Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels (review)

Book Reviews 91 The irreplaceable nature and immense historical value of these inscriptions lend power to King's criticisms of certain archaeological practices. He observes that "few bullae have been found" because sieving dirt "is not yet widely practiced" (p. 93). He also observes that "The traditional procedure of scrubbing pottery with a brush without dipping in advance [to inspect it for possible inscriptions] may have obliterated countless inscriptions from ostraca" (p. 100). Such statements are painful to read, but necessary. King's book needs to have many endnotes added in order to channel his readers' whetted interest and avoid frustrating them. And for those who want to know what archaeological research has to say about a particular passage, a Bible reference index is needed; King's work deserves such accessibility. All of the above comments come from an enthusiastic reader of Philip J. King. As in his previous writing, here he has demonstrated his skill in conducting a well-informed, balanced dialog between the text ofJeremiah and the artifacts of Jeremiah's era. King sheds much light in both directions, and those who wish to learn about either are greatly indebted to this master of his craft. Lawrence J. Mykytiuk History Bibliographer Purdue University Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels, by George M. Smiga. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992. 210 pp. $9.95. George Smiga attempts what he claims is a daunting task: helping Christians face up to the fact that various kinds of anti-Jewish polemic are in the Gospels and Acts. Rather than attempt to excuse this polemic he urges Christians to acknowledge that it is there and has been the root cause of antisemitism among Christians. This is painful to admit, but it is necessary. Major churches have already asserted the continuing validity of Judaism. What most Christians may not realize is that such a recognition involves a repudiation of the anti-Judaism of at least Luke, Acts, and John. According to Smiga, the anti-Jewish polemic of Mark and even of Matthew does not constitute a rejection ofJudaism. We suspect that Jewish readers of Matthew may find him as offensive as John. Christians who have not thought about it before may be startled at the suggestion that their authoritative scripture contains such blatant anti-Jewish polemic. Smiga 92 SHOFAR Spring 1995 Vol. 13, No.3 thinks that we Christians must be informed of the facts which are generally acknowledged by reputable scholars. Smiga argues for three distinct ways in which individual Christian Gospel writers polemicized against various groupings of Jews by using what he terms: 1. "prophetic polemic," an internal critique much like that of Amos; 2. "subordinating polemic," where Judaism was redefined but not rejected; 3. "abrogating anti-Judaism," where Judaism was replaced by the Christian community. Smiga's terms are modifications of comparable ones used by other scholars. Probably his second category is the one with which most of us will have our greatest difficulty. The bulk of Smiga's work is devoted to four chapters where New Testament books (Mark, Matthew, luke-Acts, and John) are examined and evaluated. Rather than follow others uncritically Smiga seeks, wherever possible, to temper the conclusions to which some scholars have come. His are thus by no means the most extreme which inquirers reach. Yet he does not deny the possibility that writers of sacred texts come to their tasks with human prejudices. Conservative Christians will, no doubt, find his presuppositions and conclusions flawed. For them the Bible cannot contain errors. This will prove painful to Smiga and to Jewish readers alike, for it represents a modern counterpart to the ancient anti-Judaism of at least luke-Acts and John. Smiga's conclusions will not entirely please more liberal Christians either, for they find Matthew as fully anti-Jewish as John. Though space does not permit us to go into detail, we need to rehearse briefly Smiga's findings in chapters 1-4. Mark is by common consent the least anti-Jewish of the four gospels. As the earliest of them, it represents a stage when the church was not yet engaged in virulent polemics. But a period of time has elapsed since Jesus...