Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"

Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"Author(s): Maurice CaseySource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 280-291Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561385 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 04:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.121 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:59:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561385?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SOME ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

by

MAURICE CASEY Nottingham

1. Introduction

The ability of New Testament scholars to repeat major works of reference knows no bounds. Nowhere is this more regrettable than in the case of the earlier volumes of the Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament (7WYVT), later translated into English as the Theological Dicionaty of the New Testament (TDJr).N These volumes were produced in Germany when anti-semitism was at its height in the run-up to the Holocaust. Scholars nonetheless continue to repeat their contents without proper critical assessment.

This main point has been made before. In a fine article on the general problems of the use ofJewish sources in New Testament research, theJewish scholar Geza Vermes noted the unduly high regard in which the 7TDNT is held among New Testament scholars. He also pointed out the anti-semitic life-stance of its main editor, Gerhard Kittel, whose tractate Die Judenfrage was published in 1933, the same year as the first volume of TWJT, and the same year as Kittel joined the Nazi party.2 A notable response to Vermes' article was published by Professor B.D. Chilton, notable because Chilton is in no way anti-Jewish. On the contrary, he is one of the few New Testament scholars who are both sympathetic to the Jewish source material and fully competent in it, being

'G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (edd.), Theologisches Wdrterbuch zum NAeuen Testament (10 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933-79); English transl.: G.W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.; Grand Rapids, 1964-76). For classic criticism of a different kind, see J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: OUP, 1961), ch. 8.

2 G. Vermes, 'Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation", JJS 21 (1980) 1-17, reprinted in G. Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983) 58- 73, esp. 64-66, referring to G. Kittel, Die Judenfrage (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933, 21933, 31934).

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Novum Testamentum XLI, 3



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KITTEL'S TWNT

able to read and interpret sources in Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as in Greek. He has also published books co-authored withh a Jewish colleague, Jacob Neusner.3 Nonetheless, Chilton simply turned down Vermes' contentions, declaring that he relied on "the old technique of

imputing guilt by association: because Kittel was sympathetic with national Socialism, anti-Semitism is attributed to contributors to the Worterbuch."4

Moreover, by this stage Vos had published an article with the deliberate intention of drawing attention to the anti-semitic outlook of some contributors to this dictionary, and Johnson had discussed more generally the different orientations of German New Testament scholars at that time.5 Unfortunately, neither article seems to have made much

impression on the present generation of New Testament scholars. This

may be because neither article was published in a major New Testa- ment journal, and neither article provided sufficient evidence of the

ideological orientation of the scholars whom they discussed. It may however also be that anti-Jewish prejudices are so convenient, and the

story of Nazi New Testament scholars is so discreditable, that some of us are happier without the whole of this story. The purpose of this article is accordingly to use the pages of a major international journal for the study of the New Testament to draw attention to the anti-

Jewish assumptions of some material in TWZT. This material is still

being repeated because of the regrettably high regard in which this work of reference is held, and because of the widespread and unfor- tunate habit of repeating the words of dead professors, regardless of truth or falsehood. I draw explicit attention to the Nazi allegiance of the author of the article on 'Iouva&io and other words forJewish people, and to the position of an editorial assistant and a contributor of

3 B.D. Chilton and J. Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament. Practices and Beliefs (London/New York: Routledge, 1995); Revelation. The Torah and the Bible (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995); The Body of Faith. Israel and the Church (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996); God in the World (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); The Intellectual Foundations of Christian and Jewish Discourse (London/New York: Routledge, 1997); Jewish-Christian Debates. God, Kingdom, Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

4 B.D. Chilton, "God as 'Father' in the Targumim, in Non-Canonical Literatures of Early Judaism and Primitive Christianity, and in Matthew", in J.H. Charlesworth and C. Evans (edd.), The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPS 14; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 151-69, at 153-4.

5 J.S. Vos, "Antijudaismus/Antisemitismus im Theologischen Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament", Nederlands Theologisch Tydschrift 38 (1984) 89-110; M.D. Johnson, "Power Politics and New Testament Scholarship in the Nationalist Socialist Period", Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23 (1986) 1-24.

281



MAURICE CASEY

several articles as not merely a committed Nazi, but also an SS supporter. I also draw attention to the clear evidence of their ideological orientation, for in these two cases this information is in the public domain, and can be checked by any conscientous scholar. This is not

generally the case. Most articles are necessarily read by most scholars in blissful ignorance of the ideological orientation of their authors, a situation exacerbated by the more theological anti-judaism of some contributors who were not so extreme in their ideological stance.

