Yahudi düşünür Profiat Duran’ın İsa’nın ulûhiyetine dair eleştirileri
Files
Date
2019-06-26
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Yahudi-Hıristiyan ilişkileri tarihini anlamada tarafların kendileri hakkında yazdıkları kadar, birbirlerine karşı kaleme aldıkları apolojiler ve polemikler de önemlidir. Yahudi düşünür Profiat Duran on dördüncü yüzyılın sonlarında İspanya’da, Yahudi-Hıristiyan ilişkilerinin sancılı olduğu bir süreçte Hıristiyan inançlarına yönelik bir reddiye yazmıştır. Kelimmat ha-Goyim (Goyların Utancı) adlı bu reddiye İsa’nın tanrılığına ilişkin detaylı itirazların yanı sıra Meryem’in bakireliği iddiası, vaftiz, evharistiya, Papa’nın konumu, Kutsal Kitap çevirilerinde yapılan hatalar gibi çeşitli konulara da değinmektedir. Duran’ın İsa’nın tanrılığına karşı eleştirilerini konu edinen bu makale iki ana kısımdan oluşmaktadır. Makalenin ilk bölümünde, Duran'ın İsa’nın tanrılığını kanıtlamak için Hıristiyanların Tanah’tan ve Yeni Ahit külliyatından getirdikleri delilleri nasıl eleştirdiği ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca bu kısımda İsa’nın tanrılığı bağlamında onun mucizelerine ve İsa’nın nasıl olağanüstü işler yapabildiğine dair Yahudi tartışmalarına değinilmiştir. Makalenin ikinci bölümü, Duran'ın, İsa'nın neden Tanrı olamayacağını kanıtlamak için öne sürdüğü delilleri ele almaktadır. Makale, ayrıca, Hıristiyanlığa girmek zorunda bırakılan Profiat Duran’ın gizlice Yahudi inancını devam ettirdiğini öne sürmektedir.
As well as the works written by the parties about themselves, the apologies and polemics they wrote against each other are important in understanding the history of Jewish-Christian relations. In the late fourteenth century, when the Jewish-Christian relations were going through a difficult process, the Jewish philosopher Profiat Duran wrote a refutation of Christian doctrines in Spain. The refusal, Kelimmat ha-Goyim (The Shame of the Gentiles), addresses not only detailed objections against the deity of Jesus, but also various issues such as the claim of virginity of Mary, baptism, Eucharist, the position of the Pope, and mistakes in Bible translations. This article, which discusses Duran's critiques of Jesus' deity, consists of two main parts. The first part of the article deals with the issue that how Duran criticized the proofs that Christians brought from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to prove the divinity of Jesus. Besides, it examines Jesus’ miracles in the context of his deity, and Jewish discussions of how Jesus could do extraordinary things. The second part of the article scrutinizes the evidence that Duran put forward to prove why Jesus cannot be God. The article also suggests that Profiat Duran, who was forced to enter Christianity, secretly maintained Jewish faith.
As well as the works written by the parties about themselves, the apologies and polemics they wrote against each other are important in understanding the history of Jewish-Christian relations. In the late fourteenth century, when the Jewish-Christian relations were going through a difficult process, the Jewish philosopher Profiat Duran wrote a refutation of Christian doctrines in Spain. The refusal, Kelimmat ha-Goyim (The Shame of the Gentiles), addresses not only detailed objections against the deity of Jesus, but also various issues such as the claim of virginity of Mary, baptism, Eucharist, the position of the Pope, and mistakes in Bible translations. This article, which discusses Duran's critiques of Jesus' deity, consists of two main parts. The first part of the article deals with the issue that how Duran criticized the proofs that Christians brought from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to prove the divinity of Jesus. Besides, it examines Jesus’ miracles in the context of his deity, and Jewish discussions of how Jesus could do extraordinary things. The second part of the article scrutinizes the evidence that Duran put forward to prove why Jesus cannot be God. The article also suggests that Profiat Duran, who was forced to enter Christianity, secretly maintained Jewish faith.
Description
Yahudiler ve Hıristiyanlar arasında yazılmış olan reddiyelerin incelenmesi YahudiHıristiyan ilişkilerini anlayabilmek için önem taşımaktadır. Araştırmada esas alınan reddiyenin yazarı 1350 yılında İspanya’da doğmuştur. Yaşadığı tarihlerde ekonomik ve dinî karşıtlık gibi çok yönlü nedenler neticesinde Hıristiyanların Yahudiler üzerindeki baskı ve şiddetleri artmış ve bu baskılar pek çok Yahudinin gönüllü ya da zorla Hıristiyanlığa geçmesine sebep olmuştur. Reddiyenin yazarı Profiat Duran da 1391 yılında zorla vaftiz edilen Yahudilerdendir. Profiat Duran’ın nihai olarak hangi dine mensup olduğu tartışılmıştır. Duran’ın o dönemde Yahudilere uygulanan zorunlu vaftizden kaçtığı ve hiç Hıristiyan olmadığı iddia edilmiştir. Diğer yandan, onun zorla vaftiz edildiği ve sonrasında hayatının sonuna kadar Hıristiyan kaldığı da öne sürülmüştür. Bir başka iddiaya göre ise, Duran, zorunlu vaftizden kısa bir süre sonra Yahudiliğe geri dönmüştür. Bu makalede, Duran’ın zorunlu vaftizde görünürde Hıristiyan olduğunu ve bu olaydan sonra hayatını kripto Yahudi olarak sürdürdüğü görüşü önerilmektedir. Duran’ın Hıristiyanlık karşıtı iki polemik eser kaleme aldığı bilinmektedir. İlki, arkadaşı David Bonet Bongoron’a yazmış olduğu “İggeret al-Tehi Ke-Avoteyha” (Atalarınıza Benzemeyin Risalesi) adlı mektuptur. Yazarın Hıristiyanlık karşıtı ikinci eseri ise araştırmamızın da konusu olan “Kelimmat ha-Goyim” (Goyların Utancı) adlı eseridir. 1397 tarihinde yazılmış olan Kelimmat haGoyim on iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Yazar metinde ele aldığı her bir doktrine dair argümanları toplayıp değerlendirmiştir. Reddiyenin içeriğinde ağırlıklı olarak İsa’nın ulûhiyetine ilişkin itirazlar ele alınmakla birlikte, vaftiz, evharistiya, Papa’nın konumu, Meryem’in bakireliği iddiası, İsa’nın doğum tarihi meselesi ve Kutsal Kitap çevirilerindeki hatalar gibi pek çok konuya da değinilmektedir. Çalışmamız iki bölüm olarak ele alınmıştır. Makalenin ilk kısmı, Duran’ın, İsa Mesih’in tanrı olduğunu kanıtlamak için Hıristiyanların kullanmış olduğu delilleri nasıl çürüttüğünü ele almaktadır. İkinci kısımda, Duran’ın İsa’nın neden tanrı olamayacağını göstermek için kullandığı deliller değerlendirilmektedir. İlk olarak ne İsa’nın kendisinin ne de öğrencilerinin İsa’nın tanrılığı konusunda bir iddialarının ve hatta dertlerinin olmadığını ifade etmektedir. İsa’nın tanrılığı konusunda sonraki Hıristiyan teolog ve din adamları yanlış fikirlere sahip olmuşlar ve kitleleri kandırmışlardır. Bundan dolayı Duran eserinde, İsa’nın ilk öğrenci ve takipçilerine Hıristiyanların yakıştırdığı şekilde havari dememiş; onları yanlışa düşenler olarak isimlendirmiştir. Çünkü ona göre ilk nesil, birtakım nedenlerle yanlışa düşmüş olsalar da, yüksek bir zekâya sahip