1. Vocabulary – 2. Hebrews, Israelites, Jews – 3. The I. in history – 4. Jews, Judaism, and the Church – 5. The ‹mark of Cain› – 6. I. in Roman North Africa and in A.’s environment – 7. Was A. an anti-Semite?

1. Vocabulary. – From beginning to end of his œuvre A. speaks of I.: both the noun and the adjective ‹iud(a)eus› occur more than 3250 times. A. considers I. to be derived from the patriarch →Iuda [1] and thus being closely connected with the land of ‹Iud(a)ea› [2]. Sometimes he therefore briefly refers to the I. as the ‹gens iudaea› (e.g. c. Faust. 12,12). ‹Iudaismus› in the sense of ‹Judaism› occurs some 20 times; ‹iudaizare› in the sense of ‹following Jewish rites› and/or ‹trying to (re)convert to Judaism› is found some 50 times. A considerable number of these references (including ‹iudaizare›; cf. Gal 2,14) is occasioned by biblical quotations.

Notes. – [1] Ciu. 15,8: «Iudas ... a quo Iudaea cognominata est et Iudaei». – [2] E.g. en. Ps. 62,19; 131,17; s. 199,2. It is worth mentioning that in general the noun ‹Iudaeus› designates in A.’s writings not only the geographic origin, but takes also religious or theological connotations; cf. e.g. en. Ps. 75,2.

2. Hebrews, Israelites, Jews. – Based mainly on biblical texts as well, A. makes a more or less marked distinction between Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews [3]. Such a distinction is most clearly expressed in the historical narratives of ciu.: the Hebrew people [4] derived its name from the antediluvian patriarch Heber (ib. 16,3; cf. ib. 18,39). A. always speaks about the primeval Hebrews in a very positive manner, and the same goes for their language (cf. ib. 16,3; →Lingua hebraea). Further, it is explicitly stated that Christ originated ‹from the Hebrew people› [5]. ‹Hebrew› in all these instances has a positive meaning, both as regards the people and the language.

As far as the people are concerned, however, one soon observes a definite shift in terminology. When telling the history of the Exodus, A. denotes the people as ‹Hebrews› and ‹Israelites› (→Israel, Israelitae). From now onwards, however, the designation ‹Hebrew› often has a negative meaning. The Hebrews are wandering through the desert (ib. 10,8) and the law was given to the Hebrew people (ib. 10,25), but this very same people repeatedly went astray (cf. ib. 17,2). Later on it is even stated that the impious king Manasse reigned among the Hebrews [6]. The designation ‹Hebrews›, though originally very positive [7], sometimes acquires a negative connotation, which pertains, all the more, to I. A. even states that the Hebrews put Christ to death (cons. eu. 1,20sq.).

Notes. – [3] For uses of the names Jew, Hebrew and Israel(ite) in ancient Jewish and early Christian literature in general, cf. HARVEY. – [4] ‹Populus/gens Hebraeorum›; also ‹gens hebraea› (e.g. cons. eu. 1,18). – [5] Doctr. chr. 2,43 (though A. does not deny Christ’s being born from the Jewish people; cf. below 7). – [6] Ib. 18,24; cf. 18,25 for Sedechia ‹regnans apud Hebraeos›. – [7] One might hear this echoed in A.’s repeatedly speaking of ‹prophetae Hebraeorum› in c. Faust. 12 and 13. In the polemical context of c. Faust. he even speaks of the ‹sancti Hebraei› (ib. 9,2). Anyway, in c. Faust. one finds the conceivable distinction between Hebrews, Israelites and Jews more or less blurred (cf. ib. 12,3).

3. The I. in history. – After having related the history of the Hebrews from primeval times onwards, and subsequently the past of the Israelites, A. in his account of world history in ciu. (→Historia) predominantly speaks of Jews when recounting the story of the two ‹Iudaean› tribes, or ‹the people of the Jews› [8] transferred into and rescued from the Babylonian captivity [9]. But the Israelites (in particular those designated ‹carnal›) who lived before those events are often termed I. as well [10]. Their circumcision and Sabbath, like other rites and, not least, their temple services, were given to a ‹carnal› people and, in essence, were nothing more than shadows of promised realities [11]. The prophecies during the Babylonian exile of the I. and at the time of their return were concerned with the good news of Christ, «sed hanc istorum prophetiam Iudaei reprobi non accipiunt» (ib. 17,24; →Prophetae, prophetia). After the ‹gens iudaea› had begun to be without prophets, they deteriorated; this cessation of prophecy coincided with the restoration of the temple just when the I. expected to improve (ib. 18,45). «deinde contriti sunt bellis, quae in Macchabaeorum libris explicantur» (ib.). At the time of Christ’s birth there are still I. and A. explicitly says that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judah [12]. However, as regards the I. it is stressed that they killed him and refused to believe in him (ib. 18,46). Many of the I. of the time believed in Christ, «ceteri uero excaecati sunt»; this blindness, like their dispersion among all nations, was foretold by their own prophets (ib.). In actual fact, from now onwards the (prophetic) role of the I. themselves is depleted. «facti sunt ... tanquam lapides ad milliaria: uiatoribus ambulantibus aliquid ostenderunt, sed ipsi stolidi atque immobiles remanserunt» (s. 199,2). When in his historical survey A. occasionally refers to them, it is primarily in a negative way: I., at the devil’s instigation, turn up as the persons who, like pseudo-Christians, heretics and schismatics, try to tempt and seduce the true Christian believers [13], just as it happened in the case of the first Christians «inter frementes et sanguinem sitientes Iudaeos» (ciu. 18,54; cf. e.g. cat. rud. 42.55).

