Marcel Simon's Verus Israel as a

Contnbution to Jewish History*

Albert I. Baumgarten
Bar Han University

Marcel Simon (1907-1986) wrote many articles and published a number of books
during a long, active career as a scholar.l Yet he remains most prominently associ-
ated with the first of his books, Verus Israel, initially submitted as a dissertation.
Published in 1948, Verus Israel was revised with the addition of a lengthy post-
script in the original French in 1964,2 and translated into English in 1986.3 Based
on research virtually complete before the war, this book is an outstanding example

*This paper was initially written as a contribution to a collaborative project on "Judaism

in the Period of the Mishnah and Talmud" under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced
Studies, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. I would like to thank my colleagues in the project
and the staff of the Institute for the opportunity to work in so pleasant an environment.
This paper should be read in conjunction with Guy G. Stroumsa, "From Anti-Judaism to
Antisemitism in Early Christianity?" in Ora Limor and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Contra Judaeos:
Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews (TUbingen: Mohr/Siebeck,1996)
1-26. Although my focus differs from Stroumsa's, our objectives are quite close. While some
overlap is therefore inevitable, I have tried to keep repetition of conclusions for which Stroumsa
has also argued to a minimum.
lA bibliography of his scholarly works, covering the years 1933-76, is published at the
conclusion of Andre Benoit, Marc Philonenko, and Cyrille Vogel, eds., Paganisme, judaisme,
christianisme, MeElanges offerts a Marcel Simon (Paris: de Boccard, 1978) 371-87.
2Marcel Simon, Verus Israel (2d ed.; Paris: de Boccard, 1964).
3Marcel Simon, Verus Israel (English translation; Oxford: Oxford University Press,1986).
For some reason, the preface of the French version, written in January 1947, was not translated
into English. Perhaps a statement of the context in which the book was first written no longer
seemed appropriate at the time of the English translation (1986), or risked restricting the
relevance of a book that had achieved near classic status to a particular historical moment. In
any case, with the exception of the preface, cited in nn. S and 6 below, all references to Verus
Israel in this article will be to the English version.

HTR 92:4 (1999) 465-78

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
466 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of new circumstances forcing scholars to revise their conceptions of the past.4 As

Simon explains in the preface, his book is a response to the calamity of racist anti-
Semitism. Although this anti-Semitism had been apparent even before the Second
World War, its disastrous results had become painfully evident only in the war's
aftermath. These were the issues that led Simon to re-examine the nature of the
relationship between ancient Christianity and Judaism.5
Simon avers that he did not intend to draw comparisons and contrasts be-
tween ancient and modern times, leaving that task to the reader who might be so
inclined.6 Nevertheless, one modern objective is apparent behind his central ar-
gument. Simon suggests that ancient Christian anti-Judaism grew out of a lively
competition between the two groups for the souls of those searching for spiritual
sustenance in antiquity. He argues for a vigorous Jewish campaign to prosely-
tize, which came into conflict with Christian efforts to spread the gospel. While
these propositions will be considered in greater detail below, it is important to
note their value in terms of relations between Christians and Jews in the twenti-
eth century: Simon's argument relativizes Christian anti-Judaism by historicizing
it, moving it from the realm of eternal denunciation of the Jews, which can never
be avoided or overcome, into a conflict bound up in a certain time and place,
which need not obligate Jews and Christians of other eras, when circumstances
might be different.
Simon succeeded in changing the scholarly consensus on many of the top-
ics that he discussed. Nevertheless, recent contributions on these issues, such
as those concerning the history of Jewish proselytism, have called his achieve-
ment into question. An examination of Verus lsrael in the light of recent
scholarship therefore seems necessary.

M The Place of George F. Moore

Simon's presentation of his subject was shaped not only by the crisis of racist anti-
Semitism, but also by at least one other major force. Until the nineteenth century
and the beginning of the twentieth, academic study of Judaism was almost entirely
in the hands of Christian scholars, whose descriptions of Judaism were often a

4The dialectical nature of the relationship between past and present in historiography is
one of the principal arguments of Edward H. Carr, What Is History? (2d ed.; Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1987). The connection between past and present in historical research is also one of
the recurring themes in the studies of Christopher Hill. Note, for example, his comment in
Christopher Hill, Change and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century England (2d ed.; New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1991) 284: "That is why history has to be rewritten in each
generation: each new act in the human drama necessarily shifts our attitude towards the earlier
acts. . .We ourselves are shaped by the past; but from our vantage point in the present we are
continually reshaping the past which shapes us."
sVerus Israel, 5.
6Ibid.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT 1. BAUMGARTEN 467