olmadıkları için başkalarını da yanlışa düşürmemişlerdir. Daha sonra gelen birtakım teologlar ise hem kendilerini hem de kitleleri kasıtlı olarak yoldan çıkarmışlar ve bu yüzden metinde “aldatanlar” olarak isimlendirilmişlerdir. Makalenin ilk bölümünde, Duran'ın İsa’nın tanrılığını kanıtlamak için Hıristiyanların Tanah’tan ve Yeni Ahit külliyatından getirdikleri delilleri nasıl eleştirdiği ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca bu kısımda İsa’nın tanrılığı bağlamında onun mucizelerine ve İsa’nın nasıl olağanüstü işler yapabildiğine dair Yahudi tartışmalarına değinilmiştir. Makalenin ikinci bölümü, Duran'ın, İsa'nın neden Tanrı olamayacağını kanıtlamak için öne sürdüğü delilleri ele almaktadır. İsa’nın kendi sözleri onun Tanrı olmadığını kanıtlamaktadır. O, söylemlerinde kendisinden daha yüce bir varlığa işaret etmiştir. Üstelik kendisini sürekli “insanoğlu” olarak isimlendirmiştir. Duran’a göre aynı şekilde İsa’nın öğrenci ve ilk takipçileri onu tanrı olarak görmemiştir. Pavlus da konuşmalarında Tanrı’nın tekliğine vurgu yapmıştır. Peki, o zaman insanlar neden İsa’yı Tanrı olarak görmüştür? Bu noktada Duran İsa’nın bazı söylemlerinin buna sebebiyet verdiğini düşünmektedir: “Ben ve Baba biriz” (Yuhanna 10:30); “Beni görmüş olan Baba’yı görmüştür.” (Yuhanna 14:9) vb. İsa’nın bu söylemleri sonradan gelen teologların bilinçli ya da bilinçsiz bir şekilde İsa’yı tanrılaştırmasına sebep olmuştur. Duran’a göre Yeni Ahit’te anlatılan İsa profili de, tanrı mefhumuyla uyuşmamaktadır. Çünkü orada İsa’nın şeytan tarafından denendiğinden bahsedilmektedir. Bu durum Tanrı için uygunsuzdur. Ayrıca İsa’nın bazı şeylere güç yetiremediğinden bahsedilir. Üstelik onun bazı vaatleri gerçekleşmemiştir ve bunu herkes müşahede edebilir. Sonuç olarak Profiat Duran reddiyesinde, Hıristiyanların inanç ve uygulamalarının hem İsa’nın kendi beyanıyla, hem de Kutsal Kitap pasajlarıyla örtüşmediğini kanıtlamaya çalışmaktadır. Yazara göre Hıristiyan dininin esaslarını belirlemede, İsa’nın, aklî zafiyetleri nedeniyle bazı şeyleri yanlış anlamış olan ilk takipçilerinden ziyade, sonraki teologlar etkili olmuştur. Hıristiyanlığın mevcut inanç sisteminden İsa ve havarilerinden çok bu teologlar sorumludur. Yazar reddiyesinde akıl ve mantık ilkelerine dayalı bir eleştiri yapmaya gayret etmiştir. Daha basit bir eleştirinin kendi döneminde ve coğrafyasında başarılı olamayacağını düşünmüş olabilir. Ayrıca eserinde sıklıkla Kutsal Kitap üzerinden deliller sunmaktadır. Bu açıdan reddiyesi, sonraki çalışmalara metin odaklı eleştiri konusunda öncülük etmiştir. Bununla birlikte, Duran’ın bazı konularda eleştirilerinin yüzeysel kaldığını söylemek mümkündür. Yazarın eserini Yahudilere ya da yeni Hıristiyanlığa geçmiş olan eski dindaşlarına yazdığı düşünülmektedir.
Examining the refutations written between Jews and Christians is important for understanding the history of JewishChristian relations. The author of the refutation, with which this article deals, was born in 1350 in Spain. As a result of multidimensional reasons such as economic and religious opposition, Christians’ oppression and violence against Jews increased during those days and caused many Jews to voluntarily or forcefully convert to Christianity. Profiat Duran, the author of the refutation, was one of the Jews forcibly baptized in 1391. The issue of which religion Profiat Duran ultimately adopted is very controversial. Firstly, Duran was said to have escaped the obligatory baptism of Jews at that time, and he was not a Christian at all. The second explanation, on the other hand, claimed that he was forcibly baptized and subsequently remained a Christian for the rest of his life. Lastly, Duran was claimed to have returned to Judaism shortly after the forcible baptism. This article suggests that Duran pretended to convert to Christianity in compulsory baptism, and he continued his later life as a crypto-Jew. Duran is known to have written two anti-Christian polemical works. The first is a letter entitled “Al-Tehi Ka-Avotekha” (Be Not like Thy Father), which was written to his friend David Bonet Bongoron. The second anti-Christian work of the author, which is the subject of our research, is “Kelimmat ha-Goyim” (The Shame of the Gentiles). Kelimmat ha-Goyim, written in 1397, consists of twelve chapters. The author collects and evaluates the relevant arguments for each doctrine in the text. The refutation mainly deals with the objections of Jesus’ divinity. Besides, it also addresses many issues such as baptism, Eucharist, the position of the Pope, the claim of virginity of Mary, the issue of the birth date of Jesus, and mistakes in Bible translations. Our study is divided into two parts. The first part of the article deals with how Duran refutes the evidence adduced by Christians to prove that Jesus Christ is God. The second part evaluates the evidence that Duran presented to show why Jesus cannot be a God. Duran firstly states that neither Jesus nor his disciples had any claim or even agenda for Jesus’ deity. The later Christian theologians and clergy adopted some fallacies on the deity of Jesus and deceived the masses. For this reason, Duran did not call the first disciples and followers of Jesus the apostles as Christians would. Rather, he calls them deceivers. In his opinion, although the first followers of Jesus made mistakes for many reasons, they did not mislead others because they did not have the intelligence which could enable them to convince others. Later, some theologians deliberately misled both themselves and the masses. This is the reason why the author called them deceivers. The first part of the article considers the way in which Duran criticized the proofs brought by Christians from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus. Besides, it investigates the miracles of Jesus within the context of his deity, and Jewish discussions on how Jesus could do extraordinary things. The second part of the article deals with the evidence that Duran put forward to prove why Jesus cannot be God. In his own words, Jesus clarifies he was not God. Jesus refers to a greater being than himself in his discourses. Moreover, he always identifies himself as the son of man. According to Duran, Jesus’ disciples and early followers did not consider him God either. Likewise, Paul emphasized the uniqueness of God in his speeches. Then why did people consider Jesus to be God? At this point, Duran thinks that some of Jesus' discourses lead to this thought such as “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30); “As if he had seen the Father who had seen me.” (John 14:9) etc. According to Duran, Jesus’ profile described in the New Testament is not compatible with the notion of God because it mentioned that Satan tried Jesus, which is unfit for God. It also mentioned that Jesus was unable to do certain things. Moreover, some of his promises have never been fulfilled, and this can be observed by anyone. As a result, Profiat Duran claims in his refusal that the Christian beliefs and practices do not coincide with both Jesus’ own statement and the Bible passages. He believes that the later theologians were influential in determining the principles of Christian religion rather than Jesus’ first followers who misunderstood things because of their mental weakness. These theologians are more responsible for Christian beliefs than for Jesus and his disciples. The author endeavors to make a criticism based on the principles of reason and logic in his refusal. He may have thought that a simpler critique would not be successful in his time and geography. He often presents evidence from the Bible as well. His refusal in this respect would lead to further text-oriented criticism. However, it seems that Duran has made superficial criticism on some issues. The author seems to have written his work for the Jews or the converts to Christianity from Judaism.