Notes. – [8] Ib. 18,24: «remanentibus in iudaea terra duabus illis tribubus, quae nomine Iudae uocabantur»; ib. 18,25: «ductus est captiuus in Babyloniam populus Iudaeorum». For I. in ciu., cf. TEN BOOM. – [9] Ib. 18,26sq.; cf. ib. 17,24; cat. rud. 37-40. – [10] E.g. cat. rud. 33: «... carnali populo Israel, qui postea etiam Iudaei appellati sunt». – [11] Cf. e.g. c. Adim. 2.16; c. Faust. 16,28; 32,11; exp. Gal. 34; spir. et litt. 27; ciu. 19,23; en. Ps. 86,5; →Circumcisio, →Sabbatum. – [12] Ib. 18,46; cf. ib.: «Herodem alienigenam regem habere meruerunt (sc. Iudaei), quo regnante natus est Christus». – [13] Cat. rud. 48: «sed tamen id etiam aliquando conatur (sc. diabolus) et per Iudaeos tentare atque seducere».

4. Jews, Judaism, and the Church. – A. time and again speaks bitterly about the ‹blindness› of the I., their ‹stubborness›, ‹haughtiness›, ‹infidelity› and so on [14]. Curiously (because not supported by any canonical Gospel text) the I. are even charged with putting the crown of thorns on Jesus’ head [15]. As a direct consequence of all this, the I. were bereft of their homeland and their city and scattered all over the world [16]. Curiously, again, it is suggested that the diaspora of the I. – though starting years before – is a consequence of their putting Christ to death [17]. But the diaspora is also evaluated very positively. Here, according to a number of researchers, we come across a concept largely original to A. [18]: through the dispersion of the I. their Scriptures have been dispersed as well and so these prophetic writings provide testimony to the truth taught by the Church (c. Faust. 12,23). In his refutation of →Faustus A. elaborates on this concept (ib. 12,11-13), as is the case in the apologetic context of ciu. as well (cf. e.g. ib. 18,46). Besides, A. voices this notion at several other instances: the I., through their scriptures, testify to the (Christian) truth (cf. c. ep. Pel. 3,9); they keep and carry their books for the service and benefit of the Christians [19]; they are their ‹librarii› [20], their slaves who carry the books [21], the keepers of the books [22]. At the same time it is repeatedly said that all of this is performed by the ‹enemies›: «illa gens regno suo pulsa est et dispersa per terras, ut eius fidei cuius inimici sunt, ubique testes fieri cogerentur» (s. 201,3; →Inimicitia, inimicus, 3,601sq.).

Notes. – [14] For their ‹caecitas›, cf. e.g. c. Faust. 16,21; Io. eu. tr. 4,4; en. Ps. 36,2,17; 68,2,10; for their ‹pertinacia› or ‹obstinatio›, e.g. ep. Rm. inch. 23; cons. eu. 3, 47; en. Ps. 108,18; s. 201,2; for their →‹superbia›, e.g. exp. prop. Rm. 66; exp. Gal. 16; Simpl. 1,1,14; c. Faust. 12,12; 16,22; c. Sec. 26; qu. eu. 2,38,1.5 («ad aures superbissimas Iudaeorum»); ep. 196,10 (cf. ‹insolentia› ib. 196,14); Io. eu. tr. 9,16; for their ‹incredulitas› or ‹infidelitas›, e.g. c. Faust. 9,2; 12,11; 16,21; ciu. 16,39; c. Iul. 2,7; 5,8; en. Ps. 78,2; for their →‹odium›, e.g. c. Faust. 12,9; Io. eu. tr. 89,1; 90,3; en. Ps. 108,18. A. interpretes these things as predicted by the prophets and, whenever possible, the unbelief and the crimes of the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus are connected with the crimes and the unbelief of the I. of old. Several of these qualifications return in Aduersus →Iudaeos. – [15] E.g. ciu. 16,32: «spinis iudaicis coronatur»; en. Ps. 33,2,10: «quam superiores uidebantur sibi Iudaei quando dominum colaphizabant, ... quando spinis coronabant»; ib. 52,9: «o stulti. increpatis, insultatis, colaphizatis, sputis illinitis, spinis coronatis, in crucem erigitis: quem?»; cf. s. 7,2; 97,4; s. Mai 95,7; symb. cat. 10. – [16] E.g. c. Faust. 12,12; en. Ps. 58,1,22. – [17] Already evident in c. Faust., e.g. ib. 12,12: «auferet ab eis septem uindictas, quibus alligati sunt propter reatum occisi Christi, ut hoc toto tempore, quod septenario dierum numero uoluitur, magis quia non interit gens iudaea satis adpareat fidelibus christianis, quam subiectionem meruerint, qui superbo regno dominum interfecerunt». – [18] Cf. BLUMENKRANZ, Judenpredigt 175-181 (who ib. 177 n. 10 refers to preliminary ideas of Commodian and Lactantius); cf. also ib. 211; SCHRECKENBERG 358sq.; FREDRIKSEN, Excaecati 318; ead., Justice 49sq.; ead., Augustine and Israel 131; UNTERSEHER 114 (also referring to Justin Martyr); DE LANGE 131 speaks of A.’s «glänzende Lösung». – [19] Cf. e.g. en. Ps. 56,9; s. 5,5; 201,3. – [20] En. Ps. 56,9: «codicem portat Iudaeus, unde credat christianus. librarii nostri facti sunt, quomodo solent serui post dominos codices ferre, ut illi portando deficiant, illi legendo proficiant». – [21] En. Ps. 40,14: «modo, fratres, nobis seruiunt Iudaei, tamquam capsarii nostri sunt, studentibus nobis codices portant»; cf. FOLLIET. Cf. also en. Ps. 56,9: The I. appear according to the holy Scripture which they carry, as the face of a blind man appears in a mirror: by other persons he is seen, by himself he is not seen. – [22] S. 5,5: «et sparsi per orbem terrarum, facti sunt (sc. Iudaei) quasi custodes librorum nostrorum».

5. The ‹mark of Cain›. – A.’s typology of the ‹mark of Cain› reflects his theology of the I. in a nutshell. Moreover, A. seems to be «the first to supply a virtual verse-by-verse typological link» between Cain and the I. [23]. The cardinal text is c. Faust. 12: to refute Faustus’ denial that the Old Testament prophets predicted Christ, A. sets out to prove that the prophets did foretell the coming of Christ by expounding at length the principal ‹types› (→Typus) of Christ (→Christus, 1,864-869.892sq.). Just as it was said to →Adam (1,84-87) that a man shall «leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife» (Gn 2,24; cf. Eph 5,31), so Christ left his Father (cf. Phil 2,6sq.) and ‹his mother›, the synagogue of the I. [24]. The next typology A. finds in the story of Cain and →Abel: Cain’s sacrifice is rejected, that of Abel accepted: «ita noui testamenti fides ... ueteris testamenti terrenis operibus anteponitur, quia etsi ante Iudaei recte illa fecerunt, in eo tamen infidelitatis rei sunt, quia Christo ueniente iam tempus noui testamenti a tempore ueteris testamenti non distinxerunt» (c. Faust. 12,9; cf. e.g. ciu. 15,7); moreover, Cain did not obey, did not refer his sin to himself and confess, but acted as the servant of sin in killing his innocent brother (c. Faust. 12,9) [25]. Like the voice of Abel’s blood, so the voice of God in the holy Scriptures accuses the I. (ib. 12,10). Besides, A. remarks that the Church declares the I. to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to ‹till the ground› (like Cain; cf. Gn 4,12) of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath etc. All this is ‹carnal observance of the Law›, that does not yield to them its strength, because the I. do not perceive in it the grace of Christ [26].

A. does, however, refer to another aspect of the typological link. Cain should be «groaning and trembling on the earth» (Gn 4,12). This, according to A., no one can fail to see: «in tota terra, quacumque dispersus est ille populus, quomodo gemat maerore amissi regni et tremat timore sub innumerabilibus populis christianis» (c. Faust. 12,12). Similar to the mark that was set upon Cain lest anyone finding him should slay him (cf. Gn 4,15) is the condition of the I.: «gens autem iudaea ... non amiserit signum legis suae, quo a ceteris gentibus populisque distinguitur; et omnis imperator uel rex, qui eos in regno suo inuenit, cum ipso signo eos inuenit nec occidit, id est non efficit, ut non sint Iudaei» (c. Faust. 12,13). It is, so A. explicitly adds, this sign of the observance of the Law – and thus not the sign of circumcision only [27] – which makes the I. «a ceterarum gentium communione discreti» (ib.; →Lex) [28]. But it should be clear that the mark of Cain can not be interpreted as a predominantly positive sign [29]. Here, as in all other texts in which A. mentions it [30], the divine protection of Cain is ‹for the benefit of the Church›. The preservation of the I. allows them to remain ‹keepers› of the Old Testament prophetic texts [31]. Thus they bear witness to the gentiles that these texts predate the Church and are not Christian forgeries [32]. But in this function, the I. are nothing more than subjugated slaves (cf. e.g. en. Ps. 56,9). Sometimes A. even compares them to Ham [33]. In view of the benefit to the Church (and thus, in actual fact, not primarily for the sake of the I. themselves) A. reiterates a quotation from Ps 58,12: «deus meus demonstrauit mihi in inimicis meis, ne occideris eos, ne quando obliuiscantur legem tuam» [34].

Notes. – [23] UNTERSEHER 109. – [24] C. Faust. 12,8: «... reliquisse etiam matrem, synagogam Iudaeorum ueteri testamento carnaliter inhaerentem». – [25] Ib.: «sic et Iudaei, in quorum haec figura gerebantur, si quiescerent a sua perturbatione et tempus salutis per gratiam in peccatorum remissione cognoscentes audirent Christum dicentem ... ad se conuertissent peccatum suum in confessione ... et exarserunt odio aduersus eum, cuius opera uidentes deo accepta esse». – [26] C. Faust. 12,11: «ideo populum Iudaeorum maledictum agnoscit et ostendit ecclesia, quoniam occiso Christo adhuc operatur terrenam circumcisionem, terrenum sabbatum ... populus ille sicut Cain adhuc operatur terram, adhuc exercet operationem legis carnaliter, quae non ei dat uirtutem suam, quia in ea non intellegit gratiam Christi»; →Caro-spiritus. – [27] CONGAR 2 and MELLINKOFF 94 have incorrectly stated that A. linked the ‹marc of Cain› with circumcision. – [28] Cf. ib.: Cain is living in Naim, which is said to mean ‹dispersion› (‹commotio›). – [29] Cf. BAMMEL 176; cf. the suggestive manner in which, in the same vein, it is described by FREDRIKSEN, Excaecati 318; cf. ead., Justice 50; ead., Augustine and Israel 131; ead., Secundum Carmen 37. – [30] E.g. ib. 12,10; en. Ps. 39,13; 58,1,21. – [31] For their role as ‹custodes› etc., cf. above 4. – [32] The main argument of c. Faust. 13; cf. ciu. 18,46. – [33] C. Faust. 12,24; 13,10: «ille Cham seruus fratrum suorum portando libros, quibus illi erudiantur, ipse oneretur». – [34] Cf. e.g. en. Ps. 58,1,21sq.; 58,2,2.5; ciu. 18,46; f. inuis. 9; ep. 149,9; s. 201,3. For nearly standard qualifications like ‹inimici› and ‹hostes›, cf. below 7.

6. I. in Roman North Africa and in A.’s environment. – Did A. have some acquaintance with real I., or is his theology of the I. merely a theoretical judgement [35]? ‹Biblical› or ‹hermeneutical› I. are preponderant in A.’s writings, but this does not exclude that he was well acquainted with contemporary I. A considerable amount of data seems to point in this direction. First, there is the rather general but still important fact that I. lived in large numbers in Roman North →Africa [36]. There is no evidence that their number would have decreased in A.’s time; on the contrary, both literary and epigraphical evidence points to a continued strong presence during the fourth and fifth c. [37]. From many of the villages and cities which are connected with A.’s life story, we have direct proof of Jewish presence [38]. More important, of course, are the various references in A.’s own writings. In a sermon delivered in →Hippo Regius he remarks that the ‹ciuitas› is ‹Christian›, but that two kinds of people are living there: Christians and Jews [39]. Preaching in →Bulla Regia, A. exhorts the congregation to follow the example of the I. of neighbouring Simittu in their abstinence from theatregoing in some particular case (s. Denis 17,9). A well-known story is told by A. in ep. 71: after Jerome’s new translation of Ion 4,6 was read in the church of Oea (present-day Tripoli), such a tumult arose in the congregation that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the I. [40], and after their consultation of ‹Hebrew codices› Jerome’s version was judged to be wrong. One may safely suppose that real rabbis were involved in this story, as it seems to have been the case with A.’s own personal and, probably, even vis-à-vis consultation of ‹a certain Hebrew› (in Hippo?, in Carthage?) about the meaning of ‹racha› in Mt 5,22 (s. dom. m. 1,23) [41]. The newly discovered ep. 8* of A. reveals his direct contact [42] with a certain Licinius, a Jew who had been defrauded of land by Victor, one of A.’s episcopal colleagues [43]. A. defends the (secular) rights of the Jew.

But there is other evidence as well. In ep. 36,5 A. criticizes the Jewish belief, that to this day the rest on the Sabbath should be observed [44]. In s. 9,3 he opines it would be better for the I. to do something useful in their fields on the Sabbath than waste their time in theatre, and for their women to spin wool rather than dance unashamedly on balconies. Also at other occasions A. criticizes the I. because of their Sabbath observance [45]. Elsewhere he refers to their actual keeping of the Sabbath in terms of strict abstinence from field work (c. Faust. 6,4) and as a ‹shadow› [46]. All of this creates a strong impression of a veritable acquaintance with ‹real› I. [47].

Leaving aside the issue of the ‹iudaizantes› [48], or the disputed question of a ‹judaïsme berbère› [49], it seems feasible to adduce some more or less circumstantial evidence from A.’s œuvre. In adu. Iud. he directly addresses the I. and seems to be well informed about their reaction to the Christian interpretation of certain Psalm texts [50]. In another sermon he unexpectedly displays a fine sensitivity for the psychological difficulties of the I. who notice the prosperity of the Christian religion [51]. On many other occasions, too, it turns out that A. does not merely speak of the I. as persons from the past, or that he stages them only as rhetorical figures and not as living persons. He seems to speak about contemporary I. in his reply to Faustus [52]; the same goes for passages like ciu. 20,29 where it is stated that the I. now take the Law in a ‹material sense›: «Iudaeis enim nunc auersum cor habet deus a Christo nostro, quia hoc putant ... terra sunt enim, qui terrena sapiunt, sicut Iudaei carnales usque nunc». Specifically in A.’s sermons we find him speaking in a topical way of the I., their ‹sacraments› and their unwillingness to accept Christ, all of which he expresses, moreover, in sentences where the conspicuous present tense recurrently seems to refer to personal experience [53].

