John Papaspanos

HONS1102
10 April 2007

Against the Judaizers

In the year 387, a newly ordained Christian priest of Antioch,

John Chrysostom, delivered an infamous series of sermons from his

pulpit that would forever alter the history of Judeo-Christian

sentiments. The homilies were unprecedented in their anti-Semitic

polemic, expressing such bitterness and hostility toward the followers

of Judaism that the modern reader, without an understanding of the

circumstances, would perceive Chrysostom as a distasteful and

detestable figure of Church history. The eight fiery orations were

entitled Adversus Judaeos (Against the Jews), but the title is not

reflective of their purpose. In actuality, the homilies were directed

towards the Judaizers—the “simple and foolish” among his flock who

fell victim to the “tricks and snares” of the Jews. The lines of

separation between the Christian and Jewish camps were not

respected by some people from Chrysostom’s community. The

Christians who were engaged in this “boundary-crossing” behavior

were collectively classified as “Judaizers”.1 Ultimately, John sought to

discourage the Judaizers in their interaction with Judaism. The homilies

sprouted from Chrysostom’s “desire that Christians be able to win back

their friends and family who had deserted the Church by means of

persuasion”.2

To persuade his flock to shun Judaism, Chrysostom followed the

traditional tools of formal rhetoric to belittle the Jewish faith—the

“techniques of the psogos3 are apparent in the use of half-truths,

innuendo, guilt by association, abusive and incendiary language,

malicious comparisons, and in all, excess and exaggeration”.4

Moreover, in his fire and brimstone tone, Chrysostom employed

metaphors and hyperboles to invoke emotion among his listeners

which would instigate more fervor in action. However, behind the

mud-slinging and name-calling tactics aimed to persuade his

uneducated audience, Chrysostom produced a complete theological

refutation of Judaism in order to bolster the bulwark dividing the two

intermingling communities. Thus, only after examining the cultural

context of third century Antioch one can view Chrysostom’s bursts of

intolerance in light of their true nature. In this paper, I will argue that

John Chrysostom, in his First Homily Against the Jews, did not attack

the individual Jew per se, but aimed to detract Christian participation in

Jewish rites to unify and strengthen his minority congregation.

In the fourth century the Eastern Church, in the midst of

opposition, called for a powerful voice to bring the flock to orthodoxy.

Some time between the years 344 to 354 of our era, a man was born

at Antioch, blessed with the gift of awe-inspiring eloquence; he was to

attain the epithet of ‘Chrysostom’ (Golden Mouth). Son of Secundus

and Anthusa, Saint John Chrysostom was born into a noble Christian

family. His father passed away while John was still a child and left the

widowed Anthusa in deep grief and sorrow. At the age of 20, Anthusa

did not remarry, as was the custom of the day. However, with great

religious faith, she swore to raise John with the utmost moral principles

and to send him to the finest schools Antioch could offer.

 After completing his elementary education, he proceeded to

study the standard curriculum of the Hellenized world: history,

literature, and rhetoric. Under the distinguished teacher Libanius, John

“showed such aptitude in his studies as to earn high encomiums from

his master. His schooling of rhetoric would prepare John for his

unforeseen future as a deacon of the Church. Gradually, John grew

restless with these “professors of verbosities” and looked to philosophy

for intellectual and spiritual fulfillment.5 He completed his secular

studies with the legal profession in his scope, but the worldly pursuits

of wealth and status were vapid and fruitless. His sight was directed

upwards to that “higher philosophy” which offered a better

understanding of God and the way to salvation.6

Young John displayed a nobility of character that did not remain

unnoticed.7 Bishop Meletius recognized John as a prospect for the

clergy and admitted him to Baptism. He became a student at the

Asceterion established by Carterius and Diodorus of Tarsus.8 This

educational institution was akin to a monastic or sacred studies

school. There John immersed himself into the study of scripture and

theology under the guidance of his teacher Diodorus—the most

influential man John had ever met.9 His teacher possessed a lofty

spirituality, and he led the “school of literal interpretation” of the

scripture as opposed to the “allegorical interpretation” adhered by the

Alexandrian scholars.1

After a few years as a student of theology, John felt an even

higher calling—to live the life of an ascetic. At that time, Syria became

enveloped with the same spirit that called for thousands of men in

Egypt to wander out into the desert.11 Antioch was the home of a
semi-pagan society which provoked many Christians to live on the hills

and in the caves that surrounded the city. In their minds, this was the

only way to salvation. Complete solitude with the denouncement of all

worldly possessions and pleasures was the formula for righteous living

in the eyes of the most obedient servants of God. For this reason, John

left the city, to the dismay of his mother, and set out to live with an old

Syrian monk in the outskirts of the city.12

After four years of the monastic life, John sought more solitude
within the confines of a cave located on the outskirts of the city.13

