is uninformed hostility from those on the outside, while anti-Judaism is a more informed critique from those on the inside or at least familiar with the Jewish faith.9 This distinction implies that anti-Semitism is irrational, belligerent behavior, while anti-Judaism is thoughtful, non-aggressive dialogue.
Several scholars follow Gager in distinguishing anti-Judaism from anti-Semitism.10 Craig Evans defines anti-Judaism as opposition to Judaism as a religion, while anti-Semitism is opposition to the Jewish people.11 Scot McKnight also makes this distinction, but further describes anti-Semitism as “irrational, personal, racial prejudice against Jews because they are Jews,” and anti-Judaism as “the religious polemic exercised especially by early Christians who thought rejecting Jesus as Messiah was abandoning God’s covenant with Israel.”12 Though he uses the term “anti-Judaism,” he admits that it too may not be the most appropriate term in light of the fact that the earliest Christians saw themselves as true Jews or the true Israel. Therefore they were not against Judaism per se, but rather against non-Messianic Judaism.13 McKnight stresses that the real issue is not that Christians have disagreed with Jews over matters of religion, but how they have expressed their disagreements.14 James Dunn in an article entitled, “The Question of anti-Semitism in the New Testament,”15 also makes several clarifications regarding the term “anti-Semitism.” First he questions the appropriateness of the term in light of the fact that it emerged in the nineteenth century referring to hostility toward Jews based on racial or ethnic differences. Hostility toward Jews prior to the nineteenth century was based primarily on religious differences.16 It is this fact that has prompted the use of the term “anti-Judaism”. Dunn finds this term helpful in that it focuses the discussion on the Jewish religion, but argues that it too needs further clarification. First, it assumes that there is a uniform view of Judaism, universally agreed upon by all its constituents. Second, it assumes a prejudice against the religion from those on the outside. 17
Qualifying the Term “Anti-Judaism”
Dunn acknowledges Douglas Hare’s distinctions between three different kinds of “anti-Judaism”: 1) prophetic anti-Judaism, which describes internal critiques of Judaism by Jews; 2) Jewish-Christian anti-Judaism, which are criticisms of Judaism by Jews who believe Jesus is Messiah; and 3) Gentilizing anti-Judaism, which rejects Israel, emphasizing the Gentile character of Christianity.18 Yet Dunn does not believe these distinctions go far enough. The real problem comes from the fact that Judaism cannot be defined as a monolithic, uniform religious movement. He cites Jacob Neusner’s work, which argues for several varieties of Judaism.19 The lack of consensus on one, single, normative Judaism makes the term “anti-Judaism” somewhat question begging. Which “Judaism” is being attacked? Therefore in any discussion on this subject, these particular nuances of Judaism in the first century need to be considered.
Anti-Judaism as Anti-Semitism
Though there are several scholars who clearly distinguish anti-Judaism from 19th century anti-Semitism, there are others who continue to describe the New Testament as containing anti-Semitism. Samuel Sandmel admits that the term “anti-Semitism” is inappropriate in connection with the New Testament, in light of the fact that the term has 19th century roots. Yet he continues to use the term throughout his book.20 Though Rosemary Radford Reuther also admits a distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, she believes that the anti-Judaism implicit in Christian interpretations of Scripture find “social expression in anti-Semitism.”21 Gavin I. Langmuir also questions whether the efforts of scholars, who have tried to prove that Christian anti-Judaism was distinct and separate from pagan anti-Semitism were successful. He states that Christian scholars were not able to prove an empirical difference between Christian hostilities toward Jews and pagan hostilities. Thus he concludes, “Their historical investigations only demonstrated ever more clearly an undeniable connection between Christian hostility in the first century and the horrors of twentieth-century antisemitism.”22
Hatred and Hostility
Thus we must ask, is the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism merely a word game, not really getting to the heart of the issue? Is not the real concern hatred and hostility toward the Jewish people, regardless of the basis of the hatred (theological or racial)? What difference does it really make to a person who receives hate whether it is based on the fact that they look different or whether they believe different things?23 Therefore, if we adopt the term “anti-Judaism” to distinguish it from nineteenth-century anti-Semitism, we must acknowledge that its extreme forms can be just as morally base as current strands of anti-Semitism.
Douglas Hare’s distinctions of anti-Judaism seem to imply that internal critiques are somehow less damaging than external critiques. Yet in each of his categories, there are perhaps extreme forms of rhetoric that promote hatred toward the Jews or some segment of them. Even internal criticisms by fellow Jews vary in degree of harshness and influence. Though these critics may not be properly labeled as anti-Semites, they could be called traitors, who may be even more offensive to their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters.
As we turn our attention to the book of Hebrews, it clear that its polemic is not directly directed against the Jewish people (the term I)oudai/oj is not found in the epistle)24 but to fundamental Jewish institutions. The language against the Levitical priesthood (and law), the Mosaic covenant, and the sacrificial ritual is quite severe.25 Therefore as we work through the individual passages, we need to evaluate the extent to which the identity of the Jews was tied to these fundamental Jewish institutions and to what degree if any these passages promote hatred or antagonism toward Jews. This will help us evaluate whether the polemic against these religious symbols constitutes a belligerent form of anti-Judaism.
Defining Supersessionism
Traditionally, supersessionism implies a complete abandonment of Israel by God, with the church as Israel’s replacement. Franklin Littell identifies supersessionism as having two foci: “(1) God is finished with the Jews; (2) the ‘new Israel’ (the Christian church) takes the place of the Jewish people as the carrier of history.”26 After the Holocaust, there has been a strong denouncement of supersessionism in favor of a more open, accepting view of Judaism.27 Donald Bloesch writes that in the contemporary approach, “Israel has its own unique contribution to be a light to the nations; and the church is another light, but not one that surpasses or supersedes Israel.”28
When the discussion is framed in such a manner it seems that only two options are available. If one believes in the exclusive claims of Christianity, he or she is a supersessionist (= God has abandoned Israel; the Christian religion replaces Judaism). The only other option seems to be to embrace contemporary Judaism as an equally acceptable