2. Words for "Jew" by a Nazi

A striking recent example of repeating falsehood from this diction-

ary occurs in the work of Professor J.D.G. Dunn, a civilised British Christian and a distinguished New Testament scholar, whom no-one can properly accuse of anti-semitism. In his book The Partings of the

Ways, Dunn supposes that "in the post-biblical ('intertestamental') period, Israel was the people's preferred name for itself (cf., e.g., Sir. 17:17; Jub. 33:20; Pss.Sol. 14:5), whereas Ioudaios was the name by which they were known to others".6 There is however no such statement in the

primary source material. On the contrary, there is extensive favourable use of the term 'Ioviaiot, 'Jews". For example, 2 Maccabees, written

by Jews to and forJews, begins: "The brethren the Jews ('Iovuaiot) in

Jerusalem and those in the land of Judaea to the brethren the Jews ('IouvSaiot;) in Egypt, good peace". This is as intra-Jewish as possible, and falsifies Dunn's claim that the term 'Jew" "always had something of an outsider's perspective".7 The author naturally used the term "Israel" as well (e.g. 2 Macc. 1:25-26). It follows that when the fourth

Gospel's contemporary Josephus uses this term neutrally or favourably, we should not imagine that he is doing so only for the benefit of Gentiles. For example, he argues that it is natural (oipqpvxov) for all

Jews (natc.... 'Iovuaiot;) to regard their scriptures as the decrees of

God, to remain in them and, if necessary, die for them (CAp. 1,42). This is an obviously favourable use of 'IovSaiotS, and should not be seen as anything else. When Dunn wrote, he relied on the 1938 article of K.G. Kuhn, still used as standard because it is published in the

6 J.D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianit and Judaism and their Signficance for the Character of Christianit (London: SCM, 1991), esp. 145, explicitly citing K.G. Kuhn, TDJ'T 3.359-65, so actually a reference to his 1938 article, translated as "lopail, 'lov6aio;, 'EppaioS in Jewish Literature after the O"', 7DNVT 3.359-69.

7 Dunn, Partings, 145.

282



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KITTEL'S TWNT2

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Using this evidence, Dunn went on to claim that the people behind the Gospel attributed to John were Jews who used the term "Jews" of a group hostile to them.8 This notion has however no proper Sitz Im Leben in first century culture, in which the phenomenon ofJewish self-hatred has not been recorded.

Since there is not a single ancient Jewish source in which the term

'Jew" is rejected, we must consider the frame of reference within which the research used by Dunn was carried out. For this purpose we must

go to Nazi Germany, where anti-semitism was rife in the run-up to the Holocaust. K.G. Kuhn worked on the "Judenfrage", a difficult term to translate because England is not as anti-semitic as Germany was at that time. It is often rendered literally "Jewish Question", but 'Jewish Problem" might be more appropriate-it was the Jewish Prob- lem to which the Germans gave a "final solution" (Endlosung) when

they killed 6,000,000 Jews. Kuhn joined the Nazi party (Nationalsoziali- stische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) in September, 1932.9 In 1935, the Nazis set up the Reichsinstitut fir Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands under the committed Nazi Walter Frank. Within it the Forschungsabteilung uden-

frage, the Research Department for the Jewish Problem, was created in the spring of 1936. Its first conference opened in Miinchen on Nov. 13th, 1936, with distinguished Nazi guests including Rudolf Hess. Fifteen scholars were appointed members, including K.G. Kuhn, for Talmudic research, and Gerhard Kittel, the editor of the Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament.'? It is this work which many New

8 Dunn, Partings, 158. For full criticism of the view of Ioudaioi in the Fourth Gospel taken by Dunn, and before him von Wahlde and others, see P.M. Casey, Is John's Gospel True? (London: Routledge, 1996) 116-27.

9 U.D. Adam, Hochschuk und Nationalsozialismus. Die Universitat Tiibingen im Dritten Reich (Contuberium 23; Tubingen: Mohr, 1977) 31 with n. 68, 175-9, citing Handakte Erbe/Kuhn.

