Literature & Arts C 70
Midterm Essays
Essay 1 - Do the books of the Bible (=The Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament) differ from “normal” or
regular books? If so, how? Would ancient Jews and Christians agree with each other in the answer to these questions?
*It differs from “normal” books… (I didn’t try answering it from the other perspective).
General background:
-a collection of books; had many different authors and were written in different times – usually based on a historical
context
-How do we know this?
-parts repeat (think Genesis 1 & 2, Food laws, stories about David, etc… lots of different examples)
-not consistent – HOWEVER, a pious Jew/Christian would simply respond by saying that you aren’t interpreting
it correctly and that it actually is consistent/logical
-there are many different literary types included (see Lecture 2/5 for details)
**Christians do not consider the Old Testament complete; they also include the New Testament and depending on
whether they are Roman Catholics, may also include the Apocrypha – this isn’t really what the question is asking, but it’s
an important point in general!!
Books are divinely inspired by God – i.e. written by humans under God’s influence
-authoritative and canonical – Laws telling you how to live and behave
-collection of these books is the canon
-Tripartite canon (Torah, Prophets, Writings) reflects Jewish authority on books
-Torah – Genesis to Deuteronomy. Written by Moses, man of God. Torah is read as the centerpiece of the Sabbath
liturgy. Law derives from Torah.
-For Christians, large chunks of the Torah are placed with what comes later. For Christians, the main focus of intellectual
energy is the prophets, for they reveal Christ.
-since we can’t re-write (b/c it’s perfect), we fix what seems inconsistent through interpretation
**REMEMBER:
-Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (1978) reflects how ancient Jews and Christians understood the Bible
-In antiquity there was only one “truth” to accept. However in 1978 the authors of “Biblical Inerrancy”
(contemporary evangelical Protestants) were aware of alternatives (i.e. Bible put together by editors, Bible is anchored in
a certain time and place.) but still deny. They deny “biblical criticism” – using historical judgment on the Bible.
Type of Interpretation
-many different readings
-literal & symbolic, all of these could be considered true
-Christians say Jews read the Bible literally. Christians perspective: they are not reading Christo-logically – not through
the doctrine of Christ; they don’t have the fundamental belief of Christ which is essential
-Christians engaged in typological and allegorical readings:
-Typology (definition: things in Christian belief are prefigured or symbolized by things in the Old Testament; see
Pelikan): scripture is filled with images of Christ. Persons or events are a pattern of Christian experience.
-Allegory (all – other, gor – to speak; saying something else): a reading on two levels, the “literal” and the
“symbolic”
-Prohibition of pork is not literal; rather, it refers to certain people or behavior that is pork-ine
-Jews for the most part accepted the literalness of the legal categories of the Torah
-ex. They don’t eat pork, circumcision, etc.
Essay 2 - Shelley
2. What makes Judaism not-Christianity, and what makes Christianity not-Judaism? How do modern scholars like
Morton Scott Enslin answer this question, and how does Justin answer it?
Possible Thesis: The belief in Jesus is the fundamental separation that makes Christianity not-Judaism and the lack of
such belief makes Judaism not-Christianity However, it is disputed whether the separation between the two religions is
LitC70 Midterm Essay questions 2
intrinsic to messages in Jesus’ teachings or whether such a division was imposed by later
Jews and Christians. While the early Christian apologist St. Justin Martyr posits that Christians differentiate themselves
from the Jews in their supreme understanding of the Bible with Jesus Christ as their hermeneutical key, the modern
scholar Morton Scott Enslin would argue that the “parting of the ways” between Christianity and Judaism was due to
practices and beliefs appended by later followers of Jesus.
The religions disagree on a few main points:
- Interpretation of Biblical law (more literal vs. more allegorical with Christ as the hermeuntical key)
- View of Jesus Christ (savior vs. prophet, heretic, not savior)
- The Supremacy of Certain Races over Others: God’s Chosen People are the Israelites vs. God loves all people/all
can be saved through belief in Jesus
Whether the separation between the two religions was inherent from the nature of the teachings of Jesus or was
created by later followers is not clear and both the early Christian writer St. Justin Martyr and modern scholar
Morton Scott Enslin would answer differently.
How does Justin answer this question?
-What makes Christianity not-Judaism is Christians’ recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, who had been prophesized
about in previous Scriptures and Jews rejection of that belief.
- Salvation through Jesus Christ alone (where Jews see upholding the Law as important for salvation).
 Jesus summed up righteousness and piety in 2 commandments: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself > Christians just need to follow this tenet; however,
Jews have an entire body of laws (not all covered by this statement) that they must follow in order to be righteous
and pious – laws of cleanliness, purity (all rejected by Justin as unnecessary).
- The Bible is a Christian Book, see esp. Dialogue 29.
 Jesus Christ is the hermeneutical key to understanding the Bible