continuation of the denunciation of the Jews and their religion

sources: the ancient polemic continued in academic disguise. Wit
Jews into the Westem scholarly world, voices more sympathetic
to be heard.7 Conscious of the change that had taken place, Simo
more favorable evaluation of Judaism necessitated a reconsiderat
of the conflict between ancient Jews and Christians.
This shift was an explicit motive for writing Verus Israel. Ind
point in the history of scholarship that Simon's treatment of h
The opening paragraph of the introduction takes account of the
Jewish history made by Emil Schurer, Wilhelm Bousset, Hugo G
F. Moore, and Joseph Bonsirven,8 registering the need for a com
evaluation of the relationship between ancient Jews and Christians
of the work that was, for Simon, epitomized by these scholars.
The composition of this list drawn up by Simon-in particular, th
names were noted alongside Moore is the Elrst indication of a su
to Simon's achievement.9 George F. Moore wrote in a highly polem
ing to correct Christian perceptions of Judaism in the light of better
Jewish sources.l Moore intended to present Judaism as it really wa
rather than in such a way as to support its Christian antagonists.l1 S
were among the scholars whose work was subjected to Moore's w
For Schurer, according to Moore, "Judaism was synonymous wit
'legalism' was his [Schurer's] most cherished religious antipathy.

7Perhaps the first of these Jews was Abraham Geiger ( 1810-1874), regardin
Heschel, Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus (Chicago: University of Chic
8Verus Israel (ET, 1986) ix.
9The discussion below owes a substantial debt to E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian
Judaism (London: SCM, 1977) 33-59.
See especially George Foot Moore, "Christian Writers on Judaism," HTR 14 (1921) 197-25
Ibid., 222.
l2Ibid., 239. Legalism, in the eyes of Protestant scholars of the New Testament, is the worst of
possible religious defects. It is not the fulfilling of the commandments of the law (nomism), but an abu
of the law. It describes a situation in which there is no prior grace and no benefit from membershi
the community of the covenant. God is an accountant who keeps score of each individual's perfor
mance, judging whether he or she has more good than bad deeds. Repentance is not an act that ca
change the significance of a whole life; rather, it is one (and only one) meritorious act, which can offse
one bad deed. Legalism thus makes its adherents either anxious (have they passed the minimum of 5
good deeds necessary to be saved?) or arrogant (in the certainty that they have achieved the minimu
It also induces bad behavior, either in the form of piling up trivial good deeds in order to pass th
minimum, or hypocrisy-showing off minor external actions, while ignoring the most important r
gious principles. I would like to thank Professor E. P. Sanders for sharing with me these insights i
the meaning of legalisnl for Protestant New Testament scholarship. See further Martha Himmelfar
"Elias Bickerman on Judaism and Hellenism," in David N. Myers and David B. Ruderman, eds., T
Jewish Past Revisited. Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians (New Haven: Yale University Pres
1998) 208-9 n. 6.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
468 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that Schurer's goal was to prove "that the strictures on Judai

Pauline epistles are fully justiEled.''13
Moore charged Bousset with drawing an overly transcendent picture of the Jew-
ish God, which the latter then contrasted unfavorably with the new type of piety
introduced by Jesus.l4 Furthermore, Bousset based his picture of Judaism on the
apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, works to which Jews never conceded any authori-
tative status, rather than on rabbinic texts, which Bousset ignored almost completely.
For this basis Bousset was criticized harshly, but justifiably, by scholars of Jewish
origin. 1s
As an extended demonstration of the way in which he believed that the Jewish
faith ought to be understood, Moore put forward a synthesis of ancient Judaism
based on the texts that most Jews considered authoritative.16 Moore's work be-
came justly renowned and much quoted. In the process, however, Moore's polemic
against reconstuctions with which he differed was often overlooked. Perhaps Moore
was too polite, too willing to trust the insight of the reader; perhaps the explicitly
polemical article was overlooked and only the book carefully studied; or, perhaps
the attitudes that Moore was attempting to overturn were too f1rmly embedded to
be removed by any but the most drastic means. Whatever the explanation, Moore
is often cited in support of those very conclusions that he meant to quash, as if his
statements were mere supplements to those presentations of ancient Judaism with
which he differed. As E. P. Sanders has noted, "if there is knowledge of this world
after death, Moore is turning over in his grave.''l7
Catching Moore's point is clearly no simple task: indeed, it is one at which too
many have failed. Simon's use of Moore is, therefore, a critical test. As noted
above, Moore discussed at length the misrepresentations of Judaism that he at-
tributed to Schurer and Bousset. Bonsirven wrote shortly after Moore, hence he
should have been one of the first to recognize the change Moore intended to
effect. Yet, that recognition is partial, at best, in Bonsirven's work. Simon's list of
those who have advanced and corrected views of ancient Judaism-Schurer,

3Moore, "Christian Writers," 240.