10 In general, cf. M. Weinreich, Hitler's Professors (New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) 45-58; H. Heiber, Walter Frank und sein Reichsinstitut fiir Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands (Quellen und Darstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte Bd. 13; Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1966). On Kittel, see also the overly sympathetic account of L. Siegele- Wenschkewitz, Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vor der Judenfrage. Gerhard Kittls theologische Arbeit im Wandel deutscher Geschichte (Theologische Existenz heute 208; Munchen: Kaiser, 1980; I am grateful to Dr. Clive Marsh for lending me a copy, and for fruitful discussion of related issues); and further M. Rese, "Antisemitismus und neutestamentliche Forschung. Anmerkungen zu dem Thema 'Gerhard Kittel und die Judenfrage"', EvTh 39 (1979) 557-70; L. Siegele-Wenschkewitz, "Mitverantwortung und Schuld der Christen am Holocaust", EvTh 42 (1982) 171-90; R.P. Ericksen, "Zur Auseinandersetzung mit und um Gerhard Kittels Antisemitismus", EvTh 43 (1983) 250-70; R.P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch (New Haven: Yale Univ., 1985); L. Siegele-Wenschkewitz, "Protestantische Universitatstheologie und Rassenideologie in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Gerhard Kittel's Vortrag 'Die Entstehung des Judentums

283



MAURICE CASEY

Testament scholars continue to use as if it were nothing but an academic work of reference.

The second conference took place on 12-14 May, 1937. Active par- ticipants included the notoriously anti-semitic Julius Streicher, who, with Col. Nicolai, spoke as someone who was making history. These

men, and the newly appointed scientific staff, were to weld the research of Kittel, Kuhn and others into the ancient world, together with their own activities, into a German cultural whole. Kuhn's contribution on World Judaism in Antiquity was published with other conference papers in the Forschungen zur Judenfrage, which we might translate as Journal of the Jewish Problem, and which was the house journal of the Reichsinstitut

fir Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands."l Here he described Jews as strangers in the Greco-Roman world, where there was a serious Judenfrage, with consequent anti-semitism. This was different from palestinian

Judaism, which was destroyed in the war against Rome (66-70 A.D.). Kuhn alleged that the cause of Jew-hatred lay within the structure of

World-Judaism (Weltjudentum). Judaism was recreated on its original basis by the rabbis, heading for the Talmud, but this became part of

World-Judaism outside Israel, and it is this World-Judaism which Kuhn

regarded as an absolute menace. This was the main reason why "for us even still today, after 2,000 years, the Jewish Question is a burn-

ing problem".'2 The year after this prophetic description of the "problem", Kuhn's article "'Iopaori, 'IouSaios, 'Eppaxto in der nach-at.lichen

jiidischen Literatur" was published in the TWVT. The following year, 1939, the Reichsinstitut fiir Geschichte des neuen

Deutschlands published Kuhn's book, Die Judenfrage als weltgeschichtliches Problem, which we might translate The Jewish Question as a Problem of World History.3 This begins with a quotation to the effect that Jew-

und die Entstehung der Judenfrage' von 1936", in G. Brakelman und M. Rosowski (edd.), Antisemitismus. Von relgiser Judenfindschaft zur Rassenideologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 52-75. The history and social function of New Testament scholarship under the Third Reich has not been written. For other small parts of the story, cf. infra, on Grundmann; Vos, "Antijudaismus"; Johnson, "Power Politics"; K. Meier, Die Theologischen Fakuiten im Dritten Reich (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1996).

"K.G. Kuhn, "Weltjudentum in der Antike", Forschungen zur udenfrage 2. Sitzungs- berichte der Zweiten Arbeitstagung der Forschungsabteilung Judenfrage des Reichs- instituts fir Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands vom 12. bis 14. Mai 1937 (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1937) 9-29.

12 "Die Durchsetzung des Talmud ist die Hauptursache fir den weiteren Bestand des Judentums und damit schlieBlich auch die Ursache dafir, daf fir uns auch heute noch, nach 2000Jahren, die Judenfrage ein brennendes Problem ist" (Kuhn, "Weltjudentum", 29).

13 K.G. Kuhn, Die Judenfrage als weltgeschichtliches Problem (Schriften des Reichsinstituts fir Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands; Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1939).

