Page 21

Ruether and other modern writers do make some very valid critical observations about this

literature. It is true that the dialogues were written from a Christian perspective; they always result in a

Christian "victory"; and some less than civil, even cruel, language is used at times. There are other

points, however, that need to be kept in mind. Even Ruether, after providing an abundance of opinion

that these dialogues do not represent authentic dialogue, admits: "Nevertheless, this should not lead us to

suppose that the disputes would were not real and that Christians were not in fact replying to a real

polemic that was taking place between the faiths."

Even with acknowledging these characteristics, it is still probable that these dialogues still

represent an authentic discussion that was being carried on between the faiths. For example, the very

existence of these dialogues plus the abundance of them should argue for their basic authenticity. If they

were no longer needed because of the triumphalist victory of the post-Constantinian Church, why did they

continue to be produced? Did the Christian community simply perpetrate an enormous fraud in

continuing to produce falsified literature when it was no longer needed, as it may have been needed in the

second century when JP and Trypho were written?

I recall the previously cited comments by both Skarsaune and Horbury who have traced the

evidence that contacts between the communities in the area of Biblical discussion continued at a

surprising level throughout this period. Neither one of these writers would justify any of the intemperate

language that may have passed, but they have provided many evidences of reality that can be discerned in

them and in the broader literature of the age that have often been overlooked.

It is easy to view this and other ancient literature from the modern perspective of Jewish-

Christian dialogue, rather than to look at this literature on its own and from the perspective of its own age.

The modern term "anti-Semitism" comes loaded with a distinctive meaning, especially since the horrors

of the Nazi period. Such terminology should not be uncritically read back into ancient literature without

serious consideration given to the tremendous differences between those times and the modern period.

More serious reflection that is not driven by Christian post-Holocaust guilt is needed. No one should

Ruether, 166.