4Ibid., 242.
Ibid., 242-50.
16George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the
Tannaim (3 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-30). In presenting his
synthesis of Judaism, Moore drew on written sources as well as on "living repositories of this
learning" (1. x), principal among whom was Professor Louis Ginzberg.
For an important and balanced assessment of Moore' s contribution to the study of ancient
Judaism, see Morton Smith, "The Work of George Foot Moore," Ilarvard Library Bulletin 15
(1967) 169-79, reprinted in idem, Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1996)
1. 21 1-26. Compare Jacob Neusner, "'Judaism' after Moore: A Programmatic Statement," JJS
31 (1980) 141-56.
l7Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 56. My friend, Professor ltichard Landes, has
suggested only partially in jest-that the academy create a G. F. Moore award, to be be-

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT 1. BAUMGARTEN 469

Bousset, Gressmann, Moore, and Bonsirven-is thus a puzzlement. It consists of

two scholars with whom Moore explicitly differed and one who should have learned
better from Moore but did not. A more appropriate scholarly coterie in which to
place Moore, I would argue, might have been Solomon Schechter, Adolf Buchler,
Robert Travers Herford, and James Parkes: Schechter and Buchler were among
the pioneers of Jewish origin who attempted to correct Christian misconceptions,
while Travers Herford and Parkes were among the first Christian scholars to take
these arguments seriously.
Simon's list obligates the reader of Verus Israel to ask an unpleasant question:
should Simon be included among those who missed the thrust of Moore's thesis
and mistook Moore as arguing in support of the conclusions that he, Moore, meant
to discredit? Simon's performance in a work jointly authored with Andre Benoit,l8 as
analyzed briefly by Sanders,19 does not inspire conE1dence. As noted by Sanders,
Bousset's work is characterized by Simon and Benoit as "fundamental," while
Moore is described as "important." Simon and Benoit were thus apparently un-
aware of the gap between Moore and Bousset, because, as Sanders comments, "if
Bousset's book is actually fundamental, Moore's can only be a sustained but un-
successful attempt to refute it "20

fi The Pharisees and Legalism as Test Cases

The main body of Verus Israel offers several opportunities to test Simon's atti-
tudes toward sensitive issues that had been debated over the ages between Jews
and Christians and to see in practice what he had learned from Moore and others
concerning Judaism. First is Simon's account of the Pharisees. Given the place of
the Pharisees in the gospels, and considering the role of the Pharisees as an impor-
tant foundation upon which later varieties of Judaism were erected, evaluations of
the Pharisees by Christian authors, past and present, are matters of great signifi-
cance.2l If there is ambivalence concerning the ultimate value of the Jewish tradi-
tion, a tendency to justify Jesus' criticism of the scribes and Pharisees in the gos-
pels, or confusion caused by conflation of scholarly accounts that do not belong
together, these flaws are likely to emerge in the treatment of the Pharisees.

stowed regularly on an outstanding scholar whose work has nevertheless been systematically
misunderstood and abused by colleagues.
l8Marcel Simon and Andre Benoit, Le judaisme et le christianisme antique d'Antiochus
Epiphane a Constantin (2d ed.; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985).
l9Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaisms 56 n. 78.
2otbid.

2lSee further, Albert I. Baumgarten, '4Josephus and Hippolytus on the Phariseess77 HUCA 55
(1984) 1-25, esp. 8-17. For Simon's more extended treatment of the Pharisees, which is charac-
terized by many of the same attitudes toward the group as the remarks from Verus lsrael summarized
above, see Marcel Simon, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967) 2743.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
470 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Simon stresses the role of the Pharisees in Palestinian Ju