Christians “catch the spirit” of the words in the Bible and believe them whereas the Jews just read the text.

The Bible itself shows that the Bible does not always mean what it seems to mean; the more allegorical reading of
the text by Christians (predominantly reading for allegories related to Christ)

Especially in the case of biblical laws; see Dial. 44.2:
o
For I say that some precepts [=commandments, mitzvot] were given (a) for the worship of God and
practice of righteousness, whereas other commandments and customs were arranged (b) either in respect
to the mystery of Christ (c) [or] the hardness of your people’s hearts.
- Christians rejection of the idea of the “chosen people.” We are all God’s people and can all be saved through belief in
Christ.

Jewish rejection of this idea and Christian tenets - Jews persecuted Jesus and continue to persecute Christians:
Jews killed Jesus, sent out messengers warning Jewish communities to beware of Christians, curse Christ and
Christians in their prayers, etc.
How does Enslin answer this question?



-
-
Jesus’ teachings were not inherently anti-Jew.
Jesus saw himself as a prophet of God, not God incarnate.
In fact, Jesus was foretelling the coming of the “Son of Man” to the Jews (but that “Son of Man” he didn’t
consider to be himself.
Jesus himself was a Jew and his teachings were originally just seen as a movement within Judaism.
However, later followers created further distinctions and meanings surrounding his teachings. What made
Christianity not-Judaism and Judaism not-Christianity was the result of a process influenced by later Christians
and Jews.
By “parting of the ways” we mean that Jews and Christians came to occupy separate social space, with separate
institutions, political structures, and social networks.
LitC70 Midterm Essay questions 3

A process, not an event, which unfolds differently in different places and
times

The name “Christian” was first used in Antioch in the early 40s CE according to Acts 11:26; the word
“Christianity” first attested in Ignatius (ca. 120 CE)

