Page 1 of 2
Book Review
Jews enemies of Christianity?
Book Title:
Presumed guilty: How the
Jews were blamed for the
death of Jesus
Book Cover:
Author:
Peter J. Tomson
ISBN:
0800637070
Publisher:
Fortress, Minneapolis, 2005,
Xiv + p. 146, $9.99*
*Book price at time of Review
Review Title:
Jews enemies of
Christianity?
Reviewer:
Ernest van Eck1
Affiliation:
1
Department of New
Testament Studies,
University of Pretoria,
South Africa
Email:
ernest.vaneck@up.ac.za
Postal address:
Department of New
Testament Studies, Faculty
of Theology, University of
Pretoria, Pretoria 0002,
South Africa
How to cite this book
review:
Van Eck, E., 2011, ‘Jews
enemies of Christianity?‘,
HTS Teologiese Studies/
Theological Studies 67(3),
Art. #1130, 2 pages.
doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.1130
© 2011. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS
OpenJournals. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
How did it come about that the Jews were blamed for the death of Jesus? How is it possible that the
Jews are, by definition, seen as enemies of the gospel and Christians as the enemies of the Jews, if
one takes into consideration that the oldest Christian creeds are composed of Jewish concepts and
beliefs? What does the Jesus movement have to do with the Jews? And Jesus, the Jew? How were
the Jews made into enemies of Christianity? Where should we look for the roots of anti-Semitism?
These are the questions Tomson addresses in Presumed guilty: How the Jews were blamed for the death
of Jesus (which is a more succinct edition of his book “If this is from heaven …”: Jesus and the New
Testament authors in their relationship to Judaism, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
Tomson answers the aforementioned questions in two ways. In chapter one he gives a short answer,
and in chapters 2–8 the longer answer features. The short answer (chapter 1) is as follows: it all
began with Jesus, a Jewish man. Many Jews believed in him as the promised Messiah. Others were
not so sure. There were others who thought he was dangerous. This last group was successful in
letting the Romans get rid of him. Jesus’ death, however, was not the end. His disciples took over
his tasks. They preached the gospel of Jesus throughout the Jewish homeland, also to non-Jews
living there. Jesus’ followers also brought the good news to other countries as well (Syria, Asia
Minor, Greece and Italy). Everywhere, churches emerged, congregations of Jesus that resembled
synagogues. These churches not only read from Moses but also retold the deeds and words of Jesus
as his disciples remembered them. In many synagogues, disagreement arose on this topic. During
the 1940s and 1950s the members of many of the congregations of Jesus began to refer to themselves
as Christians. Soon, all Jesus’ followers, both Jews and non-Jews, were thus designated. Up to this
point, the different churches had consisted of both Jews and non-Jews. This combination, at times,
caused difficulties. Some Jews were afraid that non-Jews would never be totally free of idolatry
as long as they had not converted fully to Judaism. Whilst eating together, the Jews would thus
be implicated in idolatry. On the other hand, some non-Jews were impatient with Jewish dietary
regulations. Mutual distrust set in, and the blame for it cannot be entirely apportioned to either the
non-Jews or the Jews. For a large part, the political whirlpool left in the wake of the Jewish War
in 66−70 CE is to be blamed. The War put all relationships on the edge, including that between
the Jews and the non-Jews in the churches of Jesus. Both in the Jewish homeland, and elsewhere,
violence between Jews and non-Jews broke out. After the War, Jews and non-Jews no longer trusted
one another. It was at that point that the churches and synagogues went their separate ways. In
the synagogues, especially in the Jewish homeland, followers of Jesus were excluded from the
community. On the other hand, the churches of Jesus started to consist solely of non-Jews, and
the term ’Christian’ became synonymous with ’non-Jew‘. During the second and third centuries
mainstream Christianity became an exclusive non-Jewish movement. From the side of the churches
Judaism came to be viewed as the major rival. Consciousness about the church’s Jewish origin was
repressed, and anti-Jewish thinking emerged within the church.
How does Tomson arrive at the above depiction of the (current) relationship between Christians
and Jews? This is discussed in his ’longer answer’ (chapters 2−8). As a starting point in unravelling
this relationship, Tomson argues that a positive relationship between the ’real’ (historical) Jesus
and Judaism must be assumed, and one has to distinguish between the question of Jesus and the
case against the Jews within the New Testament. The base for this distinction lies in the historical
sources in which the reality of Jesus’ time is recorded. In this regard the ancient Jewish sources
should receive priority (Qumran, the rabbinic literature, Hellenistic–Jewish writings and other
ancient Jewish texts, such as 1 Enoch). Other sources to be used include Thomas, Q and the synoptic
Gospels (chapter 2). Also necessary for this distinction is a consistent picture of the world of Judaism
within the Roman Empire (that portrays the Judaism of that time as diversified).
Turning to Jesus (chapter 4), Tomson is of the opinion that Jesus initially belonged to the reform
movement of John the Baptist. Jesus preached ’the gospel of God’ that involved repentance (that
was a common theme in Jewish prayers of that time). As such, Jesus’ movement was a reform
movement within Judaism, and Jesus (as a Jew) kept the Jewish law in his own manner. With regard
http://www.hts.org.za
doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.1130
Page 2 of 2
to divorce, for example, Jesus’ interpretation concurred with
that of Qumran, and was stricter than that of the Pharisees.
Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man whenever he spoke of
the reason for his coming and destiny – a thought adopted
and developed by Jesus himself. Jesus had a positive attitude
towards the temple, and was concerned about its purity. In
this regard, Jesus viewed himself as a prophet who must
die in Jerusalem. This is why Jesus foretold his own death
and predicted the destruction of the temple. He also saw his
death as a self-sacrifice for his followers.
Turning to Jesus’ trial (chapter 5), Tomson regards Mark’s
report as historically the most authentic. Jesus’ death was
brought on by the Sadducees. The Pharisees were not present
at either the trial or the execution of Jesus – an execution
mourned by Jesus’ disciples and many other people. With
regard to the other Gospels (and in a certain sense also
Mark), Tomson argues that one must remember that all
the biblical Gospels were written for non-Jewish Christians
during or after the Jewish War. Because of the War, nonJewish Christians distanced themselves from the Jews and
sought the favor of the Romans. This explains why in most
sources it is so that with regard to Jesus’ trial the Romans are
exonerated and the blame is shifted to the Jews.
The fact that it was indeed the Sadducees who had brought
on the death of Jesus is attested by the testimony of Jesus’
earliest followers (the apostles) after his death (chapter 6).
According to Jesus’ disciples, his death was part of a series of
murders of prophets. They proclaimed (to Jews and later also
to non-Jews) that Jesus’ resurrection meant that the future
had already begun and that God’s kingdom would soon
come. Very important to note is that this understanding of
Jesus’ resurrection by the disciples, was informed by their rereading of the Scriptures (Old Testament). As such, the most
ancient Christology is composed of elements from Judaism.
As a result of the disciples’ proclamation, various ’Jewish
churches‘(apostolic churches) were established (e.g., that of
Peter and James). These churches differed from the various
synagogues only in their view of Jesus (Christology). This
Jewish belief in Jesus was the basis of all later Christianity.
Paul’s churches, on the other hand, consisted of both Jews
http://www.hts.org.za
Book Review
and non-Jews – at least eventually. ’Johannine churches’
also arose (those who adopted the gospel of John). In the
end, because of the War and growing mistrust in the Pauline
churches between Jews and non-Jews, the apostolic church
won out. By the 2nd century, because of a growing antiJewish theology, the apostolic churches, however, were fully
separated from Judaism.
From the above it is clear that, according to Tomson, the
church gradually changed her attitude towards the Jews,
and an anti-Jewish reading of the Christian gospel gradually
developed. The New Testament contains evidence of this
development. In chapter 8 Tomson discusses the different
New Testament writings, highlighting the anti-Jewish
reworking of certain material in the different documents of
the New Testament. According to his analysis, an anti-Jewish
attitude reveals itself in John and Matthew, and can also be
recognised in a few instances in Mark. Mathew, however,
contains explicit Jewish–Christian material. Luke and Acts
describe the spread of the gospel amongst non-Jews on
the basis of continuity with Judaism. The letters of James,
Jude and Hebrews, as well as Revelation, are fully Jewish–
Christian. This also applies to the Pauline letters (except for
1 Tt 2:14).
Many historical Jesus-scholars will disagree with Tomson’s
construction of the ’real Jesus’. The contention that all the
Gospels were written for non-Jewish audiences can also
be questioned. Tomson also underplays the role the crowd
played in the decision to execute Jesus. These few points of
criticism, however, do not detract from the fact that Tomson
has written a book that is worth reading. His description of
the historical circumstances and development of an antiJewish theology in the church that resulted in the current
rift between Jews and Christians is excellent. Tomson also
reiterates the fact that Jesus was a Jew (the focus of the
Renewed Quest or Third Questers), and alerts the reader to
the Jewish roots of Christianity. As such, this book can be
seen as an effort to bridge the ever increasing rift between
Jews and Christians. Scholars interested in the inter-religious
debate should take time to read this book.
doi:10.4102/hts.v67i3.1130