Does the Mosaic Law Obligate Christians? The Fate of the Gentiles in Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah by 16th-Century Karaite Jewish Polemicist Isaac Ben Abraham of Troki

Abstract

Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah (Faith Strengthened), written by the 16th-century Karaite Jewish scholar Isaac ben Abraham of Troki (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), was one of the most renowned Hebrew anti-Christian polemical works, meriting translation into most European languages. Troki authored his book during the Polish Reformation, a period marked by intense interactions and theological debates between Jews and Christians of various denominations. The author provides a comprehensive philological, grammatical, and historical analysis of the New Testament while relying heavily on the ideas and scriptural interpretations of radical Protestant theologians and Rabbanite scholars. Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah is unusual in a number of respects. This paper examines one such peculiarity—namely, the author’s view that the Torah and its commandments obligate Christians—as well as his eschatological model in which Christians will become part of Israel in the messianic age. His perspective is examined in our study with particular attention to the range of argumentative methods employed. Among these are the use of evidence from the New Testament, especially the accounts of Jesus and his disciples observing the commandments, and the contrast of early Christians’ conceptions and practices, which he views as close to the Mosaic law, with later Christian interpretations of the Old and the New Testament.

1. Introduction

The earliest Christian–Jewish polemical literature can be traced to the second century, which saw such examples as The Dialogue with Trypho, a book by Justin Martyr (Williams 1930). Subsequently, the production of Christian polemical treatises grew increasingly throughout the Middle Ages, reaching its peak in the 16th century. The first Jewish anti-Christian polemical books began to appear in the late 12th century and particularly in the 13th century, a period when the Catholic Church was strengthening its missionary activity among the Jews and compelling them to participate in public disputations. These Jewish–Christian polemics were written in Christian and Muslim lands by Karaites and Rabbanites, and Sephardim and Ashkenazim, and consist of arguments taken from various fields: theology, history, linguistics, philology, and philosophy (Berger 2010; Funkenstein 1971; Lasker 1977; Cohen 1982; Limor and Stroumsa 1996).

One of the best-known and most popular anti-Christian polemical books was Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah (Faith Strengthened). Its author, physician Isaac ben Abraham (1533–1594), lived in the town of Troki (the old capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, near Vilna), in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Isaac Troki, the leader of the local Karaite1 community, was the most notable figure in the Karaite intellectual history of the 16th century. The available documentation provides only limited details of his biography (Akhiezer 2018, pp. 64–77). He was a disciple of one of the first Karaite scholars of Lithuania, Zefania ben Mordechai of Troki (who had roots in Byzantium). At the early age of 20, R. Isaac Troki served as a secretary of the assembly of the Lithuanian Karaites and as a dayyan (judge) of the Troki community. Later, he became a leading scholar among the Eastern European Karaites of his time. His three surviving letters to other Karaite scholars (Mann 1935, pp. 1181–87) do not provide further information about his biography but address only legal issues and contain quotations from the Talmud2. In his introduction to Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah, he mentions his contacts with representatives of Polish high society, both lay and clerical, and his religious disputations with them (Troki 1975, pp. 10–11). Among his works, which survived only in manuscripts, we find sermons, decisions, and comments on religious laws and a polemic against the Rabbanite (non-Karaite) Jews (Akhiezer 2006). Some of his liturgical poems3 were included in the official Karaite prayer books of Vilna and of the Crimean Karaite communities.

Troki’s magnum opus, Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah, made him the most prominent polemicist of his time in Europe.4 The book became a thorough challenge for the Christian world after its 1681 publication in Altdorf by German Hebraist Prof. Johann Christoph Wagenseil, who published it with his Latin translation together with five other anti-Christian texts5 and an extensive refutation under the title The Fiery Darts of Satan (Tela ignea Satanae). This Latin version made Troki’s work accessible to wider Christian circles. Although no atheistic tendencies can be found in his book, some of its arguments were later used by 18th-century anticlerical writers, especially Voltaire (Szechtman 1957).

Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah was written in the age of the Reformation in Poland, when a variety of confessions existed in that country: Catholics and Greek Orthodox Christians, Armenians, Muslims (Tatars), and Jews (Rabbanites and Karaites). In the second half of the 16th century, Poland became a haven for refugees from various Protestant groups, which were subject to persecution in other parts of Europe. Among these Protestants were figures such as Faust Socin,6 Nicolò Paruta,7 and Jacob Palaeologus.8 They had a strong influence on Polish Unitarian theologians, such as Szymon Budny, Marcin Czechovic, and others (Bainton 2003; Chmaj 1957; Bruckner 1962; Tazbir 1973). In 1573, despite the protests of the Church, the Polish Diet (Seim) enacted the Warsaw Confederation, which guaranteed religious freedom to all confessions. Among the Polish Protestant groups were anti-Trinitarian sects,9 who rejected the dogma of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and many other fundamental principles of Christianity. Some of them preferred the Old Testament to the New Testament and considered the Mosaic law to be valid for Christians. There was also a minor group that observed the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Jewish dietary and other laws. Their Catholic opponents called them “semi-iudei” or “Iudaizantes”, although most did not regard themselves as Judaizers. Radical Protestants organized synods at which they debated theological and social issues with their opponents: Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and Jews. The last participated in these synods on a voluntary basis, in contrast to forced public disputations with Christians elsewhere in Europe.

Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah differs in many respects from other Jewish polemical treatises. One of these differences is the author’s insistence on the relevance to Christians of the Torah—the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible—and its commandments (miṣvot). The author bases his arguments primarily on the New Testament (especially the Gospels), demonstrating the relevance of the Mosaic law through the practice and views of Jesus himself (as well as his disciples and Paul). Meanwhile, Troki strives to demonstrate the irrelevance of the New Testament as a novel authoritative doctrine that has supplanted the Torah.

In his refutations, the author develops various types of arguments taken from the fields of history, grammar, and logic. As his polemic is directed primarily against Catholics, he makes ample use of the arguments of some theologians from radical Protestant sects that existed in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of his time. Furthermore, Troki offers his own perspective on prophetic predictions concerning the fate of the Gentiles in the messianic age.

Troki seems to have been strongly influenced by the spirit of the late Polish Renaissance, which was marked by a desire to extend knowledge in various fields, vigorous intellectual activity, and accessibility of various types of thinking and information thanks to the widespread availability of books written in Polish or translated into that language (Fiszman 1988). He not only read and quoted non-Jewish sources but was also the first Karaite scholar to employ nascent textual criticism, using a linguistic, historical, and logical toolkit. His critique of Jewish and Christian scriptures reflects, among other things, an attempt to reconstruct the Jewish background, both historical and literary, of Jesus, his disciples, and Paul. This was an attempt to trace the transition—one he considered destructive—from early Christianity to the institutional form of that faith.

While Troki’s attitude toward the texts that he analyzes and the objectives of his analysis may be seen as polemical, and sometimes tendentious, it is nevertheless aligned to some extent with the general principles of modern research, which perhaps influenced him through works of the Polish Renaissance. Placing great value on the context of a word or passage, and considering both the linguistic and historical aspects of the texts and their comparative analysis, Troki clearly advocates a logical approach. His technique, which is close to modern scholarship in several respects, is made apparent by a comparison of his work with that of David Flusser (1917–2000), whose pioneering works (Flusser 1969, 1993) radically changed New Testament scholarship. Flusser explores the connection between Christianity and Judaism through the moral and ethical messages of Jesus and his legal practices, as expressed in the Gospels, in the context of his epoch, namely, amid Rabbinic practices, exegesis, and thought, as well as select ideas of the Essenes, who in Flusser’s view influenced Jesus’s worldview. Nevertheless, although Troki and Flusser may sometimes ask the same questions, they do not always give the same answers.

The existing research on Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah has focused on Troki’s use of radical Protestant polemical arguments (Dan 1988; Rosenthal 1966; Waysblum 1952), his image of Jesus as a historical figure (Benfatto 2022), his sources (Schreiner 2002; Akhiezer 2018, pp. 64–78, esp. 319–21), and the content and methods of his anti-Rabbanite polemics (Akhiezer 2006).

The present study focuses on the place of Christians in Troki’s eschatological perspective. An understanding of this perspective requires us to analyze the author’s view of the New Testament as a source reflecting the validity of the Mosaic law for Christians.

