In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Introduction In the index of his 1971 monograph on the influence of classical rhetoric on Tertullian’s writings, Robert Sider lists all of Tertullian’s thirty-one works, with two exceptions: Aduersus Iudaeos and Ad Scapulam.1 Although Tränkle’s commentary on Aduersus Iudaeos is contained within Sider’s bibliography, there is no reference to the treatise in his text, not even where one might expect it, viz., in conjunction with the third book of Aduersus Marcionem.2 Without any statement from Sider himself one is left to hypothesize. Could it be that Aduersus Iudaeos (and Ad Scapulam for that matter)3 displays no classical rhetorical influence and thus was not suitable for inclusion in his volume? A more plausible reason is found in the controversy that has surrounded the work’s authenticity and integrity. Sider suggests elsewhere that this is the case, when he writes concerning Aduersus Iudaeos: Unfortunately, we do not know how much of the debate is represented in this treatise since the latter part (chapters 9–14) is an addition, probably by another hand, with material gathered from Book III of Tertullian’s treatise adversus Marcionem.4 1 1. Robert Dick Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 141–42. The commentary of A. Quacquarelli, ed., Q. S. F. Tertulliani: “Ad Scapulam.” Prolegomeni, testo critico, traduzione e commento, “Opuscula patrum 1” (Rome: Desclée, 1957), is listed in Sider’s bibliography, though I can discover no discussion of the treatise in the work itself. Even though I am unable to find any reference to these two works in Sider, Ernest Evans, ed. and trans., Tertullian: “Adversus Marcionem,” vol. 1: Books 1 to 3, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1972), xxiii, states that “every one of Tertullian’s works is meticulously examined” in Sider. 2. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric, 139, 54–55. 3. See Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Rhetorical Structure in Tertullian’s Ad Scapulam,” VChr 56 (2002): 47–55, for an examination of the rhetorical influence in the structure of Tert., Ad Scap. There is no debate about the authorship of Ad Scap., so its omission from consideration is puzzling. Perhaps it was mere oversight. 4. Robert Dick Sider, The Gospel and its Proclamation, Message of the Fathers of the Church 10 (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1983), 45. In stating this Sider merely accepts and repeats the opinion of a number of scholars from the last few centuries about this treatise. I believe that had Sider considered the rhetorical influences present in Aduersus Iudaeos, as he had with twenty-nine of the other treatises of Tertullian, he could have made a valuable contribution to the question about the integrity of the treatise and its authorship. My intention is to examine Aduersus Iudaeos from the perspective of classical rhetoric. Although many scholars have offered their opinions about whether one author wrote the whole work and whether that author was Tertullian , none has made extensive use of classical rhetoric in conducting the research. This will be the first time that a rhetorical analysis of Aduersus Iudaeos has ever been undertaken. This is a work that concerns the relationship between Jews and Christians. The question of the contact between these two groups in the years after Titus captured Jerusalem is one that has been hotly contested in scholarship in recent years. There are those who believe that the two went their separate ways and that the anti-Judaic literature produced by early Christians was written for internal consumption, to assist with issues of self-definition; and there are those who believe that the two groups remained in contact much longer than was once thought and that we ought to take these pieces of early Christian literature at face value, as reflecting ongoing contact. In this debate Tertullian’s Aduersus Iudaeos is most often pushed to one side because of the controversy that surrounds it. In the opening chapter of this volume I wish to outline the nature of those two controversies: the integrity and authenticity of Aduersus Iudaeos, and the reality of Jewish-Christian engagement in late antiquity. My argument is that when we examine the rhetorical structure of the work (chapter 3), when we examine the arguments that are presented (chapter 4), and when we consider the style of writing (chapter 5), what we discover is that the work was written by one author, that its quality as a piece of writing deteriorates the further one reads it because it is...

Share