284



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KTITEL'S TW/NT

hatred (JudenhaB) is as old as Judaism. It arises from Judaism itself, the form of which is also the cause of the Jewish Problem.'4 Thus

Judaism itself is held to be the cause of Jew-hatred and of the Jewish Problem. Most of the book is taken up with a description of what a dreadful thing the Jewish Problem has been for the world. There is then a triumphal ending, in which Kuhn looks to the Fiihrer for a solution (Losung) for the Judenfrage.'5 There should therefore be no doubt that Kuhn contributed to the Nazi perspective on the Jewish Problem/Question in the run-up to the Holocaust. This is the cultural context in which Kuhn believed that Jews did not like the term 'Jew". He hated the Jews himself. He should also have known Jews who didn't like the term "Jew".'6 The three major causes of Jewish self- hatred were abundantly present in Germany at the time: assimilation

produced people of Jewish descent who did not belong to the Jewish community, a widespread racial theory of identity ensured that some such people continued to self-identify as Jewish, and widespread anti- semitism caused some of them to hate the Jews.'7

It is this cultural context in which Kuhn produced his interpretation of the fact that the word 'Jew" is missing from some Jewish documents of our period which use the term "Israel". It is, and this fact does require explanation, but taking over Kuhn's anachronistic and

menacing life-stance will not help us. In the first instance, we can now turn to the full study of Harvey.'8 In his introduction, Harvey correctly

14 "Der JudenhaB ist so alt wie das Judenthum selbst" (Kuhn, Judenfrage, 7, citing E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthum III [21912], 217). "Das bedeutet aber, daI3 das Entstehen derJudenfrage nicht auf auBerjiidische Umweltbedingungen irgendwelcher Art zuriick- gefiihrt werden kann... das bedeutet vielmehr, daB die eigentliche Ursache zum Entstehen der Judenfrage letztlich im Judentum selbst liegen muB, in seinem Wesen, seiner Existenzform, seiner Haltung" (Kuhn, Judenfrage, 8).

15 "Eines aber wissen wir, daB im deutschen Volk selbst der Fiihrer in einer geschicht- lich einzigartigen Weise zum erstenmal-volkisch sowohl wie politisch, geistig sowohl wie wirtschaftlich-die Voraussetzungen geschaffen hat, die-soweit es Deutschland betrifft-durch alien Kampf hindurch letzlich eine wirkliche, den gesamtgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkten allein gerecht werdende L6sung der Judenfrage ermoglichen." (Kuhn, Judenfrage, 47).

16 I have not had access to proper biographical information. G. Jeremias - H.-W. Kuhn - H. Stegemann (edd.), Tradition und Glaube: das fiihe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (FS K.G. Kuhn; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) has neither biography nor bibliography.

17 Cf. S.L. Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred (Baltimore: Hopkins, 1986). 18 G. Harvey, The True Israel. Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish

and Early Christian Literature (AGAJU 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996). For other discussion, see R. Bloch, "Israelite, juif, hebreu", Cahiers Sioniens 5 (1951) 11-31, 258-80; S. Zeitlin, "The Names Hebrew, Jew and Israel. A Historical Study", JQR 43 (1952) 365-79;

285



MAURICE CASEY

notices that previous studies "are flawed by the apologetic motives of researchers". He particularly notes the spurious nature of the con- ventional differentiation of the use of different terms supposedly by "insiders" and "outsiders".'9 He rightly seeks to replace these prejudices with careful research work. This kind of work is essential in our

time, when it should long ago have been completed. It should also have been obvious that nothing justifies retrojecting Kuhn's anti-semitic convictions. When the term "Jew" is used in Jewish documents of our

period, it is used favourably, or neutrally, and some of the favourable uses indicate that the authors of some documents were very happy with it. Conjectures about its absence from other documents may not override this evidence. There are no documents extant in whichJewish people reject the term "Jew" or regard "the Jews" as an external and hostile group.

It follows from this that New Testament scholars should be very careful about using the traditions which we have inherited.

3. Persistence in Prayer by an SS Supporter

Another example is provided by Grundmann's article on an overtly less important subject, Kaprcep?co, pooKaprepcpw, 7cpoolcapT?p1otq, also in vol. III of TWJVT, so another 1938 article. Here Grundmann gives

M. Lowe, "Who were the IOYAAIOI?", NovT 18 (1976) 101-30; M. Lowe, "IOYAAIOI of the Apocrypha. A Fresh Approach to the Gospels of James, Pseudo-Thomas, Peter and Nicodemus", JovT 23 (1981) 56-90; Y. Amir, "The Term 'IouSaios6g, a study in Jewish-Hellenistic Self-Identification", Immanuel 14 (1982) 34-41; U.C. von Wahlde, "The Johannine 'Jews": A Critical Survey", JNTS 28 (1982) 33-60; J.E. Leibig, 'John and 'the Jews': Theological Antisemitism in the Fourth Gospel", JES 20 (1983) 209-34; J. Ashton, "The Identity and Function of the 'Ioiuaiot in the Fourth Gospel", VovT 27 (1985) 40-75, reprinted in J. Ashton, Studying John. Approaches to the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), ch. 2; PJ. Tomson, "The Names Israel andJew in Ancient Judaism and the New Testament", Bjdragen, tjdschrif voor filosofie en theologie 47 (1986) 120-40, 266-89; R.S. Kraemer, "On the Meaning of the term Jew' in Greco-Roman Inscriptions", HThR 82 (1989) 35-53; M. De Jonge, "The Conflict between Jesus and the Jews and the Radical Christology of the Fourth Gospel", Perspectives in Relgious Studies 20 (1993) 341-55; P. Grelot, Les Juifs dans l'Evangile de Jean. Enquite historique et rflexion thiologique (CahRB 34; Paris: Gabalda, 1995); Casey, Is John's Gospel True?, 116- 27; T. Pippin, "'For Fear of the Jews:' Lying and Truth Telling in Translating the Gospel of John", Semeia 76 (1996) 81-97; L. Devillers, "La lettre de Soumaios et les Ioudaioi johanniques", RB 105 (1998) 556-81; D. Goodblatt, "From Judaeans to Israel: Names of Jewish States in Antiquity", JSJ 29 (1998) 1-36; G. Harvey, "Synagogues of the Hebrews: 'Good Jews' in the Diaspora", in S. Jones and S. Pearce (edd.), Jewish Local Patriotism and Sef-Identfication in the Graeco-Roman Period (JSP.SS 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 132-47.

9 Harvey, True Israel, 5-8.

286



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KITTEL'S TWNT

a reasonable account of the earliest disciples persisting in prayer (Acts 1:14). Grundmann calls them Christians, at a time when they were all

Jews, but then reasonably traces their attitude to prayer back to Jesus. However, instead of recording that at this stage the whole Jesus movement was Jewish, he tells us instead that this involved a different attitude and manner of prayer from those customary in contemporary Judaism, which had fixed hours and patterns of prayer. For this he cites no primary sources, but the other large German work of reference much used by New Testament scholars, Strack-Billerbeck.20 This is, as so often, highly selective. The rabbinical passages which it quotes really do comment on Ps. 55:18; Dan. 6:11, and declare that there are three times a day for praying. They are however entirely positive, and do not entail that there were only fixed times for prayer, not even in the rabbinical period. Jewish people held sacred texts including Ps. 116.1ff, where the psalmist called upon the name of the Lord when he was in distress, not at a particular time. Prayer when in a place of danger is still recommended by R. Joshua (m. Ber. 4:4). Honi the circle-drawer prayed for rain when asked during a time of drought, not at a fixed time of day (m. Ta'an 3:8). The story of the snake which died because it bit Hanina ben Dosa while he was praying (y. Ber. 5,1/26 [9a])21 is further testimony to the perceived power of fervent but not especially liturgical prayer. Unlike the Dead Sea scrolls, such texts were just as readily available to Grundmann as they are to us.

Moreover, the rabbinical period was not contemporary with Jesus. On the contrary, it followed the major disaster of the destruction of

Jerusalem, and the rabbis renewingJudaism atJavneh produced many more rules, including for example setting the 18 benedictions in order

(cf. b. Ber. 28b; b. Meg. 17b). We must therefore be careful not to read back rabbinical customs into the time of Jesus. There is however evidence of fixed hours of prayer at the time of Jesus, and the earliest

disciples are recorded as going up to the Temple at such a time (Acts 3:1). Moreover, Jesus is recorded as praying at the earliest such time, first thing in the morning (Mk. 1:35). Accordingly, there is nothing to

justify the separation ofJesus from the contemporary Judaism to which

20 H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. II (Munchen: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oscar Beck, 1924) 237-8f.

21 I have used the edition Synopse zum Talmud Terushalmi. 'otD'V bnDb D'C:'D'. Band 1/1-2. Ordnung Zera'im: Berakhot und Pe'a, edd. P. Schafer and H-J. Becker, with G. Reeg et al. (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1991).

287



MAURICE CASEY

he belonged. On the contrary, the renewal of Jewish prayer life is just what we might expect from a Jewish prophet and teacher. Grundmann has completely confused the genuinely important and positive devel-

opment of prayer at fixed times with rejection of spontaneous prayer by people who did not have an adequate relationship with God. What has led him to do this?

To understand this, we must return to Nazi Germany. While scholars are not allowed to read Grundmann's personal files at church archives until 2006, a quite overt example of the prevention of knowledge, we know enough to put his TWINT article into its cultural context.22 Grundmann joined the Nazi party on 1st Dec, 1930 (membership no. 382 544), and became active in the Deutsche Christen movement. He served as Kittel's assistant from 1930-32, preparing TWVNT, to which in due course he contributed several articles. In 1932, he received his doctorate from Kittel at Tiibingen. On 1st April, 1934, he became a

supporting member (Forderndes Mitglied) of the SS (Membership no.

1032691). In 1936, he became a professor at Jena. He had not written a Habilitationschrift, but Hitler signed his appointment following a recommendation in which it was said that the Faculty wanted to become a stronghold of National Socialism, so that Grundmann's schol-

arship could be path-breaking for a National Socialist perspective in the realm of theology. The year after the publication of his article on

icapTepeo etc. was the year of the opening of the Institut zur Erforschung und Beseitigung desjuidischen Einflusses auf das deutsche kirchliche Leben (Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church

Life), with Grundmann as its academic director. His address at the

opening, on 6th May, 1939, was programmatic: "The Dejudaization of the Religious Life as the Task of German Theology and Church".23 This declared that the elimination of Jewish influence on German life was an urgent task.

There should therefore be no doubt about Grundmann's central life-stance. He was not a frightened rabbit, nor someone doing his best in more difficult circumstances than we have to live through: he was a committed anti-semitic Nazi. His contributions to falsehood reached

22 Cf. Siegele-Wenschkewitz, "Mitverantwortung und Schuld", 182-9; S. Heschel, "Nazifying Christian Theology: Walter Grundmann and the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life", Church History 63 (1994) 587-605.

23 W. Grundmann, Die Enjudung des relgiosen Lebens als Aufgabe deutscher Theologie und Kirche (Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1939).

288



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KrITEL'S TWJVT

a climax with his 1940 book, Jesus der Galilzer und das Judentm.24 In this book, Grundmann satisfied the cultural need for a non-Jewish Jesus. Other scholars had already argued that Jesus was vigorously opposed to the Judaism of his time, and that his membership of the

Jewish race on his mother's side was not important because he was the incarnate Son of God.25 German Christians, however, were debat-

ing vigorously whether Jesus was Jewish even in this limited sense, and not rather Aryan. It is here that Grundmann came in, as a respected New Testament scholar. As such, he argued that not only was Jesus completely opposed to the Judaism of his time, he was also racially Aryan, so not Jewish in any sense at all.

We now have the correct cultural context in which to see Grund- mann's article Klapepeo, tpooKiaprepec, npooKcapproit;. It was written

by a man who had a vigorous and total dogmatic commitment to the

separation of Jesus from Judaism. It is this frame of reference which caused him to separate the prayer habits of Jesus and the first disci-

ples from those of contemporary Judaism. It is ironical that this Nazi and SS supporter should have written also the New Testament part of the article on sin (a&!ap'ravo), and even more so that this does not show such specific signs of bias. This should remind us all that the frame of reference which separated Jesus from Judaism was inherited from centuries of Christian history. It is this frame of reference which remains a menace to us all, because it is so easy to take over. It fits

any kind of Christian perspective quite beautifully. What is even more

menacing is that it is almost invisible to sharp honest scholars of any perspective: the separation of Jesus' prayer habits from those of con-

temporaryJudaism looks for all the world like a purely historical argument, based on fact.

4. Theological Bias and Anti-Semitism

Consequently, similar anti-Jewish bias may be found in articles by scholars who are known not to have belonged to the Nazi party. For

24 W. Grundmann, Jesus der Galilier und das Judentum (Leipzig: Wigand, 1940, 21941). 25

E.g., P. Fiebig, Neues Testament und Nationalsozialismus. Drei Universitdtsvorlesungen uber Fuhrerprinzip-Rassenfrage-Kampf (Schriften der Deutschen Christen; Dresden: Deutsch- christliche Verlag, 1935). It follows that the notion that we are now conducting the third quest of the historical Jesus, and that nothing serious happened between Schweitzer, ending the first quest in 1906, and Kasemann, beginning the second or "new" quest in 1952, is a myth. This myth must be debunked in a separate article or even book. See briefly P.M. Casey, "Where Wright is Wrong: a Critical Review of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God", J&NT 69 (1998) 95-103, at 96-97.

289



MAURICE CASEY

example, it is well known that Bultmann belonged to the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche). He wrote against the Arierparagraph, and signed the Barmen declaration.26 Nonetheless, in his article on

ItaoeviTo, published in vol. VI of TWVT, so a post-Holocaust article published under Friedrich's editorship as late as 1959, Bultmann gives an

extraordinarily uncomprehending account of faith in Judaism after the OT period.27 So, for example, we find that believing obedience to the Law leads to obedience to the letter and to the reckoning of fulfilled commands as merits. This leads Bultmann to pass judgement: "This

presupposes a freedom of man which is the opposite of true faith." This discussion is carried through with many references to the pre- war work of Schlatter, but without the citation of a single primary source from the Judaism supposedly under discussion. The uncom-

prehending and biassed nature of this account of faith in Judaism was not however due to lack of familiarity with primary source material, nor to any deliberate attempt to distort the facts. It was due to the

anti-Jewish frame of reference endemic in the German culture of his time. Bultmann inherited this, as his Nazi colleagues did, and it is pre- cisely frames of reference which can remain unaffected by genuine personal determination to be honest and unbiassed.

An anti-Jewish perspective had been endemic in Germany for centuries. As early as 1543, Martin Luther's inability to convert the Jew- ish people to Christianity led to his tractate on the Jews and their Lies, with recommendations including burning down the synagogues or schools of "the Jews", destroying their houses, confiscating all copies of their prayer books and Talmud, and forbidding their rabbis to teach on pain of death.28 For these dire recommendations, Luther produced a theological argument based on Scripture, especially the Gospel attributed to St. John. Here all Christians can read in their sacred text that "the Jews" are children of the devil (John 8:39-44) and do not believe in Moses (John 5:45-47). Thus German Christians could find their

26 See, e.g., D. Fergusson, Bultmann (London: Chapman, 1992) 44-47, one of many places where this information is readily available.

27 TWJVTVI (1959) 201-2; 7DJVTVI (1968) 201. 28 M. Luther, "Von denJuden und ihren Lugen" (1543), in D. Martin Luther's Werke.

Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Bohlaus, 1883ff), vol. 53, 417-552; English transl.: "On the Jews and Their Lies", tr. M.H. Bertram, edd. F. Sherman, in Luther's Works, edd. J. Pelikan and H.T. Lehman, vol. 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 123-306. See further HJ. Hillerbrand et al, "Martin Luther and the Jews", in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Jews and Christians. Exploring the Past, Present and Future (New York: Crossroad, 1990) 127- 50, with bibliography.

290



ANTI-SEMITIC ASSUMPTIONS IN KIITEL'S TWJT

anti-Jewish prejudices in Scripture and in Luther, as well as throughout their environment. When prejudices are so pervasive, it is exceptionally difficult even for brave, honest and independent people to resist them.

This indicates how theological anti-Judaism may be found among contributors who did not share the extreme ideological commitments and anti-semitism of Kuhn, Grundmann and their ilk. This however makes it more important to uncover these ideological commitments, not less. This is because these commitments are so extreme. When the editor and important contributors to TWhVTturn out to be Nazis, and an editorial assistant an SS supporter, it should be a standing warn-

ing to us all that even those with more theological commitments lived in a society so controlled by an anti-Jewish outlook that we should be

constantly on our guard against believing anything written in TWNT, and we should use it only in the most critical spirit.

5. Conclusion

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is a very dangerous book, especially in its opening volumes. What is dangerous about it is the frames of reference from which its contributors came in: they were learned men who did not make factual errors which we can all spot. The mildest contributors to the early volumes had German Christian

prejudices: the most menacing were Nazis. The more extreme life commitments are generally unknown to the moder reader, and are being made known on a very slow and random basis by people who work in other fields of study. The frames of reference never lie on the sur- face of the articles: they are buried in apparently historical statements. It follows that this dictionary should be used only with the utmost care. Students should be warned of this hidden menace, and all read- ers should consult it only with their critical wits sharpened to the high- est degree.

291



Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"

Documents

Transcript of Some Anti-Semitic Assumptions in the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"