Disputation of a Jew with a Christian Concerning the Christian Faith
Translation from the Latin
Dedicatory Letter to St. Anselm
To the Reverend Father and Lord Anselm, Archbishop of the Holy Church of Canterbury, his servant and son, Brother Gilbert, procurator and servant of the monastery of Westminster [sends greetings] for a prosperous long life in this world and blessed eternity in the future.
To Your Paternity and Wisdom I send for examination a little book which I recently wrote, committing to writing the matters which a certain Jew once disputed with me against our faith from his law, and what I responded to his objections in defense of our faith. I do not know where he came from, but he was educated in letters at Mainz, was well versed in the law and also in our scriptures, and had a mind well exercised in the Scriptures and in disputes against us. He was very familiar with me and often came to me, sometimes for his business affairs, sometimes for the pleasure of seeing me, since in some matters I was very necessary to him, and whenever we met, soon we would have a conversation with friendly spirit about the Scriptures and about our faith.
On a certain day therefore, God granted me and him more leisure than usual; and immediately we began a discussion of the kind we were accustomed to having between us. And since he was proposing matters rather fittingly and logically, and was explaining adequately what he had proposed by following through, and our response was progressing rather closely in step with his objections, and the testimonies of the Scriptures bore equal witness to both sides, and we seemed to be proceeding with mutual concessions on both matters themselves, and since it appeared worthy of approval, certain people who were present asked that I commit to memory this disputation of ours, which might perhaps profit some. Therefore I wrote it, and I wrote it under my name and his name, in the persona of a Jew disputing with a Christian about our faith.
This work, both written and composed, I send to your censure for examination. If the matter is to be approved, it will be pleasing when approved by your judgment; but if it is to be rejected, whether the whole or any part of it, whatever is to be rejected, accept it as said in a friend’s ear; and because it has become known only to a friend, let it be suppressed in silence, and let this writing not be communicated to anyone for reading. Nevertheless, while our mutual love remains in complete and mutual peace, let whatever you think should be deleted be deleted, or corrected if there is anything that seems to you capable of correction. I confess that whatever sentence you pronounce, I will receive it with a willing spirit and will listen with an obedient ear.
However, a certain one of the Jews who were then in London, with the help of God’s mercy, converted himself to the Christian faith at Westminster; before all he professed faith in Christ, sought baptism, received it, and baptized, he vowed to serve God there, and having been made a monk, he remained with us.
Thus therefore that Jewish disputant, with many others intervening, challenged me by provoking [this discussion].
THE DISPUTATION BEGINS
THE Jew SPEAKS:
Since Christians say that you are learned in letters and skilled in speaking, I would like you to deal with me with a patient spirit, by what strength of reason and by what testimony of authority you blame the Jews, because we observe the law given by God and obey Moses the lawgiver. For if the law is good and given by God, it must be observed; for whose decree should be observed, if God’s command is not to be observed? But if the law must be observed, why do you everywhere pursue its observers, comparing them to dogs, driving them out with clubs? If however you say it should not at all be observed, then Moses must be blamed, who handed it down to us to be observed with such vain truthfulness. But if by making an exception for part, you say that this must be observed, but that truly should not at all be observed or should be considered abolished, give counsel how we shall escape that curse pronounced by God: “Cursed is he who does not abide in all the things written in the law” (Deut. 27:26). The lawgiver excepts nothing, but universally commands that all these things be observed. But you determine the observance of the law and commandments according to your own judgment. And, so that you may know that in these matters I wish to devote myself to reason rather than to contention, let us withdraw from others, and let us utterly refuse to whomever of us the favor of the hearers applauds.
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONDS:
Quite reasonably you seek all these things, and it is fitting that all these things be sought; but I require from you in equal turn that you deal with me with a patient spirit. For if the manner of our dispute be held such, that you concede whatever the page of your law testifies, or is established by reason so evident that it is refuted by you by no more evident [reason], I am ready to deal with you about these things, and from wherever you wish. And I do this rather for the sake of truth and for love of you, than from the zeal of disputing, nor do I care for the acclamations of men; but let him prevail to whom reason will attest, and the authority of Scripture will bear witness.
First therefore we say, hold, and assert that the law is good and given by God; and consequently we establish that whatever is written in it, understood in the divine sense, must be observed and was observed in its proper times. We say indeed that the commandments of the law must be understood in the divine sense, because if we take all of them in the human sense and literally, we see many things mutually opposed and much repugnant.