Notes. – [35] The latter opinion has been repeatedly voiced: «Put simply: it is his reading of the Bible in the course of his struggles against the Manichees, and not encounters with real Jews, that led A. to formulate his teaching» (FREDRIKSEN, Excaecati 320; cf. ead., Justice 52). Though the observation of an (in any case: initially) anti-Manichaean context seems to be consistent with the facts, concerning A.’s encounters with ‹real› I. one should not overlook a number of other facts. For the context, cf. ALVAREZ, Teología 19-43. – [36] Cf. MONCEAUX; RACHMUTH; HIRSCHBERG; VAN OORT 366-370. Recently STERN (e.g. 88-93) has cast doubts on this scholarly opinion, but one may question her view that purports to be just based on archaeological data. – [37] Apart from MONCEAUX, cf. e.g. LE BOHEC, Inscriptions; id., Juifs. – [38] For Hippo, Carthage, Naro (= Hammam-Lif, near Carthage), Utica, Simittu, Tipasa etc., cf. MONCEAUX and, in particular, LE BOHEC, Inscriptions. – [39] S. 196,4: «christiana est ciuitas. duo genera hominum hic sunt, christiani et Iudaei». Cf. s. Denis 17,7 on a perhaps similar and, in any case, actual visible presence of I. in Carthage as well: «sed forte dicitis: nos Carthagini similes sumus. ... pagani faciunt, Iudaei faciunt, potest dici Carthagine» (→Carthago). In s. 310,1, probably also delivered in Hippo, A. states: «non christianus solum, sed paganus, aut Iudaeus, aut etiam haereticus poterit inueniri, qui non nobiscum dicat natalem martyris Cypriani». – [40] Ep. 71,5: «ut cogeretur episcopus ... Iudaeorum testimonium flagitare»; →Ionas. – [41] In view of A.’s many references to the ‹lingua hebraea› it would come as no surprise if in future we would learn of similar consultations. – [42] Not an ‹epistolary encounter›, as stated by FREDRIKSEN, Excaecati 321. In ep. 8*,1 A. says among other things: «apud me Iudaeus Licinius deplorauit ... probauit quidem mihi per tabulas quas ferebat ... si ergo uera mihi dixit», and ib. 8*,2 it runs: «cum quaesissem ab illo ... iste respondit». One may suppose that such an encounter took place during an ‹audientia episcopalis›. – [43] Cf. ROUGÉ, Introduction; id., Eviction; id., Procès; id., Injure; cf. also id., Escroquerie 177-183; CASTRITIUS. – [44] Ib.: «uacatio tantum homini a suis uel seruilibus operibus imperatur, quam prior populus in umbra accipiens futurorum sic uacauit ab operibus, quem ad modum nunc Iudaeos uacare conspicimus non, ut putatur, Iudaeis carnalibus non recte intellegentibus, quod recte intellegunt christiani. neque enim melius haec intellegimus quam prophetae, qui tamen eo tempore, quo ita fieri oportuit, seruauerunt hanc sabbati uacationem, quam Iudaei putant adhuc esse seruandam». – [45] E.g. ib. 221,4: «ad parasceuen, quam Iudaei etiam cenam puram uocant, ab eius noctis exordio incipiente sabbati obseruatione. deinde sabbati dies, a sua nocte incipiens, finitus est uespere incipientis noctis quae pertinet ad initium dominici diei»; cf. cons. eu. 2,151; en. Ps. 32,2,1,6; 91,2. – [46] Spir. et litt. 27: «solum inter cetera in umbra figurae positum est, in qua Iudaei sabbatum obseruant». For more references on A. and the Jewish Sabbath, cf. RAVEAUX, Sabbat. – [47] Cf. c. litt. Pet. 2,237: «itane uero Optatus, quem pagani Iudaei christiani nostri uestri per Africam totam ... non amicum, non clientem, sed satellitem clamant»; ciu. 15,23: «Aquila autem, quem interpretem Iudaei ceteris anteponunt»; ib. 17,18: «Iudaei autem Christum, quem sperant, moriturum esse non sperant. ideo quem lex et prophetae adnuntiauerunt, nostrum esse non putant, sed nescio quem suum, quem sibi alienum a mortis passione confingunt. ideo mirabili uanitate atque caecitate uerba, quae posuimus, non mortem et resurrectionem, sed somnum et euigilationem significasse contendunt»; ib. 17,19: «sed ut Iudaei tam manifestis huius prophetiae testimoniis etiam rebus ad effectum tam clarum certumque perductis omnino non cedant». Cf. also below [50]-[53] for A.’s recurring use of the present tense when speaking of the I. – [48] Cf. e.g. ep. 44,13; 196,16 on the judaizing sect of the ‹Caelicolae›, which sect seems to have had its adherents in Numidia and Proconsularis. – [49] Cf. SIMON, Judaïsme. – [50] E.g. ib. 9: «sed hoc Iudaei cum audiunt erecta ceruice respondent». – [51] S. Caillau 2,11,10: «quomodo uere contigit, boni meriti apud suos Iudaeus ut dicat, tantum posse christianos? nos tenemus leges paternas; ad Abraham locutus est deus, de quo nos nati sumus. Moyses legem accepit, qui nos de terra Aegypti liberans per mare rubrum duxit. ecce isti tenentes scripturas nostras cantant Psalmos nostros per totum mundum, et habent cotidianum sacrificium; nos autem et sacrificium perdidimus et templum»; cf. e.g. ib. 2,11,8. – [52] C. Faust. 12,10: «usque adhuc quid nobis respondent Iudaei cum eos dei uoce hoc est sanctarum scripturarum uoce, interrogamus de Christo, nisi nescire se Christum quem dicimus»; cf. ib. 16,19. – [53] E.g. s. 202,3: «nonne hoc uidemus etiam nunc, quando ex ipsis sacramentis, quibus eorum duritia subditur, nihil aliud quam Christus, in quem nolunt credere, ostenditur»; ib. 373,4: «nunc quoque Iudaei simile aliquid nobis exhibere non desinunt»; s. Guelf. 2,1: «et tamen non solum tunc, uerum etiam nunc caeci legunt, et surdi cantant, quod uoce prophetica futurum tanto ante praedictum est. ... nunc uero et legunt praedictum, et agnoscunt impletum. et adhuc eligunt Christum negare, quia non possunt ulterius occidere»; ib. 10,3. For a number of other references to contemporary I. and their customs, cf. BLUMENKRANZ, Judenpredigt 63-65; id., Juifs 227.

7. Was A. an anti-Semite? – Although A. is quite dissimilar to the marked prejudice against the Jewish people of contemporary Church Fathers like Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Ambrosiaster or his mentor Ambrose [54], he nevertheless betrays indications of a certain dislike. For instance, in the letter to Jerome quoted above, he remarks that Oea’s bishop was ‹compelled› to ask the testimony of the I. [55]. In the same breath A. quite unnecessarily speaks of the ‹inperitia› and ‹malitia› of the I. [56]. Apart from such rather ‹innocent› and, perhaps, ambivalent remarks, there are several others. Often, and almost in a standard phrase, the I. are denoted as ‹enemies› [57], a sort of phraseology which is neither applied to any ‹sect› nor to the schismatic Donatists, nor even in such measure to heretics like the Manichaeans [58]. In the sermons on Christ’s birth and, in particular, his Epiphany, the tone of references to pagans like the ‹magi› (cf. Mt 2) is positive and benevolent, the description of the I. often explicitly negative [59]. A. often makes an extra effort to amplify the role of the I. in the Passion story [60]. Several times he even says that it was the I. who, for instance, put the crown of thorns on Jesus’ head [61]. The reason why A. states this is an interesting matter for conjecture [62]. Strikingly, he even likens the I. in their slavish role to Ham [63].

Viewed separately, statements like these certainly give cause to call A. an anti-Semite. But – as mentioned already – A. never goes as far as precursors like Ambrose, who approved, and even applauded, the demolition of a synagogue. When it is told of a predecessor like Hilary of Poitiers (→Hilarius) that he did not even reply to the salutation of Jews in the street (Ven. Fort. uita Hil. 1,3), then, in comparison, A. seems to belong to another world: he gets in touch with I. and even seems to have actively consulted them. A. strongly exhorts I. to believe in Christ [64], but unlike his contemporary Severus of Mallorca, he never resorted to forced conversions of I. [65]: A. does not even suggest them. Besides, A. never conceals that Jesus, like e.g. Mary and the apostles, were I. [66]. In actual fact, «salus ex Iudaeis est» (Io 4,22), but this, according to A., refers to the past and is part of the history of salvation [67]. As regards Jewish contemporaries and Jews not belonging to the first Christian generation, he refers, without reticence, to their perversity [68] and malice [69], among other characteristics [70].

Notes. – [54] Cf. SCHRECKENBERG 255-378. For the most important figure of Ambrose in this context, cf. NAUROY. – [55] Ep. 71,5; see above 6. Note that already the verb ‹flagitare› – like ‹cogere› – has a negative connotation. – [56] Ep. 71,5: «utrum autem illi inperitia an malitia hoc esse in hebraeis codicibus responderunt, quod et Graeci et Latini habebant atque dicebant?». – [57] For the I. as ‹inimici› or ‹hostes›, cf. e.g. s. dom. m. 2,6; c. Faust. 16,21; 22,36 («inimicissimo animo»; «inimicorum rabiem»); ciu. 17,12; 18,46; f. inuis. 9; praed. sanct. 33; ep. 157, 6; Io. eu. tr. 5,15; 35,4.7; en. Ps. 58,2,2; s. 71,4. – [58] Contra ALVAREZ, Antisemitism 347: «But Augustine did not use abusive language about the Jews. As I have said, his words are harsher when he has to deal with bad Christians than when he applies the same words to the Jews»; cf. ib. 343. – In f. inuis. 9 A. calls the Jewish religion a →‹secta›, a term that may have been influenced by legal terminology like in Cod. Theod. 16,8,1. – [59] Cf. e.g. s. 199,2 (the I. are «mendaces a se, ueraces contra se»); 200,3 («haec magorum illuminatio magnum testimonium caecitatis exstitit Iudaeorum»); 202,3sq.; 373-375; s. Dolbeau 23,14; s. Etaix 4. – [60] E.g. cons. eu. 3,42: «sed quia (sc. Marcus euangelista) sciebat a militibus suspensum dominum, non a Iudaeis, sicut Iohannes apertissime dicit, occulte ostendere uoluit eos magis crucifixisse qui clamauerunt, ut crucifigeretur, quam illos qui ministerium principi suo secundum suum officium praebuerunt. intellegitur ergo hora fuisse tertia, cum clamauerunt Iudaei, ut dominus crucifigeretur, et ueracissime demonstratur tunc eos crucifixisse, quando clamauerunt ... Marcus ostendit uerissime iudicans magis fuisse domini necatricem linguam Iudaeorum quam militum manus». – [61] Cf. above [15]. – [62] Like, in all probability, the Manichaeans did (cf. e.g. SUNDERMANN 394-399) and like, in particular, it is stated in the ‹Gospel of Peter› (see KRAUS/NICKLAS 32). In all probability the ‹Gospel of Peter› was in use amongst the Manichaeans and A. may have made his first acquaintance with this gospel during his Manichaean years. The Manichaeans’ anti-Jewish stance has already been noted by BAUR 356-368 and ALFARIC 174-192. It seems plausible that some traces (like e.g. their rendering of the Passion story) became persistent in A.’s theology; →Manichaei. – [63] Cf. c. Faust. 13,10. Ib. 12,24, however, this ‹qualification› is applied to the Manichaeans; cf. ciu. 16,2. – [64] E.g. s. Mai 128,2: «stulta impietas Iudaeorum! ... esto christianus, o Iudaee, et intellege sabbatum: quamdiu Iudaeus es, obseruare sabbatum potes, intellegere non potes. nisi ad ueritatem transeas, non potes habere quod celebras». – [65] Cf. LOTTER. – [66] For Mary, cf. e.g. cat. rud. 53; for the apostles (and the first generation of Christians), e.g. c. Faust. 22,89; adn. Iob 37; ciu. 18,31; for Jesus himself, e.g. adn. Iob 37; s. 199,1: «nuper celebrauimus diem quo ex Iudaeis dominus natus est». But cf. also c. ep. Parm. 2,36: «quemadmodum ipse dominus Iesus nulla contagione malignitatis in Iudaeorum gente pollutus est». – [67] E.g. qu. 5,10,1; Io. eu. tr. 15,24.26; en. Ps. 47,11; 79,9. – [68] E.g. c. Adim. 16sq.; Simpl. 2,3,1; Dulc. qu. 6,2; cath. fr. 11; en. Ps. 65,8; s. Wilm. 8,1. – [69] E.g. trin. 1,28; un. bapt. 4; ciu. 15,13. – [70] Cf. above [14]. – Rather curious (and singular in A.’s œuvre) is a passing remark on measures taken against I. made in a sermon delivered in Carthage and usually dated circa 400. The full passage in s. 62,18 seems to deserve a further inquiry: «sciatis autem, carissimi, murmura illorum (sc. paganorum) coniungere se cum haereticis, cum Iudaeis. haeretici, Iudaei et pagani unitatem fecerunt contra unitatem. quia contigit ut in aliquibus locis disciplinam acciperent Iudaei propter improbitates suas; criminantur, et suspicantur, aut fingunt, quia talia de illis semper quaeramus. quia contigit ut alicubi haeretici poenas darent legibus pro impietate et furore uiolentiarum suarum; iam dicunt nos per omnia quaerere aliquam incommoditatem ipsorum ad perniciem».

Bibliography. – P. ALFARIC, L’Evolution intellectuelle de Saint Augustin 1. Du Manichéisme au Néoplatonisme, Paris 1918. – J. ALVAREZ, St. Augustine and Antisemitism: StPatr 9 (1966) 340-349. – Id., Teología del pueblo judío, Madrid 1970. – E. BAMMEL, Die Zeugen des Christentums: Christlicher Antijudaismus und jüdischer Antipaganismus (hrsg. von H. FROHNHOFEN), Hamburg 1990, 170-183. – F.C. BAUR, Das Manichäische Religionssystem, Hildesheim/New York 1973 (Tübingen 1831). – B. BLUMENKRANZ, Die Judenpredigt Augustins, Paris 1973 (Basel 1946). – Id., Augustin et les juifs. Augustin et le judaïsme: Juifs et Chrétiens. Patristique et Moyen Age, London 1977, III 225-241 (RA 1 (1958) 225-241). – W.H. TEN BOOM, Profetisch tegoed. De Joden in Augustinus’ De Civitate Dei, Kampen 2002. – H. CASTRITIUS, Seid weder den Juden noch den Heiden noch der Gemeinde Gottes ein Ärgernis (1. Kor. 10,32). Zur sozialen und rechtlichen Stellung der Juden im spätrömischen Nordafrika: Antisemitismus und jüdische Geschichte (hrsg. von R. ERB/M. SCHMIDT), Berlin 1987, 47-67. – Y. CONGAR, Abel: AL 1 (1986-1994) 2-4. – M. DUBOIS, Jews, Judaism and Israel in the Theology of Saint Augustine: Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 162-214. – G. FOLLIET, «Iudaei tamquam capsarii nostri sunt»: Augustin, Enarratio in Ps. 40,14: Aug 44 (2004) 443-457. – P. FREDRIKSEN, «Exaecati Occulta Iustitia Dei»: Augustine on Jews and Judaism: JECS 3 (1995) 299-324. – Ead., Divine Justice and Human Freedom: Augustine on Jews and Judaism, 392-398: From Witness to Witchcraft. Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought (ed. by J. COHEN), Wiesbaden 1996, 29-54. – Ead., Secundum Carnem: History and Israel in the Theology of St. Augustine: The Limits of Ancient Christianity. Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, Michigan 1999, 26-41. – Ead., Augustine and Israel: Interpretatio ad litteram, Jews, and Judaism in Augustine’s Theology of History: StPatr 38 (2001) 119-135. – G. HARVEY, The True Israel. Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature, Leiden/New York/Köln 1996. – H.Z. (J.W.) HIRSCHBERG, A History of the Jews in North Africa 1. From Antiquity to the Sixteenth Century, Leiden 1974. – T.J. KRAUS/T. NICKLAS, Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse, Berlin/New York 2004. – N.R.M. DE LANGE, Antisemitismus IV. Alte Kirche: TRE 3 (1978) 128-137. – Y. LE BOHEC, Inscriptions juives et judaïsants de l’Afrique Romaine: AntAfr 17 (1981) 165-207. – Id., Juifs et judaïsants de l’Afrique Romaine. Remarques onomastiques: ib. 209-229. – F. LOTTER, Die Zwangsbekehrung der Juden von Menorca um 418 im Rahmen der Entwicklung des Judenrechts der Spätantike: HZ 242 (1986) 291-326. – M. MARGONI-KÖGLER, Israel in der liturgischen Verkündigung Augustins: Dialog oder Monolog? Zur liturgischen Beziehung zwischen Judentum und Christentum (hrsg. von A. GERHARDS/H.H. HENRIX), Freiburg/Basel/Wien 2004, 254-282. – D.D. MCMANUS, Augustine of Hippo: A Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. by E. KESSLER/N. WENBORN), Cambridge 2005, 42. – R. MELLINKOFF, The Mark of Cain, Berkeley 1981. – P. MONCEAUX, Les colonies juives dans l’Afrique romaine: REJ 44 (1902) 1-28. – G. NAUROY, Ambroise et la question juive à Milan à la fin du IV^e siècle: Ambroise de Milan. Ecriture et esthétique d’une exégèse pastorale, Bern et al. 2003, 217-244. – J. VAN OORT, Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study into Augustines City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities, Leiden et al. 1991. – M. RACHMUTH, Die Juden in Nordafrika bis zur Invasion der Araber: MGWJ 50 (1906) 22-58. – T. RAVEAUX, Aduersus Judaeos – Antisemitismus bei Augustinus?: Signum pietatis. Festgabe für C.P. Mayer, Würzburg 1980, 37-51. – Id., Augustinus über den jüdischen Sabbat seiner Zeit: REAug 28 (1982) 213-224. – Id., Augustin und die Juden: Augustin Handbuch (hrsg. von V.H. DRECOLL), Tübingen 2007, 212-217. – J. ROUGÉ, Escroquerie et brigandage en Afrique romaine au temps de saint Augustin (Ep. 8* et 10*): Lettres 177-188. – Id., L’éviction: BA 46B (1987) 459sq. – Id., L’injure: ib. 460. – Id., Introduction à la Lettre 8*: ib. 459. – Id., Les procès contre les clèrcs: ib. 460. – H. SCHRECKENBERG, Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.-11. Jh.), Frankfurt a.M. ⁴1999. – M. SIMON, Le Judaïsme berbère dans l’Afrique ancienne: Recherches d’Histoire Judéo-Chrétienne, Paris/La Haye 1962, 30-87 (RHPhR 26 (1946) 1-31.105-145). – Id., Verus Israel. Etude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’empire romain (135-425), Paris ²1964. – K.B. STERN, Inscribing Devotion and Death. Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Populations of North Africa, Leiden/Boston, Mass. 2008. – W. SUNDERMANN, Christliche Evangelientexte in der Überlieferung der iranisch-manichäischen Literatur: MIOF 14 (1968) 386-405. – L.A. UNTERSEHER, The Mark of Cain and the Jews: Augustine’s Theology of Jews: AugStud 33 (2002) 99-121.

JOHANNES VAN OORT

Wir danken dem Verlag für die freundliche Genehmigung zur Veröffentlichung in unserem Webportal.

	Impressum \| Drucken \| per Mail versenden