their devotion to the Torah. They made the best of a situa
sired, coping with defeat in two revolts and the destruction of the Temple. They
codified the obligations of Jews, placing them in a clear order of priority. Tradi-
tional cultic duties no longer had pride of place, with the highest value now given
to study of the law. The Pharisees adapted to the needs of the hour, displaying a
laudable flexibility and representing the forces of life and progress.22 In view of
this description, it is not surprising to find Simon asserting that the portrait of the
Pharisees in the gospels cannot be accepted without reservation. The unflattering
picture presented there is a product of the frustration and disappointment that the
Christian church felt in the face of the vitality of Pharisaism 23
Simon moves from this favorable description to the assertion that the New Tes-
tament is to be followed in accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy, of a mania for
sterile casuistry, and of pedantic formalism, for all of which the Talmud provides
abundant evidence. He attempts to reconcile these words of criticism with the
praises summarized above by means of one of the oldest of arguments, going back
to the Pseudoclementine Homilies: the accusations against the Pharisees in Chris-
tian literature were only valid concerning some of them, some of the time.24 The
progressive epoch in the life of the Pharisees, according to Simon, is probably to
be dated to the years before 135 CE, with the stultifying era prominent in the later
stages of Pharisaism, as reflected in the pages of the Talmud.25
Simon's ambivalence in his evaluation of the Pharisees is exhibited yet one
more time in his concluding remarks on the group. According to Simon, to see the
Pharisees as the representatives of nothing more than strict observance of the law
is to go way beyond the evidence and to misunderstand completely the complexity
of the Pharisaic movement.26 Pharisaism, Simon maintains, was "distinguished by
its need to fill out and enrich the religious life."27 This comment is high praise for
the integrity and inherent religious value of the group. On the other hand, only two
sentences later than the favorable remarks just quoted, Simon utilizes loaded terms,
heavily laden with censure, writing that Pharisaism "showed itself in the multipli-
cation of religious duties and in an unparalleled development of the science of
casuistry."28 What then of the misunderstanding of those who see Pharisaism as
nothing more than strict observance of the law?
Not surprisingly, much the same situation obtains when Simon concludes his
discussion of another critical matter, the place of legalism in Judaism. "If Israel

22Verus lsrael (ET, 1986), 12-14.

23Ibid., 14.

24See Ps.-Clem. Hom. 11.29.1 (GCS 42. 168). Compare idem Rec. 6.11.2 (GCS 51. 194).
25Verus lsrael (ET, 1986), 14.
26Ibid-, 28
27Ibid., 1 6.
28Ibid., 1 7.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT I. BAUMGARTEN 471

was not to be absorbed by Christianity or by syncretism, she had only one remedy,
the law."29 However, this course was doomed to failure, since Judaism was handi-
capped by monotheism and bound to theological poverty and rigorous particularism.
Its ritual observances were a burden, its legalism an expression of ossification.30 In
accord with these latter views, Simon shows great sympathy for the Hellenistic
versions of Judaism, which aspired to become truly universal by enriching Jewish
theology and practice with contributions brought in from the entire ancient world.3'
What is one to make of this conflicting account of the Pharisees, patched to-
gether out of a variety of sources, and subliminally informed by Simon's ties to the
New Testament? Does Simon not realize how different the Ta}mud is from these
standard Christian accusations?32 Why does Simon's interpretation begin with fa-
vorable depictions of the Pharisees, only to culminate in the repetition of timeworn
denunciations? How can one reconcile the praises heaped on Jewish legalism with
Simon's preference for the less legalistic, Hellenistic varieties of Judaism? Last of
all, how could this fundamentally decent man, genuinely appalled by the horrors
of modern anti-Semitism, fall so far short of successfully rectifying the perception
of ancient rabbinic Judaism, in spite of the contributions of Moore and others,
whom he claimed to have taken as a guide?
Simon's difElculties, I submit, are probably best recognized as proof of the pro-
found change needed to appreciate the shift in understanding Judaism. The old
denunciations of legalistic works righteousness are so firmly entenched that even an
excellent scholar could not free himself completely from their misconceptions. The
guidance of Moore, Schechter, Buchler, Parkes, Travers Herford, and others was in-
sufficient when confronted with the weight of Christian religious and academic
tradition. Simon knew there were some "good" Pharisees, but he likely believed that
the old charges were at least partially correct and, therefore, needed to find some
"bad" Pharisees. As a result, he hit on the old chronological explanation, placing the
"good" ones earlier in the history of the group and the "bad" ones later.

GI Conflict Theory
The main thesis of Verus Israel the challenges to which are the primary incentive
for writing this article has only been mentioned above in passing and still requires
detailed consideration. Simon proposes a different perspective in which to place the
Christian debate with Judaism. Against Harnack and others,33 Simon argues that Chris-
tians were not engaged in a theoretical debate against a hypothetical opponent, the

29Ibid., 374.
30Ibid., 379.
3lIbid., 378.
32compare Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, ss-233.
33Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentum
Jahrhunderten (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924).

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
472 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

roots of which lay in the potentially awkward attitude of Christians toward the
Hebrew Bible. Rather, when one adopts a "conflict model,"34 it is the vitality of
Judaism that is reflected in the ancient Christian anti-Jewish sources. The collision
between Judaism and Christianity was not between texts, nor was the polemic
fought out in the mind of some Christian; instead, it took place as a result of a real
competition for souls between Jews and Christians.3s
Such a meaningful contest for adherents requires Simon to assert that Jews
were actively seeking converts at the time of the clash with Christianity. An exten-
sive Jewish mission to non-Jews is therefore a necessary condition for the case
that Simon argues. Simon is well aware of the controversial nature of the question,
yet he recognizes that

if Judaism had withdrawn into itself, then it no longer really con-

fronted the Church but restricted itself to a conflict in the realm of a
theory, to a bookish sterile controversy around the sacred texts. If it
was still a proselytizing movement, then it was a real and dangerous
rival.36

The common wisdom at the time that Simon wrote was that the catastrophes
Temple's destruction and the defeat of Bar Kochba led Jews to retire among t
selves, leaving the field to the Christians. It is against this consensus that Simon
mounts a full and frontal attack.
Countering the view that imperial legislation prohibited proselytism, and there-
fore that such activities did not take place, Simon argues quite plausibly that the
legal evidence should be understood in the opposite direction. Rules forbidding
something are likely the best indication that the banned actions were sufficiently
prevalent to be worth the trouble to outlaw.37 Moreover, a withdrawal of Jews as a

341n social scientific literature, conflict theory is based on the seminal work of Georg Simmel,
Con.flict. The Web of Group Affiliations (Glencoe: Free Press, 1955), a German philosopher who lived
at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. Lewis Coser was the principal
disseminator and elaborator of these ideas in English. His most accessible treatment of the subject is
Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Con.flict (New York: Free Press, 1956).
A major part in bringing these ideas to the explicit attention of scholars of Judaism and Christianity
in antiquity was played by John Gager, Kingdom and Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1975), and idem, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: Oxford university Press, 1983).
To the best of my knowledge, simon does not cite Simmel as the source of his ideas on the nature
of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity. This omission may not be significant, since Simmel
was an outstanding figure on the European intellectual scene. Whether at first hand or indirectly, his
ideas were widely known in learned circles.
35 Verus ls rael (ET, 1986) x-xi .
36Ibid., 271.
37Ibid., 272. Con
(defined as drug
rary cultural co
concluding that

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT 1. BAUMGARTEN 473

result of the troubles of the era is not a necessary consequence of these events.
Perhaps the destruction of the Temple, for example, allowed Jews to be even more
universalistic in their attitude toward the surrounding world and less dependent on
a connection to a specific locus of holiness.38
Rabbinic attitudes toward converts, as Simon summarizes matters, were not
consistent, with some Rabbis viewing proselytes favorably, others much less so.
The majority, in Simon's view, remained devoted to the missionary ideal, even if
there was a tendency to make ever stricter demands of prospective converts. These
requirements, Simon insists, were made so that converts might know what to ex-
pect in their lives as Jews and thus avoid unpleasant future surprises on all sides.39
There is little direct evidence, Simon concedes, for the results of this mission-
ary activity. Pagan authors of the era after the destruction of the Temple barely
mention Jewish proselytizing. That silence, Simon suggests, may be due to the
overwhelming impression made by the more extensive and infinitely more effica-
cious Christian mission. Nevertheless, the Church Fathers repeatedly warned their
flock against yielding to the attractions of Judaism, and imperial legislation was
enacted to protect Christians against Jewish expansion. When these propositions
are added to the few cases of conversion to Judaism attested in the sources, Simon
finds the evidence for an ongoing Jewish mission decisive.40 The competition of-
fered by Judaism, no matter whether one might judge it a success or a failure, was
sufficient to be a cause of grave concern to the church.
It is precisely on this point that Simon succeeded in changing the view of most
scholars, so that his arguments in Verus Israel became a foundation upon which other
scholars built, and which they sought to expand. Having set out to change the consen-
sus reigning at the time he first wrote, Simon achieved that goal to such an extent that
his reconstuction became the dominant view.4l
The past decade, however, has seen the pendulum swing back again, with Simon's
account of the history of Jewish proselytism subjected to explicit and devastating
criticism. Edouard Will and Claude Omeux, and Martin Goodman,42 each in his own
way, have questioned the notion of an extensive Jewish campaign to convert the Gen-
tile world. Will and Orrieux ask whether too much weight has been placed on Matt

38Verus lsrael (ET, 1986) 273.