Justin Martyr takes the separation for granted (ca. 160 CE); never uses the words “Christianity” or “Judaism”
(don’t know why) but regularly uses “Christians” (e.g. Dialogue 63.5, “we are all called Christians”) and
“Jews”
- Social separation aided/abetted by Christian theological tenets and ritual practices:
 Theology: Jesus as Messiah (Christ); Jesus as atonement; Jesus as God, Son of God and Logos; Jesus as God
and Man;
Ritual: baptism and communion; principled acceptance of some laws of the Torah and rejection of others.
Essay 3 - Respond to the following quotation:
The Christian apple fell far from the scriptural tree. Christian use (one might say appropriation) of the Hebrew Bible
served only to justify its a priori claims to authority and legitimacy, and in no way grew out of the Hebrew Bible or the
Judaic tradition. Christian interpretation, therefore, can be seen only as a foreign use of the Bible, where Judaism adhered
much more closely to the Hebrew Scriptures in its interpretation.
I.
II.
Introduction/Thesis
a. Thesis- While much of early Christian use of the bible focused on using it to legitimate Christianity and
rejected many of its premises, the less literal Christian interpretation of the text also sought to preserve
much of the spirit of the Hebrew Bible through maintaining modified versions of its statutes. In this way,
Christianity is actually a mean between these two.
b. Organizing:
i. Support for the statement
ii. Less literal interpretation validated by knowledge of Christ, but the bible itself is still true
iii. Preservation of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish Tradition in some respects
Support for the statement:
a. Christian motivation in reading the bible is to make it fit with the newer and “true” testament of Christ.
b. Accept some laws and reject others- seems arbitrary and merely to include gentiles/ discredit Jewish sense
of superiority in God’s eyes
i. Justin Martyr- discussion of circumcision and food laws
ii. Pick what is important because it fits with the Christian agenda of opening up holiness to allLove thy neighbor.
c. Going too far in assumptioni. Justin Martyr- Circumcision as a punishment for rebellious Jews.
ii. Barnabas- interpretation of the food laws symbolically
III.
Validity of less literal interpretation
a. Pelikan- the bible is ambiguous and contradictory and requires interpretation. Leviticus and Deuteronomy
disagree on how many days we should eat matzah.
b. Christians see themselves as merely interpreting the bible properly (with the knowledge of Christ), not
rejecting it. They do move away from the Jewish interpretation, however, claiming that it is too literal.
c. The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament, and they are not rejecting its story or the
“spirit” of the laws through the lens of Christ’s sacrifice.
d. Justin Martyr: Christianity must find a mean between too much and too little Judaism.
IV.
Grew out of Jewish Biblical Tradition and Hebrew Bible- dissent with modification
a. The food laws- even though these were rejected, the rejection was initially incomplete and vague, because
Christian practices still drew on traditional Jewish interpretations: no blood.
b. Maintenance of the spirit of the laws
LitC70 Midterm Essay questions 4
i. Circumcision of the heart (following the laws/ having faith) and
baptism. The Baptism idea also draws on Jewish Biblical ideas of ritual washing and cleansing
c. The bible is still read as true, but Christ is merely added in: The Genesis story is still seen as true as well
as all of the other biblical stories.
d. The 10 commandments are retained
e. The Abraham interpretation- because the bible is vague, and circumcision does not necessarily play as
much of a role as Jews made it out to in response to Christian challenges, Christians are well within the
bounds of the Bible in stating that God called Abraham pious even before his circumcision.
V.
Conclusion
a. While Christians do depart from the Bible and Jewish tradition in many instances to strengthen their own
ideas of Christ, at the same time they justifiably maintain the spirit of the specific laws in the Torah as
well as continue to draw on traditional Jewish rituals and practices to a fairly large extent.
Essay 4 – How has the understanding of circumcision in Genesis 17 been developed in rabbinic and Christian thought?
And how 'biblical' is each development? Provide specific examples.
Potential thesis: Circumcision has come to be understood in two distinct ways in rabbinic and Christian cultures. In
rabbinic thought, circumcision takes on great literal importance as an essential element of God’s covenant with Israel.
Christianity, however, interprets the command to circumcise as metaphorical, focusing on circumcision as a means to
remove excess material which inhibits human understanding of God’s message.
Rabbinic Thought
 Circumcision is extremely important because thirteen covenants were made over it (Ishmael).
o This is interesting because the word covenant is mentioned thirteen times in the same chapter of Genesis as
the circumcision. It is unclear if these are actually thirteen different covenants.
o It is a berit (covenant) with God, not a contract – although Justin will argue otherwise
 Circumcision overrides the precepts of the Sabbath.
o The Bible says to circumcise a male child on the eighth day, even if it is the Sabbath. The covenant must be
extremely important if it literally trumps one of the commandments.
 Abraham was not perfect and righteous until he was circumcised.
o Genesis 17:1 – “Walk before me and be perfect” in the context of circumcision. This is the idea that Abraham
was righteous when he was circumcised.
 Without circumcision, God would not have created the universe.
o Jeremiah 33:25 - but for my covenant by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven
and earth. Does this really refer to circumcision, or does it perhaps refer to the existence of the Israelite
people themselves?
 Circumcision is as important as all the words of the Torah
o For in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel (Exodus 34:27). The
Hebrew suggests that “these words” signifies the Torah.
 Circumcision is apotropaic: It saved Moses from being killed (Exodus 4)
 Exodus 12 makes it clear that circumcision is one law necessary to be a part of the community “There shall be one
law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you”
 Deuteronomy (30:6) suggests that the metaphorical interpretation of circumcision also applies to Israelites as God was
to open up (circumcise) their hearts so they may live
 In Genesis 17, the notion of circumcision appears literal – it talks about how, on the day Abraham spoke to God, he
went out and circumcised “the flesh of his foreskin” (as opposed to his heart, ears, etc. that the Christians talk about)
o Circumcision extends to the father’s baby (Abraham’s son, Isaac, was to be circumcised on the 8th day as a
sign of age of the baby as well as a sign of the fertility of the father)
Christian Thought
 Circumcision is (merely) a sign of faith based on Genesis 17:11 – Romans 4:9-12, Galatians 3:6-14.
 To be circumcised physically is not enough (Romans)


