The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes on the Jews
A Forgotten Anti-Jewish Voice of Early Christianity
The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes is one of many largely unremarkable and somewhat unclassifiable early Christian writings and its principal interest for scholars is a mixture of whether the unidentified pagan - who is the rhetorical butt of work - is the famous Porphyry of Tyre or not and how Macarius Magnes - who obviously had heretical tendencies towards Arianism - avoided accusations of heresy from his more orthodox Christian confrères.
A sub-issue that has only recently been clarified is just who Macarius Magnes was. In so far as Goulet has pointed out - albeit by implication of his own scholarship more than anything else - that Macarius Magnes (lit. 'Blessed Magnetos') can be reasonably identified with the traditional candidate for the authorship of the text: Macarius (the Bishop of Magnesia). (1) Further as Goulet also shows the title should not be translated as Apocriticus but rather as Logos, (2) which further makes sense in relation to the pagan author Macarius is arguing against being a neo-Platonic philosopher - logos being a very important philosophical term in neo-Platonism and Christians frequently identified Jesus with the neo-Platonic logos - usually ascribed as being Porphyry.
As Dye has been at pains to point out however Macarius' work is not actually theology per se, but rather Christian apologetics with a dash of theology thrown in for good measure. (3) Now what is interesting for us - and the subject is largely unremarked on by Goulet, Crafer, von Harnack and Dye - is Macarius' sheer hostility to the jews (perhaps because he belongs to the anti-jewish tradition among the Christian fathers). Indeed, even for the veteran critic of the jews like myself it is somewhat surprising to see the amount of proverbial poison dripping out of Macarius' words on this subject.
Rather than translate Goulet's French translation of the original Greek I have chosen - for the sake of time and the ability of the reader to check for themselves - to use the abridged English edition of the Apocriticus of Crafer to provide the quotations that I will use to elucidate Macarius' comments on the jews. (4)
Macarius' first mention of the jews is to be found in the second book of the Apocriticus (we have only a single passage of the first) and is as follows:
'For His accusers were Jews, and His judges were Romans, both of them a barbarian race, which does not lay claim to the language of freedom and has not grasped the subtlety of Hellenic education.' (5)
In this we can see the absolute distaste that Macarius has for the jews as he is taking them to task on three different but linked issues.
The first of which is the most obvious and common of all Christian charges against the jews: that of Deicide. In other words, Macarius is accusing the jews specifically of murdering the Messiah (i.e. they were his accusers and as such were the party that made sure that Jesus was executed on the cross) and that the Romans merely played a secondary role to this.
This is brought out by Macarius' second point in that he asserts that both the jews and Romans are barbarians (i.e. uncivilized) and to support his point he asserts that neither of these two peoples adhere to the 'language of freedom' (probably meaning democracy as opposed to plutocracy and autocracy) or understand the 'subtlety of Hellenic education'. This might appear somewhat intellectually tangled at first, but it is not hard to untangle it and divine Macarius' meaning by understanding that Macarius is using three charges to make his second (as well as his third) point.
These are very simply that he is accusing the jews and Romans of being uncouth and uncivilized as peoples (i.e. are barbarians), that they are despotic and unjust by nature (i.e. lack the 'language of freedom') and that they are pale imitators of the ancient Greeks (as both groups took a lot of ideas from them) and don't comprehend the actual meaning of the Greek teachings (with the implication that Macarius does).
If we summarize and synthesize these three charges together and apply them to Macarius' antipathy to the jews (and to a lesser extent the Romans) in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus. Then what we get is a position whereby the jews have accused Jesus because they cannot accept his teachings (i.e. are barbarians) as these will completely invalidate their precious religion (i.e. they cannot grasp the need for sceptical philosophical inquiry and progress towards intellectual perfection as enunciated by the ancient Greeks) and accordingly the plutocratic rule of the priestly castle and the autocratic rule of the jewish kings will be brought down (i.e. the Athenian ideal of democracy [rule by the majority of the eligible citizenry (not 'the people')]) by the egalitarian and democratic teachings of Jesus (i.e. the lack of a jewish 'language of freedom').
