At first, they all marvel at and admire Jesus and become his followers, but in the Passion Narrative, they demand that Jesus be crucified, agitated by the Roman leaders. It is difficult to discuss these people in historical terms, as we may reasonably say that the descriptions about them can largely reflect the intention of the authors of the Gospels. These people are depicted as having faith in Jesus and following him at first without regard to the will of the Roman leaders. The Gospels repeatedly mention how Jesus was supported by people, which may provide readers with the basis of their appraisal of Jesus. In the Passion Narrative, however, they completely change their attitude and begin denouncing Jesus. According to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, chief priests persuaded and urged the people to accuse Jesus. This is not the case for the Gospels of Luke and John, which say that people demanded the crucifixion of Jesus based on their own will. Such discrepancy in the descriptions can be reasonably attributed to the difference of views among the authors of the Gospels. The analysis of the descriptions about “Jews” in the four Gospels using the methodology of literary criticism has revealed that the descriptions vary among these Gospels and that they are largely fictional, reflecting the individual intentions of the authors. Of course, it cannot be denied that some historical facts are behind the incidents written in the Gospels, which are considered to have been based on traditions. Yet, we have to be fully cautious in our attempt to explore historical backgrounds directly from the texts of the Gospels that we have today. In conclusion, Mr. Maekawa remarked that, while the image of “Jews” depicted in the Gospels reflects historical reality in part, much of it should be understood to be fictional.n the morning session, Prof. Asano and Mr. Maekawa both gave presentations. In Prof. Asano’s presentation, a broad overview of the process of the separation of Judaism from the Christian Church was given, focusing on the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of St. Ignatius, selected from among the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers in light of religious and cultural assimilation and dissimilation. Based on past research achievements, Prof. Asano has reached the conclusion that the negative descriptions about the Law of Paul and Judaism in these Epistles represent the attempt of a small Christian community to build a positive identity to ensure its own survival. Along with the change in the social position of the religious community as it pursued such an attempt, the role of the community’s identity shifted from “ensuring survival” to “exercising political rule.” In this presentation, Prof. Asano discussed his view focusing on the process of the separation of the Christian Church from Judaism. The Christian community behind the Epistle of Barnabas is considered to have felt the need to maintain some distance from the Jewish community, which was associated with social instability in the Gentile World, as well as to draw a clear line between them. Through the spiritual interpretation characteristic of Christology, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas redefined the meanings of the Hebrew Bible, the covenant, and the temples, and offered the Christian community an identity that was distinguishable from the identity of Judaism, which was condemned for taking an incorrect approach to God. On the other hand, the Epistles of St. Ignatius can be interpreted to aim, in part, to protect the Christian Church from observers of the Law and Docetists. St. Ignatius feared that Jewish Christians and the Gentiles observing the Law might prevent the unity of the Christian community, and he had to make a distinction between the Christian identity and the Jewish identity. To establish the identity of the Christian community, St. Ignatius attached greater importance to the record of Jesus Christ as an“old document” than the Hebrew Bible, and, in doing so, denied the Jewish interpretation of the Gospels, while justifying the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. These Epistles have a commonality in that they both discuss the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. As Christianity is deeply rooted in Judaism, the identity of the newly emerging religious community was affected by the way in which this Jewish sacred book was treated. The Epistle of Barnabas taught the invalidity of the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in light of the destruction of the Temples, and, rather, legitimized Christological, allegorical interpretation. It also emphasized the necessity to prioritize the interpretation by the Church as the “Voice of the Lord.” The Epistles of St. Ignatius, on the other hand, stressed the legitimacy of the typological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, on the grounds that the “old document (Hebrew Bible)” was designed for the Gospel. After discussing the process of the separation of Christianity from Judaism based on these Epistles, Prof. Asano concluded his presentation by indicating the necessity to study a wider range of Christian documents, including those written after the 2nd century A.D. Mr. Maekawa focused on the four Gospels of the New Testament and discussed whether numerous references to Jews found in these Gospels represent historical facts or are fictional descriptions, using the methodology of literary criticism. The Gospels contain various kinds of descriptions that virtually refer to Jews. Mr. Maekawa conducted a detailed analysis of each of the four Gospels to find out how Jews are described in them and discussed the literary functions played by these descriptions. The term “Jews” is seldom found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which are referred to specifically as “Synoptic Gospels,” while the terms “scribes,” “chief priests,” and “the Pharisees” are seen in many parts of these Gospels. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, the term “Jews” is used very frequently, while other terms that refer to Jews are hardly seen. This fact indicates that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels thought that the term “scribes” was understandable by readers, while the author of the Gospel of John opted to use the term “Jews” to refer to “scribes.” Those who debated with Jesus were mainly Roman leaders, who, according to the Gospels, confronted Jesus in a manner different from the masses. When describing the Roman leaders, the authors of the Gospels had the fact of the crucifixion of Jesus in mind. Probably, they inserted the descriptions of the Roman leaders in the respective texts to suit their purposes of writing, rather than to be faithful to the oral traditions regarding them. “Chief priests,” who are among the Roman leaders, are given an important role in the Passion Narrative of each of the Gospels. From this fact, it can be presumed that there existed a fairly established tradition about the Passion Narrative in the days when the Gospels were written. People referred to as “the masses” and the “crowd” appear in all of the four Gospels. At first, they all marvel at and admire Jesus and become his followers, but in the Passion Narrative, they demand that Jesus be crucified, agitated by the Roman leaders. It is difficult to discuss these people in historical terms, as we may reasonably say that the descriptions about them can largely reflect the intention of the authors of the Gospels. These people are depicted as having faith in Jesus and following him at first without regard to the will of the Roman leaders. The Gospels repeatedly mention how Jesus was supported by people, which may provide readers with the basis of their appraisal of Jesus. In the Passion Narrative, however, they completely change their attitude and begin denouncing Jesus. According to the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, chief priests persuaded and urged the people to accuse Jesus. This is not the case for the Gospels of Luke and John, which say that people demanded the crucifixion of Jesus based on their own will. Such discrepancy in the descriptions can be reasonably attributed to the difference of views among the authors of the Gospels. The analysis of the descriptions about “Jews” in the four Gospels using the methodology of literary criticism has revealed that the descriptions vary among these Gospels and that they are largely fictional, reflecting the individual intentions of the authors. Of course, it cannot be denied that some historical facts are behind the incidents written in the Gospels, which are considered to have been based on traditions. Yet, we have to be fully cautious in our attempt to explore historical backgrounds directly from the texts of the Gospels that we have today. In conclusion, Mr. Maekawa remarked that, while the image of “Jews” depicted in the Gospels reflects historical reality in part, much of it should be understood to be fictional. Souki Yamashita (Research Assistant, Graduate Student of School of Theology, Doshisha University)