POLEMICS
347
POLEMICS
cited by Werner, Gesch. der apologet. u. polemischen Li- teratur, and to Spanheim, Coniroversiarum de Religione cum Dissidentibus Hodie Christianis Prolixe et cum Judeis Elmchus Historico Theologicus, and Horneck, Summa > 'onti-oversiarum ; Clarisse, Encyclopaedia Tki o- logicce Epitome (Lugd. 1835, 8vo). § 91, p. 499 sq. See, also, Mulder's Symbolik; Piper, Monumental-Theologie, § 135 sq.
The principles which should govern the Christian theological polemic are those of an honest offensive warfare. They may be condensed into the following points: (1) The question is not about persons, but about things. Only when both stand and fall together may personalities be allowed. (2) The attack must be di- rected to the point where the strength of the enemy is most formidable : as soon as the principles of the ad- versary have been refuted the hostility must cease. (3) We must not impute to the adversary more wrong than he is really guilty of; or else the attack itself assumes the appearance of a wrong, and will be con- sidered in that light by every third party, even if successful. Polemics, then, must take the cause of the adversary just as it is ^ they must not attribute to him any opinions which can only be made his own by exaggerating his expressions, or even by put- ting false constructions upon them. (4) It is im- prudent to think too little of an adversary. The rea- sons given by him must be recognised in all their force, and on the basis of full acknowledgment the proof must be given that they are not convincing. (5) A struggle with unequal arms is not honorable. The po- lemic, then, will have to prove either that the weapons of his adversary are illegal, or. if this cannot be done, to inquire into his standpoint and his reasons, and to prove in error the cause in its very principles. (6) If the po- lemic thus succeeds in reducing his adversary ad ab- surdum. i. e. to an illogical condition, which, by reason of its untenability, forces him hors du combat, the van- quished is turned into a friend and convert, and the truth lias indeed triumphed, as God would have it. (J. H. W.)
POLEMICS, Jewish. The friendly relation which existed at first between the Church and the Synagogue could not always last, and a separation became a matter of necessity. The result was that the non-identifica- tion of Christianity with Judaism gave rise to bit- terness and enmity, and some of the fiercest persecu- tions were instigated and encouraged by the Jews. The Christians were no more called so. but " Minim," or her- etics. So great became at last the enmity, that a cele- brated Jewish sage (Tarphon) declared that, although the Gospels and the other writings of the "Minim" contained the sacred names of the Deity, they ought to be burned ; that heathenism was less dangerous than Christianity; that heathens offended from ignorance, while Christians did so with full knowledge; and that he would prefer seeking shelter in a heathen temple rather than in a meeting-place of the '•Minim" (Tarph. Subb. 116 «). Another and more moderate rabbi (Ish- mael) also recommended the burning of every copy of the Gospels, as in his opinion inciting to rebellion against God, and to hatred against the commonwealth of Israel (Aboda Sara, 43). By and by all friendly relations between the two parties entirely ceased, and the mutual estrangement was such that the ordinary civilities of life were not to be exchanged, and the bread, wine, oil, and meat used by Christians were declared polluted.
One of the earliest polemics against Christianity is that of P. Simlai, of the 3d century, who became famous for his virulent opposition to Christianity. His polem- ics were especially directed against the doctrine of the Trinity (comp. Genesis Rabba, e. 8 ; Jerus. Berach. ix, 11 d, 12 a). It has been suggested, and with apparent probability, that he had been chiefly engaged in con- troversy with Origen. Another polemic was R. Ab- bahu, of the 4th century, who likewise attacked the Trinity and the ascension of Christ {Jerus, Taanith, ii,
65 b ; Genesis Rabba, c. 29 ; Exodus Rabba, c. 29). Of this P. Abbahu, we also read (Abodah Sarah, fol. 4 «) that he recommended a certain P. Saphra to a noble Christian. At this recommendation the Christian per- mitted P. Saphra an exemption for thirteen years. When the Christian asked P. Saphra about the mean- ing of the passage in Amos iii, 2, and perceived his ig- norance, he asked P. Abbahu about its meaning. Hav- ing received a satisfactory answer, the Christian asked, " Why is P. Saphra, whom you recommended to me as a great man, so ignorant in the Scriptures, which thou didst explain right away?" To this P. Abbahu an- swered, " We, who come in contact with you Chris- tians, are obliged, for our self-preservation, to study the Scriptures, because you dispute so often with us from the Scriptures, and because we know that you study the Scriptures : but the other Jews, who live among Gentiles, have no need of that, since they do not dispute with them concerning the Scriptures." What a gloomy picture! The Jews read the Bible, not because they are concerned about the "one thing needful," but only for the sake of controversy ! Next in order arc those passages of the Talmud which speak of Jesus, and have been expurgated in the earliest editions. Eisenmenger has collected a great many of these passages in his Neu- i-utili chte. s Judenthum, and also Meelfuhrer, in his Jesus in Talmude (Altorf, 1699, 2 vols.).