Examining the refutations written between Jews and Christians is important for understanding the history of JewishChristian relations. The author of the refutation, with which this article deals, was born in 1350 in Spain. As a result of multidimensional reasons such as economic and religious opposition, Christians’ oppression and violence against Jews increased during those days and caused many Jews to voluntarily or forcefully convert to Christianity. Profiat Duran, the author of the refutation, was one of the Jews forcibly baptized in 1391. The issue of which religion Profiat Duran ultimately adopted is very controversial. Firstly, Duran was said to have escaped the obligatory baptism of Jews at that time, and he was not a Christian at all. The second explanation, on the other hand, claimed that he was forcibly baptized and subsequently remained a Christian for the rest of his life. Lastly, Duran was claimed to have returned to Judaism shortly after the forcible baptism. This article suggests that Duran pretended to convert to Christianity in compulsory baptism, and he continued his later life as a crypto-Jew. Duran is known to have written two anti-Christian polemical works. The first is a letter entitled “Al-Tehi Ka-Avotekha” (Be Not like Thy Father), which was written to his friend David Bonet Bongoron. The second anti-Christian work of the author, which is the subject of our research, is “Kelimmat ha-Goyim” (The Shame of the Gentiles). Kelimmat ha-Goyim, written in 1397, consists of twelve chapters. The author collects and evaluates the relevant arguments for each doctrine in the text. The refutation mainly deals with the objections of Jesus’ divinity. Besides, it also addresses many issues such as baptism, Eucharist, the position of the Pope, the claim of virginity of Mary, the issue of the birth date of Jesus, and mistakes in Bible translations. Our study is divided into two parts. The first part of the article deals with how Duran refutes the evidence adduced by Christians to prove that Jesus Christ is God. The second part evaluates the evidence that Duran presented to show why Jesus cannot be a God. Duran firstly states that neither Jesus nor his disciples had any claim or even agenda for Jesus’ deity. The later Christian theologians and clergy adopted some fallacies on the deity of Jesus and deceived the masses. For this reason, Duran did not call the first disciples and followers of Jesus the apostles as Christians would. Rather, he calls them deceivers. In his opinion, although the first followers of Jesus made mistakes for many reasons, they did not mislead others because they did not have the intelligence which could enable them to convince others. Later, some theologians deliberately misled both themselves and the masses. This is the reason why the author called them deceivers. The first part of the article considers the way in which Duran criticized the proofs brought by Christians from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus. Besides, it investigates the miracles of Jesus within the context of his deity, and Jewish discussions on how Jesus could do extraordinary things. The second part of the article deals with the evidence that Duran put forward to prove why Jesus cannot be God. In his own words, Jesus clarifies he was not God. Jesus refers to a greater being than himself in his discourses. Moreover, he always identifies himself as the son of man. According to Duran, Jesus’ disciples and early followers did not consider him God either. Likewise, Paul emphasized the uniqueness of God in his speeches. Then why did people consider Jesus to be God? At this point, Duran thinks that some of Jesus' discourses lead to this thought such as “I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30); “As if he had seen the Father who had seen me.” (John 14:9) etc. According to Duran, Jesus’ profile described in the New Testament is not compatible with the notion of God because it mentioned that Satan tried Jesus, which is unfit for God. It also mentioned that Jesus was unable to do certain things. Moreover, some of his promises have never been fulfilled, and this can be observed by anyone. As a result, Profiat Duran claims in his refusal that the Christian beliefs and practices do not coincide with both Jesus’ own statement and the Bible passages. He believes that the later theologians were influential in determining the principles of Christian religion rather than Jesus’ first followers who misunderstood things because of their mental weakness. These theologians are more responsible for Christian beliefs than for Jesus and his disciples. The author endeavors to make a criticism based on the principles of reason and logic in his refusal. He may have thought that a simpler critique would not be successful in his time and geography. He often presents evidence from the Bible as well. His refusal in this respect would lead to further text-oriented criticism. However, it seems that Duran has made superficial criticism on some issues. The author seems to have written his work for the Jews or the converts to Christianity from Judaism.
Keywords
İspanya, Kelimmat ha-Goyim, Polemik, Profiat Duran, Reddiye, Yahudi- Hıristiyan ilişkileri, Konverso, Marano, Dönme, Medieval Spain, Polemics, Refutation, Jewish- Christian relations, Converso, Marrano
Citation
Şengül, F.S. (2019). “Yahudi düşünür Profiat Duran’ın İsa’nın ulûhiyetine dair eleştirileri”. Oksident: Yahudilik, Hıristiyanlık ve Batı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 79-100.