The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik

in Modern Jewish History that, for the most part, Jewish conversion to Christianity in the modern period was an act of convenience rather than conviction, certainly during the Enlightenment but even beyond. It was, as he coins it, a component of “radical assimilation” whereby Jews could more easily, and more thoroughly, become part of European society.⁸³ Endelman writes that “with few exceptions conversion was a secular rather than a spiritual act.”⁸⁴ While his thesis remains a matter of scholarly debate, no one has yet looked at the obscure figure of Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik and his work as a response to this phenomenon. Aside from the fact that Soloveitchik remained largely under the radar in these debates and, as far as I have been able to determine, contributed nothing overtly to them, his interest in Christianity as illustrated in his Jewish commentary to the Gospels, written in the very decades when conversion activity was at its height in Eastern Europe, suggests that he had at least basic knowledge of what was going on.⁸⁵

      The role of conversion in Soloveitchik’s project is conspicuous in its absence. It seems clear, however, that as part of Lithuanian ultra-traditional society, he seemed to be a man for whom religious conviction mattered above all. While we can never know how Soloveitchik felt about conversions of convenience, his commentary does not address that audience nor would it be convincing to it, since most converts of convenience had abandoned Judaism anyway. Endelman states: “For most Jewish converts, baptism was a desacralized rite of passage and often no more than a bureaucratic formality. It was formulaic, not transformative.”⁸⁶ Soloveitchik seemed to focus on those for whom doctrine and religious truth reigned supreme; thus, he utilized the entire weight of the rabbinic tradition to make his case. That is, the extent to which he is responding to conversion at all would be a response to the convert of conviction who still lived inside the orbit of Judaism.

      Soloveitchik’s case, as we will see, is not that Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, the former being true and the latter being false, or even idolatrous. This would be closer to the medieval Jewish polemics against Christianity and, in a more moderate way, the Reformers’ polemical project from Abraham Geiger to Leo Baeck.⁸⁷ Soloveitchik does not write his commentary to falsify Christianity or even to show its deficiencies but rather to show its common cause with Judaism—that is, to claim that it is true as Judaism is true. As I read it, Qol Qore is a text for Jews seriously considering Christian claims, wherever they have been exposed to them, and to Gentiles who have been taught to believe that Judaism is an inferior religion; thus, emancipated Jews should become Christians.

      This may partially explain why Soloveitchik published Qol Qore in French, German, and Polish before publishing the Hebrew original. This work essentially argues that the attempt to convert the Jew to the “true religion” is not necessary—not because Christianity is false but because both Christianity and Judaism are true. The rabbinic materials that he brings to bear in his commentary serve each community differently. For the Jew, it is to make the New Testament part of Torah. For the Gentile, it is to enable him to understand Judaism through reading it next to, and often intertwined with, rabbinic literature. Soloveitchik hoped to convince the Gentile reader that without the rabbinic lens, the Gospel cannot be fully understood. In short, Christianity needs rabbinic Judaism for its truth to shine.

      For Jews who would respond by saying: “If both are true, I will convert for the sake of convenience because my lot in this world will be better by living as a Christian,” I am not sure how Soloveitchik would have responded, aside from saying that because you are born a Jew, you should remain a Jew. From his commentary, I do not think he would say that the Jewish convert has moved to a false religion. In any case, Qol Qore is an insider’s guide to the truth of Christianity through the lens of the truth of Judaism. It is a work for those seeking answers to religious questions and not an apology for Judaism against Christianity (although he does claim that most Christians simply misunderstand their Gospel).