If we apply these charges to Macarius' antipathy for the Romans for their believing the jews about Jesus and executing him. Then we come up with a far less condemnatory synthesis in that the Romans are uncivilized barbarians from Italy who have snuffed out the democratic light of the Greek world with their militaristic invasion and occupation of Greece resulting in the imposition of authoritarian rule and the destruction of the Greek ideal. All while the Romans have professed to be following and enacting the ideals of ancient Greece (meaning that they do comprehend 'the language of freedom' because they do 'understand the subtitles and the purposes of Greek thought') which concomitantly leads to the Romans believing the charges made by enemies of Jesus simply because it was practical for their oppressive regime to believe them (i.e. to placate the fractious and rebellious jews) and not because they had actual animosity against Jesus.
In essence then we can see that once we bring out Macarius' meaning: he is actually charging the jews with being the principle malign agents behind the murder of the Messiah and that the Romans are guilty only of performing the act under duress from the jews and without comprehension of what they were doing.
Thus, we can see to Macarius the jews are not just guilty of deicide, but rather are a kind of devilish entity that is warring against Christians and Christianity, while yet further not being just a religion but rather a nation that has all but declared war on the world around it and seeks to manipulate more powerful opponents to enact its whims.
The third point that Macarius is making is linked to this jewish status as a nation as opposed to a mere religious group in that they - according to Macarius - are despotic by nature (i.e. because they refuse both the Greek ideas of democracy and philosophy and the - to Macarius' mind - egalitarian teachings of the Messiah), seek to manipulate those they despise to do their bidding (i.e. their use of the Romans) and that by doing so they will unscrupulously use the Romans' lack of comprehension of Greek ideas against them and so expose their ruthlessness as well as their network of influential jews and their supporters, which they use to manipulate the Romans to do their bidding. (6)
We can see from this that Macarius is hardly a friend of the jews, but he goes a lot further than this in response to his pagan interlocutor in the second book of the Apocriticus.
To wit the pagan is made to state the following:
'I mean the argument about that Resurrection of His which is such common talk everywhere, as to why Jesus, after His suffering and rising again (according to your story), did not appear to Pilate who punished Him and said He had done nothing worthy of death, or to Herod King of the Jews, or to the High-priest of the Jewish race, or to many men at the same time and to such as were worthy of credit, and more particularly among Romans both in the Senate and among the people. ' (7)
To which Macarius responds:
'Come now, and let us examine carefully that other action also which does not seem to you to have been rightly done. I mean why the Saviour, after having conquered the power of death and returned on the third day after His Passion from the depths of the earth, did not appear to Pilate. It was in order that those who have learnt how to do away with what is good, should not do away with the true fact. It was to prevent any base suspicion from base men from creeping in and stealing away the truth of the Lord's Passion. It was to prevent the unscrupulous from thinking that what took place was untrue, that the tongues of the Jews might not again hiss out the poison of the dragon, and that the fact might not become the universal scandal of the world.' (8)
As well as stating:
'Because of the likelihood of such happenings, and of such foolish talking on the part of the Jews, He did not appear to Pilate when He rose from the dead, lest that which had been done rightly should be judged as a deceitful trick. Nor did He approach men of repute of the company of the Romans, that there might not seem to be need of human support and co-operation for the confirmation of the story of the Resurrection. But He made Himself manifest to women who were not able to give help, nor to persuade any one about the Resurrection. Then He appeared to the disciples who were also themselves without power, and largely obscure because of their poverty. This He did fittingly and well, that the story of the Resurrection might not be heralded by the help of the power of the world's rulers, but that it might be strengthened and confirmed through men who were inferior and made no show in their life according to the flesh, so that the proclamation might not be a human thing, but a divine.' (9)
What is interesting in the above - aside from the logical objection to the Gospel narrative (and Macarius' pretty banal even lame response to it a-la why Jesus didn't go and appear before the Roman Senate) - is that Macarius when questioned as to why after his resurrection Jesus didn't return to his accusers (i.e. Herod and Caiaphas the High Priest) simply asserts that to do so would defeat the object of his resurrection as both would 'hiss out the poison of the dragon' (i.e. the lies of the devil) and seek to kill Jesus (again) and use the tale of his resurrection to support their authority by claiming his miracles as a sign of their divine right to rule and make absolute religious decisions.
In this we can see even more clearly that Macarius doesn't particularly blame the Romans for the death of Jesus, but rather that he places the blame more or less entirely at the door of the jews who Macarius implies are the devil's own nation and do his whims on a frequent and even daily basis. (10)
Further to this we can see that at the end of the second part of Macarius' quoted response: he alludes to the fact that the resurrection would need reject the assistance of the power of the world's rulers by not appearing to them as to do so would imply acquiescence and political support for their rule.
Now if but think about this a moment we should note that the obvious reading is that it is directly solely at the Romans as the worldly power, but when we think about this assertion in the light of the above discussion about Macarius' belief that the jews were the principle agents who had manipulated the Roman Empire to their whims. Then it is logical that Macarius is adding a subtler secondary meaning to his assertion in proclaiming that while Rome maybe the ruler of the world: Rome is itself ruled by the power of the jews. (11)
In essence Macarius is suggesting that Roman policy was significantly although not totally influenced by jewish interests.
Macarius continues on this theme of the jews being the agents of the devil and the anti-Christ when he has the pagan argue thus:
'Come now, let us listen to that shadowy saying also which was directed against the Jews, when He said, "You cannot hear my word, because you are of your father the Slanderer, and you wish to do the lusts of your father," Explain to us then who the Slanderer is, who is the father of the Jews. For those who do the lusts of their father, do so fittingly, as yielding to the desire of their father, and out of respect for him. And if the father is evil, the charge of evil must not be fastened on the children. Who then is that father, by doing whose lusts they did not hearken to Christ? For when the Jews said, "We have one father, even God," He sets aside this statement by saying, "You are of your father the Slanderer" (that is, you are of the Slanderer).' (12)
To which Macarius responds:
'It is not that the Slanderer himself is the Jews' father. Nor does Christ say so. The words do not mean "You are of your father the Slanderer," but "You are of the Father of the Slanderer.” So the slander does not originate in himself, but in his father's promptings. In fact, their relation may be compared with that of the divine Son and Father. As those who believe the Son are brought to the Father as His heirs, so those who believe the Slanderer are dragged from their true Father by that Antichrist, and brought to his father who is the opposite of God.
You want to know who the father of the Slanderer is, and what the slander was. You have heard of the fall of man from Paradise, and the slander of the serpent, when sin and death entered. It was thence that the Slanderer and his father got their terribleness. The serpent slandered men to God, and God to men. His "father" was a spiritual force who took possession of him. This was he of whom Job said, "He waxed headstrong against the Almighty." This angel of deceit found the serpent, and by sowing in him the seed of slander, became the father of the Slanderer. When therefore the Jews rejected Christ's words and turned from His Father, they turned by their rebellion to the rebellious father of the serpent. That was why Christ spoke these words.' (13)
Now on the face of it you could interpret these as an attempt by Macarius to divorce the jews from the consequences of their actions - as the possible converted jew Saint Pacian of Barcelona did - (14) but when we examine the text we can see that Macarius; in trying to defend Christianity from a criticism of the implications about the jews being the biological children of the devil, ends up showing his own hostility to the jews.
Macarius proceeds to qualify his views that while the jews aren't the biological children of the devil (and hence are in theory at least salvageable) per se: they had willingly chosen to become the mouthpiece for the devil by their rejection (15) and murder of Jesus, which they reaffirm through their continued existence and near declaration of total war against Christianity.
In doing so he argues that the jews are like fanatical rebels in the service of the anti-Christ who war constantly with the God they profess to follow and are - by implication in relation to near-universal policy towards rebels in the ancient and classical world - to be eliminated so that the rebellion does not spread.