39Ibid., 274-78.
40Ibid., 278-88.
41See the summary of scholarly views offered by Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Chris-
tian ldentity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 7-8.
42Edouard Will and Claude Orrieux, "Proselytisme juif ' ? Histoire d'une erreur (Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1992); Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the
Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). For the contary view see Louis H. Feldman,
Jew and Gentile in theAncient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Feldman explicitly
considers the possibility that large-scale Jewish proselytizing may be an illusion, but devotes the
volume to arguing that Jews of the land of Israel not only successfully resisted the attractions of

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
474 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

23:15 ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you

make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte you make him twice as
much a child of hell as yourselves") and other evidence interpreted in its light, rather
than asking whether Matt 23:15 stood in somewhat splendid isolation, representing a
particular perspective rather than fact. They propose to understand this verse in the
context of the polemic between Yavnean Jews and Christians after 70 CE. That contest,
according to Will and Orrieux, was not the opening shot of a long battle, but a rear guard
action of little future consequence. Furthermore, Will and Orrieux wonder whether the
literature seen as praising Judaism to interested outsiders was not directed internally, to
those Jews whose loyalty to the ancestral tradition needed reinforcement. Will and Omeux
analyze at length the Roman evidence taken as proof of a mass campaign by Jews to
Gentiles and conclude that converts to Judaism were a result of the presence of a large
community, but not the consequence of an organized effort on the part of those Jews to
win souls. Finally, as the title of their book implies, Will and Orrieux seek to discover
the origins and history of the notion of a Jewish mission to the Gentile world.
Giman's study covers some of the same ground. He interprets Matt 23:15 as refer-
ring to attempts by Pharisees to convince otherJews tojoin their movement, hence irrelevant
to the question of a campaign to non-Jews. Grnan interrogates other evidence for a
wide-ranging effort by Jews to promote conversion before 100 CE and concludes that con-
verts were accepted at that time, if they came on their own initiative, but were not encouraged.
After 100 CE, Goodman finds some signs of Jewish hostility to paganism, which he consid-
ers a necessary foundation for a movement to convert non-Jews, alongside indications that
Jews recognized the religious worth of Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism, even while these
non-Jews never formally joined the Jewish fold (Godfearers). Much of the evidence other-
wise taken as proof of proselytism is viewed by Gnan in the context of these Godfearers,
a conclusion for which Goodman finds important support in the Aphrodisias
inscription.43 Thus, there was no "sudden universal switch by all Jews to the sort of enthu-
siastic proselytizing found among some early Christians."44 In Gaiman's opinion, a complex
situation ensued, difficult to reduce to a simple conclusion, in which the success of Chris-
tianity brought some Jews to believe that they ought to proselytize (a mission to convert
was seen as a natural and necessary aspect of any self-respecting religion), but reality never
quite matched this ideal. Thus GoUnan's rabbis, in contrast to Simon's, never engaged in
a full-fledged campaign for souls in competition with the church.

Hellenism, but were able to counterattack through a mission to the non-Jewish world that won many
full-fledged converts and sympathizers (the Godfearers).
43See Joyce Marie Reynolds and Robert Tannenbaum, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisias
(Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Even
before the discovery of this inscription, traces of the role of the Godfearers were found by E. J.
Bickerman, "The Altars of the Gentiles," Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part Two (Leiden:
Brill, 1980) 32446. See also below, n. 46.
44Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 130.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT 1. BAUMGARTEN 475

The conclusions of Will and Orrieux and Goodman have been well received by
others, and the explicit challenge they posed to the consensus represented by Simon
recognized.45 Furthermore, overinterpretations proposed in the spirit of a reigning
consensus in which an idea is applied well beyond the limits of the evidence, as a
result of eagerness to use the new key to open all closed doors have been noted, and
their problematic foundations exposed. A good example of this unfortunate conse-
quence is the connection supposedly to be found between the Paschal Homily of
Melito of Sardis and the archeological evidence for the Jewish community there.
Chronology has been bent and other intellectual leaps taken into the void in order to
conclude that the synagogue and the homily illuminated each other, based on a hostil-
ity arising from a mutual competition for converts.46
These different aspects of a re-evaluation of the history of the Jewish prosely-
tizing mission have been brought together by Miriam Taylor in particular, in the
process of subjecting Simon's work as a whole to thorough-going criticism.47 Taylor
asks: If there was no Jewish mission to the Gentiles, how can the conflict explana-
tion of Christian anti-Judaism championed by Simon be retained?
Taylor also takes the argument against Simon in an opposite direction, suggesting
that the ultimate effect of Simon's reconstruction is to introduce an even more perni-
cious form of Christian triumphalism than the one he intended to eradicate.48 According
to Harnack whom Simon set out to correct the Christian debate with the Jews was

