Compiled from Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 100 (ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris, 1863) https://books.google.com/books?id=ThZjmEY33xUC
A note on sources: St. Nicephorus I (c. 758–828), Patriarch of Constantinople, is best known for his staunch defence of holy images against the Iconoclast heresy. His anti-Jewish polemic arises primarily within that context: he repeatedly identifies the spirit of Iconoclasm with Judaism, calls the destroyers of images “new Jews,” traces the heresy to a Jewish instigator, and employs the full patristic arsenal of charges — Deicide, spiritual blindness, contumacy, and supersessionism — against both the ancient and the “modern” Jews. The passages below are drawn from his three Antirrhetica adversus Constantinum Copronymi, his Epistola ad Leonem III Papam, and his De Hæresibus, all in PG 100. The Vita Nicephori (by Ignatius the Deacon, also PG 100, col. 41–160) is noted separately where relevant. Translations are from the parallel Latin of PG 100; Greek is given where it adds precision.
I. Deicide: The Jews as Killers of God
Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 321–322
On the theological ground for calling the Jews “deicides,” appealing to the communicatio idiomatum as taught by St. Cyril and other Fathers:
“Therefore both these [authors] and our holy Fathers call the Jews deicides (deicidas) and lord-killers (dominicidas), who discourse in this manner on the mode of appropriation of properties.”
Greek: “Ταύτῃ θεοκτόνους καὶ κυριοκτόνους ἀποκαλοῦσι τοὺς Ἰουδαίους αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ θεσπέσιοι Πατέρες ἡμῶν, οἳ περὶ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς οἰκειώσεως, τοιάδε διεξίασιν.”
PG 100, col. 321–322 (Antirrheticus I)
Vita Nicephori, by Ignatius the Deacon, col. 71–72
Describing Nicephorus’s petition to the Emperor against heretics:
“…having humbly presented his petition, he so confounded the deicidal Jews (deicidas Judæos), and the monstrous absurdities of the Phrygians, and the dreams of the Manichæans, that they dared not even utter their wickedness with their lips, but were reduced to muttering their errors of deception in secret and in corners.”
PG 100, col. 71–72 (Vita Nicephori, by Ignatius the Deacon)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~549–552
On the Iconoclast councils as re-enactments of the Passion inflicted by the Jews:
“By what other name, I ask — if one be of sound mind and sane understanding — shall one designate this godless assembly? By what other, I say, than as the Sanhedrin of Caiphas, and the Jewish mob which was once maddened with fury against Christ? For now again, ‘The princes of the peoples are gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.’ Behold once more priests and scribes and Pharisees; behold again deliberations on the same subject: once more Christ is mocked and scourged — just as He once bore it patiently when He appeared in the visible flesh, so now again, represented in an image, He continues for a long time in patience.”
PG 100, col. ~549–550 (Antirrheticus III)
“For insofar as the images now dishonoured and cast down represent the Lord, by so much do the Iconoclasts themselves manifestly represent the Jews who once crucified Him, and their murderous deed. For just as the Jews strove with all their might to destroy the Creator, so also do these men strive with all their power to blot out His images. Thus in both cases the stamp of imitation is purely displayed. And as the notoriety of those lawless daring acts has already been commonly observed, so also the qualities of the persons and of their wills shall be seen to correspond. Nor could anyone who judges rightly and possesses sound reason think it otherwise.”
PG 100, col. 551–552 (Antirrheticus III)
“And now for the third time this same thing has been perpetrated by these followers of the Jews (his Judæorum consectaneis) against the sacred symbols of His saving Incarnation.”
PG 100, col. ~551 (Antirrheticus III)
II. Christ Intolerable to the Jews — In the Flesh and In His Image
Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 261–264
“For just as Christ was burdensome to the Jews of old when seen in the flesh — so that, unable to bear this just man, at one time they said: ‘How long dost thou hold our soul in suspense?’, at another time surrounded him with countless calumnies, and at last put him to death by the most shameful execution — so also to these modern Jews (hodiernis etiam Judæis), Christ is intolerable even when seen in His venerable image; and, bearing within themselves the image and imitation of the [ancient] Jews, they rage against the image of Christ; and just as those did, they assail it with manifold reproaches and insults, and at last violently destroy it — followers, truly, and kinsmen of the Jews, and villains (Judæorum scilicet consectanei et scelesti).”
PG 100, col. 261–264 (Antirrheticus I)
III. The Jewish Origin of Iconoclasm
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi / De Hæresibus, col. 529–530
Nicephorus gives an account of the origins of Iconoclasm, tracing it to a Jewish man from Tiberias:
“Moreover, this is a plainly Jewish and God-hating opinion (plane Judaica Deoque odibilis sententia).”
“A man of no small standing in the city of Tiberias, an adherent of the Jewish sect, and pre-eminent among his own people, whose surname was Tessaracontapecho — this man, having become the instrument of the wicked demon whom he had wholly received into himself, practised sorcery and incantations as a kind of craft. He was hostile to Christians and burned with malice against the Church of Christ, and watched for an occasion to assault true religion.”
“…and these things were carried out by profane and impure hands; for the hands of the enemies of Christ, the Jews and the Saracens, were employed; because the Christians, even though compelled by force, refused to touch so great a defilement.”
“But the Saracens themselves had the Jews as the parents of their error (parentes erroris sui habuere Judæos). Behold, therefore, the genealogy and lineage, as it were, of the Iconoclasts: Jews, Mohammedans, Christianocategori [i.e., Christian-accusers] or the Iconoclasts themselves.”
PG 100, col. 529–530 (Antirrheticus III / De Hæresibus)
Antirrheticus III, col. ~525–526 and related passages
“…not a royal but a Jewish opinion and wickedness (non regiam sed Judaicam sententiam ac maleficium); for besides all the other heresies which have sprung up evilly in the Church of Christ, sown by the Enemy, this bitter thorn of impiety has also shot up alongside them, reckoned second in addition to those already enumerated.”
PG 100, col. ~525–526 (Antirrheticus III)
“Therefore from what has been said so far, it is established for you that this dogma was of the Jewish mind (Judaicæ mentis hoc fuisse dogma).”
PG 100, col. ~543–544 (Antirrheticus III)
IV. Theological Enmity: Jews as Enemies of Christ
Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 277–278
“Jews dare this deed, and pagans and barbarians, since they are enemies and strangers to our sacred worship; to whom also these men without any doubt, being enemies of Christ, shall be numbered.”
“Let them be scandalized as Jews, let them be made foolish as pagans; since Christ who is proclaimed crucified — which is the same as saying represented in an image — is to the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, but to the pagans foolishness. Therefore, just as the word of the Cross and the memorials of the Crucified is to those who perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God, so also these [images] depict for us the Cross and the Passion of Christ.”
PG 100, col. 277–278 (Antirrheticus I)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~547–548
“And since these men too are subject to prophetic rebukes, let them hear what was once said to their like-minded brethren, the contumacious Jews (contumeliosis olim Judæis): ‘Thou hast had a whore’s forehead, thou hast refused to be ashamed before all’ [Jer. 3:3]. And puffed up and elated with the evil of their shamelessness, and rejecting the commands of the Lord, they will at some point plainly say: ‘Depart from us; we desire not the knowledge of thy ways’ [Job 21:14].”
PG 100, col. 547–548 (Antirrheticus III)
V. Jewish Spiritual Contumacy and Blindness
Antirrheticus II adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 341–342
On the Iconoclasts’ demand for proofs as a repeat of the Jewish demand for signs:
“…is it not to the contumacious Jews (contumacibus Judæis) and to those who always resist the Holy Spirit?”
“For just as the Jews demand a sign, so also do the pagans seek wisdom (sicut Judæi signum petunt, ita ethnici sapientiam quærunt).”
PG 100, col. 341–342 (Antirrheticus II)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 497–498
“But these men, more stubborn than the Jews (Judæis contumaciores), were unwilling to understand this — they who have excluded themselves from the kingdom of God. Nor does the upright mind and faith of the Persians [the Magi] put them to shame, when those men sought Christ born as a king, and the gifts they brought declared who He was and for whose sake they had undertaken so long a journey and pilgrimage. But these men are more barbarous and more ungrateful than the Persians.”
PG 100, col. 497–498 (Antirrheticus III)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 481–482
“Indeed, since you are more ungrateful and more stubborn than the Jews (Judæis ingratior et contumaciores), trampling the divine precepts underfoot and treating them as a jest, it is not lawful to know or to call you a Christian. For those whom neither apostolic teaching can persuade, nor the decrees of lawgivers and prophets move, nor the constitutions and commandments of God Himself terrify — how could anyone count them in the portion of Christians?”
PG 100, col. 481–482 (Antirrheticus III)
VI. Supersessionism: The Shadow of the Law Yields to the Truth of the Gospel
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~543–544
On the cessation of the Mosaic rites at the coming of Christ:
“…the old things passed away and new things succeeded; the shadow departed, the truth succeeded (recessit umbra, successit veritas) — for those were all figures and prefigurements; then the temple fell, its glory ceased, worship received its end, the law of sacrifices was abolished, the victims of brute animals were taken away, the shedding of blood ceased, the unpleasantness of smoke and odour vanished; and, to say all things together, those ancient rites became obsolete and worn out with age. Now that which becomes obsolete and waxes old is near its end, as it is written [Heb. 8:13]. These rites, since a new victim has been offered in place of all and above all, and the precious blood of the spotless Lamb poured out for the salvation of all, these, I say, are now silenced and have vanished.”
PG 100, col. 543–544 (Antirrheticus III)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, on the New Priesthood surpassing the Old
“For there the priests offered gifts, and bloody victims for themselves and for the ignorances of the people, which could not take away sins; for they still ministered in the example and shadows of heavenly things, as was declared to Moses by oracle… But here a different ministry intervenes, incomparably better, with so much better promises, as the truth surpasses the shadow (quanto ab umbra veritas distat). For our high priest, the leader and apostle of our confession, Christ our God, having once offered Himself for the salvation of sinners, sacrificed and immolated in the flesh, abides as high priest into eternity, and sits at the right hand of God.”
PG 100, col. 949–952 (Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
On the cessation of worship confined to one place (col. ~813–814, Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
“For that worship confined to a single place has already ceased (illa uni loco definita adoratio cessavit), since He who dissolved the letter, and fulfilled the Law, and renewed grace for us, the Lord of all, finally came to us. Does He not appear to have said this to the Samaritan woman: ‘Neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you adore the Father; but the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth’ [John 4:21–23]?”
PG 100, col. ~813–814 (Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
VII. The “New Jews”: Iconoclasts as a Repetition of Old Jewish Wickedness
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 517–518
“Where then are the Iconoclasts, who reject impiously and foolishly the monastic life, together with the other divine traditions and ordinances of the Apostolic Church? The new Jews (novi scilicet Judæi), that is, who under their irreligious and God-hating leader Copronymus, devised this new and recent sect through the height of madness, frenzy, and stupidity; knowing neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”
PG 100, col. 517–518 (Antirrheticus III)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. 469–470
“…these latter-day Jews (enim hodierni Judæi), borrowing their tongues from the ancients, say [these things]. For if they thus treated the things of Christ, what wickedness will they not display against His saints?”
PG 100, col. 469–470 (Antirrheticus III)
VIII. Israel’s Rebellion as Type of Iconoclast Infidelity
Antirrheticus II adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~413–414
“…just as that beloved Israel of old (velut olim ille dilectus Israel), they have broken the bonds, cast off the yoke, refused obedience, shamelessly fled from faith in Christ, denied the kingdom of Christ, and together with the mystery of His Incarnation, exercising the mouth well-matched and accustomed to the incontinent raging of the Jews (Judæorum incontinenti ori) against the Saviour, say in near unison with them as like-minded ones: ‘We have no king but Caesar’ [John 19:15].”
PG 100, col. ~413–414 (Antirrheticus II)
IX. Jews as Those Who Crucify Christ Anew
Antirrheticus contra Eusebium, col. ~869–872
The Saint addresses an apostate who dishonours Christ’s image, asking what separates him from the original crucifiers:
“What difference is there between you and the killers of God (θεοκτόνων, Dei occisoribus)? Nay rather, why do you not surpass them in wickedness? They condemned Him once, and having crucified Him, killed Him; but you, when you ought to worship your Benefactor and acknowledge the greatness of so great a benefit, crucify and revile Him every day, treating Him more harshly with hostile words than they did with stones; and you leave nothing, of all the most absurd and impious things, undone, unsaid, or uncommitted against God.”
PG 100, col. ~869–872 (Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
Antirrheticus III, on the iconoclast who re-crucifies Christ daily:
“…and the artful new Jews (ἀρτιφανεῖς Ἰουδαῖοι) would crucify Him afresh.”
Greek: “οἱ ἀρτιφανεῖς Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνασταυρούτωσαν.”
PG 100, col. ~831–832 (Antirrheticus III / beginning of Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
X. The Babylonian Captivity as Divine Punishment — A Type
Antirrheticus II adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~345–348
On the circumscription of historical events, using Israel’s punishments as examples:
“What of Jacob’s descent and that of his offspring into Egypt, which lasted for four hundred years? And likewise the captivity of the Jews under the Chaldeans at Babylon, appointed for a full seventy years by the universal God, to which they were condemned to endure in a foreign land, captured in war, to expiate their own sins? Were not all these things circumscribed, and terminated at last by return, as St. Gregory says?”
PG 100, col. ~345–348 (Antirrheticus II)
XI. God Known Not Only in Judea: The Universal Church Supersedes Jewish Particularism
Epistola ad Leonem III Papam, col. 181–182
“…nor is it without reason that we obtain everywhere one and the same indissoluble fellowship through the concord of faith; for God is known not only in Judea (neque enim in Judæa tantum notus est Deus), but in every place, as far as mind and sense can reach.”
“For in the holy Churches of God there is no distinction of first or last, just as neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, but all are one in Christ (sicut neque Judæi quoque et Græci, servi et liberi, et barbari et Scythæ, sed omnes unum in Christo sumus, Col. 3[:11]).”
PG 100, col. 181–182 (Epistola ad Leonem III Papam)
XII. Madianic Impiety Compared to Jewish Unbelief
Antirrheticus contra Eusebium, col. ~617–618
“…armed with the goad of the Spirit, and using truth itself as our ally, for whose sake we have entered into the fellowship of arms, and on account of which this present war has also arisen for us, we shall together pierce through the Madianic impiety alongside Jewish unbelief (Madianiticam impietatem cum incredulitate judaica) — that is, the Manichaean rage alongside Arian madness.”
PG 100, col. ~617–618 (Antirrheticus contra Eusebium)
XIII. Iconoclasts Excluded from Christian Fellowship, Placed with Jews and Pagans
Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~429–430
“…or the divine adoption which we received through the Holy Spirit in the sacred font will manifestly expel them, and they shall be numbered with the Jews and the pagans (cum Judæis atque ethnicis collocabuntur); since they do not allow the communion and relationship which the said images have with each other. For baptism is lost to them; they cease to be according to the image of the Creator; they shall henceforth fall away and be ejected from the holy flock of Christ’s children.”
PG 100, col. ~429–430 (Antirrheticus I)
XIV. The Wretched Condition of the Jews Under Divine Judgment
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~501–502
“What will these enemies of Christ say to those words: ‘You shall see the King in his beauty’ [Is. 33:17]? But these men, more stubborn than the Jews (Judæis contumaciores), were unwilling to understand this — they who have excluded themselves from the kingdom of God.”
PG 100, col. 501–502 (Antirrheticus III)
Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~357–360
“What Nicephorus considers [the rulers]: they recalcitrated against the kingdom of Christ, just as that beloved Israel of old, broke the bond, cast off the yoke, refused subjection, shamelessly apostatized from faith in Christ, denied the kingdom of Christ and the mystery of His Incarnation together, and bearing a tongue well-matched and accustomed to the raving of the Jews against the Saviour, say in near unison: ‘We have no king but Caesar’. For these also are exasperated by the same things by which those were once angered.”
PG 100, col. ~413–414 (Antirrheticus III)
XV. Judaic Tenuitatis Imperfection: Jewish Religion as Immature and Imperfect
Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, col. ~293–294
“…lest we introduce the imperfection and crudeness of Jewish pettiness and childishness (Judaicæ tenuitatis infantiæque imperfectionem ruditatemque), but [rather that which] the equality of nature, the agreement of judgment, the identity of motion, and the same individual inclination toward the One declares.”
PG 100, col. ~293–294 (Antirrheticus I)
Sources
- Patrologia Graeca, Tomus C (100):S. Nicephorus CP., S. Methodius CP., S. Gregorius Decapolita, Christophorus Alexandrinus, Georgius Nicomediensis. Alii. Ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: Excudebatur et venit apud J.-P. Migne, 1863.
- Google Books (Harvard Divinity School copy): https://books.google.com/books?id=ThZjmEY33xUC
- Works of St. Nicephorus I used:
- Antirrheticus I adversus Constantinum Copronymi, PG 100, col. 205–328
- Antirrheticus II adversus Constantinum Copronymi, PG 100, col. 329–380
- Antirrheticus III adversus Constantinum Copronymi, PG 100, col. 381–534
- Antirrheticus contra impium Eusebium, PG 100, col. 533–832
- Epistola ad Leonem III Papam, PG 100, col. 169–200
- Vita Nicephori (by Ignatius the Deacon), PG 100, col. 41–160
- Reference site for format: Selections of St. Zeno of Verona’s Writings on the Jews