With the deprivation of sleep and the lack of proper nourishment, John

could not endure the harsh living conditions associated with life in the

dark and dreary cavern during the winter of 380-381, so he reluctantly

returned home.

Upon the arrival of his favored friend, Bishop Miletius invited John

to accompany him to a council at Constantinople to debate the

eminent heresy of Apollinaris. Before their departure, Miletius

ordained John a deacon of the Church and so began the legacy of St.

John Chrysostom.

In fourth-century Antioch, “pagans, Manichaeans, Gnostics,

Arians, Apollinarians, and Jews, made their proselytes at Antioch, and

the Catholics were themselves separated by the schism between the

bishops Meletius and Paulinus.”14 Consequently, the Christians of

Antioch had the choice of following three distinct bishops—the Arian

leader, Meletius (who was ordained by an Arian), and Paulinus who

attracted the most devout advocates of the Nicene party (since he was

not ordained by an Arian). In 386, Bishop Flavian, successor to

Miletius, ordained John as a priest of the Church. This context anchors

Chrysostom in the crux of contention among the city’s Christian

believers. The man who ordained Chrysostom was given authoritative

power by an unorthodox Arian bishop. According to the Council of

Nicaea, Flavian was not a legitimate clergy of the orthodox faith.

Therefore, in the eyes of some Antioch Christians, Chrysostom was not

a true priest with the authority to conduct the liturgy and to perform

the holy sacraments.

Nevertheless, Chrysostom accepted his new role as a shepard of

his modest flock with the purest motives and the highest ideals.

Accordingly, during the twelve years of his priesthood at Antioch,

Chrysostom experienced the happiest days of his life. Following every

liturgy, John would produce and perform the most beautifully eloquent

homilies extemporaneously, alluring people from all socioeconomic

backgrounds to come and listen. His clearness and simplicity in word

and meaning preached to the lowest denominator, allowing all minds

to understand his message. The relationship between speaker and

audience was very intimate. John would balance his homilies in length,

alternate his tone, and modify the appearance of his own authority.

From the perspective of his listeners, Chrysostom was seen as “that

small emaciated frame that housed an indomitable spirit ever ready to

do battle with the forces of evil.”15

Just as Julian grouped the Jews and pagans together as

“defenders of ancient traditions and cultivators of the rites and

ceremonies,”16 Chrysostom likewise used associations for the

advancement of his interests. He encompassed all the evil-doers

behind one ugly mask. The affinity between the Arians, pagans, and
Jews17 allowed Chrysostom to include all three parties on his “black

list” of impiety.

Disregarding religious affiliation, Chrysostom also condemned

any persons visiting the various venues of entertainment. “Whenever

we waste precious time on worthless things, we are far from

contributing anything to our soul, we even harm it.”18 John was

especially referring to the entertainment venues that were dangerous

to his audience—particularly the theatre and the hippodrome. 19 The

hippodrome would house thousands of frenzied spectators screaming

and cursing for their favored horse. John saw this preoccupation as a

grand diversion for his parishioners. The race schedules often

conflicted with the liturgical services and the church would be left

without its congregation—mainly the male parishioners.2 In his Homily

Against the Games and Theatres, Chrysostom condemns “the cries and

disorderly shouting” which “filled the city.”21 Even on the most sacred

days of the Christian calendar, the Friday of Holy Week, the Church

was vacant:

“When your Master was being crucified on behalf of the world

and such a sacrifice was being offered, and paradise was being

opened…God was being reconciled to human beings, and everything

was being changed—on that day you should have been fasting and

giving praise and sending up prayers of thanksgiving for all the

blessings in the world to the one who made them…Then did you leave

the church.”22

This instance of faithlessness sheds light on the gradation of

devotion and dedication Chrysostom’s audience exhibited towards

their faith. In some ways, the “audience’s behavior differed little from
when they were in each other’s homes or at the hippodrome or theatre

—people gossiped, chatted, and laughed during the liturgy and

sermon.”23

Moreover, with great excitement and vigor, the people of Antioch

gathered in great numbers to see the plays performed at the theatre.

The wealthy would build them alongside their mansions.24 The

excitement of the drama and the nudity of the actresses attracted

spectators much like modern cinematic movies incite the imagination

of people in today’s society. Likewise, this particular aspect of Hellenic

culture brought frustration to John due to its widespread popularity.

The old Roman proverb still rang true—the only ingredients needed to

make a citizen happy were bread and games. Without discrimination,

the love of spectacles was shared by pagans and Christians alike. In

response, Chrysostom would bellow at his audience, “The circus,

theatre, and hippodrome are an apostasy—a return to the idols—and

enemies of purity.”25

According to Chrysostom, among the Pagans, Jews, and Arians,

the most seductive source of evil among the three parties was the

Jewish camp. In the fourth century, a “resurgence of Judaizing

Christianity took place partly due to Julian’s efforts to rebuild the

temple in Jerusalem and return the city to the Jews.”26 To combat the

elusive power belonging to the Jews, Chrysostom strived to undermine

their theology via his sophistic homilies. Almost alone on this mission

of solidarity, Chrysostom was “scarcely the only ancient Christian to

engage in anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions.”27 According to John Gager,

Chrysostom was “clearly, an extreme case.” The emergence of such

derogatory speech against the Jews at such an early period in Christian

history stands testament to the unique circumstances found in

Chrysostom’s native Antioch during his lifetime. Did Christianity spawn

anti-Semitism? Was John Chrysostom the first anti-Semite? A brief

discussion of anti-Semitism and its origins must be addressed to

understand the cultural inheritance of John Chrysostom and his

contemporaries.

“Anti-Semitism was not a Christian invention.”28 The pagan

world of antiquity expressed anti-Jewish sentiment long before Jesus

Christ and the Apostles, let alone John Chrysostom and his homilies. In

Hellenistic culture, the value of unity among diverse nations and

peoples was prevalent—stemming from Alexander the Great and his

vision of the “one state” or politeia. In this grand social mosaic, the

Jews were thoroughly dispersed tiles. The Sybylline Oracles

proclaimed “every land and every sea is full of them.”29 Due to their

overwhelming numbers and splendid organization, the Jews enjoyed

favorable privileges and freedoms by their Roman overlords.

Whenever a Jew “emigrated he sought out his brethren and formed a

community.”3 When at least ten or more Jews gathered together, a

synagogue would be built for the social and spiritual support of the

community.31 The Jews of the Diaspora were always active members in

the cities they settled in, especially in the economic sector.

Therefore, “The outbursts of anti-Semitism in Greek communities

are an index of the power, success, and wealth of the Jews.”32 In

Antioch, the Jews’ collection of wealth provided the resources and the

manpower for the construction of synagogues which ranked among the

finest buildings in the city.33 But regardless of their involvement in

civic and commercial affairs, the Jews always retained a distinct

identity for themselves. They were the “Chosen people:” God allowed

Abraham to father descendents as numerous as the stars; God gave

Moses the stone tablets. God promised the Jews a messiah for their

salvation. The Jews’ sense of “self” affected their behavior and their

apparently aloof attitude towards the popular culture created a buffer

of separation between the Jews and the gentiles.34 This disparity was a

source of discontent for the gentiles, but even so, the Jews still “kept

stubbornly apart”.35 Furthermore, the books of Maccabees “taught for

Jews to have as little to do with the seductive gentiles”36. In addition,

the pantheon of the ancient Greeks and Romans had little appeal to

the believers of Yahweh. As a result, naïve pagans often flung charges

of atheism against the Jews. In reaction, to combat the dominant

culture, the minority Jews clung together naturally and this tendency

incited criticism from the gentiles—one example being the Jews were

“cliquish,” grouping together in opposition to the others.37 Finally,

Jews were accused of being primitive by practicing obsolete rituals that

were otherwise abandoned by other tribes. The anti-Jewish “invective”

was not a product of the common man alone, since Roman writers with

great influence from Tertullian to Cicero expressed their anti-Jewish

sentiments, but their critiques were “petty gossip” compared to the

later Christian polemics.38 But when and how did Christian anti-

Semitism arise? The answers emerge with the discussion of “how,

when, and why Christianity separated from Judaism?”39, or more

precisely, “When did Christianity cease to be a Judaism?”4 The setting

of this question lies within the walls of Antioch during the fourth

century of the Common Era—the native city of John Chrysostom.

 “Both early Judaism and early Christianity were mostly urban

movements and Antioch was a key city for both.” 41 Founded by the

Seleucids in 300 B.C. Antioch was a large Greek-speaking city in

northern Syria that lay twenty miles from the sea. Nestled between

the Orontes River and a mountain range, the geographic location was

near perfect with the large fertile plain in the north and Daphne’s

water springs to the south. Antioch was home to the Roman governor

of Syria, the comes orientis (ranking imperial official in the east) and
the chief military officer in the east. Moreover, with the north-south

trade routes from Phoenicia to Asia Minor passing through and the

accessibility to the roads leading east to the Tigris-Euphrates valley,

the city was in the crossroads of trade and movement. Furthermore,

the strategic location of the port-city Seleucia furthered Antioch’s

commercial capabilities and produced a brilliant effect on the lives of

the citizens of Antioch. As a center of trade and commerce, Antioch

attracted Greeks, Romans, and Asiatics—while it was “gradually

enriched by the horde of Syrian merchants who were to be found

trading in every quarter of the globe.”42

In the mid 4th century, an affluent landowning aristocracy

emerged as the conservative camp in the city—“maintaining and

guarding the city’s Hellenic traditions, transmitting them to their

children.”43 Another prominent class in the social structure was the

skilled professionals—the lawyers, rhetoric teachers, high-ranking civil

servants, and higher clergy. The city demographics in Antioch fostered

“famous citizens, brilliant culture, and handsome buildings—the

highest accomplishments of Greek civilization.”44

 In the fourth century, Antioch certainly reached “the acme of

splendor.” But regardless of its wealth and extravagance, Antioch had

its less glamorous facet. Great masses of people lived in poverty.

“There existed a highly visible class of beggars and homeless people

who solicited the rest of the citizens of Antioch as they went about

their business in the marketplace and streets.”45 Not unlike any

present-day urban center, Antioch was a metropolis with a wide socio-

economic spectrum.
Incidentally, the city of Antioch was also a fruitful center for

Jewish conversions among the gentile population.46 As a counter-

action, the Pauline missionary group originated in Antioch. In the Acts

of the Apostles, this city was the site of the first “deliberate mission to

gentiles and the locus of the decisive controversy over terms of their

admission to the church.”47 For the gentile population, both

Christianity and Judaism were alluring religions, Christianity being the

new and uprising sect. On the contrary, Judaism was “an ancient

heritage, preserved in written form, an uncompromising monotheism,

combined with serious moral standards, a belief that basic religious

truths were directly revealed by the divinity, a strong sense of

community, and finally, a conviction that Judaism represented the

religious destiny of all humanity.”48 Even the Christians found awe in

their mother religion—marveling at the festivals and customs as well

as revering the holy books and the synagogues which housed them.

The essence of the Jewish faith was expressed through these

festivals and customs. To partake in a festival or custom is to become

affiliated with the corresponding religious group. “In the great cities of

the Roman Empire the primary distinguishing marks of religious

allegiance were ritual, the proper observances of festivals, and the

calendar.”49 Nevertheless, these customs did not create an impervious

barrier which neatly divided the religious factions of Antioch into

distinct identities. “In many situations, Jews and Christians behaved as

if there were no rigid boundaries to separate them as if they shared a

common culture.”5 Since both Judaism and Christianity are based on

the same scriptural heritage, their commonality concealed the

“absolute difference between Jewish and Christian practice” for the

majority of Chrysostom’s flock that unknowingly crossed the “blurred

and porous boundary”.51

The problem of the Judaizers eventually outgrew the formidable

Arian threat to the extent that in the fall of 387, Chrysostom

interrupted his series of homilies condemning the Arians to better

concentrate on the Judaizers—the greater menace to his minority

congregation.

In his first homily Against the Jews Chrysostom begins with an

analogy depicting the grave situation—there is a disease plaguing the

body of the Church. With dramatic flair, he then asked a rhetorical

question that must have held the entire audience in suspense—“What

is this disease?”

The festivals of the “wretched and miserable” Jews were fast

approaching and they “followed one after another in succession.”

Accordingly, Chrysostom had high hopes of deterring his audience

from attending them. Therefore, from the beginning, Chrysostom

speaks directly about the temptation that is forthcoming. The object of

abuse is not focused on the Jew, but the Jewish festivals. He relates

the struggle with the Jews to the previous struggle with the Arians—
one that must be won in order to sustain the legitimacy of the

Church.52

During the course of the homily, Chrysostom proclaims “I hate

the Jews for they have the Law and they insult it.” This statement

directly refers to the “antagonism between Judaism and Christianity

over the messiahship of Jesus”53. According to Chrysostom, the Jews

“crucified the one spoken of by the prophets” 54 Throughout the Old

Testament, prophets forecast the coming of a savior. As the recipients

of the Holy Scriptures, the Jews “possess the heralds of truth and have

maliciously resisted them as well as the truth.”55 This rejection of

Christ’s divinity is the crucial point of disagreement between Judaism

and Christianity. Chrysostom paints another analogy to enhance this

point, “The sun of righteousness rose on them first, but they turned

their back on its beams and sat in the darkness.”56 To emphasize this

key point is to enlighten the listeners to understand the foundation

beliefs of their own faith. Since the Jewish and Christian practices were

not really that similar, the Christian attraction to Judaism was chiefly

due to the neglect and lack of understanding regarding their own belief

and worship.57 Chrysostom explained to his listeners that the pillar of

Christian faith is Jesus Christ the Lord. He is the Logos and the Way.

Through the intervention of God via the incarnation of Christ, mankind

can be redeemed; thus, salvation becomes possible. According to the

Jews, Jesus was simply a prophet and the messiah was yet to come.

With this point of contention, either party could not have the slightest

tolerance for the other. Judaism and Christianity were set apart

forever when the divinity of Christ came into question.

 Moreover, the discussion of the holy books ushers in the

introduction of Paul in the homily. Through his missionary work, Paul

created a deviation from the Jewish adherence to the Law. In order to

make Christianity a more accepting and alluring religion to the non-

Jews of the Hellenic world, Paul developed a Christianity without “the

two factors that might otherwise have inhibited its growth—the

obligations of the ritual law and the close connection between religion

and national identity.”58 These two factors were dominant

characteristics of Judaism and their rejection caused further

antagonism between the Jews and the Christians. The Jewish test of

religious authenticity was fidelity to the Torah of God. Therefore, when

the Christians decided to facilitate the conversion process for gentiles,

the Jews denounced Christianity. As an apologist, Chrysostom

assaulted yet another aspect of Judaism—the Jewish house of worship

known as the synagogue. Chrysostom portrays the building as “a den

of wild animals”59 This comparison between sinners and wild animals

is evident of Chrysostom’s rhetorical training. In Homily 1, Chrysostom

used the imagery of a fat animal that cannot draw the plow of Christian

teaching and essentially, must be slaughtered. This classical use of

imagery reveals the supposed nature of the Jew—inclined to be

intoxicated and gluttonous creatures of God.6 Once again, Chrysostom

strives to paint a caricature of the Jew for a more enthusiastic response

among his listeners.

Finally, Chrysostom mentions the presence of mayia within the

walls of the synagogue. Whenever the Christians fell ill, common

practice was to visit the synagogue for healing. Charms, incantations,

and amulets were thought to have special magic powers.61 In the

superstitious tradition, the healing powers were produced by the

“books.” “To the simple and uneducated, the books had magical

powers and were capable of working wonders and miracles.”62

Chrysostom offers a personal account when the preacher witnessed

two fellow Christians fall victim to the impiety of the synagogue—which

ranks with the pagan temple in evilness. As the story goes63, the

validity of an oath was strengthened among two Christians when the

verbal agreement was done inside a Jewish synagogue. “The

veneration of the synagogue was in his audience” and for this reason,

Chrysostom was compelled to “fire all his rhetorical cannons to

convince his audience—and perhaps also himself—that entering a

synagogue or venerating it” is a violation of loyalty. 64 In his Homily

Against the Jews, it is evident that Chrysostom used all his powers of

speech to combat the power of Jewish attraction.

In conclusion, Chrysostom’s aim in his Homily Against the Jews

was not to attack the Jews as such, but to deter Christians from

participating in Jewish rites.65 “Far from representing a popular

hostility toward Judaism among Christians in Antioch, Chrysostom’s

imprecations reveal the exact opposite: a widespread Christian

infatuation with Judaism.”66 In the eyes of Chrysostom, this was a

grave threat to the stability of Christianity. He was deeply concerned

for the future of his parish. If his flock is following the Jewish rites how

will they withstand criticism from the surrounding hostile parties—

especially the other Christian camps who are vying for orthodoxy? In

the fourth century, “Christians lived in a pluralistic world and it could

not be assumed without argument that Christian beliefs were true or

that the Christian way of relating scriptural prophecies to historical

events was manifest.”67 As an apologist, Chrysostom spoke to protect

the splintering flock of Christians from further disarray. The already

divided Christian community was now being further dissolved by an

external religion. Without active missionary work, the Jews were

bringing Christians into synagogues to participate in the Jewish

festivals and rites. The fact that baptized Christians were being led so

easily and readily to participate in the Jewish rites caused such fear

and distress in the mind of Chrysostom that the young priest was
compelled to convey this emotion to his audience.

In summation, John Chrysostom did not orate the Adversus

Judaes for any hateful purposes, but for the survival of what he

believed to be Orthodox Christianity.

1
Fonrobert pg. 240
2
Wilken pg. 123
3
A rhetorical term for a speech which attempts to insult, degrade, or otherwise attack
something.
A psogos is the opposite of a panegyric, or a speech in praise of something.
The term originates from the Greek psogos—meaning blame.
4
Wilken pg. 116
5
Dalton pg. 2
6
Dalton pg. 2
7
Dalton pg. 3
8
Dalton pg. 3
9
Dalton pg. 3
1
Dalton pg. 3
11
Dalton pg. 3
12
Dalton pg. 3
13
Dalton pg. 5
14
www.newadvent.org
15
Dalton pg. 8
16
Meeks and Wilken pg. 29
17
Williams pg. 26
18
Coniaris pg. 46
19
Coniaris pg. 46
2
Mayer & Allen pg. 118
21
Mayer & Allen pg. 119
22
Mayer & Allen pg. 119
23
Mayer & Allen pg. 38
24
Vandenburghe pg. 63
25
Vandenburghe pg. 63
26
Wilken pg. 73
27
Fonrobert 235
28
Davies pg. 4
29
Angus pg. 146
3
Angus pg. 147
31
Angus pg. 148
32
Angus pg. 149
33
Angus pg. 148
34
Davies pg. 5
35
Davies pg. 5
36
Davies pg. 5
37
Davies pg. 5
38
Davies pg. 21
39
Lieu pg. 305
4
Lieu pg. 2
41
Meeks and Wilken pg. 1
42
D’Alton pg. 218
43
Wilken pg. 2
44
Wilken pg. 2
45
Mayer and Allen pg. 34
46
Downey pg. 447
47
Meeks and Wilken pg. 13
48
Gager pg. 136
49
Wilken pg. 92
5
Lieu pg. 307
51
Fonrobert pg. 240
52
Homily 1 pg. 87
53
Davies pg. 19
54
Homily pg. 89
55
Homily 1 pg. 91
56
Homily 1 pg. 18
57
Downey pg. 449
58
Gager pg. 140
59
Homily 1 pg. 90
6
Homily 1 pg. 87
61
Wilken pg. 83
62
Wilken pg. 80
63
According to Fonrobert, this example was quite possibly fabricated to enhance
credibility.
64
Fonrobert pg. 240
65
Wilken pg. 31
66
Meeks and Wilken pg. 31
67
Wilken pg. 159