45Will and Orrieux, for exarnple, were explicitly aware of the distance between their conclusions and the
concensus represented by Simon. See their discussion, Proselytisme juif, 204 5. On the reception of these
arguments see, for example, Shaye J. D. Cohen' s review of Will and Orrieux, Proselyti*me juif, JQR 86 ( 1996)
429-34. Cohen's favorable assessment of Will and Orrieux is consistent with the conclusions for which he
has argued in his own contributions on the topic. See Shaye J. D. Cohen, "Was Judaism in Antiquity a
Missionary Religion9" in Menahem Mor, ed., Jewish A*similation, Acculturation and Accorron (lrn,
MD: University Press of America, 1992) 1S23; idem, "Adolf Harnack's 'The Mission and Expansion of
Judaism': Christianity Succeeds Where Judaism Failed," in Birger Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Chris-
tianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: FoItress, 1993) 16349.
46Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian ldentity, 52-74. Among studies that appeared after
Taylor had completed her research, see especially Marianne P. Bonz, "The Jewish Community of
Ancient Sardis: A Reassessment of Its Rise to Prominence," HSCP 93 (1990) 342-59; eadem,
"Differing Approaches to Religious Benefaction: The Late Third-Century Acquisition of the Sardis
Synagogue," HTR 86 (1993) 139-54. Martin Goodman, "Jews and Judaism in the Mediterranean
Diaspora in the Late Roman Period: The Limitations of the Evidence," Journal of Mediterranean
Studies 4 (1994) 208-24, has suggested the possibility that the so-called synagogue in Sardis was,
in fact, a place of worship sacred to Godfearers. For a thoughtful summary of the difficulties facing
the scholar in understanding a complex situation such as that of Sardis, see David Satran, "Anti-
Jewish Polemic in the Peri Pascha of Melito of Sardis: The Problem of Social Context," in Limor
and Stroumsa, Contra Judaeos, 49-58.
47See Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian ldentity, 7-21. Taylor's discussion of the history
of proselytism depends entirely on Goodman. For a critical evaluation of Taylor's approach, arguing
that in her attempt to counter Simon she may have pushed too far in the other direction, see Wolfram
Kinzig, "Review of Anti-Judaism and Early Christian ldentity," JTS 48 (1997) 643-49.
48Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, 190.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
476 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

theoretical, hence the Jews lost the competition for souls without
the fray. Simon's Jews, however, engaged in a real conflict. Thu
failed to win the contest against Christians, they suffered an even
that hypothesized by Harnack. Christianity, in Simon's view, ther
momentous victory, which was to be ascribed to its unqualified u
look. According to Taylor, Simon is either wrong (Jews did not a
or, if correct (and Jews did missionize), is tainted with the very
claimed to oppose. This aspect of Taylor's conclusions coheres wel
of Simon's treatment of the Pharisees and the life of the law abov
In addition, Taylor wonders whether scholars (of Christian orig
have found Simon's approach so congenial because it tends to redu
sponsibility for Christian anti-Judaism.49 After all, if a real fight f
larger world was taking place between Jews and Christians, and if
as they got," then it is legitimate to look for Jewish provocations th
Christian excesses. Jews themselves were thus responsible for at
hatred directed against them by Christians.

g Conclusion
What remains of Simon's contribution? Is it to be read only as a failure, or as a mon
ment to a moment in the history of scholarship before and immediately after the S
ond World War? I would suggest that, despite its flaws, Simon's conflict theory contin
ues to be an important tool for understanding the relations between early Christi
and Jews. In support of this conclusion two comments on the discussion above see
necessary. First, while Simon's rhetoric may lapse occasionally into the lamentable
triumphalist mode, as noted by both Taylor and myself, conflict theory does not l
inevitably to Christian triumphalism. While seeking to comprehend the reasons th
Christianity emerged as the dominant religion of the ancient world, and without
dulging in Christian triumphalism, one can understand the issues at stake between
Jews and Christians as a historical question of paramount interest. 50
Second, conflict theory does not require an active Jewish mission to the larger
world as a necessary condition. The living example of Judaism (the mere fact that
Jews refused to disappear from the scene of world history), even after the triumph
Christianity over virtually all the other religions of the ancient Mediterranean wor
served as a constant challenge to Christians to justify their claim to be the true heirs
the promise of the Hebrew Bible. In addition, Judaizing remained (and remains to t

49Ibid., 192-96.
50One may note th
171eDeclineand Fall oftheRonumEmpire (1776-1778;reprintedNewYork: RandomHouse, 1990) 1. 382-
443. While paying ironic lip service to the primary reason for that result the truth of its doctrine and the design
of its divine authoribbon "modestly" asks concerning the "secondary" reasons for this outcome and then
devotes the pages that follow to a brilliant analysis of these "secondary" causes.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 ALBERT 1. BAUMGARTEN 477

day) an attractive option for Christians seeking to return to t

remains a means to express disapproval of church practice in t
even if Simon was wrong about the extent of the Jewish miss
was not as widespread as he argued, this overstatement does n
from the range of possibilities to be considered in explaining
toward Judaism. Furiermore, even if some attempts to read
text of Jewish reality now seem farfetched (as in the case of
overinterpretations are no more than a reminder that conflic
intellectual construct) should not (and cannot) be employed as the universal key to
unlock all doors; it does not mean that it is not very effective at opening some. Against
Taylor's argument, there was a discernible socio-political context behind at least some
instances of Jewish-Christian debate. In that context, a paramount place should be given
to the difficulties that the church faced from Judaizers of various sorts.
One successful example of the utilization of Simon's schema is the study of Jews
and Christians at Antioch by Wayne Meeks and Robert Wilken,52 later amplified by
Wilken in his analysis of Chrysostom.s3 The histories of the Jewish and Christian
Antiochene communities, despite the fact that our knowledge of each is incomplete,
illuminate each other. Furthermore, even if the Jews of Antioch were not actively
missionizing, Chrysostom's comments indicate the ever present danger of Judaizing,
and the risk (from the Christian perspective) that the Christian commitment to the
Hebrew Bible might lead some of their faithful to question the Christian interpreta-
tion of these sources and to favor that in force arnong Jews instead. The boundary
between Jews and Christians, in this instance and in others, was a weak and ill-de-
fined one, crossed in particular by many Christians, who participated in Jewish rites
or adopted Jewish practices. For that boundary to become hard and the distinction
between the religions firm, some degree of mutual conflict and denunciation was
necessary. This process took time and varied from place to place, but it is well illumi-
nated by Simon's paradigm.S4
Equally effective have been the analyses of the situation in Caesarea in the third
and fourth centuries CE, at the time of Origen and Eusebius on the Christian side and
R. Yohanan and especially R. Abbahu on the Jewish side. R. Yohanan and Origen, as

slFor an attempt to set Melito's comments on Passover in polemical dialogue with Jewish interpretations
in general, available to Melito because he had visited Israel (as opposed to contact based on a specific building
in Sardis, which may not have been standing at the time Melito wrote) see Israel Y. Yuval, 'Yshe Haggadah
of Passover and Easter," Tarbiz 65 (5756 [Jewish Calendar year]) 1-28, esp. 11-14.
52Wayne Meeks and Robert Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of
the Common Era (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978).
53Robert Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
54See Judith Lieu, "History and Theology in Christian Views of Judaism," in Judith Lieu, John
North, and Tessa Rajak, eds., The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire (London:
Routledge, 1992) 79-96, esp. 87-95.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
478 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

described by Reuven Kimelman, seem as if they were in face-t

each other, disputing the meaning of key passages of Canticles
was explicit concerning his abundant experience in discussion w
nature of communal life in Caesarea of that time, with both J
communities asserting competing claims based on the same tex
model seem particularly apt for understanding the forces at wo
and Christian sides.S7
Conflict theory has also been important for those scholars w
ture of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity as
than on a filial model). With both religions building on a biblical foundation and
forging their separate identities at roughly the sarne time and in the sarne cultural
context, rivalry between these siblings was inevitable.S8 Some degree of similarity, as
well as a measure of difference, is inevitable between competing answers to the same
question, based on the sarne set of sources and offered in the same milieu. As such,
whether one examines an elitist setting such as that of philosophers,S9 or a more popu-
lar one of competing cults, conflict is to be expected.
In sum, Marcel Simon's attempt to understand the history of relations between
ancient Jews and Christians remains of considerable value. Its faults do not cancel its
merits, nor is Simon to be held responsible for overextensions of his paradigm to
cases beyond its intellectual reach. The debate over who had the right to consider
themselves the true Israel was substantial and significant, and we remain in Simons
debt for having helped to illuminate this aspect of ancient Jewish history.

ssReuven Kimelman, "Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jew-
ish-Christian Debate," HTR 73 (1980) 567-95. As Kimelman makes clear in his notes, his debt was
substantial to others who discussed the topic before him, such as Yitzhak Baer and Ephraim E.
Urbach.
56See Lee I. Levine, '4R. Abbahu of Caesarea," in Jacob Neusner, ed., Chriswtianity, Juda-
ism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill,
1975) 4. 57-76.
57See further Lee I. Levine, Caesarea under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
58This perspective was fundamental to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of
Canada Programme Grant, "The McMaster Project on Judaism and Christianity in the Graeco-
Roman Era: The Process of Achieving Normative SelfDeElnition," 197S1981, in which I participated.
It also underlies the conception of works such as Alan Segal, Rebecca's Children: Judaism and
Christianity in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).
59See Albert I. Baumgarten, "Euhemerus's Eternal Gods: Or, How Not To Be Embarrassed by
Greek Mythology," in Ranon Katzoff, with Yaakov Petroff and David Schaps, eds., Classical Studies
in Honor of David SoStlberg (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1996) 91-103.

This content downloaded from 84.88.0.230 on Sat, 13 May 2017 16:33:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms