The Messiah in the Old and the New Testaments. Stanley E. Porter (Ed.)

Introduction: The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Stanley E. Porter)

PART I: OLD TESTAMENT AND RELATED PERSPECTIVE 

The Messiah; Explorations in the Law and Writings (Tremper Longman III) 

Figuring the Future: The Prophets and Messiah (Mark /. Boda) 

The Messiah in the Qumran Documents (At Wolters)

Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism (Loren T Stuckenbruck)

PART II: NEW TESTAMENT PERSPECTIVE 

Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew (I. Howard Marshall) 

The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives (Stanley E. Porter) 

Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology (Tom Thatcher) 

Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul S. (A. Cummins) 

Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews and the General Epistles (Cynthia Long Westfall) 

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response (Craig A. Evans) 

Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism
LOREN T. STUCKENBRUCK  

Introduction

In this paper I shall consider "Messiah" in early Jewish literature. This area of study is important in relation to our understanding of early Christianity for three reasons. First, it has figured prominently in the way beliefs of Jews in "the Messiah" set the stage for the emerging belief among early lewish Christian communities that Jesus was God's "Anointed One" or "Messiah." In this light, differences between "Christian" and contemporary "Jewish" understanding have often been construed as confirming the "uniqueness" of the Christian understanding of "Messiah." This concern with Christian distinctiveness has, in turn, fed a polarizing mentality that not only oversimplifies early Judaism but also reduces early Christian views about Jesus as "Messiah" to an unnecessarily rigid spectrum of ideas. Second, a reconsideration of this literature is becoming increasingly necessary, given that our evidence for "Messiah" in non-Christian Judaism has been increased through materials published from the Dead Sea materials during the last dozer years. Indeed, the Dead Sea Scrolls, to some degree, may be thought to provide an added, and previously unavailable, interpretive context for contemporary lewish literature. Third and finally, beyond shedding light on Christian origins, we learn that early Jewish ideas about "Messiah" underwent significant development through to the end of the first century CE. Despite the growing independence of Christian communities, especially in the aftermath of 70 CE, speculative ideas about intermediary figures and agents of God attested in non-Christian lewish literature continued to shape and parallel convictions about the exalted Jesus in Christian communities. Both communities, overlapping in tradition and devotion to the God of Israel, found in language about a Messiah ways of addressing and interpreting their experiences with religious and socio-political conditions under Roman rule in the Mediterranean world. Initially, however, it is important to delimit the focus of this review. I do so in several ways: (i) We are looking initially at the term "Messiah" as it occurs in the most important textual witnesses of Jewish literature preserved in Greek (xpiorôç, a sense translation from Hebrew and Aramaic rVWia), Latin functus), Syriac (XIVCS), and Ethiopie (mai/sih/h).2 We do so, recognizing lhat there will be other eschatological figures, not designated by these terms, who arc envisaged as God's agents. For this reason, the present discussion shall not be a broad consideration of "eschatological redeemer figures" in ancient Jewish thought. Put another way, we are not, broadly speaking, looking for "messianic" figures who may or may not carry the title "Messiah." Nevertheless, the narrower focus on figures actually designated as "Messiah" makes it possible to pose the question of what we arc doing in this discussion more sharply: What did early Jewish writers have in mind when they chose this designation as a suitable one to describe an agent of God? To be sure, some authors who speak of a "Messiah" or "Anointed One" frequently apply other tides or descriptions for the same figure. However, rather than simply adopting a synthetic approach, even within a given document, we look for clues from within the narrative itself or from the author's use of tradition that explain why "Messiah" has occurred in a particular instance. (2) We are here going to throw the spotlight on literature that is essentially non-Christian Jewish in character. This means that we shall not consider passages in writings that were composed by Christian authors (so Ascension of Isaiah, Odes of Solomon, Apocalypse of Zephaniah, and Apocalypse of Sedrach). Moreover, we shall neither attend to references to "the Messiah" in Christian additions to originally Jewish documents (Testament of Adam) nor consider those which, though heavily indebted to Jewish tradition, are Christian in their present form and convey views that cannot be straightforwardly assigned to nonChristian Jewish tradition (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs),' (3) Given our interest in lewtsh tradition that may have shaped early Christian theology, we shall not consider views of "Messiah" in rabbinic or other later Jewish literature (for example, the so-called 3 Enoch), (4) We shall inquire into two aspects of "Messiah" where these occur: nature and function, asking in particular what both have to do with perceptions about the activity of the God of Israel. (5) Finally, we shall ask whether any of the texts considered allow us to draw inferences about the social setting in which hope in a Messiah was expressed. The focus as delineated leads us to consider four Jewish works, which were composed early enough to either pre-date or be contemporaneous with the growing early Christian movement before the Bar Kochba revolt. These shall be considered in the approximate sequence of composition: Psalms of Solomon, Similitudes of I Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.

Psalms of Solomon

Preserved in Greek and Syriac manuscripts from the tenth to sixteenth centuries,4 this collection of eighteen psalms was written within a generation of Pompey's capture of Jerusalem in 63 BC E and its aftermath, which saw the overthrow and humiliation of Hasmonaean rule (see especially 2:1-5,11-14; 8:14-22; and 17:11-18}. The psalms are categorically critical of the llasmonaeans, who are blamed for law-breaking activities in the home and the temple that exceeded even what the Gentiles do (cf. 1:4-8; 2:3-5; 8:8-13). The community behind the psalms believed that Pompey's activity, despite being a means by which God was punishing such "sinners" who had set up illegitimate rule (17:6), had introduced even further impurity and Gentile practices among Jews in Jerusalem (17:13-15, 18b20), so much so that the pious fled and were scattered "over the whole earth" (17:16-183). Knowing something about these events,-especially as they are depicted among the psalms themselves, takes on particular importance since it is precisely in relation to these that what is said about the Messiah takes shape. 

All four references to "Messiah" (Greek xpioroc; Syriac míyh~) occur in chs. 17 and 18. They may be listed as follows: 

17:32(36) — "There is no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, for all (will be) holy and their king (shall he the) Messiah Lord!' (Kcri (kíoiACÜc, aÜTtiiv xpiordc xúpioc,; wmlkyhwn mSyh' mry") 

The heading to 18—"Psalm of Solomon concerning the Messiah Lord':' (ipaXuoc; TOO LaXcoucov eri [emend to em?] xptorou KUpiou ; no heading in Syriac) 

18:5 — "May God purify Israel for the day of mercy with blessing, for the day of election in the return of his Messiah" (tv cxvafa xpioroO aurou; Syriac damaged) 

18:7 — (the generation to come, v. 6).. . "under the disciplinary rod of the Messiah Lord in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit and of righteousness and of strength." (XPIOTO O KUpfou )

The present discussion will thus consider chs. 17 and 18, respectively. In ch. 17, "Messiah Lord" is the title given to a figure whose activities are described in w. 21-43. The psalmist petitions God to raise him up as "king" of Israel "in the time which you see (or know)." This anointed figure is to be the antithesis of the religio-political rule under the Hasmonaeans: He will be a (legitimate) descendant of David, and is "to rule over Israel your servant" in an ideal way. In the role of a king, this agent of God will "purify Jerusalem fro m gentiles," dispossess Jewish "sinners from their inheritance "and annihilate "unlawful gentiles" (w. 22-24).

In their place, he will restore t o the land (ferri Tf\t; yfjc;) " a holy people, whom he will lead in righteousness, and will judge the tribes of people who have been sanctified by the Lord his God" (v. 26; cf. vv. 28, 43)«Two main features mark the rule and character of this Messiah:

(cultic) purity and justice, on the one hand, and power and might, on the other. First, the "Messiah Lord" is to restore Jerusalem to the pure and prominent state it enjoyed a t the beginning of the (here idealized) Davidic monarchy (v. 30). This state will be achieved as he judges not only those people who have been restored (w. 26,43), but also the remaining peoples and nations "in the wisdom of his righteousness" (v. 29). This judgment is the pre-condition for a proper order of things. Ultimately, the nations (v. 30), as well as Israel (cf. 7:9), will be subject to his "yoke," and the persecuted righteous who have been scattered throughout the earth (cf. 17:18} will be brought as gifts by the nations "to see the glory of the Lord" (vv. 30-31; cf. Isa 43:4-7). Unequivocally, all the rc-gathcrcd people of Israel will be holy (v. 32), leaving n o room for "sinners" and corrupt "officials," who will be driven out (v. 36; cf. w. 23,27). By the same token, this messianic figure will be "pure from sin" (v. 36) and powerful "in the holy spirit" (v. 37).* His "words"6  will be more refined — that is, they will be in a purer state (note the comparative expression nerrupuiuéva íírtép) — than even the choicest gold and will be comparable to words of holy ones (&y(cov) in the midst of sanctified peoples (v. 43).' It is possible here that the purity of the Messiah's activity is emphasized through a comparison with angels whose worship of God is considered ideal (cf. Ps 89:5-7).B Perhaps, then, the Messiah is not only expected to rule as king but also to perform priestly functions. This may be especially the case if the psalmist's description of the Messiah's work is formulated as an antithesis to the Hasmonaean dynasty that, since the rule of Aristobulus I (105-104 BCE), incorporated into one person the claim to be "king" and "high priest."9

Second, the author expects the Messiah to exercise power and authority over the nations of the earth. One manifestation of this rule is the destruction of "unrighteous rulers" and "the unlawful nations (S6vr| rrctpávoua)" (w. 22, 24). This retribution against the enemies of God's people might leave the impression that the Messiah is essentially a warrior figure — that is, one who will deliver Israel through military conflict. Indeed, it is at least true in principle that the author claims he "will crush all their substance with an iron rod" (v. 24}, which borrows language from Ps 2:9. However, this may in fact be a description of the effect rather than the means, since it is "by the word of his mouth" that this will be accomplished {v. 24; cf. v. 35: "he will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever"). Thus, unlike the Hasmonaeans, this king will not rule through military might. In emphasizing this very point, the psalmist has probably been inspired by Isa 11:4: "he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked."10

 Significantly, this annihilation of Israel's enemies does not mean that the Gentiles as a whole are to be destroyed. On the contrary, the psalmist does not consider all Gentiles inimical: the Gentiles are to serve God's anointed one (v. 30; cf. i En 52:4), for "he wiil have mercy on all nations who are before him in fear" (v. 34; cf. 2 Bar72:2-4).11 Presumably those Gentiles who have not oppressed or subjugated Israel will be included in the new order; though they will not be converted as such, they will nevertheless play a positive, if clearly subordinate, role.12 Having reviewed the Messiah's character and activities in Psalms of Solomon, we may consider the question of who the author thought he would be. The title "Messiah Lord" in 17:32 (and 18:7) does not in any way imply that his position approximates that of the God of Israel. Neither is it correct to suppose that we have here a deliberate or inadvertent Christianization of a Jewish tradition.15 If anything, we may instead have to do with a very early use of Ps 110:1, in which the second "lord" in the phrase "the Lord said to my lord" is being used of the king, so that a double title is used (as occurs in also Dan 9:25 [VII TheocL xpioroO fYyouuivool)

It is not surprising, then, to find that throughout the psalmist makes clear that the Messiah is himself dependent on and subordinate to God, whose activity is ultimately, and immediately, in view. Although the Messiah is a royal figure, ch. 17 is framed by the proclamation that the Lord, the God of Israel, is "our king forever more" (w. 1,46). Moreover, in the main body of the psalm, it is God who will raise up David's descendant in his own time (v. 21), and it is God who will make him strong with a holy spirit (v. 37). Indeed, the Lord "is his [i.e., the Messiah Lord's! king" (v. 34). Because of this, the Messiah shall place his hope in God (v. 34; cf. also v. 39) and "shall glorify the Lord in a prominent (place) of the earth" (i.e., Jerusalem; v. 30). The Messiah Lord's kingship over the returnees to Jerusalem will be righteous because he has been "instructed by God" (w. 31-323). The Messiah is not "divine." He has neither heavenly status nor any apparent préexistence. The sinlessness with which he is to be endowed (v. 36; cf. Heb 4:15) functions here to make him an ideal, righteous ruler who sets matters aright in accordance with God's timing and purposes for Israel (cf. Acts 1:6-7). From the psalmist's perspective, he is a future agent of God's activity. The main thrust is thus summed up nicely at the conclusion of the psalm: "May God hurry up (to give) his mercy to Israel, may he rescue us from the pollution of profane enemies; the Lord himself is our king forever more." In ch. 18 the references to the Messiah are very brief and not developed. While the points described in relation to ch. 17 may be inferred for the superscription and v. 7 (cited above at the beginning of this section), the one new element may seem to be in v. 5: "... for the day of election in the return (óeváijei) of his Messiah " It is unnecessary from this to infer a préexistence, as the psalmist likely has in view the return of legitimate rule by a descendant of David whom God will set apart to fulfill Israel's hope for a theocracy.

Similitudes of Ethiopie or 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) 

Similitudes is a pseud epigraph i c "vision of wisdom" given to Enoch that comprises chs. 37-71 of the earliest collection of Enochic compositions commonly called 1 Enoch. Whereas the antiquity of the remaining parts of 1 Enoch has not been questioned, the relative date of the Similitudes has been subject to some debate. This is so because of J. T. Milik's claim that this work, no fragments of which were found among any of the Dead Sea materials, was an essentially Christian book produced during the latter part of the third century CE . m Unconvinced that Similitudes shows any trace of Christian composition, many have been more inclined to assign a date of its production to sometime between the latter part of the first century BCE and 100 CE . 1 5 Indeed, the absence in Similitudes of any overt response to Christian tradition, especially in relation to the "Son of Man" figure, seems to push its traditions back into a period before the identification of Jesus with the apocalyptic "Son of Man" as recorded in the Gospels was sufficiently widespread. Similitudes contains two brief references to a "Messiah" or "Anointed One": 48:10 and 52:4¡ 1 6

48:10 — "On the day of their trouble [i.e., that of the kings of the earth and the wealthy landowners; cf. v. 8] there will be no rest on the earth, and they shall fall before him and shall not rise; and (there is) no one who will take them with his hands and raise them, for they have denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits!"

52:4 — "And he [i.e., the interpreting angel] said to me, 'All these things which you have seen serve the authority of his Messiah so that he may be mighty and strong upon the earth."* 

These passages occur within the "second parable" (chs. 45-57). Near the bcginning of this vision (46:1-8), a figure designated "the Son of Man"— also called "the Chosen One" and "the Righteous One" — has been introduced as the agent of God (called "Head of Days" and mostly "Lord of the Spirits") to execute judgment against the wicked who through wealth have oppressed the righteous (46:1-8). In all likelihood, the "Messiah" referred to in 48:10 is thought to be the same figure, just prior to 48:10, the author in v. 6 anticipates that a "Chosen One" (identified with "that Son of Man" in v. 2) will be disclosed by God's wisdom to "the holy and righteous ones" whom he will deliver. This figure is preexislent, as he has been "concealed since before the creation of the world" (v. 6), which is parallel to "that Son of Man" who in v. 3 was named before the Lord of the Spirits "before the stars of heaven were made." When the righteous ones are delivered, the wicked kings of the earth and the landowners will be given over to "the chosen ones" for punishment (v. 9). Thus the denial mentioned in v. 10 is a summary way, as elsewhere in the paTable (45:1-2; 467)» of-characterizing the activities of the wicked; to oppose those who are righteous is nothing less than a denial of the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah. The phrase "and his Messiah," this time added to "Lord of the Spirits" as the object of denial (cf. 45:1-2; 46:7). reflects the influence of Ps 2:2: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed" (NRSV)." However, it is striking that the author has not invested this designation with any further detail. No activity as such is ascribed to God's agent when he is called "his Messiah." The same brevity and lack of detail apply even more lo Ihe reference in 52:4. Here, as in ch. 48, God's Messiah may be implicitly identified with "the Chosen One" (52:6,9), while the "Son of Man" title does not occur in this part of the vision (i.e., in 52:1-57:3)-'* A connection with the "Son of Man" tradition from Dan 7:13-14 may nonetheless be influential here. The seer's vision of mountains of various metals in the west (52:2) is explained by the angel as phenomena that serve "the authority" of "his Messiah," where the Ethiopk term for "authority" (seltan) approximates the Aramaic löV© in Daniel 7:14, where it denotes the power given to the "one like a son of man."19 Immediately following in the passage, the angel discloses that these same mountains will dissipate into fluid "before the Chosen One" (v. 6) — that is, the weapons fashioned through these metals will be useless in saving the wicked from judgment "when the Chosen One will appear before the Lord of the Spirits" (v. 9). These passages allow for several observations. First, the reference to "Messiah" in ch. 48 implies that God's designate is an ideal ruler figure who stands in stark contrast with the wealthy and oppressive kings of the earth and mighty who possess land. Though neither 48:10 nor 52:4 states anything about his activity, the Messiah's domain is conceived as terrestrial. However, it is striking that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link this figure with a Davidic lineage. This apocalyptic scenario does not envision the restoration of the monarchy, as in Psalms of Solomon. Second, the texts say nothing directly about what sort of figure God's Anointed One is supposed to be — that is, whether he is human, angelic, or divine. Something, nonetheless, can be noted if the author of 48:10 is identifying God's Messiah with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One" mentioned earlier in the chapter. In this case, the author must have regarded the Messiah as precxistcnt and, as the Chosen One, yet to be revealed in the future. If in the wider context of the second parable (chs. 45-56) the Messiah is identified with the "Son of Man" and "Chosen One," then more can be said: he is a figure exalted to sit on God's throne to judge and to dispense wisdom (45-3; 5i:3; 55:3); he has a human and angel-like appearance {46:1); he removes the wicked (human and demonic} from positions of power (45:6; 46:4-7; 48:8-10; 50:6-9; 53:5-7; 55:4); and — without parallel in any earlier or contemporary Jewish literature — he can even be worshiped alongside God "by all those who dwell upon the earth" (48:5; cf. 46:5). Third, since these functions are co-opted into a profile for the Messiah only by extension, we may suggest that the activities and status ascribed to the eschatological vice-regent in Similitudes do not seem to have resulted from a writer's speculation about God's Messiah per se (which does not appear in an absolute form).20 He may be a composite figure of many titles, but it is questionable how much the title itself has shaped the author's understanding. The formative background for this speculation lies much more in Dan 7:9-14 and related traditions (in addition to biblical tradition, also the seated man-like figure recording judgment in Animal Apocalypse; 1 En 90:14,17}. In short, it is not as a Messiah that God's eschatological agent does all these things, but rather as the angelic and heavenly "Son of Man" whom the author further anchors in tradition by applying the "messianic" designation. 

4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras 3—14) 

This pscudcpigraphon, attributed to Ezra thirty years after the destruction of the first temple in 586 BC E (cf. 4 Ezy.\), consists of a series of seven dialogues or visions composed around the turn of the second century CE, that is, in the aftermath of the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. These visions, though framed by Christian compositions 5 Ezra and 6 Ezra, respectively, with few exceptions preserve non-Christian Jewish tradition. The document does not survive in its original language, and so the most important textual witnesses to 4 Ezra are preserved for us in Latin and Syriac manuscripts. These, in addition to the evidence from Georgian, Armenian, and Ethiopie translations, furnish enough evidence to determine more original Jewish traditions behind the occasionally Christian intrusions into the texts.21 In 4 Ezra several passages are concerned with a "Messiah" (Lat. unctus; Syr. mfyh') figure: 7:26-44 (from the third vision); 11:36- 12:34 (from the fifth vision); and, by extension, 13:3-14:9 (from the sixth and seventh visions). 

4 Ezra 7:26-44: The Temporary Appearance of the Messiah 

The Messiah is first referred to in the third vision during the course of the interpreting angel's speech that responds to the seer's queries. Ezra has continued to question in 6:38-59 why God's covenant people do not possess the world as they should, while other nations, who have no special relationship with God, are allowed to dominate Israel (esp. 6:55-59). The angel counters, first by asserting the necessity of danger and hardship (7:3-9) and distinguishing between present and future experience and then by affirming that all, whether righteous or wicked, are accountable to the Law. This dialogue sets the stage for the angel's description of a time to come when things will not be as they are now: a city and land, previously unseen and hidden, will be disclosed, and wonders will be seen (7:26-28). This time lies in the future, when a figure called "my son the Messiah"21 and those who are with him (i.e., the righteous dead) will be revealed,23 while the remaining ones (the righteous) "shall rejoice tour hundred years" {v. 28). The passage then continues by making what might seem to be an unusual claim:  

And after these years my son2 4 the Messiah will die (morieturfiUus meus christus), and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. (7:29-30)

The author divides time into two ages, one of this world and one of the world to come (7:50; cf. 4:26; 6:7,20, 25-28; 7:112-15). The revelation of the Messiah will occur as the first of several events that bring this age to a close. Nothing is explicitly stated about a kingdom that this Messiah is to inaugurate; however, that he is expected to rule is implied by the specification of a limited number of years, during which conditions for the righteous will give cause for rejoicing. The surprising element here is the mention of the Messiah's death, which, though attested in later Jewish traditions,25 is unprecedented here. Unlike Christian conviction with regard to Jesus' death, this event is not apparently the result of any persecution or suffering26 and carries with it no salvific or atoning significance. Instead, coupled with the death of the remainder of humanity, it serves as a "ground clearing" of this age that prepares for the judgment that leads to life in the world to come. The Messiah's death, then, helps to mark the closing of this age. The hiatus between the old age and judgment is underscored by a space of time, seven days of primeval silence, which signals the correspondence between Urzeit and Endzeit shared by many apocalyptic writers. The judgment itself then occurs as the last event of this age, when there is a general resurrection of both the righteous and wicked (7:32; cf. Dan 12:2). As such, the judgment does not happen all at once; rather, it is envisioned as a drawn-out process of "a week of years" {7:43)- Significantly, it is "the Most High," not the Messiah, who "will be revealed upon the scat of judgment" (7:33) to pronounce punishment upon many and reward lo the few {7:138-8:3). The Messiah, aside from setting up a temporary kingdom, is given no further role in any of the subsequent eschatological events.

4 Ezra 11:1-12:36: The Lion Messiah 

The fifth vision of the seer is interpreted by the angel in relation to the Messiah. The vision itself opens with an eagle with twelve wings and three heads emerging from the sea and subjecting "everything under heaven" to itself (11:6). From the twelve wings eight smaller ones grew; each of the twelve wings and two of the little ones ruled in succession, each disappearing after its reign, until three heads and six little wings remained. After brief reigns, two of the little wings were devoured by the middle head, which then ruled oppressively "over the whole earth" with a power greater than all the previous rulers (11:32). This head disappeared, leaving the remaining right head to devour the left one (11:35)- The vision shifts focus to "a creature like a lion" that is stirred from the forest. With a human voice, this lion addressed the eagle on behalf of the Most High. It called the eagle "the fourth beast" that God had allowed to reign in the world and then announced its doom (11:36-46). At the conclusion of the lion's words, the last head disappeared, and two further wings ruled briefly until they disappeared as well (12:1-3). in the interpretation, the author explicitly acknowledges that the vision is adapted from Daniel (12:11), who, however, was not given the proper explanation for his "fourth kingdom" (Dan 7:7). This kingdom, the eagle "from the sea," is identified as the Roman Empire, while the wings and heads represent its kings. The lion that spoke to the eagle is interpreted as "the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David" (12:32; cf. Gen 49:9-10 and Rev 5:5). He is the one who, from "his judgment seat" (contrast with 4 Ez 7:33). will denounce and destroy the ungodly, while at the same time delivering the righteous remnant among God's people. In stating that the remnant will be made joyful, the author refers back to the earlier vision "of which I spoke to you at the beginning" (cf. 7:28). Several points may be noticed from this vision. First, as in Psalms of Solomon, the Davidic pedigree of the Messiah is stressed. Nothing is explicitly said about his nature. The claim that "the Most High has kept [the Messiah] until the end of days" implies that he is a préexistent figure,27 or, correspondingly, that he is a heavenly or angelic being. His status as a descendant from David does not contradict the notion of his préexistence;28 this suggests merely that the future Messiah is also a human being whose activities will not be unleashed until the close of the present age. Second, in contrast to the earlier vision in ch. 7, the Messiah here takes on a more active role in the eschatological events described: whereas God is the one who pronounces judgment in the earlier vision, the Messiah is now the one who occupies "his judgment seat." This is, however, a preliminary judgment, as "the day of judgment," which is yet to come, is described in neither the vision nor its interpretation.29 Third, in addition to dispensing judgment, the Messiah is to carry out the sentence by destroying the Roman Empire. The Messiah, then, is a military or warrior figure as well.'0 Fourth and finally, he will deliver a righteous remnant of Israel. The remnant refers to those who will live in the age to come. The author of 4 Ezra does not think the Messiah will restore Israel to its former glory in the way described in Psalms of Solomon. He envisions a clear break between the past, which belongs to tin's age, and the future, which belongs Lo a difieren l order of things. For this reason, the Messiah, as descended from David, is involved in events that relate to a future that still lies within the present age. When he delivers "the remnant of my people,... he will make them joyful until the. end comes" (12:34).

4 Ezra iy.1 -$6: The Man from the Sea 

In this section, the eschatological deliverer is not actually designated "Messiah." However, his function as one who destroys the enemies of the righteous at a time appointed by God (13:26 , 52 ) makes it clear that the author is thinking of the figure he has called the Messiah in chs. 7 and 12 . The dominant designation here is, instead, "son," which in the Latin version is rendered by the term ftlius. Scholars have argued that the messianic background for this term is strengthened in the more ambiguous Greek none, ("son," "servant"), which, in turn, goes back to the Hebrew ("servant"; cf. Ps 89:20-37 , csp. w. 2 0 and 26-27). 3 1 This seems, however, a remote way of establishing the messianic profile of the "man." More important maybe two further considerations. First, there is the reception of Psalm 2 , which at once refers to the conspiracy "against the Lord and his anointed one (h*WB )" (Ps 2:2 ; cf. 1 En 48:10 ) and the Lord's decree to the psalmist, "You are my son ('33 ); today I have begotten you (TmV)" (Ps 2:7) . The identification of "his [the Lord'sl anointed one" together with "my (the Lord's] son" was certainly current in Jewish circles by the turn of the Common Era, as is attested in the Dead Sea documents (esp. lQSa col. ii, lines 11 - 12") . While 4 Ezra does not explicitly cite Psalm 2 , the fixed designation "my son" in the sixth vision ( 13:32,37,52 ; cf. 14:9 ) would be consistent with this, and, as such, it is possible that the author knew the identification of "my son" and "anointed one" based on the biblical tradition. In this light the double designation "my son the Messiah" in the Syriac version of 7:2 8 thor's use of tradition from Daniel 7 without making an explicit claim about the protagonist's Davidic pedigree. The "man from the sea" is an imaginative interpretation of Daniel's "one as a son of man," which places the author in a position to claim more about the nature of this eschatological figure than in the previous visions. The interpretation of this "man" as "my son" reflects a fusion of ideas: the heavenly "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7 is ultimately appropriated by the author, not as the heavenly Son of Man (as is the case in Similitudes), but as God's "Son" in whom the symbolic significance of "the man from the sea" is not lost.*3 The role of God's eschatological agent in 4 Ezra 13 is thus universalized; beyond ch. 12's focus on the Roman Empire, the judgment and destruction that he metes out from Mt. Zion embrace all nations and inhabitants of the earth who assemble against him (13:33-39; cf. Psalm 2). In his destruction of Israel's enemies, the "man" of the vision reflects what has been associated with "Messiah" in earlier tradition. While he is militaristic, his function as a warrior, similar to Psalms of Solomon (17:24,35), is qualified by the fact that he accomplishes this without conventional military instruments and draws on tradition from Isa 11:4:

And behold, when he saw the onrush of the approaching multitude, he neither lifted his hand nor held a spear or any weapon of war; but I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks. (4 Ez 13:9-10)

The author's use of Isaiah 11 is more elaborate than that of Psalms of Solomon, The result described, however, is every bit what one could expect from military engagement: the multitude is completely burned, leaving only "the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke" (13:11). Thus, the identification of "my son" and "man" from ch. 13, on the one hand, with the "Messiah" from chs. 7 and 12, on the other hand, is implicit, based on tradition-historical considerations and on the prominence of a figure in the parallel scenarios of eschatological events in the document Why is this implicit? For the author, the concept of "Messiah" remains in the strict sense one concerned with a human designate of God descended from David. Because the author wished to emphasize the préexistent nature of this figure even more than in the previous visions (esp. 13:26; cf. 13:32, as 7:28), "Messiah" was in itself no longer sufficient; he found it necessary to use more comprehensive, far-reaching, though still related, designations. The interplay of the human imagery in the vision and the language of divine sonship in the interpretation feeds the author's claim that eschatological events will involve more than simply the restoration of a Davidic kingdom.5 *

2 Baruch 

The author of 2 Baruch composed his work soon after 4 Ezra, that is, after the destruction of the Second Temple and perhaps at the turn of or during the early part of the second century CE. 2 Baruch has much in common with its predecessor, including its use of the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple as the analogy through which to interpret the more recent catastrophic events at the hands of Rome." There are, however, many differences in the way the author of 2 Baruch treats common themes. Not surprisingly, this applies also to those passages that refer to the Messiah. The text is preserved in an important Syriac manuscript from Milan (dated sixth to seventh century CE), which claims that the version is a translation from Greek. The Greek is extant, however, only through a small fragment, while a more secondary version exists in an Arabic version.'6 The original language may have been either Hebrew or Aramaic References to God's eschatological "Messiah" or "Anointed One" occur in three groups: (1) 29:3 and 30:1 (within a section, chs. 26-30, which describes eschatological calamities and the messianic age); (2} 39:7 and 40:1 (within chs. 35-40, a forest vision and its interpretation); and (3) 70:9 and 72:2 (within chs. 53-76, a vision of clouds and its lengthy interpretation). We discuss these texts in turn. 

2 Barucfi 29:3 and 30:1: The Messiah's Revelation and Return

Chapter 26 begins with a description of eschatological "tribulation," which is to be a lengthy process divided into twelve periods. After recounting the worldwide calamities associated with each of these periods, the author goes on to claim that protection will be reserved for those who are "found in this land" (29:2). It is then that "the Messiah" (Syr. miyh1 ) "will begin to be revealed," a motif we have already noticed in the first reference to the Messiah in 4 Ez 7:28 and in what happens to "the Chosen One" in the Similitudes (1 En 46:6). This disclosure ushers in an age of bliss characterized by abundance of food, fertility, wonders, and good health for the protected righteous ones of the land. The author has here added the Messiah to an already known tradition of apocalyptic speculation about a period of future bliss and reward (see Book of Watchers in 1 En 10:17-22 and Book of Giants in 1Q23 frgs. 1 + 6 + 22), 3 ? making his appearance the means by which this period is initiated. In 30:1, a further, spectacular event is associated with the Messiah's appearance, also referred to as a return "with glory": the resurrection of those who "sleep in hope of him." Unlike the general resurrection of both the righteous and wicked in 4 £27:32, this event is limited to the righteous who "will enjoy themselves" (2 Bar 30:2), while "the souls of the wicked will waste away" and undergo torment (30:5). The "returning" of the Messiah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendant from David (cf. Pss Sol 18:5) and for the author probably implies that he is preexistent.38 In 2 Baruch 29-30, the presence of the Messiah is enough to generate the events described. 1 "he text does not attribute any activities to him; what happens in relation to him is ultimately regulated by the God of Israel.

 Baruch 39.7 and 40:1: "My Messiah" as the Fountain and the Vine 

In response to his despondence over the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the seer is given a vision of a forest. He sees a large forest surrounded by "high mountains and rugged rocks" (36:2; cf. 39:2), At the appearance of a vine watered by a great fountain, the forest is drowned and uprooted, with the exception of one cedar tree (36:5). In a fashion similar to the lion episode in 4 Ezra 12, the vine then speaks to the cedar, reproving it for its wickedness, and decrees for it a period of "sleep in distress and rest in pain" until the time for an eternal torment comes ( 2 Bar 36:7-11). In the interpretation, the forest is interpreted as four world kingdoms (cf. Dan 7:2-8), each of which, being increasingly evil, is destroyed in turn. The last of these kingdoms will be in power through "a multitude of times," and the unrighteous will seek refuge in it (2 Bar 39:5-6). The duration of this kingdom is measured, and when the time of its end draws near, "the dominion of my Messiah, which is like the fountain and the vine, will be revealed" (39:7). The remaining cedar from the vision represents a ruler, who — while the rest have been destroyed — is taken alive to Mt. Zion, where a court proceeding conducted by "my Messiah" against him takes place. After convicting this remaining archenemy of his evil deeds, the Messiah "will kill him" (cf. Isa 11:4b; 4Q285 frg. 7. line 43 9 ). The Messiah's dominion then commences; it is to last for a limited time, that is, "until the world of corruption" is complete.40 The author at this point does not go on to describe what will ultimately happen after this. As in 4 Ezra, the Messiah's reign is intended as a prelude to the end.

2 Baruch 70:9 and 72:2: "The Messiah" as Slayer of Israels Enemies

The main actor in the eschatological events is God "the Most High," who orchestrates a series of catastrophes among the nations of the earth (war, earthquake, fire, and famine) and delivers over — expressed through a passivum divinum — all who have escaped with their lives "into the hands of my Servant, the Messiah" (70:9). As the following passage in 72:1-6 shows, the primary function of the Messiah is to destroy the wicked ones, that is, those who are inimical to Israel; as in chs. 39-40, and unlike 4 Ezra 12 (and 13), nothing is said about his rescue of the righteous. However, whereas in chs. 39-40 the Messiah convicts and slays the single ruler symbolized by the cedar, according to 72:2 his role is more comprehensive: he convenes all nations, sparing some and killing others. Three things may be noted about the Messiah's activity in this passage. First, destruction is not the lot for all Gentiles, but rather is confined to those nations which "ruled over" Israel.41 The same is similarly implied in the way the nations are treated in Pss 50/17:34 (see above and n. 12). Second, the Messiah's profile as a warrior is not mitigated by allusions to biblical tradition (as in Psalms of Solomon 17 and 4 Ezra 13). The nations to whom Israel has been subjected "will be delivered up to the sword" (2 Bar 72:6). Just who will do the killing is not specified. The "sword" is, however, a general way of referring to conflict by material means and occurs in earlier apocalyptic documents as the means by which revenge is taken out upon the wicked (cf, e.g., Jub 5:7,9; 1 En 62:13; 90:34; and 91:12; in the latter two the sword being wielded by the righteous). Third, the Messiah will sit down "on the throne of his kingdom" (2 Baryyi), inaugurating a reign, the bliss during which is described in details inspired by Gen 3:16-18 and Isa 11:6-8 (2 Bar 73:10-74:4). As in 4 Ezra 7 and 12 and in 2 Baruch 30, joy accompanies his reign and here sums up the emotion awaiting those who will be rewarded for their righteousness.

Conclusion Our survey of "Messiah" in four non-Christian Jewish writings has encountered a very broad profile: an eschatological ruler, chosen by God to act decisively against the wicked on behalf of the righteous of God's people Israel. Beyond this, diversity takes over. The texts considered reveal the degree to which this messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves. There is no indication that the variation within documents was considered problematic in the transmission of the text, so that copyists, beyond isolated instances, seem not to have attempted to either systematize or harmonize what passages relate about God's anointed one. We have considered a number of motifs held in common by more than one of these writings in relation to a "Messiah" figure: Davidic lineage, préexistence, effects of his disclosure or coming; warrior activity; the interpretation of certain biblical texts (esp. Psalm 2; Daniel 7; and Isaiah n); and other designations that apply from the narrative contexts (e.g., "Son," "Son of Man," "Chosen One"). While in this discussion we have had occasion to note where parallels between these traditions exist, it is striking that the motifs arc neither found in all the literature nor, if there, handled in the same way. Thus, beyond their immédiate literary presentations, these compositions resist any attempt to streamline or synthesize their respective ideas,*12 ideas that are integral to the particular concerns of the authors and their communities and that also depend on their respective approaches to the tradition-historical building blocks they had to hand. Thus, at least in relation to this material, lames Charlesworth is correct to say that the question "Why did Jews not recognise Jesus was the Messiah?" is misconstrued;'** this question easily assumes a high degree of coherenc e i n Jewis h thought , a s wel l a s presupposin g tha t earl y Christia n communities , whic h thrive d i n culturall y an d geographicall y divers e part s o f th e rvléditerranca n world , woul d hav e share d a commo n understand ­ ing. 4 4 I find it har d t o imagin e tha t Jewis h reader s o f Danie l 7, Psalms of Solomon, o r an y o f th e othe r document s considere d her e woul d hav e trie d t o negotiat e th e text s aroun d a basi c cor e traditio n — no t foun d i n an y on e o f ou r passage s — abou t God' s eschatologica l Messiah . Wha t w e d o hav e here , however , i s a serie s o f document s compose d nea r th e tur n o f th e Commo n Er a b y Jew s wh o wer e inspire d b y biblica l traditio n an d subse ­ quen t pattern s an d tradition s o f interpretatio n t o expres s thei r hop e i n a worl d restore d t o bein g totall y i n th e contro l o f th e Go d o f Israel . Suc h a dynami c hop e drov e thei r description s o f eschatologica l event s t o b e "cre ­ ativel y biblical " a t ever y turn . W e shoul d no t b e surprised , therefore , i f figure s calle d "Messiah " participat e i n a t leas t som e o f th e apocalypti c reformulation s o f thi s hope . 

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments: A Response Craig A- Evans

Introductor y Comment s T h e nature and importanc e o f messianis m for early Judaism and Christianity continue to be explored and debated. Th e definition of messianism a nd ho w far back it ma y be traced are amon g the points that are the most sharply disputed. Simpl y put, is there messianism in the Old Testament, and, if there is, ho w doe s it compar e to the messianism expressed in the N e w Testament? Anothe r important question concern s the extent to which messianism played a role in the shaping o f the theologie s of various expressions o f Judaism and Christianity. Wha t wer e the messiani c ideas with which Jesus and his followers wer e familiar? Which parts o f these ideas were adopted by Jesus and the writers o f the Ne w Testament? An d finally, doe s the messianism o f the respective Ne w Testament writers coher e and perhaps even form a unity? T h e scholars in this volum e have wrestled with thes e difficult questions. To their credit, the y have allowed their respective biblical author s t o have their say, without foisting upo n the m a harmonizin g synthesis that hope s to smoot h away diversity and tension. In my judgment, a great strength in this collection o f studies, and the conferenc e out o f which they grew, is the freshness of the approache s that are taken. I find n o over-trod pathways and predictable conclusions. O n the whole , thes e essays are marked by innovation and insigh t It is a pleasur e to respond to them.

Tremper Longman III, "Th e Messiah : Exploration s i n th e La w an d Writings** 

Tremper Longma n has framed the issue well, recognizing that there is nothin g in the Torah an d Writings that is explicitly messianic , in the sens e understood in later times. Yet, later writers did find messianism in the I-aw a n d the Writings. By wha t hermeneutical strategy wer e the y able to d o this? Longman s question is right t o th e point. I found his pape r very stimulating. He rightly begins wit h the definition o f the term Messiah. Th e word tells u s little, but othe r concepts offer som e help. Th e verb masah an d the nou n (o r adjective) maSiah usually refer to consecration rituals. I n the Law t he reference is t o priests, consecrated for the Lord's culti c work. In the Writings the reference is mostly t o Israel's kings (reflecting custom and usage o f the narratives o f Samuel-Kings). Longma n focuse s o n the Psalter: Psalm 2, possibly a coronation psalm, perhaps also recited o n the eve o f hol y war. Although it is no t explicitly Davidic , the echoe s o f the Davidic covenant o f 2 Samue l 7 encourag e understanding Psalm 2 as Davidi c (as, indeed, the autho r o f Acts in the Ne w Testament understands it, an d as the author o f lQSa als o understands it). Placed at the beginnin g o f the Psalter, Psal m 2 ma y have set the tone for all that follows, especially thos e psalm s that refer to the Lord's anointed. Longma n wonder s if perhaps the remarkable claims o f this psal m helpe d to create the hop e o f a future kin g wh o would live up to them , given the fact that Israel's historic kings had not. In m y judgment, Longman's critique o f Gerald Wilson's theory o f the them e underlying the Psalter's organization is devastating. T h e "greater kin g wh o woul d derive from the Davidi c line (as reflected in Ge n 49:10 and Nu m 24:17! migh t have captured the imagination o f th e people."1 Indeed, it appear s that it did just that. Thes e texts are paraphrased explicitly as messiani c in the Aramai c paraphrase o f Scripture known a s the Targum. 'Ihes e texts are also understood in a messiani c sens e in the Ne w Testament era an d earlier, as w e se e in the Dea d Sea Scrolls an d i n allusions to the m in the Ne w Testament, Philo, and Josephus. And for thos e wh o objec t to a n appeal to the Targum, which after all postdate s the N e w Testament, I offer the reminde r that the edited form o f the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic Text, is n o older. I mentio n this becaus e o f a commen t that Longma n make s i n a footnote, 2 in which he wonder s ho w Gen 49:10 migh t have bee n "understood within the context o f the original autho r a nd audienc e o f Genesis." Very goo d question. But wha t is mean t by this "original autho r an d audience" is very difficult to say. Genesis 49> edited a n d contextualized as we no w have it in the Hebrew Bible, ma y well hav e reflected messiani c hop e — if no t for the original author, probably for man y o f the earliest readers and hearers. Professor Longma n raises som e interesting questions i n his discussion o f Genesis 14 and Psalm 110.1 have little t o add, bu t I migh t point ou t that the priest-king o f Psalm n o ma y well have encouraged the me n o f Qumra n to give priority t o the priests in the preparation for an d engage ­ men t o f the great hol y wa r at the en d o f days, whe n the sons o f light de ­ stroy the son s o f darkness. 3 On e shoul d also recall that monarch s in antiquity often did take o n priestly roles. Even the Roma n emperor , o f a later era, wa s called Pontifex Maximus, "High Priest," as well as Imperator, "Commander." Close r to the Jewish context, the Hasmonea n rulers were priest-kings, at least som e o f the m (e.g., Aristobolus I, Alexande r Jannaeus, a nd perhaps Antigonus, the last Hasmonea n ruler). Therefore , even if else ­ wher e in Scripture there is expressed resistance t o kingl y encroachmen t upo n priestly roles, there wa s a measur e o f precedent in the twilight o f th e post-exilic/intertestamental era. I encourage Professor Longma n to give mor e attention to the myste ­ rious figure described in Danie l 7,* especially in light o f the fact that it is this figure to who m |esus refers an d probably in light o f whic h h e himself defines his messiani c task (e.g., Mark 2:10,28; 8:31; 10:45; 14:62)- Longma n is right t o loo k at Deuteronom y 18, a passage alluded t o in the Ne w Testamen t (e.g., Mark 6:15; John 1:21; Acts 3:22; 7:37) an d greatly emphasize d in Samaritan traditions o f late antiquity (e.g., Memar Marqa 4:12). T h e role o f Isaiah in the ministr y o f Jesus an d in th e exchang e be ­ tween hi m and th e imprisoned John the Baptist is a very interesting area o f study. In m y view, Jesus' allusion to healing an d exorcism is mean t t o allay John's doubts ("Go an d tell John wha t yo u hear and see"; Matt 11:2-6; Luke 7:18-23). Thes e activities o f Jesus did no t create the doubts. It wa s John's languishing in prison that created them . After all, according to Isa 61:1-2, o n whic h Jesus base s his Nazareth sermo n (Luke 4:16-30), the Anointed O n e is to Set the captive s free. Therefore, Jesus alludes to this Isaianic passage in his reply to John. We d o no t kno w if this reply satisfied the imprisone d baptizcr. Professor Longma n conclude s that the "Old Testament did no t provide the first centur y C R wit h a clear blueprint for the Messiah."5 This is correct, strictly speaking. But mor e than on e scholar has remarked ho w texts such as Ge n 49:10; Nu m 24:17; an d lsa 11:1 figure significandy in diverse Jewish circles, including Christian teachers an d writers o f the book s that woul d eventually find their wa y int o the Ne w Testament, writers an d collector s o f the corpu s we call the Dea d Sea Scrolls, an d various othe r intertestamental writers, including som e o f the Ol d Testament Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, and Philo. Thes e sam e three Old Testament texts con ­ tinue to b e interpreted in essentially the sam e sens e in later rabbinic and targumi c traditions. 1 agree that there wa s diversity in messiani c expectation i n late antiquity {and have said s o myself in various places 6 ), bu t there doe s see m to be a core o f material ou t o f whic h the diversity could spring. Th e rub for early Christians — and it wa s a big rub — wa s the crucifixion o f Jesus. This mad e it necessary t o ponde r the Scripture s afresh, as Longma n points out in his discussion o f Luke 24.1 will return to the question o f diversity whe n I respond to Loren Stuckcnbruck's pape r below. I greatly appreciat e wha t Longma n says unde r the headin g o f "Hermeneutical Implications." Thos e committe d to a "single-meaning hermeneutic" struggl e to d o fair, descriptive exegetical analyses o f many N e w Testament passages that cite an d interpret Ol d Testament passages, often reading Ne w Testament ideas int o the Old, or downplayin g the inno ­ vative elemen t in the Ne w Testament, claiming that it has no t really added anything t o the Ol d Testament text. I woul d add t o Longman's hermeneutica l observations by returning to the point I mad e above . Wha t w e call Bible ma y indeed contain very old traditions, which in man y case s are based o n very old sources, but it is the Bible as a whol e that is authoritative o r canonical. That fact in effect up ­ dates its contents. I a m no t advocating ignoring ancient history o r the data o f archaeology that address the question o f "what really happened"; I a m saying that the Bible is in a sens e a contemporary book , by virtue o f its up ­ dating by various editor s an d tradents. Th e original meanin g of Gen 49:10 m a y well have been messianic , in the full sens e o f the hop e o f a comin g anointed deliverer. O f course , the dyin g patriarch Jacob very probably wa s n o t thinking o f any such thing — beyon d perhaps a general hop e that the G o d o f Abraham is faithful and saving. But the final editor that gave us wha t becam e Ihe boo k o f Genesis, in the context o f what became the Bible, may well have thought o f Genesis 49 as messianic . 1 conclude with an exampl e o f what I mean , an exampl e that has nothin g to d o with messianism. Wha t d o we make of Deut 26:2? It reads: "You shall take som e of the first o f all the fruit o f the ground , which yo u harvest from your land that the LORD your Go d gives you, an d yo u shall p u t it in a basket, and yo u shall g o to the place which the LORD your Go d will choose , to make his nam e to dwell there." Most commentator s recogniz e that the "place" that Go d will choos e "to mak e his nam e to dwell" is Jerusalem and the temple . But did Mose s kno w about Jerusalem and the temple? Mose s probably did not, but a later editor did. Deuteronom y o f the Bible — that is, canonical Deuteronom y — know s about Jerusalem and the templ e that wuuld eventually be built there. To se e the templ e in Deuteronomy 26 is no t to "read somethin g int o the text," but to recogniz e somethin g that is in the text, as it eventually cam e to be edited and finalized, no t in the time o f Moses, bu t in a much later time . Likewise in the case of messianism: it probably is in the Ol d Testament, the Bible, even if the concept itself doe s no t reach back int o the history that parts of the Ol d Testament narrate.

Mar k J . Boda , "Figuring the Future : The Prophets an d Messiah "

 Mark Boda takes on what I believe is the most complicated area of Ol d Testament messianism. His learned pape r is primarily focused o n three o f the Mino r Prophets: Ilaggai, Zechariah, an d Malachi. I a m delighted that Professor Boda investigates the meaning of the curiou s designation "the tw o sons o f oil" (cf. Zech 4:14). Withou t disputing the question o f wh o wer e the original referents, I think it is interesting tha t this unusual passage appears at Qunirá n in an eschatological com - mentar y o n Gen 49:8-12 (i.e., 4(3254!, perhaps suggesting that amon g som e Jews in late antiquit y the tw o son s o f oil wer e non e othe r than the anointed king and the anointed high priest wh o will serve th e Lord faithfully side by side . This diarchic understanding o f messianis m seem s to be an integral part o f Qumran's eschatology. 7 However , here 1 anticipate a n issue that I shall take u p momentaril y wit h Professor Wolters. I especially appreciate Boda's treatment o f Malachi and this book's interest in the comin g Da y o f the Lord an d the messenge r that is sent be - fore, a concep t that recalls covenant ideas expressed in F.xodus 23. Readers o f the Ne w 'lestament canno t fail to notic e the citation o f Mai 3:1, com - bine d wit h Isa 40:3, in the introduction o f John the Baptist in Mark 1. But wha t often goe s unnoticed is ho w deepl y the Baptist is himself baptized in t he theme s and image s o f the messenge r prophet. 8 I foun d most interesting Boda's observation regarding the mal'ak adonai ("messenge r o f the Lord") figures, wh o are n o mer e mortals. We m a y have her e a n important contribution to the messiani c tradition that created a matrix out o f which early Christianity emerged. As it turns out, the Mino r Prophets pla y majo r roles in Ne w Testamen t messianism and eschatology. Jesus, the resurrected so n o f David, fulfills the prophec y o f Amo s 9:11 (cf. Acts 15:15-18); the comin g o f the Spirit, in the aftermath o f the resurrection and ascension o f Messiah Jesus, fulfills t h e prophec y o f Joel 2:28-32 (cf. Acts 2:14-21); whil e the birth o f the Davidic scion in Bethlehe m fulfills the prophec y o f Mt c 5:2 (cf. Matt 2:1-6). Jesus himself compare s his ministry to that o f Jonah, whic h the church later would develop int o a typolog y o f death, burial, an d resurrection "on the third day" (cf. Matt 12:38-41). 

Al Wolters, "Th e Messia h i n th e Qumra n Documents "

Professor Al Wolter s provide s u s with a succinc t distillation o f the niessianism at Qumran . Th e questions that h e raises in his openin g paragraph are indeed the questions that have driven research in this important area, and, sometimes, have actually hindered wor k — such as confusion ove r the question o f on e o r tw o Messiahs at Qumran , a point to which I shall return in a moment . Professor Wolters focuse s his remarks o n the recent work o f tw o Scrolls scholars — John Collins an d Michae l Wise . His assessment o f the arguments and contributions o f Collins is in m y judgmen t o n the whol e penetrating an d sound . M y onl y reservation concerns wha t is said about Zech 4:14, the passage that mention s the "two sons o f oil," the question o f Qumran's binar y or diarchic messianism, an d the larger question o f wh y Qumra n doe s no t see m to be preoccupied with messianism. Contrary to Professor Wolters, 1 think there is i n fact a measur e o f evidenc e that Qumra n appealed t o Zech 4:t4 in suppor t o f diarchi c messianism. This evidenc e lies in the discovery o f this distinctive phrase, that is, "the tw o sons o f oil" (found nowher e else in Hebrew literature), in 4Q254, amon g the fragments o f commentar y o n Gen 49:8-12, the oracle pertaining to Jacob's so n Judah. Som e Qumra n scholars, however , wonde r if the phras e from Zechariah 4 wa s part o f the commentar y o n Ge n 493-7* t he oracle concerning Simeo n and Levi." In m y view, it doe s no t matter, for t he "two son s o f oil" apply to both Levi the priest and Judah the prince. This interesting fragmentary commentary , whe n taken i n conjunctio n with the several references to the expected du o called "the anointed o f Aaron and o f Israel" (C D 2:12; 5:21-6:1; 12:23-13:1; 14:19; 19:10-11; 20:1; 1QS 9:11) — including the blessings o n the priest and the princ e in iQS b 4-5 a nd their seating together in lQSa 2:10-15, at wha t is a n eschatological banque t o f sorts — provide s significant evidenc e for the position that Collins takes. Nevertheless, I find that Professor Wolters's criticism is o n the whol e o n target. T h e reason wh y messianis m at Qumra n is no t clearer, as Wolters rightly observes, is that it is no t emphasized. An d the reason it is no t em ­ phasized is no t for lack o f interest; it is for lack o f controversy. Wha t is at issue wit h the me n o f the renewed covenant is th e lack o f culti c accuracy a n d the sorry deficiency, in their view, o f priestly ethic s in Jerusalem. Ther e is n o anointed Jewish kin g lo criticize, just the anointed priest and h is corrupt colleagues. Becaus e Cod will raise up the Messiah in du e course , it is assume d that the anointe d princ e will b e righteous and will follow the guideline s se t ou t by the righteous priests o f th e renewed cove ­ nant, wh o anticipat e restoring true worshi p and goo d governmen t in Israel someday . Thes e observations explain why Qumran's priestly and halakic views are distinctive at man y points, whil e thei r messianism is not. Th e Messiah for who m the y wait is no t muc h different from the Messiah awaited by others. 1 0 1 appreciate Professor Wolters's critique o f Michae l Wise's imaginary reconstruction o f th e foundin g o f the Qumra n communit y and the life o f its founder , wh o is called Judah. Wis e doe s indeed put together a wellinformed scenario o f wha t migh t have been. To quot e from m y ow n jacket blurb, "there is muc h t o learn from this engaging an d well-written book," Wha t I did no t g o o n t o say at that tim e wa s that I remain totally unper - suaded. I suspec t that Wolters's jacket blurb for this boo k shoul d be under ­ stoo d in the sam e spirit. O f it he says, "Simultaneously brilliant, daring, a nd readable." Professor Wolters an d I learned muc h fro m this interesting book , to b e sure; but at the en d o f the day, all that Wis e gives us is informed fiction. I concur wit h Professor Wolters's skeptical assessment.

Lo re II T. Stuckcnbruck, "Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism" Loren Stuckcnbruck begins his paper with a refreshingly clear and precise set of guiding questions, marked by tight controls. He rightly wishes to avoid anachronism and slippery definitions. His selection of Psalms of Solomon, Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch constitutes a well-chosendata base. The potential gains in insight from a work such as the Testaments of the TWelve Patriarchs are offset by the uncertainty created by the many Christian interpolations, which often have mcssianism (or Christology) as their focus. Indeed, it has even been argued that the Testaments was originally composed by a Christian. Professor Stuckenbruck rightly omits it In Psalms of Solomon 17-18 we find a zealous, energetic messianic son of David, who will purge the land of sinners. He is not divine, nor does he have heavenly status. To be sure, he will enjoy divine assistance. In this sense, he is a true descendant of David, through whom the nation of Israel will be restored. In the Similitudes of Enoch (or 1 Enoch 37-71), which is probably preChristian in origin since there is no allusion or response to a specifically Christian idea, we find two passages that mention a Messiah. This Messiah is terrestrial, and he may not be Davidic (at least there is no indication that he is). We are told nothing about the nature of this Messiah. Is he divine? But if he is related to the mysterious Son of Man figure, inspired by Daniel 7, then the Messiah of the Similitudes may well be a heavenly figure of some sort. The tide "Messiah" does not seem to have shaped the author's mcssianism as much as the Son of Man figure has. 1 1 In 4 Ezra 7 we have the interesting anticipation that the Messiah and all of humanity will die. There will be a time of silence. The Messiah's death appears to be natural; he is not martyred. His death has no value, atoning or otherwise. The Messiah has no further role. The Messiah of 4 Ezran-12 plays a different role, taking part in eschatological judgment. In 4 Ezra 13 the messianic ("my son") figure once again appears as a judge. I agree with Stuckenbruck's appeal to Ps 2:2,7, which is also seen in iQSa: "when God will beget the Messiah among them" Psalm 2, with its metaphorical language of the Lord's Messiah as "begotten," makes important contributions to the messianism of New Testament times. Professor Stuckenbruck finds a different messianic figure in 2 Baruch. The Messiah is revealed and returns "with glory." The righteous are resurrected; the souls of the wicked will rot. This Messiah may be Davidic, perhaps even préexistent. Visions in other chapters foresee a Messiah who will slay Israel's enemies (probably including the Romans) and will sit in judgment on them in court at Jerusalem. A period of messianic bliss will follow. Professor Stuckenbruck concludes by commenting on the messianic diversity of these Jewish writings of late antiquity. In general I agree with him; the diversity of views in these texts must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, there may be core elements. We find Isaiah 11 echoed in the Psalms of Solomon (cf. 17:24, 29, 36, 37) and in 4 Ezra (cf. 13:10), as Stuckenbruck points out The "son of man" figure of Daniel 7 is reflected in the Similitudes of Enoch and in 4 Ezra. Three passages in particular — Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Isa 11:1-10 — frequently appear in contexts that are messianic. But as has been shown in intertestamental writings surveyed here, messianism could be entertained without them.12

I. Howard Marshall. "Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthew" Professor Howard Marshall treats us to thoughtful overviews of the messianic portraits of Jesus as we have them in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. With regard to Mark, I agree that in referring to himself as the "Son of Man" Jesus was alluding to Daniel 7 and that this passage readily invites a messianic identification. As Professor Marshall notes, the son of man is "given dominion and a kingdom from God" 1 3 Of whom else can that be said, except the Messiah? There are three points with regard to Mark that I wish to raise. First, I would like to hear more of Professor Marshall's views of the role played by the heavenly voice at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:11) and at the later Transfiguration (Mark 9:7), where Jesus is addressed: "You are my son."14 The allusion to Ps 2:7 seems clear; Psalm 2 is messianic (as seen esp. in v. 2). That it was understood this way in Jewish texts of late antiquity is seen in 4 Ezra 13, as Loren Stuckenbruck has discussed, and probably in lQSa 2, in reference to the time "when God will have begotten the Messiah." These two heavenly utterances in Mark's Gospel — the first at the outset of Jesus' public ministry in Galilee; the second shortly after Jesus' announcement to his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem to suffer and die — play a pivotal role. The heavenly voice seems both times to confirm the messianic identity of Jesus. Second, Professor Marshall treats the "Son of Man" passages judiciously He rightly comments on the abruptness of the first occurrence of this Danielic epithet in Mark 2 and goes on to explain its meaning in reference to the theme of suffering, which Jesus the Messiah will have to undergo. Daniel makes many other significant contributions to Mark's presentation of Jesus. The announcement of the rule of God in Mark 1:15 ("The time [kairos] is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand"; cf. 10:30; 13:33) probably reflects Daniel's frequent reference to the time of the end (Dan 7:12, 22: "the time [Jfrtiroj] came when the saints received the kingdom"; 8:17-18: "Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time [kairos] of the end"; 9:26-27: "until the time [kairos] of the end"; 11:35: "until the time (fcairosl of the end, for it is yet for the time [kairos] appointed"; 12:4: "shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time [kairos] of the end"). According to Dan 7:14, the Son of Man will be "given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him." But according to Jesus, the "Son of man also came not to be served but to serve" (Mark 10:45). This is a significant qualification of the Danielic vision, which coheres with the suffering theme that Professor Marshall discusses. Moreover, the very charge brought against Jesus at his hearing before the Jewish council, "We heard him say, lI will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days 1 will build another, not made with hands'" (Mark 14:58), surely alludes lo Daniel's vision of the coming stone that will crush the kingdoms that have opposed God and his people: "a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces" (Dan 2:34; cf. v. 45). Daniel's visions, especially that of the coming Son of Man, appear to underlie essential components of the Christology and eschatology we find in Mark.15 The third point has to do with the cry of blind Bartimaeus, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" (Mark 10:47; see v. 48 also). Professor Marshall remarks that the "call for healing... does not explain the title" 1 6 But perhaps it does, at least in part. I wonder if addressing Jesus as the son of David has anything to do with Solomonic traditions, in which David's famous son was well known for healing and exorcism. After all, it was in his name that Jewish exorcists conducted their ministrations. We have the example of Eleazar in Joscphus, as well as examples in the magical papyri." At least one exorcist, according to Mark 9:38, discovered that the name of Jesus was effective in casting out demons.18 It is plausible, then, that Jesus' ministry of healing and exorcism, evidently consistent with prophetic expectations in Isaiah (such as 35:5-6 and 61:1-2), gave rise to the hope in the minds of some that he was the awaited eschatological son of David. Indeed, Qumran's alludes to these very Isaianic passages in reference to expected healing when the Messiah appears. The blind man's call for healing may well tell us something about Jesus'* messianic status in Mark. With regard to the presentation of Jesus as Messiah in the Gospel of Matthew, Professor Marshall's treatment is again concise and to the point. The messianism is more explicit, at times almost formal. The royal component comes to the fore. The divine sonship of Jesus is also emphasized; so is his role as the Lord's Servant Jesus as teacher of wisdom and even as Wisdom incarnate constitutes fascinating portraits in Matthew's presentation. Matthew's Messiah Jesus is seen at the end as God's vice regent of heaven and earth, in contrast to the Roman emperor. Here we have again a theme found in Mark that is then further developed in the Gospel of Matthew. Often what Mark alludes to (such as an Old Testament passage or theme) Matthew develops more fully and explicitly. I find the portrait of Jesus as master teacher, as almost a new Moses, very interesting. This presentation of the Messiah may well be on the trajectory that will emerge more formally and emphatically in much later rabbinic texts where in the messianic era the Law is studied and obeyed perfectly.'9 Matthew's presentation of Jesus may represent an early stage in this concept. Of course, the presentation of a Torah-observant and Torah-teaching Messiah no doubt was intended to fend off"criticism emanating from the synagogue, to the effect that the Jesus movement was antinomian.

Stanley E. Porter, "The Messiah in Luke and Acts: Forgiveness for the Captives" Professor Stanley Porter argues the thesis that "a consistent and fundamental development of Jesus as the anointed prophet stands at the heart of Luke's depiction of Jesus as Messiah."2 " Porter's thesis is well founded. The prophetic emphasis is seen in the I.ukan birth narrative, where one figure after another speaks oracles, sometimes as songs and sometimes specifically noted as due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, traveling and ministering in the power of the Spirit. Of course, in his sermon in the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach... ."The Lukan Gospel ends on a note of prophetic fulfillment, with the risen Jesus instructing his disciples (Luke 24:25-27,44. 49; Acts i:6-8). The prophetic orientation of the Lukan infancy narrative is seen at many points, not least in the points of contact with the story of Samuel, Israel's great priest, prophet, and judge. The births of Samuel and Jesus are brought about by God (1 Sam 1:9-20). Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), in which she praises God for what has been done in her, parallels Samuel's mother Hannah's Magnificat (1 Sam 2:1-10), in which she thanks God for her son. The name of the elderly woman in Luke's story, who sings praise, is Anna (Luke 2:36-38), which is from the Hebrew name Hannah. Hannah dedicates Samuel to the temple, which becomes his house (1 Sam 1:21-26). Mary brings the infant Jesus to the temple (Luke 2:22-24), to which he later returns as a lad, calling the temple his Father's house (Luke 2:41-52). In the context of the temple, it is said of Samuel: "Now the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Loan and with men" (1 Sam 2:26). In what is clearly an echo of this passage, Luke says of the boy Jesus: "Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). Professor Porter also calls our attention to points of contact with the stories of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. The parallels here are not incidental but go straight to the heart of theological issues with which the Lukan evangelist is deeply concerned.21 Elijah and Elisha provide the examples in Jesus' explication of Isaiah 61 in the Nazareth sermon (Luke 4:16- 30, esp. w. 25-27). The implication is that the ministries of these great prophets of old will shed light on the meaning of Jesus' prophetic ministry. This is indeed the case. The resuscitation of the widow's only son (Luke 7:11-17) offers a half dozen points of contact with the stories of Elijah and Elisha, both of whom raised only sons (cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:18-37). 'I"he incident in which the disciples wonder if Jesus should call fire down from heaven as judgment on the unwelcoming Samaritans (Luke 9:51-56) is a clear allusion to the fire that Elijah called down on the troops of the Samaritan king (2 Kings 1:9-16)." The rejection of the would-be follower, who wishes first to return home and bid farewell to his family (Luke 9:61- 62), is an unmistakable allusion to Elijah's summons of Elisha (1 Kings 19:19-21}. Parallels with other prophets and their various oracles confirm the inference that the Lukan evangelist has taken pains to highlight the prophetic dimension of Jesus' ministry. In the book of Acts, Professor Porter rightly recognizes the programmatic function of the Pentecost sermon, on analogy with Jesus' Nazareth sermon in Luke. He also calls our attention to the prophetic role of David. This is no Lukan innovation, for there are pre-Christian Jewish traditions in which David is depicted as a prophet or as one moved by the Spirit of God (e.g., iiQPs* 27). The parallel between Jesus and David is thus apparent. Prophetic fulfillment finds expression in Paul's later speeches in Acts. An important concomitant are the hints in Acts that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise of Moses that God would someday raise up a prophet like him: "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him" (Deut 18:18). Twice this very passage is cited in reference to Jesus (cf. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37). Thus, the Lukan evangelist has appealed to an interesting diversity of prophetic traditions associated with Old Testament worthies who loomed large in Jewish late antiquity: David, Elijah, and Moses. Such an impressive collocation lends substantial support to the bold claim that in Jesus God has raised up a Messiah who will indeed bring forgiveness to the captives. 

Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology" Tom Thatcher interacts with current Johannine scholarship that has grappled with the complicated history of the development of Johannine literature, particularly the Gospel, and the Christology that it advances.23 "John's Christology," we are told, "is a formula that makes it possible for Christians to construct memories of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."24 Dr. Thatcher focuses on two "themes"or what may be better termed strategies: (1) the evangelist's "ability to generate images of Christ that oppose Jewish claims," particularly with regard to Moses; and (2) the evangelist's "ability to generate memories thai oppose the Antichrists' claims."25 Concerning the first theme, Thatcher reviews in what ways the fourth evangelist portrays Jesus as superior to Moses. He is so "in every conceivable way, doing everything that Moses did and a great many things that Moses could never hope to do." 2 6 Thatcher mentions the Jewish teachers' self-designation: "we arc disciples of Moses" (cf. John 9:28}. This relevant observation opens up some interesting possibilities that Thatcher could pursue further. For example, he could delineate some of the numerous parallels with targumic and midrashic traditions, traditions generated by the "disciples of Moses,"27 that is, the early rabbis and interpreters of Scripture in the synagogue.28 These parallels are part of the evangelist's strategy, to find the common ground and, in effect, to prove that he is a better "disciple of Moses" than the unbelieving Jewish teachers of his time. Concerning the second theme, Thatcher examines in what ways the evangelist counters those whose exalted Christology denies the reality of the humanity and incarnation of Jesus, along with his pre-Easter teaching. They deny Jesus' humanity and earthly ministry, they believe, by warrant of the Holy Spirit. Because they deny the earthly teaching of Jesus, these false teachers, who at one time would have been viewed by the evangelist as Christians, are designated "Antichrists." The elitism and divisiveness of these Antichrists stand in tension with the command to love one another. Thatcher has again touched on a very interesting and potentially very enlightening theme. One may wonder if the Johannine author's reference to his opponents as "antichrists" (antichristoi) in 1 John 2:18 correlates to his assurance in 1 John 2:27 that true believers are to have God's "anointing" (chrisma), which teaches them everything. In essence, the Johannine writer proposes a scenario in which warfare occurs between false christs {i.e., the "antichrists") and the true christs (i.e., the Johannine Christians who have received the divine anointing). The Johannine believers have received the anointing (or spirit) promised them by Jesus (as in the fourth Gospel's upper-room discourse in John 14-16) and therefore know the truth, a truth that is now assailed by false christs or falsely anointed ones. Dr. Thatcher does not pursue this line of interpretation, but it seems to me that it could shed light on aspects of his assessment of the Johannine opponents.

S. A. Cummins, "Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul" Dr. Cummins divides his paper into three principal parts, each consisting of clearly delineated questions that take us right to the heart of the matter. In the first two parts he investigates Paul's faith before conversion and his faith after conversion. He rightly interprets 2 Cor 5:16 ("even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer") as meaning that Paul's understanding of the Messiah has changed, not that the pre-Eastcr fesus is of no interest. It is clear that Paul's understanding of the Messiah changed with his conversion. But how did his understanding of monotheism change (assuming that it did)? That is a question that I would like Dr. Cummins to address more directly. Did God's revealing of his Son to Paul lead Paul to revise his understanding of the Godhead? Did it set him on a path leading to trinitarian theology? These are not easy questions, 1 realize, but I would like to hear more.29 I wonder if Judaism's strict monotheism, which excludes hypostases, for example, is a reaction against Christianity? One thinks of the polemical interpretation of Isa 44:6 ("I am the first and 1 am the last; besides me there is no god"), which is applied against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus (cf. Mek. on Exod 20:2 [Bahodesh $5]; Song Rab. 1:9 §9). How would Philo have fared, had he spoken of the Logos as the second God (theos)*0 in the second or third century, instead of the early, pre-Christian first century? The third part of the paper speaks to Paul's ideas of monotheism, Messiah Jesus, and the eschatological people of God. Much of the discussion here focuses on the question of faith, works of the law, and fellowship (involving Jews and Gentiles). In Messiah fesus the barriers that divided Jews from non-Jews are broken down. Non-Jews today are scarcely able to appreciate the dilemma that Paul and other Jewish believers in Jesus faced. The idea that the Law of Moses no longer had to be scrupulously observed was very difficult Dr. Cummins explores this complicated problem, suggesting solutions along the way: the fulfillment of the Law in Jesus conveys fulfillment to the believer; believers are therefore excluded from divine condemnation.31 

Cynthia Long Westfall, "Messianic Themes of Temple, Enthronement, and Victory in Hebrews and the General Epistles" Cynthia Westfall wraps up our conference with an assessment of the messianic themes in Hebrews and the General Epistles. She examines the respective contexts of these writings and what bearing they may have on their messianic ideas, the occurrences of "Christ" in the respective writings, and the respective "authors' use of messianic scenarios."32 She then works her way systematically through Hebrews, James, l2 Peter, Jude, and i -3 John. She finds a variety of approaches and emphases, and she calls attention to the messianic/christological innovations in Hebrews. If nothing else, West fall's assignment illustrates the diversity of the writings of the New Testament and their respective strategies in formulating Christology, Christology not apparently restricted to what was available in contemporary Jewish messianic ideas and hopes. The adoption of priestly scenarios in Hebrews is intelligible when it is remembered that most references to the "anointed" one in the Pentateuch are in fact to priests, usually the high priest. Once the identification of Jesus as "anointed" took hold—and indeed, became ubiquitous among his first followers —- informing this designation with data under this headng was a natural consequence. West fall's suggestions arc consistent with this approach. In l Peter, Dr. Westfall underscores enthronement, new birth, and the Christian community as a spiritual building, all of which are evocative images. 2 Peter is distinctive for recalling the story of the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8 and parallels). First John is distinctive for describing the believer, and not just Jesus, as ''anointed."Thus we have "christs" in the plural, the possible significance of which was probed above in connection with Tom Thatcher's paper. Here it might be added that the Johannine writer has introduced an innovative element into the more familiar cschatological scenario in which the tearful antichrist figure was expected soon to arise. Westfall rightly concludes with the suggestion that the christological contributions of the General Epistles have been underappreciated in much of previous scholarship. West fall's perspective coheres with recent, encouraging developments in scholarly investigations into Judaic Christianity, as preserved largely in the General Epistles (James and Hebrews paramount among them) and in the brief quotations of early church fathers. As work in Judaic Christianity continues,33 the neglect that Westfall decries will, we all hope, be addressed. In concluding my response, I wish to express my gratitude to Professors Stanley Porter and Mark Boda for convening a superb conference. Thanks also go to the contributors, who enriched participants and audience alike with fresh and insightful studies.  

Nicolas Silvestre Bergier. Diccionario de Teología.

Pongo aquí algunas cosas que me han resultado interesantes de dicho Diccionario, para conocer lo que pensaría un eclesiástico de cultura del siglo XVIII.

Volumen 1: https://books.google.es/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=diccionario+de+teolog%C3%ADa&ei=TzKbTuX3DcqcOo6_nYkK&ct=result&pg=PA446&id=o0RuWQUHI84C&hl=es#v=onepage&q&f=false

Volumen 3: https://www.google.com.ar/books/edition/Diccionario_de_teolog%C3%ADa_3/Jt2SwOpmpf0C?hl=es&gbpv=0

 

Volumen 4: 

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QafIekh2BdexO_iXEpZgEYfD2DOkhqh5t1GfqbdPkuKee0TIg_ng-0g0EJM-pxICPyQoxdkGVuAio5_mW9LnXn5P_WmkEyRCuKGXYsPz8hARCquC2mD6F1hXNbttQgWYEQKRW4jOv8wR_H3d_blUrkprtOJK2VVezVgQB0Q8ze46wFhUVO2tPQw5er6ceO0w60XzkjB5B83bkneH9Pj9D6wS8d2ZIiu-ECNrtLD2dGbCfXFIjiT4kONKxOzGFQgOzzgInBrAss7e0mFOTXHwP2ux2ois0cq896iWf96TDGgLfXhMcX4

pag. 381 trata sobre la tolerancia

Sobre la tolerancia y libertad religiosa.

En el volumen 1.

Introducción:

Todas las sectas, al establecerse, exigieron la tolerancia , bien resueltas á no observarla en el momento que adquirieran fuerzas. Segun los principios que sentaron , la tolerancia debe ser ilimitada ; los judios, mahometanos , paganos, deistas y los ateos , tienen tanto derecho á ella como otro herege cualquiera. Esto lo handemostrado á la vez los católicos , los protestantes y los incrédulos 1. En efecto , todas las razones en que se apoyaban los calvinistas para exigir la tolerancia han sido vueltas contra ellos por los socinianos . Los deistas á su vez se han servido de ellas para probar que les era permitido dogmatizar 3. Por último los ateos las hacen valer en el dia á su favor , y se escudan con ellas para enseñar impunemente el materialismo 4. Tambien está demostrado de hecho y por el raciocinio , que la tolerancia universalmente reclamada es el alimento de todos los errores y la destruccion de toda religion .

S. XXI. Qué , dirán acaso , os atreveis á acusar de fanatismo á los filósofos que no predican mas que la tolerancia , y que no cesan de declamar contra el furor con que se degüellan los hombres por las opiniones? No nos dejemos alucinar con una palabra. Tolerancia , a en el sentido de nuestros adversarios , significa lo mismo que libertad en la boca de los sediciosos . «Nombre especioso, dice muy bien un antiguo; el que ha tratado de hacerse dueño y tiranizar á sus semejantes, jamas ha dejado de decorarse con tal espresion 1.» Ya sabemos lo que los ambiciosos entienden por ella ; la libertad para sí, yla esclavitud para los demas : esto es lo que precisamente vemos todos los dias. Cuando los filósofos eran deistas juzgahan al ateismo intolerable; decidieron que se le debia desterrar de la sociedad ; despues que se hicieron ateos , dicen que no puede sufrirse el deismo porque es intolerante , lo mismo que las religiones reveladas. Estos doctores pacíficos están resueltos á no establecer la tolerancia sino con respecto á sus propias opiniones , y declarar la guerra á todas las demas. Si tienen el derecho de atacar á la religion porque es intolerante, nosotros no nos fundamos menos al detestar la incredulidad , porque es todavia menos tolerante que la religion.  

[Artículo] Dios redentor y salvador:

79. Al recomendar la Iglesia, el celo por la religion no autoriza ni la intolerancia, ni la persecucion, ni la violencia contra los infieles, cuando son pacíficos ; pero reduce la tolerancia y la libertad de conciencia á sus justos límites. La inquisicion denominada el Santo Oficio, y su conducta para con los hereges negativos, los autos de fé ó suplicios á que los condena no estan ordenados por la religion. Los itacianos, perseguidos por los priscilianistas, no estaban autorizados, y fueron condenados.

[Artículo] Agustín (San):

5. Se ha dicho que despues de haber establecido la tolerancia en favor de los maniqueos , predicó la persecucion y violencia contra los donatistas . Si, S. Agustin predicó la persecucion de los donatistas sediciosos armados y sanguinarios, que por sus circunceliones llenaban el Africa de desórdenes y carnicería; mas no dijo que se emplease con ellos la violencia cuando se conservaron pasivos ó pacíficos: enseñó é hizo todo lo contrario, y tuvo el consuelo de verlos reunidos á la Iglesia.

Barbeyrac pretende que este Santo Doctor aprobó la pena de muerte impuesta por los emperadores. Debéria al menos decir contra los sacrificios de los paganos. El pasage de S. Agustin está terminante. Epist. 93, ad Vincent. Rogatistam, n. 10. Podia cualquiera ser pagano sin necesidad de que ofreciese sacrificios, y no vemos las ventajas que podia acarrear á la causa pública el conservar un uso tan absurdo, frecuentemente acompañado de crímenes.

[Artículo] Bautistas:

La intolerancia, el espíritu de barbarie y de crueldad fueron en todo tiempo los caracteres distintivos de los novadores. Lutero, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen y Regio , con los teólogos de Ulm y de Tubinga , decidieron que podian ser castigados de muerte los anabaptistas en el concepto de hereges. Tres de ellos, Muller , Kraut y Peisker fueron decapitados en Jena por cooperacion de Melanchthon. Asi acreditaba la reforma su espíritu de libertad, de tolerancia, de emancipacion y filantropía . Véase la Simbólica de MOEHLER, t. 2, c. 1. Primer periodo de los anabaptistas. 

[Artículo] Celo:

Por mas que se multipliquen los sofismas para paliar los efectos de la impiedad, todo hombre que cree en Dios y ama su religion se sentirá siempre herido por sus invectivas, sarcasmos é insultos lanzados contra los objetos que reverencia. Un ciudadano honrado jamas sufrirá con paciencia que se denigre ó desprecie á su nacion , á su patria , á sus leyes , á sus costumbres , á sus usos ; cómo habia de permanecer indiferente con respecto á su religion , que es la primera de todas las leyes y la base sobre que todas descansan ? Se empieza por ultrajarnos y se predica la tolerancia , es como si un ladron predicara el desinterés al hombre que ha despojado ; la burla es demasiado fuerte. Guarden silencio los incrédulos , que no iremos á informarnos de lo que creen ó no creen, mas quieren inquietar y provocar á todo el mundo y no ser molestados por nadie.

[Artículo] Conciencia (libertad de):

CONCIENCIA (LIBERTAD DE). Se ha abusado estrañamente de esta palabra en el siglo pasado y en el actual. Si los que la reclamaban no hubiesen pedido mas que la libertad de creer ó de no creer lo que ellos juzgasen conveniente, esta demanda hubiera sido absurda; nadie en este sentido puede obligar la conciencia de otro. Pero bajo el nombre de libertad de conciencia los protestantes querian la libertad de profesar públicamente, vegercer con toda la pompa posible una religion diferente de la religion dominante, apoderarse de las iglesias, desterrar de ellas á los católicos, echar fuera y esterminar á los sacerdotes; esto es lo que han hecho en todas las partes en que han sido señores. En el día los incrédulos, predicando la tolerancia y sosteniendo que no se debe obligar la conciencia de nadie, pretenden que les está permitido declamar y escribir contra la religion, insultar impunemente á los que estan encargados de enseñarla: esto es lo que han hecho en todos sus libros.

Para robustecer sus pretensiones han hecho causa comun con los protestantes, y han renovado sus quejas y sus antiguas calumnias. ¿ Por qué no llaman tambien en su socorro á losjudios , los turcos , y los paganos? Sin duda que estos tienen tambien una conciencia, por consiguiente el derecho incontestable de venir á predicar y profesar su religion entre nosotros .

 Cuando los primeros cristianos pedian á los emperadores la libertad de conciencia eran mas modestos; pedian no ser arrastrados al pie de los altares para ofrecer el incienso á los ídolos , no ser enviados al suplicio por el nombre de cristianos. Podemos convencernos de esto por las apologias de S. Justino y de Tertuliano. Este último dice que es una impiedad obligar a un hombre á adorar un Dios que no quiere. Apol. c. 24. No vemos qué ventaja se puede sacar de esto en favor de los protestantes y los incrédulos.

Los primeros cristianos entregados á los suplicios desde su nacimiento no han tomado las armas para alcanzar por la fuerza la libertad de conciencia; no entraron en ninguna de las conjuraciones formadas contra la vida, ó contra la autoridad de los emperadores; no intentaron apoderarse de sus personas á fin de darles cristianos por ministros y consejeros . No pusieron á su cabeza grandes del imperio , ambiciosos y descontentos; no procuraron influencias en los asuntos de política y de gobierno ; no publicaron escritos sediciosos contra el príncipe ni contra los magistrados, no obstante que hubieran podido alegar tan fuertes razones al menos como los calvinistas.

Cuando Constantino y Licinio, ambos paganos, die- ron un edicto de tolerancia, los cristianos no se cui- daron de pedir ciudades de seguridad, ni de apo- derarse de ellas para poner guarnicion de soldados cristianos, ni salas semipartidas en los tribunales; nunca hubieran tenido la insolencia de tratar con su soberano como de igualá igual; nunca hubieran diri- gido á los emperadores ni á los magistrados memorias amenazadoras, quejas contra los abusos del gobierno, insultos contra la antigua religión, con el fin de que se prohibiese su egercicio.

Hechos señores por la conversion de los emperadores, no saquearon, demolieron, ni quemaron los templos de los paganos por su propia autoridad: apenas se pueden citar de esto uno o dos ejemplos ; no asesinaron á los sacerdotes de los ídolos , ni obligaron á los paganos á frecuentar las reuniones cristianas ni á hacerse bautizar. No los echaron de las ciudades ni despojaron de sus bienes; no se apoderaron por violencia de los caudales ni de los edificios que habian pertenecido á los idólatras.

Juliano, despues de haber renunciado al cristianis- mo, hizo de nuevo dominante al paganismo; sin em- bargo, los cristianos no le presentaron memorias en el estilo de las que los calvinistas dirigieron á Enri- que IV despues de su conversion; no trataron de inti- midarle con amenazas, no intentaron aliarse con los principes estrangeros; no introdujeron tropas enemi- gas en el imperio; no se apoderaron de las rentas del fisco para mantenerlas. No entregaron á los persas ninguna de las plazas fronterizas, ni formaron el pro- yecto de establecer una república en el seno de la monarquia; los soldados cristianos continuaron sir- viendo en los ejércitos romanos con tanta fidelidad como antes. Ningun decreto de los concilios ha mandado nunca ni permitido á los cristianos recurrir á la fuerza y á las vías de hecho bajo el pretesto de hacerse justicia; asi nunca han tenido necesidad de edic- tos de abolicion, de amnistia, ni de perdon de sus rebeliones pasadas.

Lo mismo sucedió cuando algunos emperadores se declararon protectores del arrianismo. Muchos obispos católicos fueron depuestos, desterrados, encarcelados, atormentados, pero ninguno predicó la rebelion á sus ovejas; muchos rehusaron entregar de buena voluntad las iglesias á los arrianos, pero no formaron ningun atentado contra la autoridad civil. Los pueblos no estuvieron menos sumisos á los nuevos conquistadores bárbaros, que lo habian sido á sus antiguos señores. En los siglos siguientes los misioneros, que fueron á predicar el cristianismo á los infieles, lo establecieron por la instruccion, por la persuasion, por el ascendiente de sus virtudes y no por la violencia; los protestantes han hecho vanos esfuerzos para denigrar el çelo y los trabajos de estos hombres apostólicos.

Al contrario los escesos de los calvinistas estan consignados no solo en nuestra historia, sino en los fastos de las naciones que nos rodean : han sido los mismos en Francia, en Suiza, en Holanda, en Inglaterra y en Escocia . No se han establecido en ninguna parte sin derramar sangre ; este era el espíritu del fundador de su secta; todos los crímenes que se han permitido han sido justificados y consagrados por los decretos de sus sínodos y por los escritos de sus teólogos.

[Artículo] Cristianismo:

Cargo mas grave es el de intolerancia, hecho al cristianismo; divide á los hombres, produce las disputas, los odios y las guerras de religion. Cien veces se ha respondido que la intolerancia está unida no solo á toda religion, cualquiera que sea, sino á toda opinion que se cree importante, y hasta á los sistemas de incredulidad: esto es efecto de las pasiones inseparables de la humanidad. Ahora bien, ninguna religion trabaja tanto como la nuestra para reprimir todas las pasiones, para inspirar á los hombres la dulzura, la paz y la mútua caridad, y de consiguiente una razonable tolerancia. Por lo demas la ilimitada tolerancia que quieren los incrédulos es un desorden que nunca se ha permitido en ninguna nacion civilizada. V. TOLERANCIA.

En el volumen 3.

[Artículo] Judaísmo:

Es evidente que todas estas leyes positivas ten- dian á hacer conocer la ley natural en toda su estension y á hacerla observar mejor ; que instruido un judio de este modo , debia estar menos espuesto á violarla que un pagano. Sin embargo ha habido deistas tan ciegos , que han pretendido que tantas leyes positivas perjudicaban la observancia de la ley natural.

Le Clerc , crítico tan temerario como lo pudo haber , ha osado sostener esta paradoja : Hist. eccles. Proleg. , sec . 3.a , c. 2, §. 20 y sig. , y ha querido confirmarla con ejemplos. (...) 2.° La ley que prohibia á los israelitas tolerar entre ellos ningun idolatra no era equitativa; no les hubiera gustado que los hubieran tratado lo mismo sus vecinos cuando las calamidades les obligaban á refugiarse entre ellos, y cuando fueron esparcidos en todas las naciones despues de la cautividad de Babilonia. 3.° La que ordenaba dar muerte á todo hombre culpable de idolatria, fuese pariente, amigo ó aliado, era inhumana; mejor hubiera sido procurar corregirlos. ¿Qué hubieran dicho los israelitas si los pueblos vecinos que les subyugaron mas de una vez los hubieran obligado con tormentos á renunciar á su religion?

(...)

En segundo lugar es cierto que la ley les prohibia permitir entre ellos ningun acto de idolatria; pero es falso que les ordenase desterrar á todos los idolatras, cuando estos no hacian ningun ejercicio esterior de su falsa religion ; al contrario les estaba mandado que tratasen á los estranjeros con dulzura y humanidad, porque ellos mismos habian sido estranjeros en Egipto . Exod. c. 22. 7. 21. Levit . c. 19. y. 33. Deut. C. 10, y. 18 , 19, etc. Asi que todo estranjero era entonces idolatra y politeista. No se puede probar que cuando se refugiaron entre sus vecinos, hayan hecho ningun ejercicio de religion contrario á la creencia de estos pueblos.

En tercer lugar sostenemos que la ley que castigaba de muerte todo acto de idolatria, nì era cruel ni injusta. Dios habia unido esta condicion á la conservacion de la nacion judia; consentir su infraccion era lo mismo que poner en peligro la salud de la república. ¿Se atreverán á sostener que Dios no tenia esta autoridad, y que nunca ha debido castigar de muerte á ningun impío, porque mejor hubiera sido corregirle? Pero los incrédulos, no contentos con imponer á todos los hombres la ley de la tolerancia absoluta para con sus semejantes, quieren tambien hacerla obligaloria á Dios. Nunca han obligado á nadie los judios con suplicios á que abrace su religion.

[Artículo] León (San):

Sabemos muy bien que S. Martin y otros santos varones desaprobaron altamente la conducta de los dos obispos Idacio é ltacio, porque se metian à perseguidores y acusadores de los priscilianistas; este papel no era conveniente á los obispos, era mas bien negocio de los magistrados y funcionarios del emperador. No se infiere de aqui que estos últimos hubiesen sido injustos en perseguir y castigar á estos herejes, ni que S. Leon debiese reprobar este rigor: el bien público exigia que una secla tan abominable fuese esterminada. Por este mismo motivo se perseguia en Francia en el siglo XII á los albigenses que enseñaban casi la misma doctrina. Se pueden tolerar los errores que no tienen relacion alguna con el orden público, ni con la pureza de las costumbres; pero predicar la tolerancia general y absoluta de toda doctrina, cualquiera que sea, es una moral absordo y detestable V. PRISCILIANOS E INTOLERANCIA.

Artículo. Libertad de conciencia:

Es la palabra de que se sirvieron los calvinistas cuando pidieron en Francia el privilegio de ejercer públicamente su religion , de tener templos , ministros , y asambleas. A primera vista se percibe el equivoco de esta espresion y el abuso que de él hicieron los sectarios.

Hay mucha diferencia entre la libertad que se toman algunos ciudadanos de servir á Dios privadamente, segun lo entienden, y la libertad que pide un partido numeroso para establecer en el reino una religion nueva, ejercerla públicamente, y levantar altares contra altares. La primera no incomoda á la religion dominante, ni le causa ningun perjuicio; la segunda es una rivalidad que se le opone, una apostasia pública que se autoriza, un lazo que se tiende á la curiosidad de los ignorantes, y un incentivo para la independencia de los libertinos. La religion católica, no solo ecsige templos y asambleas, sino tambien un ceremonial pomposo y brillante, fiestas y procesiones, administración pública de sacramentos, ayunos, abstinencias, y un clero que debe ser respetado: el calvinista nada de esto quiere; condena y refuta estas practicas como abusos, supersticiones y restos del paganismo: de este modo se esplicaron sus partidarios desde su origen. Si hubo jamas dos religiones incompatibles, lo son estas dos, y no era posible presumir que los sectarios de la una y de la otra pudiesen vivir en paz: su reciproca antipatia está demasiado probada por mas de doscientos años de esperiencia.

La dificultad está en saber si la peticion de los calvinistas era legitima, si el gobierno estaba obligado á concederla por derecho natural, y si podia hacerlo en buena política: suplicamos que pesen sin parcialidad las reflecsiones siguientes: 1. Bien se sabe cuales fueron los predicadores del calvinismo y cual era su doctrina: enseñaban que el catolicismo es una religion abominable, en la cual no es posible salvarse: que el sacrificio de la misa, la adoracion de la eucaristia, el culto de los santos, de las reliquias y de las imágenes, las abstinencias y las ceremonias son verdaderas supersticiones, y la confesion una verdadera tirania; que la Iglesia romana es la prostituta de Babilonia, y el papa el AntiCristo; que era preciso abjurar, proscribir y esterminar esla religion por todos los medios posibles. Estos escesos aun estan consignados en el dia en sus libros, y los calvinistas nunca tuvieron bastante juicio para desaprobarlos.

David Hume confiesa que en Escocia en el año de 1542 la tolerancia de los nuevos predicantes, y el proyecto de destruir la religion nacional tuvieron casi el mismo efecto: lo prueba por la conducta fanática de estos sectarios: Hist, de la casa de Tu- dor, 1. 3, p. 9; 1. 4, p. 59 y 10%; t. 3, p. 213, etc. Lo mismo sucedió en Francia. En todas partes donde consiguieron dominar los calvinistas, no permitieron á los católicos el ejercicio de su religion; ¿con quê derecho querian que se les permitiese la suya? Un principio que les es comun con todos los incrédulos es, que no se debe sufrir una religion intolerante: ¿fue alguna vez la religion católica mas intolerante que el calvinismo? V. INTOLERANCIA.

2. Había ya mil doscientos años que el catolicismo era en Francia la religion dominante, o por mejor decir, la única; la legislacion, las costumbres y la constitucion del gobierno eran análogas á ella, y fundadas sobre esta base: ¿quién dió á los calvinistas comision para venir á atacarla? Estos eran sediciosos: su tono, su lenguaje, sus principios y su conducta anunciaban la rebelion. Todo gobierno debè castigar á los sediciosos. Una esperiencia constante prueba que los apóstatas no respetan vínculo ni relacion alguna; que infieles á Dios, son incapaces de ser fieles al soberano; por lo mismo debian. nuestros reyes creerse personalmente interesados en reprimir los ataques de los sectarios. Cuando estos aparecieron en Francia, Lutero habia puesto ya en convulsion la Alemania, y una parte de la Suiza había sido devorada por este incendio. Francisco 1 conocia muy bien que el calvinismo no podia establecerse sin una revolucion que pondria en peligro su corona, y que en un estado monárquico serian una verdadera peste los principios republicanos de los calvinistas. El mismo fomentaba las turbulencias de Alemania para suscitar opaciones y emharazos á Carlos V; no podia sin contradiccion juzgarse obligado á permitir la propagacion de la herejia.

3. El suceso no tardo en verificar la idea que este príncipe habia concebido de los calvinistas. Apenas atrajeron á su partido algunos grandes del reino, cuando intrigaron contra el estado y quisieron apoderarse del gobierno. Luego que se conocieron bastante fuertes, tomaron las armas y consiguieron la libertad de conciencia con espada en mano. Ningun designio tenemos en renovar la memoria de las escenas sangrientas que por espacio de un siglo causaron estas guerras civiles. Resulta de esto, que en 1598, cuando Enrique IV concedió á los calvinistas el edicto de Nantes, se vió en la necesidad de hacerlo para pacificar su reino por este medio, y que en esto no pecó contra la religion ni contra la sana política, porque la necesidad es superior á todas las leyes. Francisco I y Carlos IX hubieran sido tan imprudentes en tolerar el calvinismo, como sabio Enrique IV en ceder a las circunstancias. Esta es la razon que él mismo dió de su conducta respecto á los hugonotes, respondiendo á los diputados de la ciudad de Beauvais en el año de 1394. Pero en el año de 1685, cuando Luis XIV, se vió con bastante poder para no recelar del de los calvinistas, ¿en qué se fundarán para sostener que no tenia derecho á revocar un edicto concedido á duras penas por sus predesores, y que no observaron nunca los calvinistas? Nosotros lo probaremos en otros artículos, y haremos ver que esta revocacion fue por lo menos tan sabia, como lo fue la concesion.

4.". No se han tomado el trabajo de hacer comparacion entre la conducta de los calvinistas y la de los primeros cristianos, y en ella se hubiera visto una enorme diferencia. Los fieles perseguidos nunca declamaron contra el paganismo con tanto furor como los protestantes contra el papismo: nunca dijeron que era preciso esterminar la idolatria por todos los medios posibles, y perseguir á todos los que la protegian: nunca tomaron las armas contra los emperadores, ni levantaron el grito contra su despotismo, ni entraron en ninguna de las conjuraciones que se fraguaron en los tres primeros siglos. El edicto de tolerancia, ó de libertad de conciencia, les fue concedido por Constantino, sin que este príncipe se viese precisado á concederlo por un motivo de temor: nuestros apologistas se habían ceñido á representar lo injusto que era el querer precisar por medio de suplicios á unos súbditos inocentes y pacíficos á ofrecer incienso á los dioses falsos. A pesar del temor de los edictos, cuando el emperador Juliano trató de restablecer el paganismo, y autorizó á los gentiles para que vejasen á los cristianos, no escitaron estos tumultos ni sedicion, y hasta los mismos soldados cristianos le fueron tan fieles como los demas. Ellos no trataron ni de asegurarse de su persona, ni de trastornar el gobierno, ni de pedir ciudades de asilo y de seguridad, ni en repeler la violencia, ni ligarse con soberanos estrangeros, como lo hicieron los calvinistas; se dejaron degollar con tanta paciencia como en tiempo de Neron, siguiendo en esto las lecciones de Jesucristo, la moral de los apóstoles y las instrucciones de sus obispos, pero estas lecciones divinas fueron estrañamente olvidadas por los ministros predicantes del protestantismo, que se preciaban de tener siempre la Biblia en la mano.

Puesto que un gobierno no puede subsistir sin religion, cuando un pueblo ha tenido la felicidad de haber recibido del cielo una religion pura y verdadera, debe estimarla como el mas precioso de todos los bienes, castigando y reprendiendo á los fanáticos que quieren quilarla ó variarla. Hace 1.200 años que la monarquia francesa subsiste bajo las leyes del catolicismo: ningun gobierno conocido duró tan largo tiempo, ni sufrió menos revoluciones: es- la esperiencia es bastante larga para hacernos desear permanecer como estamos.

Nadie ha escrito tantos sofismas como Bayle sobre la libertad de conciencia: los copió fielmente Barbeirac, y tras él la mayor parte de los incrédulos. Bayle se funda en el príncipio de que la conciencia errónea tiene los mismos derechos que la conciencia recta, que estamos obligados también á obedecer á la una como á la otra, que esta obligacion es natural, esencial y absoluta. Es una falsedad que ya hemos refutado en el articulo conciencia. Una falsa conciencia no puede disculparnos de una mala accion, sino cuando el error es invencible, y no proviene de descuido en instruirse, de terquedad, ni de ninguna otra pasion: en cualquiera otro caso no disminuye la gravedad del pecado.

Ahora bien: ¿Se pudo nunca pensar que el error de los primeros sectarios del calvinismo fuese invencible, y que la pasion habia tenido en él parte alguna? La lijereza con que prestaron oidos á los predicantes, la mala fe con que disfrazaban los dogmas católicos, el furor con que perseguian al clero, el pillaje y las violencias que ejercian, eran señales evidentes de una pasion ciega. Las declamaciones y los sofismas que trastornaron las cabezas en aquel tiempo, tal vez no atraerian hoy veinte personas. Si los sectarios estaban absolutamente obligados á seguir una conciencia tan mal formada, todo sedicioso está en la misma obligacion, cuando se convence de que el gobierno, contra quien se alborota, es opresor, injusto y tiránico que es un rasgo de justicia y de celo por el bien público el destruirle: el principio de Bayle á nada menos tiende que á justificar á todos los insensatos y malvados del universo. Cuando mas , á los descendientes de los primeros calvinistas , educados desde la infancia en la berejia , y separados de todos los medios de instruccion, se les pudiera suponer en un error moralmente invencible.

Para probar que toda violencia es injusta con los que estan en un error, dice Bayle, que todos los partidos lo juzgan asi, cuando estan espuestos á la persecucion, y varian de principios segun las circunstancias. Esto puede tal vez suceder; pero no prueba que todos tienen igualmente razon, ni que todos se engañan. Es natural que todo hombre tenga por injusta una ley, una sentencia ó una conducta que le condena y le obliga a padecer; pero regularmente este dictamen es injusto como dictado por su propio interes. En materia de religion y de politica hay circunstancias en que la violencia seria inicua y absurda; pero hay otras que la constituyen justa y sabia. Hablando en general, una secta pacífica, cuya conducta es tan inocente como su doctrina, merece la tolerancia; pero un partido fanático y turbulento es indigno de ella, y la sabia politica prohibe concedérsele. Este es el caso en que estuvieron los calvinistas. El mismo Bayle les reprende su furor en su carta á los refugiados, y en otras obras.

Tambien se engaña, cuando no quiere que haya distincion entre judios, mahometanos, infieles en general y herejes: los primeros no fueron educados ni instruidos en el seno de la Iglesia; por consiguiente, su ignorancia puede ser mas escusable que la de los herejes. Por otra parte la esperiencia demuestra que los apóstatas son mucho mas furiosos contra Ja religion que abandonaron, que los infieles que nunca la conocieron; como desertaron por pasion ó libertinaje, tratan de cubrir la vergüenza de su apostasia con un odio declarado contra la Iglesia. Obran como los rebeldes, que dicen que una vez que se desenvaina la espada contra el gobierno, es preciso arrojar al rio la vaina.

Los católicos usaron de la violencia con les protestantes: estos la usaron tambien con los católicos: la dificultad está en saber cual de los dos partidos, tenia mejor derecho; los poseedores legítimos, hijos de la casa ó los usurpadores. V. TOLERANCIA, IN-

Volumen 4.

Artículo. Tolerancia.

Tolerancia, intolerancia, en materia de religion . No hay quizás palabras de las cuales se baya abusado mas, hace nias de un siglo , que de estas dos; no hay ninguna que haya dado lugar á tan violentas declamaciones . Es necesario pues empezar por fijar si es posible, sus diferentes significaciones. 1. En un estado en que hay una religion dominante, que es llamada á formar parte de las leyes, se llama tolerancia civil y política, la permision que el

Culto religioso del cristianismo:

138. La santidad del cristianismo en sus dogmas, en su moral, en su cullo y en su disciplina, ha sido demostrada por el cambio que ha producido en todos los climas, en el norte y en el mediodia, en las costumbres de los asiáticos, de los africanos, de los ingleses, y en el dia en las de los abisinios, por la diferencia que establece entre las naciones cristianas y las infieles, infectadas conel paganismo, el mahometismo y los sueños del Alcoran, por la multitud de establecimientos de caridad que existen entre nosotros, tales como los hospitales ó casas-de-Dios, los montes pios, las escuelas pias ó de caridad , la hos- pitalidad etc. Demasiado acostumbrados á los beneficios de nuestra religion , no conocemos sus ventajas. Aun en los siglos mas bárbaros se conocian los paciarios, la pazó la tregua de Dios. 139. Los incrédulos de nuestros dias han declamado injustamentey con la mayor amargura contra los abusos en hechos de religion, contra las cruzadas, el derecho de asilo , las cuestiones, la intolerancia , el fanatismo, el castigo de los sacrilegos , la revocacion del edicto de Nantes, las pretendidas guerras de religion , las vísperas sicilianas, y preconizado la libertad de pensar, ómas bien de escribir y calumniar. 140. Han elevado sa prevencion hasta censurar las fundaciones piadosas, la libertad de los esclavos, el celo de los misioneros y de la propaganda , las misiones del Paraguay, de la China y del Japon ; la han atribuido la matanza de los americanos y las desgracias de la América, la linea de demarcacion etc.

Absolutismo, poder, relación cristianismo-política, etcétera.

[Artículo] Cristianismo:

Se ha repetido con frecuencia que el cristianismo establece dos potestades , dos legislaciones que se cruzan y se unen recíprocamente , una autoridad eclesiástica ocupada siempre en usurpar los derechos de los magistrados y del gobierno ; continuamente se habla de las usurpaciones del clero y del abuso que ha hecho de su jurisdiccion . Sin embargo Jesucristo habia establecido la regla luminosa y fijado los límites que debian separar estas dos potestades diciendo: «Dad al Cesar lo que es del Cesar y á Dios lo que es de Dios». En tanto que se contengan en estos limites, es imposible que la una dañe á la otra; al contrario se robustecerán mútuamente. ¿Pero en qué tiempo se empezaron á mezclar? Cuando los príncipes, satisfechos de dominar con la violencia, no conocian derecho natural ni leyes civiles, oprimian á los pueblos y los gobernaban como una manada de brutos; sin el apoyo de las leyes eclesiásticas hubieran sido mucho mayores las calamidades públicas. Al salir de este caos, se dijo que los sacerdotes todo lo habian dado á Dios y nada habian dejado al Cesar; hoy se defiende que todo es del Cesar, y nada queda á Dios. ¿Cuál de estos dos escesos es mayor? Esto lo dirán los resultados. Pero si Dios no hubiera consagrado lo que dió al Cesar, ¿qué hubiera quedado á este para gobernar? La violencia como á los bárbaros, el palo como en la China y el sable como en Turquia y los demas estados mahomelanos, Facil es conocer si los pueblos serian mas felices de esta manera.

Asi , por una contradiccion muy comun en nuestros adversarios, han dicho que el cristianismo tendia á divinizar la autoridad de los príncipes , y de consiguiente á esclavizar á los pueblos ; que los sacerdotes y los reyes se habian unido para destruir toda libertad civil ; que los sacerdotes concedian á los soberanos el despotismo político para alcanzar á su vez el despotismo espiritual. En nuestros dias se ha repetido hasta la saciedad esta ridícula calumnia . Si fuese cierta , las naciones cristianas serian las mas esclavas del mundo ; afortunadamente los hechos bastan á demostrar que este cargo carece de sentido comun.

Por último algunos soñadores escribieron que, cuando se ha querido hacer del cristianismo una religion nacional , se ha comprendido mal el espíritu de Jesucristo , cuyo reino no es de este mundo. Si por religion nacional entendemos una religion que no sea tan particular áun pueblo , que no pueda convenir á ningun otro , nunca fué la intencion de Jesucristo establecer una semejante , puesto que mandó á sus discípulos enseñar á todas las naciones , y que se propuso reunirlas todas en una sola Iglesia como ovejas en un mismo redil y bajo un mismo pastor. Pero seria muy ventajoso al género humano que las naciones demasiado divididas ya , por otra parte, lo fuesen tambien por la religion , que ni tuviesen el mismo Dios , ni el mismo culto , ni la misma creencia ? Por

Volumen 3.

Libertad Política:

Este artículo no pertenece directamente á la teologia ; pero como se antojó á los incrédulos sostener que el cristianismo es entre todas las religiones la menos favorable á la libertad de los pueblos , es de nuestro deber probar lo contrario . Despues de haber demostrado en el artículo DESPOTISMO que este vicio del gobierno no nace de la religion , nos resta hacer ver que no hay verdadera libertad , sino la que se funda en la ley divina , y que ninguna religion tiene una tendencia mas directa que la nuestra á contener dentro de los justos límites la autoridad de los soberanos. 

La política sacada de la Sagrada Escritura por M. Bossuet , nos ofrece pruebas superabundantes de esta verdad ; pero nosotros solo tomaremos las principales , y las reflecsiones de nuestros mismos adversarios acabarán de poner en la mayor evidencia el hecho que sostenemos. En el antiguo y nuevo Testamento se nos enseña que todos los hombres somos hermanos , nacidos de una misma sangre y destinados todos á gozar de los beneficios del Criador. Gén. , c. 1, . 28.; c. 19, . 7 : S. Mat. , c. 23, y . 6, etc. Como la sociedad les es necesaria para su bien , Dios los formó para vivir juntos y ausiliarse recíprocamente ; no pudiendo la sociedad subsistir sin subordinacion , fueron necesarias las leyes y un poder soberano para obligar á ejecutarlas. El mismo Dios es quien dió leyes á los primeros hombres , y fundó la sociedad civil por la sociedad doméstica: para que las leyes civiles fuesen mas respetables , hizo Dios que las de los judios se colocasen en un mismo código con las leyes morales y las religiosas. Tambien nos enseña la Sagrada Escritura que toda potestad humana viene de Dios , y que él fue quien fijó sus límites y su estension . Epist . á los Rom. , c. 13, y. 1 y sig. Los reyes no son por consiguiente dueños del poder soberano , sino depositarios que deben dar cuenta á Dios de su buena ó mala administracion . Dios los llama pastores de su pueblo , y asi como el rebaño no se hizo para el pastor , sino el pastor para el rebaño , asi tambien colocó Dios á los reyes sobre el trono , no para ventaja personal de los reyes, sino para el bien de los pueblos: los pueblos son de Dios y no del rey : este debe ser la imagen de la bondad de Dios , y el ministro de su providencia siempre justa y benéfica.

Dios no dispensó á los reyes de la ley general que manda á todos los hombres que hagan con los demas lo que quieren que hagan con ellos. S. Mat., c . 7, y. 12. Al contrario , les manda que tengan siempre su ley delante de los ojos , esta ley eterna , justa y santa , que con nadie tiene acepción de personas, que atiende igualmente á los derechos de todos; Deut. , c. 15, y. 16 y sig. Les advierte que cuando juzgan , no ejercen su propio juicio , sino el de Dios: que él mismo los juzgará , y que si abusan de su poder los castigará mas severamente que á los particulares , Sabiduria , c. 6, y. 2, 3 y 9, etc. En efecto, la Historia Sagrada nos muestra los reyes castigados siempre por sus faltas , por la rebelion de sus súbditos por medio de enemigos estrangeros , por los desórdenes de su propia familia y por los azoles que Dios les envia.

Si á estas grandes lecciones añadimos todas las virtudes que Dios prescribe á los soberanos, la justicia, la sabiduria, la dulzura, la moderacion, la clemencia, la constancia, la firmeza, la piedad, la castidad, la aplicacion á los negocios, la prudencia en la eleccion de ministros, el cuidado de aliviar á los pobres y de protejer á los débiles, de renunciar á toda conquista injusta y de evitar la guerra, manantial fecundo de desastres y calamidades: ¿Qué pretesto hallará un rey en su religion para oprimir á los pueblos, para quitarles el grado de libertad que Dios les ha dejado y que es necesario para su felicidad y para establecer el despotismo sobre la ruina de las leyes y de la justicia? Čuando un filósofo escribió que la supersticion hizo creer á los hombres que los depositarios de la autoridad pública recibieron de los dioses el derecho para esclavizarlos y hacerlos infelices, Politique nat., 1. 2, discurso 3, §. 7, debia por lo menos confesar que esta supersticion no nació del cristianismo. ¿Qué sistema imaginaron nuestros profundos politicos, que sea mas favorable á la libertad de los pueblos?

Ellos mismos se ven precisados á confesar que ser libre no consiste en hacer todo lo que se quiere, sino todo lo que se debe querer; que el hombre destinado por naturaleza á vivir en sociedad, está por el mismo hecho sujeto á todos los deberes que ecsije el bien comun de la sociedad, en que le colocó su nacimiento. Ibid.

Por consiguiente, el grado de libertad legítimo es relativo al caracter de cada nacion, proporcionado á la medida de inteligencia y sabiduria que tiene para conducirse, del grado de virtud á que llegó, ó de corrupcion en que por desgracia hubiese caido. Un pueblo ligero, frívolo, inconstante, pervertido por el lujo y por un desenfrenado gusto á los placeres, que ni tiene costumbres, ni patriotismo, ni respeto á las leyes, no es susceptible de mucha libertad. Cuanto mas la desea, tanto menos la meręce; cuanto mas parece temer la esclavitud, tanto mas hace por caer en ella: sus clamores contra el despotismo advierten al gobierno que prevenga todos sus resortes y refuerce todo su poder con el despotismo amenaza Dios castigar una nacion viciosa. Isaias, c. 19, . 4.

Nuestros políticos incrédulos, que no quieren Dios, ni ley divina, empiezan suponiendo que el hombre es libre por naturaleza, esento de toda ley y dueño absoluto de sí mismo y de sus acciones: que su libertad no puede ser incomodada, sino que él lo consienta para su bien que la sociedad civil se funda en un contrato por el cual el hombre se somete á las leyes y al soberano para ser protejido: que cuando conoce que está mal gobernado, puede romper su obligacion y restituirse á la independencia. En el artículo SOCIEDAD refutaremos este absurdo sistema. Es bien estraño que unos filósofos que nos niegan la libertad natural ó el libre albedrio, quieran ecsajerar tanto la libertad política. Es una contradiccion asegurar que el hombre está destinado á la sociedad por la naturaleza, y que sin embargo es libre por naturaleza y está esento de toda ley. ¿Acaso la sociedad puede subsistir sin leyes que nadie está obligado á observar? La naturaleza nada significa si por ella no entendemos la voluntad del Criador: la naturaleza tomada por la materia, nada quiere, nada manda, nada dispone; pero Dios, criador del hombre, es tambien autor de sus necesidades y de su destino, por consiguiente de la sociedad y de las le- yes sociales: él es quien, sin consultar al hombre, le impuso para su bien los deberes de sociedad. Por lo mismo es un absurdo suponer que tiene á Dios por Señor, y que sin embargo es señor de sí mismo, que puede disponer por sí mismo contra la voluntad de Dios y que se necesita un contrato para limitar su, libertad, cuando Dios mismo la ha limitado.

¿Está mas asegurada la libertad de un ciudadano que tiene que cuidar de ella él mismo, que dejándola al cuidado de Dios? Si puede á su gusto romper sus vínculos, solo la fuerza puede sujetarle un soberano que cuenta con otro medio para mantener sus súbditos bajo el yugo de las leyes, es un insensato! si no es un déspota, es nada. De este modo queriendo ecsajerar la libertad politica, la anonadan.

Pero la religion atendió mucho mejor á este punto: refiriendo á Dios la sociedad civil, igualmente que la natural, fundó sobre una base firme y sólida la au- toridad de los reyes, la obediencia de los pueblos y los justos límites de la una y de la otra. La ley divina, fuente de toda justicia, el bien general de la sociedad cuyo poder es Dios, hé aquí las dos reglas de que nadie puede separarse. Este bien general ecsige que el pueblo no sea nunca ofendido en los derechos que le señalaron las leyes, pero ecsige tambien que el soberano no sea interrumpido en el ejercicio de su autoridad por un poder mas grande que el suyo: el bien general no ecsige que el pueblo sea el juez y el árbitro de la estension de su libertad, ni de los límites, ni del poder del soberano; y la esperiencia prueba demasiado los abusos que resultarian de una constitucion semejante.

Nuestros adversarios no pudieron negarlo: muchos de ellos confesaron que generalmente el pueblo es incapaz de una verdadera idea de la libertad: «Por poco, dice uno de ellos, que se consulte á la historia de las democracias, tanto antiguas como modernas, se ve que el delirio y el acaloramiento residen comunmente en los consejos del pueblo..... Una multitud envidiosa y suspicaz piensa que tiene que vengarse de todos los ciudadanos á quienes hacen odiosos sus méritos, sus talentos ó sus riquezas: es la envidia y no la virtud el movil ordinario de las repúblicas. Lo prueba con el ejemplo de los atenienses, de los demas pueblos de la Grecia, y de los romanos: hace ver lo ridículo de los ingleses, quienes por un temor pueril de la esclavitud, viven sin ninguna policia». ¿Es esto, dice, gozar de una verdadera libertad el estar siempre éspuestos á los insultos , á los caprichos y á los escesos de un populacho desenfrenado que cree ejercer con sus desórdenes la libertad? Polit. natur. tom. 2, disc. 7, §. 41 : disc . 9, §. 6, etc.

Otro piensa lo mismo. «En la Democracia , dice, el pueblo que no discurre ni distingue la libertad de la licencia, bien pronto se ve despedazado por facciones: aturdido , inconstante, impetuoso en sus pasiones; sujeto á continuos accesos de entusiasmo se hace el instrumento de la ambicion de algun orador charlatan , que se apodera del pueblo y se hace su tirano..... Asi la democracia , presa de las intrigas, de la licencia y de la anarquia , ninguna felicidad proporciona á los ciudadanos y los hace regularmente mas inquietos de su suerte que los vasallos de un déspota ó de un tirano) . Sistem . social , 2.ª part . cap. 2, pág. 24 y 31 , etc. 

Otro no concibe una idea mas ventajosa de la pretendida libertad de los griegos y de los romanos bajo el gobierno republicano: piensa que hay mas libertad popular ahora, aun en las monarquias , que la que disfrutaban las repúblicas tan cacareadas. De la felicidad pública, tom, 2, cap. 4. David Hume hizo esta misma observacion, y parece haberla adoptado tambien el autor que indagó el origen del despotismo oriental. Pero todos estos escritores no nos desenvuelven la causa de esta feliz revolucion; y nosotros sostenemos que la Europa debe este beneficio al cristianismo , porque solo se verificó en las naciones cristianas. 

Se acusa á Mr. Bossuet de haber probado que el poder de los reves debe ser absoluto. Politica sacada de la Sagrada Escritura, lom. 1., lib. 4, art. 1. Con el fin de hacer odiosa esta doctrina, trataron de confundir el poder absoluto con el poder ilimitado y arbitrario; pero el mismo Bossuet declama contra esta injusticia, y distingue con el mayor cuidado estas dos cosas. Por el poder absoluto entiende: 1.º que el príncipe no está obligado á dar cuenta á nadie de lo que manda: 2. que de su fallo no hay tribunal superior á que se pueda apelar: 3. que contra él no hay fuerza coactiva. Sin esto, dice, el principe no pudiera hacer el bien, ni reprimir el mal; es preciso que sea tal su poder, que nada tenga esperanza de sustraerse de él: la defensa única de los particulares contra la potestad pública, debe ser su inocencia, Ibid.

Nos hace observar que los reyes no estan por eso esentos de las leyes, y mucho menos de escuchar las representaciones y quejas del pueblo: prueba que las leyes fundamentales de la monarquia deben ser sagradas é inviolables, y que tambien es muy peligroso variar sin necesidad las leves leves de cualquier otra clase: tom. 1., lib. 1, art. 4. Despues que hizo ver en que consiste el gobierno arbitrario, dice que esta forma de gobierno es odiosa y bárbara, y que no puede tener lugar en un pueblo bien civilizado: que bajo el gobierno de un Dios justo no hay poder puramente arbitrario: tom. 2, lib. 8, art. 1, propos. 4; art. 2, propos. 1. Por lo mismo, malamente se le acusa de haber favorecido la arbitrariedad y el despotismo. Se puede asegurar que mas bien son nuestros adversarios los que trabajan en establecerle, libertando Á los reyes del freno de la religion. Un soberano que mirase á los hombres como un despreciable rebaño de brutos, formados por casualidad del seno de la materia , ¿respetaria mas su libertad , y se ocuparia mas de su bienestar , que el que los mira como criaturas de un Dios justo y sabio, como una gran familia, cuyo padre comun es Dios , como almas redimidas por la sangre de un Hombre- Dios, y comohe- rederos futuros de un reino eterno, etc? 

Dicen que las verdades religiosas no hacen impresion en los reyes, que aunque fuesen ateos no pudieran ser peores , y que el temor es el único médio de obligarlos á ser justos: declamación fogosa y absurda. ¿Tiene mas influencia en los despotas el temor que la religion? Un Sultan no puede ignorar que á cada momento puede ser destronado, preso y degollado, porque para esto basta una sentencia del mufti , ó una revolucion militar, de cuya verdad hay sobrados ejemplares. ¿Y este temor produce en ellos grandes efectos? La China esperimentó veinte y dos revoluciones generales , y en ninguna pudo sacudir , ni siquiera aliviar el yugo del despotismo. Roma nunca fue mas oprimida ni mas desgraciada con sus emperadores por malos que fuesen, que en el periodo de tiempo en que los asesinaban impunemente, y cuenta treinta y dos en menos de un siglo. En vano buscamos en la historia las ventajas que los pueblos sacaron de su licencia en la democracia , ni en la monarquia. 

Convenimos en que un rey ateo, si fuere naturalmente bueno , haria tal vez menos mal , que si fuese naturalmente malvado; pero como nosotros no conocemos ninguno que hiciese profesion del ateismo , no sabemos hasta que punto llegaria la crueldad de un monstruo semejante. ¿Quién será capaz de probar que entre los príncipes cristianos fueron los peores los de mas piedad y mas religiosos? La mayor gracia que se puede hacer á los incrédulos , es que los soberanos olvidan las invectivas sediciosas que vomitaron contra su autoridad. V. AUTORIDAD, GOBIERNO, REY,

Interesante también lo que dice en el artículo LIBROS PROHIBIDOS, pág. 164 del libro o 171 del pdf.

Antisemitismo

Volumen 3.

[Artículo] Judíos:

IV. ¿De que han procedido el desprecio y el odio de las demas naciones contra los judios? Uno de los cargos principales que hacen los filósofos contra los judios , es que han sido despreciados y aborrecidos de todas las demas naciones ; ellos mismos no podian sufrir á ninguna ; siempre han sido fanáticos , intolerantes , insociables. Ecsaminemos primero en que consistia su intolerancia ; despues veremos si ha habido razon para despreciarlos y aborrecerlos . 

(...)

En cuanto al desprecio y aversion que han teni do los estrangeros á los judios, tenernes que hacer algunas reflecsiones. En primer lugar, las preven- ciones nacionales no prueban mas entre los antiguos que entre los modernos. Los griegos trataban de bárbaros á todos los que no eran de su pais; los romanos no apreciaban mas que á sí mismos y á los griegos; los ingleses mal instruidos nos aprecian poquísimo y aun nos aborrecen (el autor, francés, se refiere a los franceses); somos mas justos con respecto á ellos. Apenas se hallarán dos pueblos vecinos que no tengan prevenciones uno' con- tra otro cuanto menos se conocen, tanta mas dis- posicion tienen á aborrecerse.

En segundo lugar: ¿quiénes son los autores menos favorables á los judios? Son los historiadores, los oradores y poetas romanos; mas es sabido que todos estos genios superficiales conocian pésimamente á los judios. Eran ó paganos celosos ó epicúreos, y debian aborrecer la religion judaica, como hacen aun los incrédulos del dia. No ha nacido su desprecio sino hasta despues de muchas guerras entre los romanos y los judios; estos no pudieron sufrir la insolencia y la tirania de los oficiales y soldados romanos, se sublevaron; asi segun la preocupacion de los romanos, todo pueblo que les resistia era abominable; no trataron mejor á los galos que á los judios. Cuando los judios luchaban contra los antiocos, los romanos tuvieron á bien conceder á los judios señales de aprecio y de amistad; cuando se destruyó el reino de Siria, caveron sobre los judios, porque estos últimos querian ser libres, y para tener derecho á tiranizarlos, se afectó hácia ellos un soberano desprecio; esta es la práctica de los pueblos conquistadores.

En tercer lugar, los filósofos mas antiguos, los hombres de estado, los soberanos, los cuerpos de las repúblicas no habian pensado como los genios ligeros de Roma. Hermipo y Numenio, sectarios de Pitágoras, Clearco y Teofrasto discípulos de Aristóteles, Megástenes, Hecateo de Abdera, Onomacrito, el mismo Porfirio, lejos de manifestar ningun desprecio hácia los judios, han hablado de ellos de un modo ventajoso. Estrabon, Diódoro de Sicilia, Trogo-Pompeyo, Dion-Casio, Varrony otros, á pesar de sus prevenciones contra los judios, les han hecho justicia en muchos puntos. Alejandro les concedió el derecho de vecindad en su ciudad de Alejandria; lo mismo hizo el fundador de Antioquia; los Tolomeos los protegieron en Egipto; los esparciatas les escribieron cartas de fraternidad. Estos testimonios de aprecio nos parecen de mucho mas valor que los sarcasmos de los autores latinos.

Por último: ¿En qué tiempo estalló el odio contra los judios? Cuando ya estaba destruida su república, ó en la pendiente inevitable de su ruina. Atormentados sucesivamente por los asirios, por los antiocos, por los romanos, se esparcieron por todas partes; asi dispersos en Egipto, en la Grecia, en Italia, sin duda alguna se depravaron. Entregada toda la nacion á un espíritu de vértigo despues de la muerte de Jesucristo, no fue despues conocida sino por su terquedad estúpida; dió ocasion para el ridículo y el desprecio; todos los pueblos concibieron aversion contra ella; le habia sido predicho este destino. No es sorprendente que en estos últimos tiempos los mismos judios hayan detestado á los paganos en general, demasiadamente habian adquirido el derecho por las persecuciones que habian sufrido. 

Mas no es este su espíritu, ni su estado primitivo: el confundir los últimos siglos de su historia con los primeros, las costumbres modernas con las antiguas, la decrepitud de una nacion con su adolescencia, como hacen los incrédulos, es embrollarlo todo, y desatinar con una falsa apariencia de erudicion.