      Moving to the time of Soloveitchik’s commentary, the work of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews (the London Society) continued and became more popular and arguably more effectual through the work of the missionary Alexander McCaul (1799–1863).⁸⁸ McCaul was a professor of Hebrew and rabbinical literature at Kings College, London, and was offered the bishopric in Jerusalem in 1841. A fascinating and important figure of the nineteenth century, he published numerous works related to Judaism and Christianity. One of his most popular—and, for our purposes, most important—works is The Old Paths: Or, the Talmud Tested by Scripture: Being a Comparison of the Principles and Doctrines of Modern Judaism, with the Religion of Moses, published in London in 1836. McCaul was learned in rabbinic literature and fluent in its requisite languages, spent considerable time in Palestine, and lived for years among Jews in Poland, where he mastered classical Hebrew and Aramaic. Even as a missionary, he was quite a philosemite.⁸⁹ He strongly defended the Jews in the 1840 Damascus blood libel, organizing a document signed by fifty-seven Jewish converts to Christianity that Jews never use Christian blood for any ritual purpose.⁹⁰ He also criticized Napoleon’s brother Jerome’s handling of the Jews in France.⁹¹ He was clearly not typical of missionaries of that period.

      The Old Paths cites copiously from the body of rabbinic literature to argue that the rabbinic sages erred in their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and that modern Judaism, as an heir to the rabbis, is mistaken. In a later text, McCaul compares rabbinic Judaism to popery. “If asked to give you a concise yet adequate idea of this system [of rabbinic law], I should say it is Jewish popery; just as popery may be defined by Gentile rabbinism. Its distinguishing feature is that it asserts the transmission of an oral or a traditional law of equal authority with the written law of God, at the same time, like popery, it resolves tradition into the present opinions of the existing Church.”⁹² McCaul’s missionizing message was for Jews to return to their authentic Mosaic religion that is best represented by Protestant Christianity.⁹³ This can be contrasted with other works, such as August Rohling’s (1839–1931) The Talmud Jew (Münster, 1871), which was an indictment of Jews and Judaism as a primitive religion that mandated attacking Christians. This was also a popular book, and Soloveitchik could have been aware of its existence, especially given its title.

      McCaul, in line with missionaries such as Franz Delitzsch and Hermann Strack, had a deep and abiding respect for both the Jews and Judaism, even as he maintained the superiority of Christianity. McCaul even received accolades from prominent Jews such as the important historian Isaak Markus Jost (1793–1860). The Old Paths was popular during Soloveitchik’s lifetime. When it first appeared in 1837, it sold ten thousand copies in its first year and was reissued in a second edition in 1846.⁹⁴ While it may be unlikely that Soloveitchik read McCaul’s Old Paths in the original, as we do not know his command of English, more likely he knew of the Hebrew translation, Netivot shalom, translated by the Jewish apostate and member of the London Society Stanislaus Hoga.⁹⁵ Hoga, who died in 1860, is another fascinating personality of this period whom we will discuss below.

      I suggest that Soloveitchik likely knew of Netivot shalom because it was a widely disseminated text on a topic that was clearly important to him. Moreover, it was covered in the Hebrew press and was the topic of numerous critical responses by well-known Jewish writers.⁹⁶ Four lengthy responses to McCaul’s work came from the pens of Isaac ber Levenson (1788–1860), Samuel Joseph Fuenn (1819–1881), Eliezer Zweifel (1818–1871), and Raphael ben Elijah Kazin (1818–1871). Levenson, Fuenn, and Zweifel were prominent maskilic figures in Russia. Kazin was a rabbi in Syria. While these responses may not have been particularly well-known, they were covered in the Jewish press and illustrate the seriousness with which Jews in Russia took to McCaul’s work.⁹⁷

      The work of these maskilic figures was focused on the emancipation of the Jews in Russia and on civil rights. McCaul claimed that adherence to the Talmud prevented Jews from being trusted members of Russian society. This represents a nonracial kind of anti-Semitism, quite different from the hateful work of people such as Houston Stuart Chamberlain (1855–1927), Wagner’s son-in-law, whose Foundations of the Nineteenth Century is the classic anti-Semitic work of that period; or Johann Eisenmenger (1654–1704).⁹⁸ McCaul seemed to have wanted Jews to retain a sense of their Mosaic tradition and to become “Hebrew Christians.”