For when after the completion of the creation of the world Moses says: “God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good” (Gen. 1:31), how in the distinction of animals does he write afterwards that these animals are clean, and those animals unclean, permitting us to use these, but commanding not only not to touch those, but that he who touches them should be punished and penalized with death? For how is that unclean which is very good? For where he named all things and said they were very good, he excepted neither this nor that animal. How therefore did God create all animals very good, and afterwards forbid eating these or those animals, and give the reason, saying they are unclean animals? Nor did he prohibit only those which by their nature are harmful to man for eating; but even many which are pleasant to the taste and equally healthful for eating by use. Therefore these contain in themselves something of a mystery, which, although spoken by God, yet are entirely at variance with each other if taken literally. We say that a mystery is the hidden sign of a sacred thing.
Likewise we know that God said to Adam: “Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their kind, that they may be to you for food” (Gen. 1:29). By what reason therefore did God give to the first man all trees for food, and immediately afterwards prohibit that he take from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for food? Where he commends universally that trees have been granted to man, he suggests that no tree was excepted. Therefore this is not to be accepted without mystery.
In Exodus among other precepts about making the altar, the Lord commanded Moses thus: “You shall make an altar of earth for me, and you shall offer upon it your holocausts and peace offerings” (Ex. 20:24). And concerning from what material the altar might be made, and how, he added thus: “But if you wish to build it of stones, you shall build it of unhewn stones” (ibid. 25). But in the completion of the tabernacle, and of the vessels and utensils of the tabernacle, it is read thus: “Moses made an altar of incense of shittim wood, having four cubits on each side, and two in height” (Ex. 37:25). And after a few things: “He made also an altar of holocaust of shittim wood, five cubits square, and three in height” (Ex. 38:1). Certainly it was not done by rash audacity or presumption, that it was made with such distinct dimension of height and squareness. Likewise after some things: “He cast bronze bases at the entrance of the tabernacle, and the bronze altar with its grating” (ibid. 30). Likewise at the end: “The lampstand shall stand with its lamps, and the golden altar, on which incense is burned before the ark of testimony” (Ex. 40:5).
How therefore does God command that you make an altar of earth and offer your holocausts upon it, while on the contrary Moses made an altar of incense of wood, and made an altar of holocaust of wood, made a bronze altar, and made also a golden one, and made also sometimes a stone one? Therefore it seems very contrary that something other and otherwise than the Lord commands through Moses is done otherwise by Moses himself than the letter sounds, and this must be accepted. Again, since Moses says that God created all these things for human uses, and recalls that he subjected all these things to man, “that he might have dominion, he says, over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the animals of the earth, and all reptiles that move on the earth” (Gen. 1:26), why does he forbid afterwards that man plow with an ox and a donkey? It is permitted to place any burden whatsoever that pleases you on a donkey, and why is it not permitted to put a yoke on an ox with a donkey? It will be permitted to lead an ox with a donkey to pasture, and the law permits them to be together in pastures and to graze together, and it prohibits plowing with them together and forbids it.
But if it is for this reason, because the law says this animal is unclean, why does it permit the other things which have been said concerning it, and only excepts plowing? For the pig is said to be an unclean animal in the law, and many others, and yet plowing with an ox and a horse or other unclean animal is not prohibited in the law. This contrary variety we see not only in these commandments which have been mentioned, but also in very many other legal ceremonies; unless we understand them with a fitting sense. We believe therefore that these things must be understood and examined with a discerning and divine sense, because it cannot happen that all those things be fulfilled if taken literally. But if we accept the law with the proper sense, we will be able to observe all the commandments of the law with due observance, some literally and without any depth of figures, but I understand that others are shadowed with the veil of figures. Some things were commanded to be observed for a time, some are to be observed without any determination of times. For those which were prefigurative of some mystery and a figure of future truth, when the manifestation of the very thing and truth was present in its own time, it was not necessary that their announcement and figure should remain.
Now, just as in the very use of speaking, we use the vicissitudes of words by saying “it will be” as long as it is going to be future, and omitting “it will be” itself, in the present we assume “it is,” and signifying that the very thing has already passed, we use “it was,” so in matters prefigurative of some mystery, where the present mystery is manifested, should its figure or sign now superfluously be observed? But those which were not significative of some mystery, but openly either suggest the truth of faith or commend the building up of charity, these must be observed perpetually both by us and by you, not for a time, and transgression of these can by no means be unpunished. The truth of these figures which were in the law, expected for so long and through so many ages, was finally at some time to be exhibited. Was it always to be promised: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter propositions from the beginning” (Ps. 77:2)? Was it always to be future: “Until he comes who is to be sent, and he will be the expectation of the nations” (Gen. 49:10)?
Finally therefore in times predestined by God he came, the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, opening to us understanding that we might understand the Scriptures, dissolving the profound mysteries which were written concerning him in the law and the prophets, in whom it is necessary for you to believe.
THE Jew RESPONDS:
If at one time this or that saying of God is to be observed, and then annulled, and likewise another is to be observed at another time, and thus through the vicissitudes of times the divine sanctions are changed, how will it stand that “God has spoken once” (Ps. 61:12)? By what agreement will it be firm that “forever, O Lord, your word remains in heaven” (Ps. 118:89)?
What, I ask, does it matter to me why God judges this animal clean, that unclean, permits using this, prohibits using that? For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor, that he permits this to be done, prohibits that to be done? He commanded. Therefore it must be obeyed, and obedience is the highest virtue. He prohibited. Therefore it is now not permitted to be done; and if it is done afterwards, we say it is a sin, and must be punished with due penalty.
Therefore, in order to preserve the figure of the letter, shall we despise the letter? To preserve one, what is the reason to condemn the other? Let us preserve the letter, let us also preserve the figure of the letter. Let the letter remain for our small understanding, let it also remain for yours, and let there be added the spiritual intelligence of the hidden mystery granted to us by God. Let us abstain from pork, because the law commands it, and let us abstain also from that, if there is anything which is signified by pork—from sin. Let us not plow with ox and donkey, because the lawgiver prohibited it, and if you understand anything that should be avoided through this coupling of donkey and ox, it is right to avoid it, indeed it is a sin not to avoid it. And so with the rest. Thus the law is fulfilled, and is considered to be fulfilled.
But with these matters discussed beforehand, let us come to Christ, in whom the whole cause of the question and controversy consists; for you say that you have him as the author of new worship, new institutions, and of a wholly changed law, in whom you say it is necessary for me to believe.
I believe Christ was a prophet indeed, most excellent in every prerogative of virtues, and I will believe Christ; but I do not believe in Christ, nor will I believe in him, because I believe only in God, and in one. “Hear, O Israel, your God is one God” (Deut. 6:4): one, not triple, as you Christians both say by denying and deny by saying. For you say: God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit; the Father is other, the Son is other, the Holy Spirit is other; and yet not three Gods but one is God. You say both: whoever wishes may believe either one or both. But Israel our people hears and believes: “Your God is one God,” not created in time, not made from a woman, since if it could properly be said, before time was, he was; he created time, and under time he created heaven and earth and all things that are in them.
There follows another command in the Decalogue: “You shall not take the name of your God in vain” (Ex. 20:7). He takes the name of God in vain who attributes the name and worship of divinity to a man. For if “every man living is vanity,” he who believes a man is God and calls him God attributes the name and worship of divinity to a man. Therefore I do not believe in Christ, nor is my hope in Christ, because: “Blessed is the man whose hope is the name of the Lord” (Ps. 39:5). But I believe Christ, and I will believe Christ when he comes, because Moses testifies concerning him and says: “God will raise up for you a prophet from your brothers like me; you shall hear him” (Deut. 18:15).
And since it was to be desired with all prayers that he would come, and by what sign his coming could be recognized, hear what the prophet Isaiah announces about this: “It shall be in the last days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains, and all nations shall flow to it, and they shall say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob” (Is. 2:2-3).
If therefore Christ has already come, where in the whole world, except for the very small nation of the Jews, is it said: “Let us go up to the house of the God of Jacob”? Some of you say, let us go to the house of Peter, others to the house of Martin. But no one says: Let us go “to the house of the God of Jacob.”
Hear still more concerning the coming of Christ what follows: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they be exercised any more for war” (ibid. 4). Does the military order in our age beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks? The smiths hardly suffice, iron hardly suffices for making military arms. Where on earth can it be found that “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they be exercised any more for war”? Throughout the whole world neighbor plots against neighbor, oppresses, kills; nation fights against nation with expended strength, kingdom is stirred up against kingdom, and from the very beginning of childhood each person is exercised for war. It is established therefore that you Christians are greatly in error concerning Christ and concerning his coming.
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONDS:
Indeed God has spoken once, and it is wrong that any word of God should ever be annulled; the divine sanctions are not changed through any vicissitudes of times, because Christ did not come “to dissolve the law but to fulfill it.” “Amen, he says, I say to you, one iota or one apex shall not pass from the law until all things are done” (Matt. 5:18). Does Christ wish to condemn the law, who threatens saying, “one iota or one apex shall not pass from the law until all things are done”? Therefore he does not wish to dissolve it, but to fulfill it.
The law prohibits homicide, Christ [prohibits] anger and hatred; the law prohibits adultery of the flesh, Christ even the very appetite of the heart. The law prohibits you from using pork: and then abstinence from that animal was necessary for you, since it was a figure of future truth, and the figure was to be observed until Truth itself was present. But now it is not necessary for us or for you, since the very truth of the figure is now already present. Although it is permitted to abstain, and many of us abstain not only from it but from all flesh of animals, defending themselves however by our law. Moses calls pork flesh unclean, prohibits using it, and therefore you say that it is not permitted to use it. Moses, not another but the same Moses, says pork flesh is clean and very good, and writes that God made it good for eating just like the rest, and therefore we say that it is permitted to use it.
For after he had announced that God created all things, the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, all animals of the earth in which is a living soul, not far below he added: “God saw all things that he had made, and they were very good” (Gen. 1:31). What is very good is in no part evil. But what is in no part evil, how is it evil and unclean? Therefore whatever is considered of the nature made by God in pork flesh is clean and very good, and it is permitted to use it. But because through this animal, pleasure and uncleanness is figured, this animal is designated unclean on this account, that this vice might be more zealously avoided, even the animal for eating is forbidden through which it is designated, and it is not permitted to use that uncleanness.
If therefore this animal is understood to be both clean and unclean, and using it and not using it is permitted to us by God, whence also sacred authority testifies: “Not what enters the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out from the heart—fornications and other vices which he enumerates—these defile a man” (Matt. 15:11). Therefore pork flesh, which enters the mouth, does not defile a man, but pleasure in the unclean concupiscence of any lust, which proceeds from the heart, that defiles a man.
On account of this also the apostle Paul says: “Whatever is set before you to eat, take with thanksgiving, asking nothing for conscience’ sake” (1 Cor. 10:27). By the same reasoning it is permitted to plow with ox and donkey, and it is prohibited that we plow with ox and donkey. “Does God, as the apostle Paul says, care for oxen?” (1 Cor. 9:9). Or does the law say this for our sake? Whoever therefore cultivates the earth, let him plow with ox and donkey if he cannot do better, because God permits it, because he created all these things for human uses.
But because the ox divides the hoof and ruminates, and is altogether a suitable animal for cultivating the earth, it designates a ruler in the Church who is discerning, having sense in what he does, who discerns right from wrong, and who meditates on the commandments of God which he hears and reads, and by meditating ruminates them day and night, nor is he useful only for himself, but builds up others and instructs them by teaching. Hence such a suitable preacher is not to be associated for preaching the word of God with another who is indiscriminate in morals, or an idiot and unskilled in letters, because he is not only useless to himself by living badly, but by his bad example and living uncleanly exists as harmful to others. Moreover these vices are designated by the donkey, who neither divides the hoof nor ruminates, and is altogether a most sluggish animal.
But what has been said about making the altar, and why the Lord prohibited that man eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, contains in itself a profound mystery, but these things pertain to be discussed elsewhere and to others. “These things indeed happened to you in figure, and were written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come,” as Paul from your race, our apostle, says (1 Cor. 10:11).
The ends of the ages are the last days, concerning which Isaiah foretells, saying: “It shall be in the last days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains” (Is. 2:2), to which indeed all nations shall flow together, just as the Psalmist also had predicted: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and be converted to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship in his sight” (Ps. 21:28).
All the ends of the earth now believe in God, now all the families of the nations worship Christ, with one and concordant voice they say: “Let us go to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob” (Is. 2:3), not to the house of Jacob, but “to the house of the God of Jacob,” that is, to the house of the God whom Abraham worshiped, whom Isaac worshiped, whom Jacob worshiped, whom also Moses and Aaron worshiped, to show that there is one God both of those who were faithful before the law, and of those who existed under the law, and of those who now exist believing in God from the universal multitude of the nations.
But that you accuse us of saying: Let us go to the house of Peter, let us go to the house of Paul and to the house of Martin—no one who thinks sanely understands this to have been said thus: for we make no house for Peter or Paul, but we build it to God in honor and memory of Peter or Paul. Nor is it right for any of the bishops to say in the consecrations of churches: To you Peter or Paul we consecrate this house or this altar. But: To you God in honor of Peter or Paul we consecrate this house or this altar.
Moreover this house is especially called “the house of the God of Jacob,” and specially named “Jacob,” because first of all Jacob is read to have instituted this house for God. “Jacob erected, it says, a stone as a monument, pouring oil upon it, and said, truly this place is holy” (Gen. 28:18), and having enumerated what he had seen, stupefied by celestial mysteries he added: “How terrible is this place, this is nothing other than the house of God and the gate of heaven” (ibid. 17).
Therefore the house of our God is the house of the God of Jacob, because the God whom we worship, Abraham worshiped, and also Isaac and Jacob. In this house of God the divine word is recited daily, the faithful people are taught what good things they should seek and what evil things they should flee, and at the same time what rewards accompany the things to be sought, and what punishment accompanies the evil things they do.
Hence also forensic cases are conducted by Christians, calumnies of neighbors against neighbors are heard, and due punishment is inflicted for each guilt. “You shall not kill,” the law says (Ex. 20:13): “but whoever kills,” indeed as Christ himself added, “whoever is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” (Matt. 5:22). From whom therefore anger and hatred are taken away, it is not permitted to use sword and spear. He who renounces anger and hatred, it is very easy for him to renounce spear and sword. For it is much easier to beat one’s sword into a plowshare and one’s spear into a pruning hook, than with the swelling of the heart subdued, to become humble from proud, a servant from free; to deny wife, children, house, arms, fields, horses, and all things which he possesses, and still more that he deny himself.
Which nevertheless we see happening very often, and you see also, because many formerly acting in the affairs of the world, proud and powerful, most prepared for wars and pugnacious, coveting to seize the things of others, on account of God having renounced all worldly pomps, voluntarily very poor, wandering through various places, seek the support of the saints, or consecrate themselves to the service of God in any monastery, the same [who were] mighty [are now] weak. They fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness. Moses called this “beating swords into plowshares,” not arming hands with swords but arming the soul with virtues, not fighting with the lance of wood but with the lance of the word of God against the devil. This therefore the prophet said, not meaning iron arms but spiritual arms.
For all who have been converted to Christ from Gentile error and pagan superstition to the Christian faith are made participants of all these blessings. For Christ taught in the Gospel: “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:15-16).
In this Gospel the Lord taught his ways, new ways. The old ways were “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 24:24). The new ways are: “If anyone strikes you on one cheek, offer him also the other; to him taking away your tunic, leave also your cloak…” (continuing with Christ’s teachings on non-retaliation and love of enemies).
[The disputation continues with extensive theological arguments about the Trinity, the Incarnation, prophetic fulfillment, and interpretation of Scripture, with each side presenting scriptural evidence and rational arguments for their positions…]
Additional Key Passages from the Disputation
On the Incarnation and Divine Immutability
THE Jew OBJECTS:
What reason, what authority of the Scriptures compels me to believe that God can be made man, or that he already exists as man made? If with God there is no change nor shadow of alteration (James 1:17), how can such a great alteration of things happen with him, that God becomes man, the Creator becomes creature, and the incorruptible is believed to have been made corruption? How, I ask, is this to be accepted: “In the beginning, O Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They shall perish, but you remain. You will change them and they shall be changed; but you are always the same” (Ps. 101:26-27)? How is God “always the same” if altered he can become man?
If God is immense, how could he be circumscribed by the vile and small dimension of human members? If God is uncircumscribed, by what kind of argumentation will it be said that he, circumscribed by bodily dimension, could be held comprehended whole under the narrow womb of a mother? Besides these things, if God is that than which nothing greater or more sufficient can be thought, by what necessity was he compelled to become a participant in human calamity, and to be made a sharer and sufferer of so many evils? Finally, if God was made man, how will that stand which he himself spoke and said to Moses: “No man shall see me and live” (Ex. 33:20)? It seems very repugnant that God should be made man and not be able to be seen by man or even by his own mother. For far be it that you should say anything phantasmal was around God! Whence we confess that it is in no way lawful to conceive or even speak of such things about God, since neither does reason allow that this can be done, nor does any authority of Scripture occur which would be consonant or near to this error of yours.
For that prophecy of Isaiah, which you utterly wrongly pervert to accept according to your understanding: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and his name shall be called Emmanuel, that is, God with us” (Is. 7:14)—what has this to do with the matter we are treating? Shall a virgin who has never been corrupted by a man, but is married to a husband, while still existing as a virgin, conceive and bear a son?
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONDS:
We fear no repugnance of things in this mystery, we dread no dissonance of the Scriptures. Meanwhile let us omit the authorities of the Scriptures, by which, with God’s help, we will in every way demonstrate that God was made man and was seen by men. For the prophet Jeremiah openly announces, all ambiguity of equivocation being excluded: “This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed compared to him. He has found out all the way of knowledge, and has given it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. After these things he was seen on earth and conversed with men” (Baruch 3:36-38).
“After these things,” he says, after the law was given, after the way of knowledge was given to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved, God was made man and conversed with men, born from a virgin, the womb of the mother remaining closed, with all integrity of dignity preserved. Whence the prophet Ezekiel says: “And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be closed, and shall not be opened; and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it, and it shall be closed. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord” (Ezek. 44:2-3).
Therefore the virgin conceived, because “the gate shall be closed, and no man shall pass through it.” After childbirth the virgin remained [a virgin], because “the Lord the God of Israel entered through it, and it was closed.” The very Lord God of Israel entered through it, made man as the psalm says: “Like a bridegroom coming forth from his chamber” (Ps. 18:6). And though man, nevertheless a prince. And as another psalm says: “Free among the dead” (Ps. 87:6), “he shall sit to eat bread before the Lord” (Ezek. 46:3).
What bread? “My food,” he says, “is to do the will of my Father who is in heaven” (John 4:34). God with us—not as at the solemnities of the Mass we say “The Lord be with you,” but as Isaiah says more openly elsewhere: “For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:6).
Because that new and unusual conception was the mystery of a great thing, therefore the prophet premised: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Is. 7:14). For it is lawful for none of the faithful to say or think that absurdity conceived and invented by your understanding, that she conceived from the substance of God. Rather, she conceived from God, that is, by the power and virtue of God, since she conceived not by human usage nor by any seed of man. For he who without seed of man first created man from nothing, could without seed of man create the man Christ from something, that is, from the flesh of his mother.
And since if conceived by human usage, he would not have been immune from original sin, nor free among the dead—in order that he alone might be free among the dead, as the Psalmist says, and immune from sin—therefore it was necessary that he be born without sin, that is, without intercourse of man, from a virgin.
Therefore God assumed man into the unity of person, by his uncreated goodness, not ours, and by great necessity, not his but ours, and for a great reason to be approved by you, if you wish either to admit it reasonably when heard, or exclude it reasonably. Man therefore was made, not ceasing to be what he was, but assuming what he was not. Not by conversion of divinity into flesh, but by assumption of humanity into God, we say God was made man.
And just as the rational soul and flesh, on account of the unity of person, is one man—although the soul is entirely of one nature and the flesh of another, nor is the soul converted into flesh nor the flesh into soul, but with both natures remaining, the unity of person is preserved—so God and man, on account of the unity of person, is one Christ; although God was neither converted into man, nor man into God; but with the nature of God and man divided, the undivided unity of the person of God and man is preserved and adored.
On the Virgin Birth and Transmission of Scripture
THE Jew CHALLENGES:
That passage you placed from Jeremiah: “After these things God was seen on earth and conversed with men” (Baruch 3:38), and many other things annexed above for this use—Jeremiah did not say this, did not write it. But if you find this written in Jeremiah, I concede that the other things were most truly said. But if you do not find it in Jeremiah, lay aside such great animosity against us. Blush at the invented falsehood against us, and acknowledge that the first truth remains in the law and prophets among us.
For even that which all you Christians bring forth with such severe mouth against us: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Is. 7:14)—Isaiah did not say this, did not write it, but only: “Behold,” he says, “a young woman shall conceive and bear a son.” However, even if Isaiah had said this very thing which you say, nevertheless he did not add what you add on your part, that the virgin remained in conception and that after childbirth the virgin remained. This neither Isaiah nor any other prophet said.
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONDS:
Because Christ is truth, the faith of Christ needs no falsehood, nor is there any place for falsehood in the Church of Christ. What we bring forth as written in the law and prophets, we have received from you as written in the law and prophets. For the Church of Christ received the law and prophets from you, and what it received from you it has preserved unchanged through so many ages even to these times.
In the times of Ptolemy king of Egypt, seventy interpreters, then the most learned doctors of your people, interpreted the law and prophets from Hebrew into Greek. Our people afterwards interpreted from Greek into Latin, word for word, or sense for sense. From those very first exemplars we have received whatever we hold written in the law and prophets. Read the new, read the old books of the Old Testament; read among the Greeks, read among the Latins—never will you find among us variety in the law or prophets, but the same truth everywhere and the unity of truth in law and prophets you will find among us throughout the whole world.
That which I placed from Jeremiah, Jeremiah wrote and said. The whole Church of Christ throughout the world testifies that Jeremiah said this, and from the first times and from your first interpreters received it thus, and the Church of Christ has held it without any controversy of alteration. For although it is not held in that book which is titled under the name of Jeremiah, nevertheless Jeremiah said this, because he who wrote this, Baruch, who was Jeremiah’s secretary, wrote it from the mouth of Jeremiah. Whence thus it is read in Jeremiah: “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord which he spoke to him in the volume of a book” (Jer. 36:4).
On Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled
THE CHRISTIAN CONTINUES:
From these and other examples of the Scriptures we have believed, and we assert it must be believed, that Christ is God and man, the essence of each nature entirely distinct. We say that he has already come, because we see that the signs which the prophets predicted concerning his coming have already followed. For to take one from many, Jacob blessing Judah his son says: “The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, until he come that is to be sent; and he shall be the expectation of the nations” (Gen. 49:10).
Since therefore already through thousands of years the prince from Judah and the ruler from his thigh have failed, and almost now even the very name of the Jews has vanished, we say that Christ has already come, the expectation of the nations. And in the psalm it is said: “Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see; and bow down their back always” (Ps. 68:24). Since therefore already throughout the whole world your back is bowed down to other nations, already the prince from Judah and the ruler from his thigh has failed, and therefore we say that Christ has already come, the expectation of the nations.
Likewise, because it has been fulfilled: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and shall be converted to the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall adore in his sight” (Ps. 21:28), we say that Christ has already come, the expectation of the nations, to whom be honor and dominion through eternal ages of ages. Therefore those who have believed in him shall not be confounded, but those who have not believed, hear concerning the Gentiles: “Let them all be confounded that adore graven things and that glory in their idols” (Ps. 96:7). And hear also concerning the Jews: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and with the just let them not be written” (Ps. 68:29).
On Images and Idolatry
THE Jew OBJECTS:
Therefore from this your conclusion it can be gathered: Let the Christians also be confounded, because Christians also adore graven images and glory in their idols. For you fashion the very God sometimes as a wretched man hanging on the gibbet affixed to the cross with nails, which is horrible even to see, and you adore it, and around the cross you depict as a half-boy the sun somehow terrified and the fleeing moon as a half-girl mournful, hiding the horn of her light; but sometimes you fashion God seated on a sublime throne, and with outstretched hand making signs; and around him as if with great prestige of dignity, an eagle, and a man, a calf and a lion.
Christians carve out, fabricate and paint these images wherever they can and however they can, and they adore and worship them: which the law given by God entirely forbids to be done. For thus it is written in Exodus: “You shall not make to yourself a graven thing, nor any likeness of things that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that are in the waters; you shall not adore them, nor serve them” (Ex. 20:4). Therefore the law eradicates every graven image, and judges with horrible condemnation him who makes one.
THE CHRISTIAN RESPONDS:
If the law ever thus condemns every graven image, and in no way is it permitted to make a likeness of any thing, then Moses sinned, who fashioned likenesses of things and carved them out; indeed the Lord sinned, who commanded them to be fashioned and carved. For in Exodus the Lord thus commanded: “You shall make me a sanctuary according to all the likeness of the tabernacle which I will show you, and of all the vessels for the service thereof” (Ex. 25:8-9).
Likewise after a few things: “You shall make also a plate of the purest gold, wherein you shall grave with engraver’s work, Holy to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36). Likewise: “You shall take two onyx stones, and shall grave on them the names of the children of Israel, the work of a sculptor and the cutting of a gem” (ibid. 9-11). Behold, likenesses of things are fashioned and ordered to be fashioned by the Lord. Behold, sculptures are made for the Lord in onyx stones and gold.
Moreover in the book of Kings it is read, where the temple is built for the Lord: “All the walls of the temple round about he carved with various figures and carvings, and engravings, and he made in them cherubim, and palm trees and various pictures as if standing out from the wall and coming forth” (III Kings 6:29). “He made also the molten sea of ten cubits, and it stood upon twelve oxen” (III Kings 7:23-25). The same after a few words: “He made in the oracle two cherubim of olive wood, of ten cubits in height” (III Kings 6:23).
Behold, he openly names pictures and graven images, not disapproving but approving those sculptures which exist made in the temple of the Lord. For God himself showed that he accepted all things that were made by approving them. “And the priests could not stand and minister because of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord” (ibid. 11).
Therefore God prohibited that graven images be made, and yet, as we read, graven images were commanded by God to be made. Therefore the command of the law must be appropriately accepted, indeed must be understood as the lawgiver himself declares. “You shall not make,” he says, “a graven thing” (Ex. 20:4), etc., and he demonstrates the reason: “You shall not adore them nor serve them” (ibid. 5). Therefore, with the idolatry of faithless worship excluded, graven images were made by them and can be made by us.
We make pictures for God, we make carvings for God, we make sculptures for God; but we neither worship them nor adore them with divine cult. For we say that the very cross, which we call the holy cross, is certainly wood, not God, and we say it has no power in itself or from itself. And after it is sanctified by pontifical blessing in memory of the Lord’s passion, now we lift up, adore and venerate the cross not with divine but with due veneration cult, as it is said in the psalm: “Adore his footstool, for it is holy” (Ps. 98:5).
We say “with due veneration cult” for this reason, because in one way we say: “A Christian worships God,” in another way we say “a farmer cultivates his field.” Likewise in one way we say “a man adores God,” in another way we say “a man adores some man of some dignity, or some sign of some dignity.”
Conclusion
THE CHRISTIAN’S FINAL EXHORTATION:
Recite therefore the Scriptures, the law certainly and the prophets; you will see all those things which I have said written in the law or prophets, or the same words or having entirely the same sense. Consider, I say, and reconsider what you are expecting, and how long you are expecting, and by what sign when they arrive you will recognize the expected things.
For he who was promised to be sent has already come sent, as the signs attest by which Jesus Christ was foretold, the expectation of the nations, to whom be honor and dominion through all ages of ages. Amen.
Note on the Translation
This is a translation of major sections from Gilbert Crispin’s Disputatio Judaei cum Christiano de Fide Christiana. The complete work is quite extensive (approximately 70-80 printed pages in the Patrologia Latina edition) and covers detailed theological debates on:
- The nature of God and the Trinity
- The Incarnation and Virgin Birth
- Messianic prophecies and their fulfillment
- The relationship between Old and New Testaments
- Circumcision and other ceremonial laws
- The calling of the Gentiles
- Scriptural interpretation methodology
- The reliability of textual transmission
- Images and idolatry
The work is significant as one of the earliest and most important medieval Christian-Jewish polemical dialogues, notable for its relatively respectful tone and its attempt at reasoned theological discourse rather than mere invective. Gilbert Crispin (c. 1055-1117) was a Benedictine monk and abbot of Westminster who studied under Anselm of Canterbury. According to his dedicatory letter, the disputation was based on actual conversations with an educated Jew from Mainz who was familiar with both Jewish and Christian scriptures.
The work represents the Adversus Judaeos (Against the Jews) genre of medieval theological literature, though it is more dialogical and less polemical than many later examples of this genre. The Jewish interlocutor is given substantive arguments drawn from Scripture and reason, and is portrayed as learned and worthy of engagement, which was unusual for this type of literature in the medieval period.
Source. Patrologia Latina – Translated by Claude.AI. Gilbert Crispin, Disputatio Iudaei et Christiani. Migne, PL 159. 1903.