element of Jesus’ priestly ministry. It follows that the author’s goal was to cause his audience to feel a sense of privilege and honor in experiencing something unavailable to previous generations. DeSilva does not see the rhetorical goal as simply a polemic against those who are tempted to fall back into Judaism.39
DeSilva’s insights are helpful in bringing out the rhetorical function of the author’s use of synkrisis within his examination of honor-shame language in the epistle. It seems reasonable that the author’s comparison of Jesus with Moses in 3:1-6 does not intend to denigrate Moses, but rather to praise Jesus. Yet it is more difficult to argue the same as we examine the author’s comparison between Christ’s priesthood, covenant, and sacrifice and that of the Levitical priesthood (and law), Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Can we reasonably believe that there was no sense of polemic in this language?40 Clearly the author did not want his readers to participate in the Levitical priesthood, the Mosaic covenant, and Levitical sacrifices. Therefore, it stands to reason that he did intend to paint these older institutions in a negative light, because of a real threat of reversion. Luke Timothy Johnson points out that strong polemical language signifies that someone was indeed an opponent.41
In deSilva’s approach, many insights are gleaned from examining the epistle through the lens of the patron-client relationship and honor-shame language. Yet de Silva does not explore the sociological function of conflict language in the epistle. He assumes too quickly that polemics are not at work in Hebrews.
1 See G. F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921) 197–254; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1961); A. L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos: A Bird’s Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935).
2 A revised edition was published in 1959, and an English translation was produced in 1971: Jules Isaac, Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971).
3 Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425) (Paris: Boccard, 1948). For the English translation see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425), trans. H. McKeating (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).
4 Lovsky, Antisémitisme et mystère d’Israel (Paris: A Michel, 1955).
5 Especially Rosemary Radford Ruether; see the introduction to Faith and Fratricide (1974; reprinted, Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1996).
6 Gregory Baum, introduction to Faith and Fratricide, by Rosemary Radford Ruether 7.
7 Alan Davies identifies Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr as two theologians who support the theory of two covenants: Antisemitism and the Christian Mind (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969) 145–46. In addition, J. Coert Rylaarsdam has also promoted this view.
8 Rylaarsdam, “Jewish-Christian Relationships: The Two Covenants and the Dilemmas of Christology,” in Grace upon Grace, ed. J. I. Cook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 72.
9 Ibid., 79.
10 Ibid., 83.
11 Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 246.
12 Miriam S. Taylor focuses her research on the early patristic writings and concludes that Christian anti-Judaism was not a result of competition with Judaism for converts, Jewish persecution, or inherited pagan or Christian prejudices. Rather it was motivated theologically to help shape early Christian identity. See Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and the Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, Studia post-biblica 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
13 Gavin I. Langmuir, History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism (Berkeley: University of California, 1990), 282.
14 Langmuir, History, Religion, and Anti-Semitism, 285.
15 A recent article by Clark M. Williamson has brought more attention to the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews. See Clark M. Williamson, “Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?” Int 57 (2003) 266–79. He frames the discussion on the question of anti-Judaism in Hebrews by distinguishing “yes” and “no” types. While this article is a helpful beginning, it does not distinguish adequately the various approaches used by the “no” types. Furthermore, Williamson does not leave room for an anti-Judaism that is simply a “theological disagreement;” rather he defines the term only in a negative sense, inevitably leading to anti-Semitism (Williamson, 277).
16 Lillian C. Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994) 150.
17 Ibid., 158.
18 Ibid.
19 John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University, 1983) 183.
20 Ibid., 184.
21 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 121.
22 Ibid., 122. See also N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament, 2d ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1994).
23 B. P. W. S Hunt, “The Epistle to the Hebrews or against the Hebrews? Anti-Judaic Treatise?” SE 2 (1964) 408.
24 John Walters argues similarly in his analysis of the structure of Hebrews. He cites Barnabus Lindars as the one who has rightly identified the climax of the epistle to fall not in the doctrinal sections, but in the final hortatory section; Barnabas Lindars, “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,” NTS 35 (1989) 392 n. 2; J. R. Walters, “The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews,” AsTJ 51 (1996) 59–70.
25 Robert W.