LitC70 Midterm Essay questions 5
Metaphorical circumcision – the metaphor is the real meaning. Christians should
remove blockage which prevents God from speaking to their hearts. Romans 2:28-29
Christians are circumcised through the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11) and receive their faith from Jesus
(Ephesians 2) such that they do not themselves need to be circumcised
Justin’s Thoughts (Christian)
 Christian circumcision is superior to Jewish circumcision because it is spiritual. Those that came before Abraham
were righteous before God without circumcision
 Women can be righteous before God without circumcision.
 Other nations are circumcised but not righteous.
 God cannot have found Noah and company righteous by one standard and then changed that standard for postAbrahamic generations
o God is immutable (Justin 23)
o Abraham was righteous before circumcision (Romans 4, Galatians 3)
 Through Jesus, we have a spiritual circumcision. Jesus was circumcised so the rest of the Christians would not have
to.
 Justin 19: Circumcision is a sign to make Jews distinctive so they may be punished. All other festivals were for the
same purpose.
 Christians believed if they were baptized under the Holy Spirit they would not also need be circumcised
Essay 4 – version 2
Justin Martyr is a big believer that the word circumcision was not intended to be taken literally as a one would circumcise
their foreskin (even though Genesis 17 says "You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin). Ratherhe argues that
circumcision only means to clear obstruction, as in circumcise your heart. He quotes Moses, "Circumcise the hardness of
your hearts, therefore , and be stiff necked no more. For the Lord is your god, and the Lord of lords, a great God and
mighty and terrible, who regards not persons who take bribes.
Justin also points to a quote from Leviticus which supports his interpretation "Then shall their uncircumcised heart be
ashamed." Justin also claims that the custom of circumcising the flesh is a distinguishing mark that can set Jews apart
from Christians. The point of this distinguishing characteristic, he says, was so that the Jews and only the Jews "might
suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours" Justin said that since God knows and has prepared before hand every
event, the tribulations experienced by the Jews had been planned and imposed specifically on them (Justin says that the
Jews Murdered the Just One).Justin says, in Chapter 18, that Christians would willingly follow the circumcision (and
Sabbath laws), had then not been imposed on Jews as punishment for sins and hardness of the heart. Justin argues that if
circumcision was necessary for salvation, then God would not have made Adam circumcised or Noah. These two people
were justified and blessed by God without adhering to this rule.
However, Jesus was circumcised, as is outlined in Luke 2.
In Romans, Paul uses some good semantics to explain why physical circumcision is not important :
Chapter 2:
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not
been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though
they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even
though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is
a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a
man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Chapter 4:
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was
LitC70 Midterm Essay questions 6
credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after
he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And 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.
12And 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.
Ephesians states that belief in Christ suffices and serves to include others.
1Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call
themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were
separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and
without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the
blood of Christ 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and
members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief
cornerstone.
21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are
being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Overall, Christians tend to believe in circumcision as a sign, and interpret it as a circumcision of the heart (Roman 2:28).
They contend that the metaphor is the real meaning. Galatians 3 states that there are to be no distinctions between Jews
and gentiles.
Colossians 2:11 states that Christians are circumcised through the circumcision of Christ
Justin’s main focus is that circumcision is not q requisite for righteousness.
(woman, Noah, Abraham)
Also that circumcision does not imply righteousness either (other nations are circumcised)
Jews, however, counter these points. The Mishnah explains the import circumcision holds with God because it even
overrides the severity and sanctity of the Sabbath.
They acknowledge that Abraham was righteous before circumcision but he was not perfect, as it is written in Gen 17 walk
before me, and be perfect.
The Talmud states that without circumcision heaven and earth would not endure; Thus, says the lord, But for my covenant
by day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth.