Conrad Black and Judaism
Oct 9, 2009
David Novak
In the Tuesday, September 29 edition of the National Post (Toronto), long time columnist Conrad Black wrote “Why I Became a Catholic.” I was intrigued by Lord Black’s story of his spiritual journey to a more intense Christianity, yet I began to recoil when reading his dismissal of Judaism as a real spiritual option for himself (or for anyone else like him).
It is not that I want Conrad Black to have converted to Judaism. Historically, Jews only accept converts rather than actively seeking them. Instead, I want him to recognize that his now deeper commitment to Christianity should not have led lead him to dismiss Judaism in the way he has dismissed Islam or Eastern religions. Why? Because Christianity came out of Judaism, whereas Islam and the Eastern religions did not. In fact, the very first heresy declared by the Christian Church was that of Marcion (in the second century), who tried to sever Christianity from the God of Israel, the people Israel, and the Torah revealed to Israel. Thus Judaism is not only Christianity’s origin but, just as much, its constant companion. In fact, it could be said that thoughtful Christians might have to ask themselves why they have not remained within Judaism, whether literally (as in the case of Jewish converts to Christianity) or figuratively (as in the case of those who accept the later Christian tradition built on the earlier Jewish one).
What Conrad Black has missed in his spiritual journey to God (via ad Deum) is that the God he has found in the Catholic Church is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (or Israel), whose Messiah, who he promised to the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, claimed to be. If one seeking a relationship with this God believes this claim is true, then one should become the best kind of Christian he can be (which Lord Black believes is to become a Catholic). But, if one does not believe this is true, and still wants to be fully related to the God of Israel, then he should become the best kind of Jew one can be. That is why the choice to become a Jew (or to become a better Jew) and the choice to become a Christian (or to become a better Christian) depends on one’s belief about who Jesus of Nazareth is or is not. That is the difference in kind between living as a Jew and living as a Christian. These two faith commitments are mutually exclusive; it is an issue of either/or.
This difference in kind (what the French would call la différence même) is not that the Christian makes a positive commitment and that the Jewish commitment is simply its negation. Instead, the Jewish commitment to the Messiah-yet-to-come is positive vis-à-vis the future in the same way the Jewish commitment to the Torah revealed at Sinai is positive visa-via the past. And both faith commitments are made in the present when a Jew learns Torah, practices the commandments (mitsvot), and engages in Jewish worship.
A good Jew is much more than someone who has simply said “no” to the Christian messianic (let alone trinitarian) claim. An atheist could more easily do that. Thus the Jewish “no” to Jesus of Nazareth (who is not “the Christ” for us) is not an essentially negative form of self-identification. Instead, it presupposes the “yes” a good Jew makes by accepting the Torah revealed at Sinai, by doing what the Torah requires of him or her, and by anticipating the “yes” to be made to the Messiah-yet-to-come who will truly fulfill the Torah’s promises. As such, Jews who think their Judaism need be nothing more than their disaffirmation of Christianity are the type of reactionaries who end up as nihilists by their negation for its own sake.
When it comes to Judaism, Lord Black makes two serious errors. These errors are due to his making differences of degree between Judaism and Christianity into differences of kind, and even making these differences of degree more than they are in fact.
First, there is no solid evidence that “80 percent of the early Jews became Christians” as Black claims. Those who do invoke that spurious statistic are, in effect, making an old Christian theological claim—now, by the way, rejected by the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II in the 1960’s— that Judaism and the Jews who still practice it are some sort of “fossil” (as the British historian Arnold Toynbee famously put it) having no vitality or even religious legitimacy in the present. Before employing this “majoritarian” or displacement logic, however, Conrad Black might do well to remember that Islam has now displaced Christianity in large parts of the world.
Black’s second error concerns the present state of the Jews and Judaism. What does he mean when he says “Judaism, though close theologically, is more tribal and philosophical than spiritual”? I assume he means “tribal” to be the antithesis of “universal.” Some Christians still do like to think of Christianity as a “universal” religion that is much wider and all-embracing than narrow “tribal” Judaism. Yet one could make a very good case that Judaism is as universal as Christianity, and Christianity is as tribal as Judaism. Judaism is universal inasmuch as Jews can live their Judaism anywhere in the world (though always best lived in the Land of Israel), and anyone can become a Jew who is willing to accept the kingship of the God of Israel (who is also the Creator of the universe) and pledge himself or herself to live according to the commandments of the Torah as taught by ongoing Jewish tradition. And Christianity is as tribal as Judaism inasmuch as those Christians baptized in infancy are as much born into the Christian people (the Church as an extended tribe) by virtue of their Christian parents as I was born into the Jewish people by virtue of my Jewish parents. In fact, the tribal notion of birth being how one is joined to one’s people is so strong in both Judaism and Christianity that both traditions consider converts to be “born again” rather than just being individual volunteers. Moreover, unlike a voluntary association, one cannot “check out” or be “kicked out” of either the Jewish people or the Christian Church, whether a native-born or naturalized member thereof.
No doubt looking at the rather assimilated Jews in his social circle, Conrad Black has not seen their Judaism (such as it is) to be “an accessible faith.” Yet he does recognize “the Orthodox” as being “apart” from this Jewish spiritual fault. But, are the Orthodox—namely, those Jews who have faith in God’s revealed Torah and who attempt to live according to its commandments—really “apart”? Apart from what? Apart from whom? They are hardly apart from the Jewish tradition; they are the ones who most fully access it. And they are hardly apart from the Jewish people in the sense of being some sort of marginal fringe group. Thus, though about 20 percent to 25 percent of Canadian Jews would call themselves “Orthodox” (“traditional” might be a more inclusive description), I would say that almost twice that percentage of Canadian Jews under the age of forty probably fall into this category.
Finally, if “spirituality” is a palpable concern with the God–man relationship, and if Black wants to see a real live manifestation of Jewish spirituality, let him attend a service in the Orthodox synagogue where I and others like me regularly pray to God and are instructed in God’s Torah.
Wouldn’t Conrad Black’s Catholicism be more genuine if it were not made by what seems to be a process of elimination, one largely made at the expense of Jews and Judaism, both of which he knows much too little?
David Novak is the J. Richard and Dorothy Shiff Professor of Jewish Studies in the University of Toronto, and Vice-President of the Union for Traditional Judaism.
Comments:
10.9.2009 | 8:58am
Ars Artium says:
This post is a timely reminder that Christianity would be hanging in thin air, so to speak, without the ground on which it stands, Judaism. Yes, we are "constant companions" traveling toward to the same destination. We would be very wise to remember this.
10.9.2009 | 9:48am
Polybius says:
In response to Professor Novak's valuable commentary, I raise an administrative point.
When a person who has openly violated the Church's teachings on conformity with civil law speaks of his conversion, it is appropriate to examine his acts to determine whether or not his statement of faith is honestly made.
The declaration of faith from Conrad Black comes from a man who is not only continuing to appeal his conviction for what Judge Posner, on appeal, called "pretty naked fraud," but who sought a presidential pardon from George Bush and will undoubtedly seek a pardon from President Obama. Indeed, he concludes his National Post article by stating that he was "unjustly accused, indicted and convicted."
I have great respect for the faith and the learning of the First Things writers, but I ask you to determine what degree of scepticism should be applied to any statement of conversion from this man, who is continuing to work to reduce his sentence. For my part, I'll pray for his faith journey and for him to recognize his offenses to society, serve his sentence and abandon his appeal and pardon efforts.
When a person who has openly violated the Church's teachings on conformity with civil law speaks of his conversion, it is appropriate to examine his acts to determine whether or not his statement of faith is honestly made.
The declaration of faith from Conrad Black comes from a man who is not only continuing to appeal his conviction for what Judge Posner, on appeal, called "pretty naked fraud," but who sought a presidential pardon from George Bush and will undoubtedly seek a pardon from President Obama. Indeed, he concludes his National Post article by stating that he was "unjustly accused, indicted and convicted."
I have great respect for the faith and the learning of the First Things writers, but I ask you to determine what degree of scepticism should be applied to any statement of conversion from this man, who is continuing to work to reduce his sentence. For my part, I'll pray for his faith journey and for him to recognize his offenses to society, serve his sentence and abandon his appeal and pardon efforts.
10.9.2009 | 10:46am
Ron says:
It's not quite true to say "Christianity came out of Judaism," ie, the same Judaism that is now its "companion."
Both Christianity and what we now call Judaism (rabbinic) came out of ancient Judaism. There's no perfectly unbroken line in either case. Ancient Judaism came to an end and two "new" religions were born.
Both Christianity and what we now call Judaism (rabbinic) came out of ancient Judaism. There's no perfectly unbroken line in either case. Ancient Judaism came to an end and two "new" religions were born.
10.9.2009 | 10:55am
Ray says:
Not having the authority of a scholar, allow me to express an opinion.
While whether one (who accepts the revelation of the God of Abraham) is a Jew or a Christian "depends on one’s belief about who Jesus of Nazareth is or is not," making other distinctions between Jews and Christians seems something akin to unscrambling an omlet.
While whether one (who accepts the revelation of the God of Abraham) is a Jew or a Christian "depends on one’s belief about who Jesus of Nazareth is or is not," making other distinctions between Jews and Christians seems something akin to unscrambling an omlet.
10.9.2009 | 11:10am
jason taylor says:
Honestly I never thought the bit about "tribal" was an insult. On the contrary what I always admired about the Jews was there "marine like" esprit de corps, their group loyalty, and their sheer cussedness. It is simply something I could never share because to gain such things, Judaism must necessarily be exclusive. However I never resented that.
However the point that Judaism is more community based and Christianity more doctrine based is a fair point. This does not mean that Jews care not about doctrine or Christian's care not about community, but only that there is different emphasis.
However the point that Judaism is more community based and Christianity more doctrine based is a fair point. This does not mean that Jews care not about doctrine or Christian's care not about community, but only that there is different emphasis.
10.9.2009 | 12:25pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Novak argues:
"First, there is no solid evidence that “80 percent of the early Jews became Christians” as Black claims. Those who do invoke that spurious statistic are, in effect, making an old Christian theological claim—now, by the way, rejected by the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II in the 1960’s— that Judaism and the Jews who still practice it are some sort of “fossil” (as the British historian Arnold Toynbee famously put it) having no vitality or even religious legitimacy in the present. "
Two observations: 1) If not 80%, then what is the figure that Prof. Novak would accept and what is his support for that number? 2) The "in effect" simile sets up an easily attacked strawman, perhaps, but it ignores the historical question. There is no question that many of the original Christians were born Jews and that the Jews represented a relatively large percentage of the people of Roman Empire (that is substantially more than the >1/2 of 1% of the World they represent today, and even more than the 2% or so of the US population they represent today).
"First, there is no solid evidence that “80 percent of the early Jews became Christians” as Black claims. Those who do invoke that spurious statistic are, in effect, making an old Christian theological claim—now, by the way, rejected by the Catholic Church since Vatican Council II in the 1960’s— that Judaism and the Jews who still practice it are some sort of “fossil” (as the British historian Arnold Toynbee famously put it) having no vitality or even religious legitimacy in the present. "
Two observations: 1) If not 80%, then what is the figure that Prof. Novak would accept and what is his support for that number? 2) The "in effect" simile sets up an easily attacked strawman, perhaps, but it ignores the historical question. There is no question that many of the original Christians were born Jews and that the Jews represented a relatively large percentage of the people of Roman Empire (that is substantially more than the >1/2 of 1% of the World they represent today, and even more than the 2% or so of the US population they represent today).
10.9.2009 | 1:21pm
Roger says:
As a Jew, and a former despiser of all things Christian, I became a convert to Catholicism via a shattering and profoundly mystical experience with the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, on April 19, 2005. This happened while in the Phoenix airport between flights on a business trip, sipping my cappuccino, where I happened to witness, on an airport news monitor, Pope Benedict’s XVI’s first appearance on the Vatican balcony after his election. From this I've learned that God’s action in human lives is, at its essence, a complete mystery, and the vastness of His love is utterly beyond comprehension. With that humility, I try hard to not judge others’ faith (as I used to), for only God knows their hearts, and, as His creature, with my severely limited understanding and vision, who am I to proscribe the borders of His mercy?
10.9.2009 | 1:27pm
Eric Giunta says:
Polybius:
Do lawfully appeal what one believes to be an unjust conviction is not to violate a civil law, much less to violate Catholic teaching.
Do lawfully appeal what one believes to be an unjust conviction is not to violate a civil law, much less to violate Catholic teaching.
10.9.2009 | 1:41pm
David P. Goldman says:
I was heartened by Rabbi Novak's spirited defense of Judaism.
He is entirely correct to reject the thesis that the majority of Jews in antiquity converted to Christianity. They could not have done so, for they were killed by the Romans after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the second century. Roman sources put the Jewish dead at half a million, Jewish sources at considerably more. In the Greek world, moreover, Jewish communities were slaughted upon the outbreak of the First Jewish War in 66 C.E. Imagine that Hitler had won the Second World War and buried evidence of the Holocaust, as a popular novel and film represented. Future historians might suggest that the disappearance of European Jews was due to conversion. No: we were slaughtered, and we do not accept the posthumous insult to those who died to sanctify God's name.
Regarding the "tribal" issue, this comment by Henri de Lubac is relevant:
"To St. Paul the Church is the People of the New Covenant. Israel according to the Spirit takes the place of Israel according to the flesh; but it is not a collection of many individuals, it is still a nation albeit recruited now from the ends of the earth, 'the tribe of Christians,' says Eusebius, for instance, 'the race of those who honor God.'
'Just as the Jews put their trust for so long not in an individual reward beyond the grave but in their common destiny as a race and in the glory of their earthly Jerusalem, so for the Christian all his hopes must be bent on the coming of the Kingdom and the glory of the one Jerusalem; and as YHWH bestowed adoption on no individual as such, but only insofar as he bestowed universal adoption on the people of the Jews, so the Christian obtains adoption only in proportion as he is a member of that social structure brought to life by the Spirit of Christ."
In de Lubac's notion of the People of God, incorporated into the Magisterium through Vatican II, Christians strive to become a "tribe" after the fashion of Israel. To counterpose Christian "universality" to Jewish "particularly" is misguided, for Christianity itself is an effort to adopt individual Gentiles into the particular tribe of God's people.
He is entirely correct to reject the thesis that the majority of Jews in antiquity converted to Christianity. They could not have done so, for they were killed by the Romans after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the second century. Roman sources put the Jewish dead at half a million, Jewish sources at considerably more. In the Greek world, moreover, Jewish communities were slaughted upon the outbreak of the First Jewish War in 66 C.E. Imagine that Hitler had won the Second World War and buried evidence of the Holocaust, as a popular novel and film represented. Future historians might suggest that the disappearance of European Jews was due to conversion. No: we were slaughtered, and we do not accept the posthumous insult to those who died to sanctify God's name.
Regarding the "tribal" issue, this comment by Henri de Lubac is relevant:
"To St. Paul the Church is the People of the New Covenant. Israel according to the Spirit takes the place of Israel according to the flesh; but it is not a collection of many individuals, it is still a nation albeit recruited now from the ends of the earth, 'the tribe of Christians,' says Eusebius, for instance, 'the race of those who honor God.'
'Just as the Jews put their trust for so long not in an individual reward beyond the grave but in their common destiny as a race and in the glory of their earthly Jerusalem, so for the Christian all his hopes must be bent on the coming of the Kingdom and the glory of the one Jerusalem; and as YHWH bestowed adoption on no individual as such, but only insofar as he bestowed universal adoption on the people of the Jews, so the Christian obtains adoption only in proportion as he is a member of that social structure brought to life by the Spirit of Christ."
In de Lubac's notion of the People of God, incorporated into the Magisterium through Vatican II, Christians strive to become a "tribe" after the fashion of Israel. To counterpose Christian "universality" to Jewish "particularly" is misguided, for Christianity itself is an effort to adopt individual Gentiles into the particular tribe of God's people.
10.9.2009 | 5:16pm
Joseph says:
From Nostra Aetate paragraph 4: "Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues." Now, I am not a scholar of these matters, but that at least suggests something close to "constant companions." Lest there be any confusion, however, salvation is available through Christ alone. Yet there still remains a mystery about the Jewish people. St. Paul does say that regarding election they are beloved for the sake of their fathers, which only further complicates matters.
10.9.2009 | 5:23pm
Rich says:
Ultimately, 'two companions traveling to the same destination' doesn't cut it. Only the fulfillment will matter and one of those companions will see his faith was a beginning only.
10.9.2009 | 6:17pm
Marcus says:
Mr. Novak claims ". . Christianity came out of Judaism." I don't think that is the case.
Christianity came out of the faith of Abraham, not Judaism, before Abraham was circumcised and 430 years before the giving of the law at the hand of Moses. Abraham is the father of Christians; Judaism is not. The law—Judaism—was our tutor while in our minority.
"We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
"It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
"Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all." —from Romans 4
Christianity came out of the faith of Abraham, not Judaism, before Abraham was circumcised and 430 years before the giving of the law at the hand of Moses. Abraham is the father of Christians; Judaism is not. The law—Judaism—was our tutor while in our minority.
"We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
"It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
"Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all." —from Romans 4
10.9.2009 | 8:13pm
Bob G says:
If it is Conrad Black who is trying to counterpose Christian "universality" to Jewish particularity, he is on very dangerous ground, as Mr. Goldman says.
First of all, Black would not be the first to try to emphasize Christian universality. So did the Gnostics, trying to strip "Christianity" (a bad term; actually, the Catholic Church) of its scandalous particulars.
And scores of writers today are still at it. Generally, the idea is to strip Jesus of his divinity so as to assimilate Him to other world-historical figures such as Buddha and Lao-Tse. I just read just such a book by a man named Mitchell. The "particulars" that scandalize him are especially the statements "attributed to" Jesus that make Him out to be divine. E.g., "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" and especially "Before Abraham came to, I am." The particulars of the Gospels are a great vexation to those seeking some generalized world spirituality. So Mitchell claims (along with many others) that the Gospel writers spuriously added to Jesus's message what wasn't there at the start. "Christianity" (again, as Hilaire Belloc rightly said, a bad term) is as particular as Judaism, to which it is inseparably united.
First of all, Black would not be the first to try to emphasize Christian universality. So did the Gnostics, trying to strip "Christianity" (a bad term; actually, the Catholic Church) of its scandalous particulars.
And scores of writers today are still at it. Generally, the idea is to strip Jesus of his divinity so as to assimilate Him to other world-historical figures such as Buddha and Lao-Tse. I just read just such a book by a man named Mitchell. The "particulars" that scandalize him are especially the statements "attributed to" Jesus that make Him out to be divine. E.g., "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" and especially "Before Abraham came to, I am." The particulars of the Gospels are a great vexation to those seeking some generalized world spirituality. So Mitchell claims (along with many others) that the Gospel writers spuriously added to Jesus's message what wasn't there at the start. "Christianity" (again, as Hilaire Belloc rightly said, a bad term) is as particular as Judaism, to which it is inseparably united.
10.9.2009 | 10:33pm
patricksarsfield says:
This observation "they could not have done so" by David Goldman appears to be a non-sequitur:
"He is entirely correct to reject the thesis that the majority of Jews in antiquity converted to Christianity. They could not have done so, for they were killed by the Romans after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the second century. Roman sources put the Jewish dead at half a million, Jewish sources at considerably more."
In all events, the Bar Kochba revolt occurred about a century after the death of Christ. If 500,000 people represented more than half of the Jews remaining as of 135 AD, then the Jewish population had likely declined by a very large percentage over the course of the preceding century. Per the source (Yehuda Bauer) quoted by Wikipedia, there were 8-10 million Jews at one time in the First Century AD Roman Empire. What had happened to all of them? Had they been converted to another religion?
"He is entirely correct to reject the thesis that the majority of Jews in antiquity converted to Christianity. They could not have done so, for they were killed by the Romans after the Bar Kochba rebellion in the second century. Roman sources put the Jewish dead at half a million, Jewish sources at considerably more."
In all events, the Bar Kochba revolt occurred about a century after the death of Christ. If 500,000 people represented more than half of the Jews remaining as of 135 AD, then the Jewish population had likely declined by a very large percentage over the course of the preceding century. Per the source (Yehuda Bauer) quoted by Wikipedia, there were 8-10 million Jews at one time in the First Century AD Roman Empire. What had happened to all of them? Had they been converted to another religion?
10.9.2009 | 11:32pm
pauli says:
Roger: Exceptional testimony you've recorded. And the inferences you draw from it with respect to personal character--humility, withholding judgement, realizing God's mercy--seem to me eternal.
Thanks.
Thanks.
10.10.2009 | 1:56pm
observer says:
Is Polybius referring to a different "Conrad Black," to the capitalist rather than to the columnist?
10.10.2009 | 5:16pm
BenK says:
Modern Judaism is a mess; the Kabbalah, the Reform movement, the Orthodox of various stripes... nobody should feel obligated to take it seriously, particularly if they are exposed to some of the more random sects. After all, there are so called sects of Christianity that discredit the very name quite effectively as well - including mainstream protestants, the Catholic womanpriest movement, a variety of cults and so on.
10.11.2009 | 4:38pm
Faruq says:
What I like about Islam, and what Conrad Black and some comment makers here may consider, is that Islam has retained what Judaism and Christianity has lost, reverence and worship of the one God, whose conception in our minds cannot be tainted with Hellenistic or Roman idolatry on one hand, and extreme parochialism and slander on the other. As for Christians and Jews marching together, this is a farce. The acrimony between the two religions is as ugly as ugly gets. Judaism and Islam have had a much easier time, if only one were to honestly reflect. Salvation is with God, not with tribe nor triunes.
10.11.2009 | 8:32pm
David P. Goldman says:
Modern Judaism a "mess"? No doubt, but compared to whom? What part of the Judeo-Christian family is not a mess at the moment? BenK's gratuious slap at Kabbalah suggests lack of familiarity with the way in which Kabbalah is understood by the mainstream authorities up to and including Rav Joseph Soloveitchik -- he might want to read a bit before offering gratuitous insults.
Think of it this way: There are an estimated 2.2 million Orthodox Jews, that is, Jews who know thoroughly Scripture, Talmud, and commentaries. The average Orthodox Jew is more thoroughly trained than the average Christian clergyperson. If you don't believe that, spent any Saturday morning at an Orthodox synagogue. By comparison: there are 400,000 Catholic priests. In terms of highly trained cadre, Jewish numbers compare well to the RCC. In any case, there are more Torah scholars today than at any time in Jewish history.
Regarding the number of Jews in the 1st century: the 8-10 million number is extrapolated from a passing comment by Josephus, and it is fanciful. The largest Diaspora Jewish community of the 1st century was Alexandria with perhaps 50,000 Jews, followed by Antioch with somewhat fewer; there were small colonies in Rome, Spain, the Rhineland and so forth, but it is impossible to get a number that large. The Jewish sources (in the Talmud estimate casualties from the 2nd century war at over 2 million, which probably is a bit high. Split the difference with Tertullian, and we have a million and a quarter debt. Afterwards there was a huge migration of Jews to Mesopotamia and Persia, where large communities flourished until quite recently. Now, there was a larger population that had a relationship to the Temple cult (e.g., bulls were sacrificed during Sukkot by Gentiles); it is not clear if that was intended as part of Josephus' count. From the scant information available it is quite credible that slaughter and dispersion accounted for the entire reduction in the Jewish population and that conversion was neglible. No doubt there some some conversion, some of it coerced, some voluntary -- but nothing in the sparse data available indicates, let alone proves, that there was mass conversion.
Think of it this way: There are an estimated 2.2 million Orthodox Jews, that is, Jews who know thoroughly Scripture, Talmud, and commentaries. The average Orthodox Jew is more thoroughly trained than the average Christian clergyperson. If you don't believe that, spent any Saturday morning at an Orthodox synagogue. By comparison: there are 400,000 Catholic priests. In terms of highly trained cadre, Jewish numbers compare well to the RCC. In any case, there are more Torah scholars today than at any time in Jewish history.
Regarding the number of Jews in the 1st century: the 8-10 million number is extrapolated from a passing comment by Josephus, and it is fanciful. The largest Diaspora Jewish community of the 1st century was Alexandria with perhaps 50,000 Jews, followed by Antioch with somewhat fewer; there were small colonies in Rome, Spain, the Rhineland and so forth, but it is impossible to get a number that large. The Jewish sources (in the Talmud estimate casualties from the 2nd century war at over 2 million, which probably is a bit high. Split the difference with Tertullian, and we have a million and a quarter debt. Afterwards there was a huge migration of Jews to Mesopotamia and Persia, where large communities flourished until quite recently. Now, there was a larger population that had a relationship to the Temple cult (e.g., bulls were sacrificed during Sukkot by Gentiles); it is not clear if that was intended as part of Josephus' count. From the scant information available it is quite credible that slaughter and dispersion accounted for the entire reduction in the Jewish population and that conversion was neglible. No doubt there some some conversion, some of it coerced, some voluntary -- but nothing in the sparse data available indicates, let alone proves, that there was mass conversion.
10.11.2009 | 9:19pm
David P. Goldman says:
Faruq,
As a First Things editor I'm very happy that you've joined the discussion. Welcome. That said, it's not so simple.
I highly recommend Gabriel Said Reynolds excellent essay on reading the Bible through the Qu'ran in the current issue of First Things. The difficulty we Jews have with Islam is the assertion that our Torah is somehow distorted, and that it needs to be corrected. Whatever problems we have had with Christians over the centuries, we have always been able to agree that our Bible was of divine origin. The Qu'ran rejects this, but (as Prof. Reynolds shows) is chock-a-block with passages that only can be interpreted by reference to the Bible -- suggesting that the Qu'ran is a Bible commentary of sorts. These are delicate but worthwhile issues for us to discuss. As for similarities and differences, Franz Rosenzweig makes a strong case (of which I have never seen a good refutation) that Christianity and Judaism are united by a common concept of divine humility (YHWH condescends to self-limit his actions for all time by a covenant with human beings on equal terms!) which does not exist in Islam.
As a First Things editor I'm very happy that you've joined the discussion. Welcome. That said, it's not so simple.
I highly recommend Gabriel Said Reynolds excellent essay on reading the Bible through the Qu'ran in the current issue of First Things. The difficulty we Jews have with Islam is the assertion that our Torah is somehow distorted, and that it needs to be corrected. Whatever problems we have had with Christians over the centuries, we have always been able to agree that our Bible was of divine origin. The Qu'ran rejects this, but (as Prof. Reynolds shows) is chock-a-block with passages that only can be interpreted by reference to the Bible -- suggesting that the Qu'ran is a Bible commentary of sorts. These are delicate but worthwhile issues for us to discuss. As for similarities and differences, Franz Rosenzweig makes a strong case (of which I have never seen a good refutation) that Christianity and Judaism are united by a common concept of divine humility (YHWH condescends to self-limit his actions for all time by a covenant with human beings on equal terms!) which does not exist in Islam.
10.11.2009 | 11:41pm
patricksarsfield says:
David P. Goldman writes:
"Regarding the number of Jews in the 1st century: the 8-10 million number is extrapolated from a passing comment by Josephus, and it is fanciful. The largest Diaspora Jewish community of the 1st century was Alexandria with perhaps 50,000 Jews, followed by Antioch with somewhat fewer; there were small colonies in Rome, Spain, the Rhineland and so forth, but it is impossible to get a number that large. The Jewish sources (in the Talmud estimate casualties from the 2nd century war at over 2 million, which probably is a bit high. Split the difference with Tertullian, and we have a million and a quarter debt. Afterwards there was a huge migration of Jews to Mesopotamia and Persia, where large communities flourished until quite recently. Now, there was a larger population that had a relationship to the Temple cult (e.g., bulls were sacrificed during Sukkot by Gentiles); it is not clear if that was intended as part of Josephus' count. From the scant information available it is quite credible that slaughter and dispersion accounted for the entire reduction in the Jewish population and that conversion was neglible. No doubt there some some conversion, some of it coerced, some voluntary -- but nothing in the sparse data available indicates, let alone proves, that there was mass conversion. "
On the other hand, Goldman is also admitting that he cannot say that there wasn't mass conversion either. Essentially, he takes it on faith that there was not mass conversion. He has not, though, given any numbers from which a total figure for Jews in the Roman Empire could be constructed. The only number he gives is a "split the baby" number of 1.25 million dead for the Bar Kochba Rebellion. What that number should be subtracted from, though, is unanswered. Thus, Goldman leaves us with no number other than anassumption that the number was smaller than Josephus's purportedly "fanciful" number. In sum, there is still room for the conversion of millions of Jews in the penumbra of the "scant information available" even after Goldman's efforts at reductions.
"Regarding the number of Jews in the 1st century: the 8-10 million number is extrapolated from a passing comment by Josephus, and it is fanciful. The largest Diaspora Jewish community of the 1st century was Alexandria with perhaps 50,000 Jews, followed by Antioch with somewhat fewer; there were small colonies in Rome, Spain, the Rhineland and so forth, but it is impossible to get a number that large. The Jewish sources (in the Talmud estimate casualties from the 2nd century war at over 2 million, which probably is a bit high. Split the difference with Tertullian, and we have a million and a quarter debt. Afterwards there was a huge migration of Jews to Mesopotamia and Persia, where large communities flourished until quite recently. Now, there was a larger population that had a relationship to the Temple cult (e.g., bulls were sacrificed during Sukkot by Gentiles); it is not clear if that was intended as part of Josephus' count. From the scant information available it is quite credible that slaughter and dispersion accounted for the entire reduction in the Jewish population and that conversion was neglible. No doubt there some some conversion, some of it coerced, some voluntary -- but nothing in the sparse data available indicates, let alone proves, that there was mass conversion. "
On the other hand, Goldman is also admitting that he cannot say that there wasn't mass conversion either. Essentially, he takes it on faith that there was not mass conversion. He has not, though, given any numbers from which a total figure for Jews in the Roman Empire could be constructed. The only number he gives is a "split the baby" number of 1.25 million dead for the Bar Kochba Rebellion. What that number should be subtracted from, though, is unanswered. Thus, Goldman leaves us with no number other than anassumption that the number was smaller than Josephus's purportedly "fanciful" number. In sum, there is still room for the conversion of millions of Jews in the penumbra of the "scant information available" even after Goldman's efforts at reductions.
10.12.2009 | 1:05am
Cole Koray says:
Mr. Novak wrote: "If one seeking a relationship with this God [the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] believes this claim [that Jesus is Messiah] is true, then one should become the best kind of Christian he can be (which Lord Black believes is to become a Catholic). But, if one does not believe this is true, and still wants to be fully related to the God of Israel, then he should become the best kind of Jew one can be." I believe that Mr. Novak has overlooked a third option. There are many people who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as revealed in the Torah (as understood by the normative faith community) who deny the messianic claim of Jesus, who are nonetheless not Jews and don't desire to become Jews. I refer to the B'nai Noach (literally, Children of Noah) movement. B'nai Noach are gentiles who recognize the legitimacy of the Torah's 613 commandments for the Jews, and its 7 commandments for non-Jews. By deep studying and fulfillment of these 7 laws, they seek to be the best gentiles they can be, faithful in the promise that "the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come."
10.12.2009 | 3:18am
KM says:
Re: Patrick Sarsfield's comments:
Regardless of how many Jews there were in the 1st century, it seems highly unlikely that Jews converted en mass to another religion (i.e. Christianity). Back then, Christianity was still considered a "breakaway Jewish sect", and hence any 1st century Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews. So if there was a decline in Jewish numbers around that time, it would have come from something else.
Regardless of how many Jews there were in the 1st century, it seems highly unlikely that Jews converted en mass to another religion (i.e. Christianity). Back then, Christianity was still considered a "breakaway Jewish sect", and hence any 1st century Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews. So if there was a decline in Jewish numbers around that time, it would have come from something else.
10.12.2009 | 9:28am
Lauri Friesen says:
I am saddened by how far First Things has fallen since the death of Fr. Neuhaus. I mean, Conrad Black hardly set himself up as spokesman for the Catholic Church when he described his personal conversion journey. Nor has he established sufficient credibility to do so, even if it were his purpose. Talk about "much ado about nothing." Rabbi Novak seems more mean spirited than anything else when he questions the "genuineness" of Black's faith. Spiteful comments (such as those of Polybius) and a focus on unprovable hypotheses (such as how many Jews converted to Christianity in the early centuries of that faith) do little to contribute to the mission statement of this magazine.
10.12.2009 | 9:30am
David P. Goldman says:
There is plenty of evidence of massacres of Jews in Palestine and elsewhere during late antiquity, and also plenty of evidence of mass dispersion--but no evidence from any contemporary source of mass conversion. Those facts are not in dispute, yet supposedly I "take it on faith" that mass conversion did not occur. The only mass conversions of Jews of which we know occurred at swordpoint in Spain a thousand years after Constantine; virtually the entire Jewish community of Germany moved east rather than convert (which is why they spoke Yiddish rather than Polish). But these swordpoint conversions were a public event and well documented. Without a shred of evidence, why should we assume that Jews converted to Christianity in large numbers in late antiquity, when (except by violence) they never did before or after? There is a strong assumption that the natural course of things is for everyone to become Christian. As a Jew, I welcome Christianization of Africa and China (and have written about this extensively), but I do not think it is at all in the nature of things. During the past hundred years Europe has undergone a mass conversion OUT of Christianity.
10.12.2009 | 1:14pm
Stephen M. barr says:
Well, it is not quite true, David (Goldman, not Novak), that there are no records of mass conversions until the forced conversions in Spain. Chapter 4 of the Book of Acts records that 5,000 Jewish men (and presumably some number of women) converted to Christianity in a single day after hearing the preaching of the Apostles. The first followers of Christ were Jews, including not only the Apostles, but thousands of others, according to the New Testament. (Remember the disputes between gentile and Jewish Christians over whether Christians had to observe Jewish dietary and other laws.) If 5,000 converted in one day, it is not unreasonable to suppose that many tens of thousands of Jews became Christian in the first generations of Christianity. If true that would represent several percent of Jews, which even if not a majority would not be an insignificant number either.
10.12.2009 | 3:12pm
patricksarsfield says:
David Goldman writes:
"There is plenty of evidence of massacres of Jews in Palestine and elsewhere during late antiquity, and also plenty of evidence of mass dispersion--but no evidence from any contemporary source of mass conversion. Those facts are not in dispute, yet supposedly I "take it on faith" that mass conversion did not occur. The only mass conversions of Jews of which we know occurred at swordpoint in Spain a thousand years after Constantine; virtually the entire Jewish community of Germany moved east rather than convert (which is why they spoke Yiddish rather than Polish). But these swordpoint conversions were a public event and well documented. Without a shred of evidence, why should we assume that Jews converted to Christianity in large numbers in late antiquity, when (except by violence) they never did before or after? There is a strong assumption that the natural course of things is for everyone to become Christian. As a Jew, I welcome Christianization of Africa and China (and have written about this extensively), but I do not think it is at all in the nature of things. During the past hundred years Europe has undergone a mass conversion OUT of Christianity. "
We were talking about the First Century AD, so all this stuff about Spain in 1325 and Germany even later is just a red herring. Thus, Goldman above contributes nothing new to the discussion of what happened to the Jewish population of the Roman Empire in the First Century AD. I doubt, by the way, that the Jews of the First Century were coverted to Christianity on a "mass" basis (although they would have started going to Mass upon conversion). Each convert required evangelization. Some days that resulted in conversions by the thousands (see, e.g., Acts 2) and on others, the conversions involved substantial discussions and resolution of biblical objections, as was the case in Berea (see, Acts 17:11).
"There is plenty of evidence of massacres of Jews in Palestine and elsewhere during late antiquity, and also plenty of evidence of mass dispersion--but no evidence from any contemporary source of mass conversion. Those facts are not in dispute, yet supposedly I "take it on faith" that mass conversion did not occur. The only mass conversions of Jews of which we know occurred at swordpoint in Spain a thousand years after Constantine; virtually the entire Jewish community of Germany moved east rather than convert (which is why they spoke Yiddish rather than Polish). But these swordpoint conversions were a public event and well documented. Without a shred of evidence, why should we assume that Jews converted to Christianity in large numbers in late antiquity, when (except by violence) they never did before or after? There is a strong assumption that the natural course of things is for everyone to become Christian. As a Jew, I welcome Christianization of Africa and China (and have written about this extensively), but I do not think it is at all in the nature of things. During the past hundred years Europe has undergone a mass conversion OUT of Christianity. "
We were talking about the First Century AD, so all this stuff about Spain in 1325 and Germany even later is just a red herring. Thus, Goldman above contributes nothing new to the discussion of what happened to the Jewish population of the Roman Empire in the First Century AD. I doubt, by the way, that the Jews of the First Century were coverted to Christianity on a "mass" basis (although they would have started going to Mass upon conversion). Each convert required evangelization. Some days that resulted in conversions by the thousands (see, e.g., Acts 2) and on others, the conversions involved substantial discussions and resolution of biblical objections, as was the case in Berea (see, Acts 17:11).
10.12.2009 | 4:14pm
Lavaux says:
While reading "Why I Became a Catholic", I noticed that the beauty and majesty of St. Peter's in Rome seemed to impress on Lord Black the glory of God while leading him to suppose that the Church of Rome cast the best balance between materialism and spirituality. In this progression, the material form of St. Peter's led Lord Black to recognize the spiritual substance to which it testified. But did Lord Black not realize that the reverse must have been true for its creators? And has Lord Black also not realized that modern art is divorced from the sublime?
I also noticed that Lord Black held Judaism to be too philosophical, but so was Christ if one is familiar with the Judaism permeating his teaching and ministry. There is a very good reason for this, namely, "Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: `So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.´" (Romans Romans 3 v 4, citing Psalm 51 v 4.)
A Rabbi teaches his students how to judge according to the logical application of bedrock principles derived from the revealed word of God. In contrast, great works of art (according to Kant and others) appeal to a disinterested but universally shared aesthetic sense similar to the way that common sense leads to moral judgments.
The problem with beauty is that it appeals not only to man's spiritually and mentally instinctive senses of the sublime but also to his mentally and carnally instinctive senses of the flesh. To illustrate, one who is in a carnal mood may respond differently to a nude in marble than one striving to appreciate the beauty of the divine design of the human body. How should we treat these different reactions and advise those who have them? To answer this question, we need principles, standards, rules and logic. That is, we need to refer to a Bible and a teacher who understands it rather than to an aesthetic common sense judging from the southward direction this seems to be going nowadays.
I also noticed that Lord Black held Judaism to be too philosophical, but so was Christ if one is familiar with the Judaism permeating his teaching and ministry. There is a very good reason for this, namely, "Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: `So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.´" (Romans Romans 3 v 4, citing Psalm 51 v 4.)
A Rabbi teaches his students how to judge according to the logical application of bedrock principles derived from the revealed word of God. In contrast, great works of art (according to Kant and others) appeal to a disinterested but universally shared aesthetic sense similar to the way that common sense leads to moral judgments.
The problem with beauty is that it appeals not only to man's spiritually and mentally instinctive senses of the sublime but also to his mentally and carnally instinctive senses of the flesh. To illustrate, one who is in a carnal mood may respond differently to a nude in marble than one striving to appreciate the beauty of the divine design of the human body. How should we treat these different reactions and advise those who have them? To answer this question, we need principles, standards, rules and logic. That is, we need to refer to a Bible and a teacher who understands it rather than to an aesthetic common sense judging from the southward direction this seems to be going nowadays.
10.12.2009 | 4:41pm
Joshua Hoagland says:
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote the following (FT Feb 2005):
The very title of the book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, is highly problematic. Scholars generally agree that in the first century there were approximately six million Jews in the Roman Empire (for some reason, Klinghoffer says five million). That was about one tenth of the entire population. About one million were in Palestine, including today's State of Israel, while those in the diaspora were very much part of the establishment in cities such as Alexandria and Constantinople. At one point Klinghoffer acknowledges that, during the life of Jesus, only a minuscule minority of Jews either accepted or rejected Jesus, for the simple reason that most Jews had not heard of him. Some scholars have noted that, by the fourth or fifth century, there were only a few hundred thousand, at most a million, people who identified themselves as Jews. What happened to the millions of others? The most likely answer, it is suggested, is that they became Christians. What if the great majority of Jews did not reject Jesus? That throws into question both the title of the book and Klinghoffer's central thesis. The question can be avoided only by the definitional legerdemain of counting as Jews only those who rejected Jesus and continued to ally themselves with rabbinical Judaism's account of the history of Israel.
The very title of the book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, is highly problematic. Scholars generally agree that in the first century there were approximately six million Jews in the Roman Empire (for some reason, Klinghoffer says five million). That was about one tenth of the entire population. About one million were in Palestine, including today's State of Israel, while those in the diaspora were very much part of the establishment in cities such as Alexandria and Constantinople. At one point Klinghoffer acknowledges that, during the life of Jesus, only a minuscule minority of Jews either accepted or rejected Jesus, for the simple reason that most Jews had not heard of him. Some scholars have noted that, by the fourth or fifth century, there were only a few hundred thousand, at most a million, people who identified themselves as Jews. What happened to the millions of others? The most likely answer, it is suggested, is that they became Christians. What if the great majority of Jews did not reject Jesus? That throws into question both the title of the book and Klinghoffer's central thesis. The question can be avoided only by the definitional legerdemain of counting as Jews only those who rejected Jesus and continued to ally themselves with rabbinical Judaism's account of the history of Israel.
10.12.2009 | 6:22pm
Harold says:
Rich wrote: "Two companions traveling to the same destination doesn't cut it. Only the fulfillment will matter and one of those companions will see his faith was only a beginning." I appreciate your tribal jingoism, Rich, and if that's how your god settles matters, I'm thankful for the freedom to reject it.
10.12.2009 | 9:41pm
David P. Goldman says:
Prof. Barr,
The Talmud mentions millions of dead in the Second Jewish War. I could cite this as a conversation-ender, but I do not consider this "evidence," as it is part of my own Heilsgeschichte; I prefer to use Tertullian's number of half a million. I don't know how many fled to the East (in particular); there were very large Jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Persia. For the same reason, I consider Acts to be Heilsgeschichte rather than historical "evidence." From the Church Fathers we do not have reports of mass conversion, but rather complaint upon complaint of Jewish stubborness. No doubt there were some conversions, but the notion that conversions rather than massacre and exile explain the reduction in Jewish population is not supported by evidence. In this regard I found Fr. Neuhaus' response to Klinghoffer objectionable; sadly I never had the opportunity to raise the issue with him. Klinghoffer's book was another matter. He offer guesses about the intentions of Providence that make me deeply uncomfortable. My position is that the Temple was destroyed for our sins, but that the Messiah will restore it in God's good time, and then all of you will come and worship there. In the meantime the fragments of the Temple altar remain embedded in the Sabbath table of millions of Jewish homes.
As for the demographic estimates: the usual modern estimates of total Roman Empire population are 50-60 million; a number of 8 to 10 million Jews seems ridiculous to me. What is the maximum population that a poorly watered and mountainous land like Eretz Yisrael could sustain with 1st century C.E. technology? And how large could the diaspora population have been, given that the largest diaspora community (Alexandria) was a few tens of thousands at most?
Modern scholars estimate the population of Palestine in the 1st century at less than 1 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Early_demographics), before the two Jewish Wars.
The whole argument about disappearance through conversion of 8 to 10 million Jews is preposterous in the light of modern evidence.
The Talmud mentions millions of dead in the Second Jewish War. I could cite this as a conversation-ender, but I do not consider this "evidence," as it is part of my own Heilsgeschichte; I prefer to use Tertullian's number of half a million. I don't know how many fled to the East (in particular); there were very large Jewish communities in Mesopotamia and Persia. For the same reason, I consider Acts to be Heilsgeschichte rather than historical "evidence." From the Church Fathers we do not have reports of mass conversion, but rather complaint upon complaint of Jewish stubborness. No doubt there were some conversions, but the notion that conversions rather than massacre and exile explain the reduction in Jewish population is not supported by evidence. In this regard I found Fr. Neuhaus' response to Klinghoffer objectionable; sadly I never had the opportunity to raise the issue with him. Klinghoffer's book was another matter. He offer guesses about the intentions of Providence that make me deeply uncomfortable. My position is that the Temple was destroyed for our sins, but that the Messiah will restore it in God's good time, and then all of you will come and worship there. In the meantime the fragments of the Temple altar remain embedded in the Sabbath table of millions of Jewish homes.
As for the demographic estimates: the usual modern estimates of total Roman Empire population are 50-60 million; a number of 8 to 10 million Jews seems ridiculous to me. What is the maximum population that a poorly watered and mountainous land like Eretz Yisrael could sustain with 1st century C.E. technology? And how large could the diaspora population have been, given that the largest diaspora community (Alexandria) was a few tens of thousands at most?
Modern scholars estimate the population of Palestine in the 1st century at less than 1 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Early_demographics), before the two Jewish Wars.
The whole argument about disappearance through conversion of 8 to 10 million Jews is preposterous in the light of modern evidence.
10.12.2009 | 10:54pm
patricksarsfield says:
KM writes in response to me:
"Regardless of how many Jews there were in the 1st century, it seems highly unlikely that Jews converted en mass to another religion (i.e. Christianity). Back then, Christianity was still considered a "breakaway Jewish sect", and hence any 1st century Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews. So if there was a decline in Jewish numbers around that time, it would have come from something else. "
It depends, I suppose, on who was doing the counting and what was the definition of "jew" used. There is a logical flaw in KM's argument, in all events. On the one hand, KM argues that it would be highly unlikely that jews would convert to "another religion (i.e., Christianity)." On the other hand, KM argues that any "Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews...." The second premise contradicts the first.
"Regardless of how many Jews there were in the 1st century, it seems highly unlikely that Jews converted en mass to another religion (i.e. Christianity). Back then, Christianity was still considered a "breakaway Jewish sect", and hence any 1st century Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews. So if there was a decline in Jewish numbers around that time, it would have come from something else. "
It depends, I suppose, on who was doing the counting and what was the definition of "jew" used. There is a logical flaw in KM's argument, in all events. On the one hand, KM argues that it would be highly unlikely that jews would convert to "another religion (i.e., Christianity)." On the other hand, KM argues that any "Christians from a Jewish background would have still considered themselves Jews...." The second premise contradicts the first.
10.13.2009 | 10:14am
patricksarsfield says:
David Goldman writes:
"...I consider Acts to be Heilsgeschichte rather than historical "evidence." From the Church Fathers we do not have reports of mass conversion, but rather complaint upon complaint of Jewish stubborness. No doubt there were some conversions, but the notion that conversions rather than massacre and exile explain the reduction in Jewish population is not supported by evidence. In this regard I found Fr. Neuhaus' response to Klinghoffer objectionable; sadly I never had the opportunity to raise the issue with him. .... The whole argument about disappearance through conversion of 8 to 10 million Jews is preposterous in the light of modern evidence. "
Given Goldman's prior dismissal of the 8-10 million number as necessarily a reductio ad absurdum. If the starting number was not 8-10 million, what was it? Whatever the number of Jews in the First Century, some number of them were converted to Christianity. Goldman offers no reasoned basis for picking any number along the gradient from 0 to x million converts. The dismissal of Acts as non-evidentiary is unsupported. In fact, the author of Acts suggests that his sources had significant evidentiary value:
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. " (Luke 1:1-4)
"...I consider Acts to be Heilsgeschichte rather than historical "evidence." From the Church Fathers we do not have reports of mass conversion, but rather complaint upon complaint of Jewish stubborness. No doubt there were some conversions, but the notion that conversions rather than massacre and exile explain the reduction in Jewish population is not supported by evidence. In this regard I found Fr. Neuhaus' response to Klinghoffer objectionable; sadly I never had the opportunity to raise the issue with him. .... The whole argument about disappearance through conversion of 8 to 10 million Jews is preposterous in the light of modern evidence. "
Given Goldman's prior dismissal of the 8-10 million number as necessarily a reductio ad absurdum. If the starting number was not 8-10 million, what was it? Whatever the number of Jews in the First Century, some number of them were converted to Christianity. Goldman offers no reasoned basis for picking any number along the gradient from 0 to x million converts. The dismissal of Acts as non-evidentiary is unsupported. In fact, the author of Acts suggests that his sources had significant evidentiary value:
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. " (Luke 1:1-4)
10.13.2009 | 11:00am
Stephen M. Barr says:
David,
In the comment addressed to me, you respond to points I did not make. One has to be careful in these situations not to conflate what different people are saying, as by doing so one ends up attributing to people by implication views they do not hold. I myself find the figure of 8 to 10 million Jews in the Roman Empire hard to credit. Nor did I argue that most Jews in the Roman Empire disappeared through mass conversion to Christianity. I made a much more modest claim, namely that there is evidence that a significant number became Christians, and by significant number I explicitly said I meant "a few percent". If we say that there were a million or two Jews in the Roman Empire, then a few percent is a few tens of thousands. You may not believe that 5,000 figure given in the Book of Acts, but I see absolutely no reason to regard that number as suspect, nor do you give any. There is nothing inherently implausible in it. The Christian message obviously created a lot of interest and excitement among the Jewish people, or else Jesus would not have been regarded as dangerous to anyone. But even if one doesn't believe in the 5,000 figure, there can be little doubt that there were thousands of Christians in the first decades after the gospel started to be preached, and that a substantial fraction of them were Jews. I would also note that the concept of "mass conversion" that you have introduced is a red herring, as patricksarsfield quite correctly notes. Presumably, whatever portion of the Jewish people became Christian, it was largely by a process of conversion that stretched over many decades and over a large geographical area. "Mass conversion" suggests conversions "en masse", and no one is suggesting that is how the majority of conversions took place either among gentiles or Jews in the first centuries of Christianity.
--- Steve
In the comment addressed to me, you respond to points I did not make. One has to be careful in these situations not to conflate what different people are saying, as by doing so one ends up attributing to people by implication views they do not hold. I myself find the figure of 8 to 10 million Jews in the Roman Empire hard to credit. Nor did I argue that most Jews in the Roman Empire disappeared through mass conversion to Christianity. I made a much more modest claim, namely that there is evidence that a significant number became Christians, and by significant number I explicitly said I meant "a few percent". If we say that there were a million or two Jews in the Roman Empire, then a few percent is a few tens of thousands. You may not believe that 5,000 figure given in the Book of Acts, but I see absolutely no reason to regard that number as suspect, nor do you give any. There is nothing inherently implausible in it. The Christian message obviously created a lot of interest and excitement among the Jewish people, or else Jesus would not have been regarded as dangerous to anyone. But even if one doesn't believe in the 5,000 figure, there can be little doubt that there were thousands of Christians in the first decades after the gospel started to be preached, and that a substantial fraction of them were Jews. I would also note that the concept of "mass conversion" that you have introduced is a red herring, as patricksarsfield quite correctly notes. Presumably, whatever portion of the Jewish people became Christian, it was largely by a process of conversion that stretched over many decades and over a large geographical area. "Mass conversion" suggests conversions "en masse", and no one is suggesting that is how the majority of conversions took place either among gentiles or Jews in the first centuries of Christianity.
--- Steve
10.13.2009 | 12:08pm
David P. Goldman says:
Steve,
I have no problem at all with the way you formulate the issue. I have no doubt that there were many Jewish converts to Christianity in antiquity; the issue was whether conversion accounted for the apparent disappearance of a large part of the Jewish population, which is not supported by the evidence. Sorry if I was unclear.
I have no problem at all with the way you formulate the issue. I have no doubt that there were many Jewish converts to Christianity in antiquity; the issue was whether conversion accounted for the apparent disappearance of a large part of the Jewish population, which is not supported by the evidence. Sorry if I was unclear.
10.23.2009 | 11:19am
Deacon Thomas J. McManus says:
What do historians of the first century say about the number of Jews converted?
Why so much guessing?
Why so much guessing?