This particular interpretation is supported by Macarius' next mention of the jews when he states - in relation to why Jesus as the Messiah allowed himself to be insulted on the cross (which Macarius thinks he has cogently answered) - (16) that:
'If He had terrified Pilate with fateful portents, if He had frightened the priests with signs of a novel kind, if He had reduced the Jewish nation by the sight of apparitions, it would have resulted in that which was false combating the truth. ' (17)
In this we can see that once again Macarius has brought up the defining moment of the Christian faith in the crucifixion: where Jesus is facing the ultimate rejection by jews in that they have had him executed by their manipulative guile. (18) What Macaricus then says defines his point about the jews being rebels in that he states that if Jesus had performed novel miracles before Caiaphas and his priesthood and/or produced apparitions to onlookers on his being crucified: then he would have been revealed as the true Messiah.
Accordingly what would have then happened was that the jews would cease to exist, because they would have all become Christians (i.e. 'reduce the jewish nation'). Now if we apply that same line of thought to what Macarius says about the jews in relation to their being rebels then only one answer presents itself: Christians are in Macarius' view to either kill or convert the jews as either fanatical agents of the devil or those lead into error by his wiles. (19)
This logic is supported by Macarius' view of the total war having been declared by the jews on Christianity, which finds expression to his mind in the fact that jews sent 'false epistles' to Christians around the Roman Empire and had begun to promote themselves as 'false apostles'. (20) The mission of these jewish 'false apostles' and their 'false epistles' is clear in Macarius' vision of the world in that they are seeking to disrupt and reverse the spread of Christianity by destroying the credibility of its principle authority (Saint Paul) by teaching contradictory things in his name. (21)
This also once again plays into Macarius' theme about the jews 'hissing out the poison of the dragon' and that the jews are metaphysical 'children of the devil' indicating the strident nature of Macarius' fairly extreme anti-Judaism.
This is a radical message by any means and has plenty of precedent in later Christian history when Christian rulers gave the jews a simple choice: convert or be executed. Obviously the Christians of Macarius' time and later periods were quite different to the Christians we are so familiar with today.
We can see from this that a too superficial reading of Macarius' words is dangerous in part because there is a lot of meaning in his comments about jews that one can only extract by looking at how he is reasoning and the contextual meaning of what he said at the time that he said it. By doing this we can breath life back into Macarius' militant Christian faith and his strident anti-Judaism, which prefigures so much of the Christian relationship with the jews until the mid-20th century.
References
(1) Richard Goulet, 2004, 'Macarios de Magnésie 'Le Monogénès': Édition Critique et Traduction Française', 1st Edition, Vol. I, Vrin: Paris, pp. 56; 66-67
(2) Ibid., p. 47
(3) http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-07-53.html
(4) T. Crafer, 1919, 'The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes', 1st Edition, SPCK: London
(5) Ibid., p. 40
(6) See Ibid., pp.135-136 for jews being 'enslaved' by the Romans, but yet the jews have much power over the Romans.
(7) Ibid., p. 43
(8) Ibid., p. 44
(9) Ibid., pp. 45-46
(10) Macarius restates this in more explicit terms on Ibid., p. 115
(11) This is confirmed by Macarius' exposition on Roman being the physical power, but that a significant amount of influence in relation to Roman action was in the hands of the jews: particularly Herod and Caiaphas in Ibid., p. 66.
(12) Ibid., pp. 48-49
(13) Ibid., pp. 49-50
(14) On Saint Pacian's writing on the subject of the jews please see the following article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/saint-pacian-on-the-jews
(15) This is further supported by Macarius' comment that the jews simply wouldn't listen to the truth of Jesus' exegesis in Crafer, Op. Cit., p. 61.
(16) Ibid., p. 56
(17) Ibid., p. 54
(18) Hence Macarius' description of the 'fall of the jews' (Ibid, p. 86) and his subsequent description that it was for no other reason than for rituals that the jews did not understand or keep to themselves any more (Ibid., p.106).
(19) Macarius describes (Ibid., pp. 99-103) in some detail the lengths to which Christians are to behave like jews when in Judea and Romans in Rome meaning that they are to adapt themselves to their environment to better promote the salvation of mankind by promoting the Christian faith and again converts.
(20) Ibid., p. 99
(21) Confirmed by Macarius' short discussion of the 'plots of the jews' against the Christians (Ibid., p. 127)