2. Structure and Contents of Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah

Troki expresses the purpose of his book in its preface. “Faith is lost”, he writes, “cut off from their mouths, and they shall mingle among the nations and worship their idols … having not known how they might respond to their words” (Troki 1975, p. 10). He addresses his book to the Jews to provide them with arguments in case they are forced to engage in a polemic with Christians.

Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah consists of two parts with a total of 100 chapters. In the first part, every chapter begins with a polemical question posed by an adherent of one of the Christian confessions. The author’s answers are the result of his philological, linguistic, and historical analyses of Christian and Jewish scriptures. From the 44th chapter of the first part of his book, Troki provides select comments on the New Testament, focusing on its textual and logical aspects, as well as on the discrepancies observed between the texts of the Gospels. He also seeks contradictions in Christian interpretations of certain passages from the Old Testament. In the second part of his book, Troki presents commentaries and critical analyses of select books of the New Testament: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; Paul’s Epistles to the Romans; his First Epistle to the Corinthians; the Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, and to the Hebrews; the Epistle of Jacob; and the Book of the Apocalypse.

Troki discusses issues such as the figure of the messiah and the messianic age, the election of Israel, divine providence, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the validity of the Mosaic law and its commandments (miṣvot), and other concepts.

His book contains a great variety of Rabbanite sources, as well as some Karaite and Christian ones. He quotes the Babylonian Talmud, as well as midrashic anthologies, such as Pesiqtaʾ de-Rav Kahanaʾ. Troki also refers to Rabbanite scholars such as R. Solomon Yiṣḥaqi (Rashi), Maimonides, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, David ben Joseph Qimḥi (Radaq), Judah ha-Levi, and Isaac ben Judah Abravanel. Troki’s book refers to very few Karaite works, primarily citations of Judah Hadassi and other Byzantine authors and possibly Jacob al-Qirqisani, mostly without naming them. Among his Christian sources (primarily in Polish), he refers to the popular Polish world history (Kronika świata) by Marcin Bielski (Bielski 1551) and various Protestant sources.

3. Troki’s Methods of Argumentation in His Deconstruction of the New Testament

The advancement of the conception of the binding nature of the Torah requires Troki to disprove the authority of the New Testament as a divine source. In order to achieve this objective, he presents a number of examples of what he considers to be misinterpretations of the Hebrew Bible by the Gospels. For instance, he mentions the escape of Joseph to Egypt with his family after the killing of all boys under two ordered by Herod, as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew (2:13–21). In this account, Matthew references Jeremiah (31:15): “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more”. Matthew concludes, “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene” (2:23). Of this, Troki observes, “They [Christians] also use this passage as an argument for their claim, despite having no understanding of the prophets’ intent. The meaning can be comprehended from the surrounding passages” (Troki 1975, p. 165).

Here, as well as in many other instances, Troki argues that Christians fail to consider the context of scriptures and thus reach erroneous interpretations.10 He explains that in this case, the subsequent verses of Jeremiah (31:16–17) provide necessary context: “Restrain your voice from weeping … They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your descendants, declares the Lord. Your children will return to their own land”. This, he argues, does not refer to the children killed by Herod. It is in fact about those who were strangers in a foreign land and would return to the Land of Israel in messianic times, namely, the Ten Lost Tribes.11 This is the widely accepted interpretation of those verses of Jeremiah among major Jewish exegetes, including Rashi, Radak, and many others.

Troki’s objective is to challenge and disprove the fundamental tenets of Christianity through textual analysis of the New Testament, with the intention of questioning the divine source of the text. Among those tenets is the divinity of Jesus as the son of God. Troki presents evidence from Jesus’ own words and deeds in the texts in order to demonstrate his purely human nature (Troki 1975, pp. 168, 181–85). This evidence includes Jesus’s use of the collocation “Son of Man” (ben ʾAdam), which is common in Biblical Hebrew and denotes a conventional human but receives a new meaning in Christological interpretation. Troki refers to examples of Jesus’s limitations as a human being, such as John 13:3 (“Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power and that he had come from God and was returning to God”) and Mark 13:31–32 (“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. However, about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”).

Troki also refutes the tenet of the Trinity (Troki 1975, pp. 50–54). According to him, Christians infer it from the Hebrew word ʾEloqim, which is a plural form. Troki presents three major arguments to support his position: (a) there are plural forms of words in Hebrew that reflect a respectful mode of address; (b) in the Torah, verbs directed toward God are always in the singular, such as in Genesis 1:27: “In the beginning God created [baraʾ, a singular form] the heavens and the earth”; and (c) Jesus makes a clear distinction in all the Gospels between himself, as a human being, and God, as well as the Holy Spirit. For example, Troki refers to Matthew 12:32: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”.

Troki also exemplifies the use of the son–father relationship in the Gospels, which is interpreted by Christians as proof of Jesus’s divinity. He notes that such expressions are common in Jewish texts and appear in the Torah, where the sons of Israel are, for example, called the sons of the Lord (Deuteronomy 14:1): “You are the children [lit., sons] of the Lord your God” (Troki 1975, pp. 183–85).

Concerning the Trinity, Troki asserts that Jesus called upon the people not to pray to the Trinity but instructed them to pray to one God, as is evident in the basic Christian prayer, the Pater Noster, written in Matthew 6:9–13 (Troki 1975, p. 53).

Troki writes that the Christian principle of the divinity of Jesus is erroneous. After all, Jesus never calls himself God anywhere in the New Testament. Troki then states, “You [Christians] add to his words” (Troki 1975, p. 160). Accordingly, when Troki supposes that Christians add to Jesus’s own teachings, he applies to the New Testament the Torah’s prohibition “You shall not add to it” (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Troki asserts that the belief in the Trinity and the belief in the divinity of Jesus are similar to ancient heresies (ʿavodah zarah) such as the belief in two gods of whom one is good and the other evil. He is convinced that the Christian concept of the Trinity is fundamentally at odds with the Torah’s teachings on the oneness of God, as it is said in Deuteronomy 32:39: “See now that I myself am he. There is no god besides me” (Troki 1975, p. 52). Thus, Troki perceives that belief as a form of idolatry, which contradicts not only the Torah but also the New Testament itself.

Troki tries to refute the Christian claim that the New Testament is a “new teaching” brought by Jesus, one different from the Torah of Moses. He emphasizes that the major aspects of Jesus’s teaching, defined by Christians as innovations, already existed before his advent. Consequently, the perception of their novelty is a result of Christian ignorance of the Hebrew Bible. “The Christians”, argues Troki, “say that the Gospels are a new Torah [lit., a new teaching] given to them by Jesus. However, there is no mention in the Gospels of Jesus ever saying that he delivered a new Torah” (Troki 1975, p. 162). Troki also takes issue with John 13:34, where Jesus says to his disciples, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another”. Yet, Troki argues, “this is not correct. This [passage] implies that the commandment to love one another came after God’s giving of the Torah of Moses, and it appears in Leviticus 19:18: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.’. And this can be found in Matthew 19:19 and 22:39” (Troki 1975, p. 184).

Troki’s disproof of the authority of the New Testament as a divine source also includes examples of textual contradictions between narratives and certain details found in different Gospels. For example, he notes that the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are different. In Matthew, there are 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus, whereas in Luke there are 56 generations. Joseph, the husband of Mary according to Matthew, was descended from the Davidic dynasty. “However”, asserts Troki, “it was Joseph, not Jesus. As they [Christians] claim he did not know Mary, not before and not after the birth, it is evident that this genealogy does not help Jesus at all [to be considered the messiah]” (Troki 1975, p. 168).12

An additional method employed by Troki is to demonstrate the incorrect citation in the New Testament of passages from the Hebrew Bible. He provides numerous examples, including the story of Joseph from Genesis, retold in Acts 7:13–16: “Joseph told his brothers who he was … After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. Then, Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our ancestors died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for a certain sum of money”.

Demonstrating the inaccuracy of this citation, Troki points out that according to Genesis, Jacob’s family consisted of 70 souls (not 75); Jacob was buried not in Shechem, but in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron; the sons of Jacob were buried in Egypt with the exception of Joseph, who was buried in Shechem, where it was Jacob who had bought a parcel of land from Hamor; and Abraham purchased the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron from Ephron the Hittite. Troki concludes, “All these testify to Jesus’s, his disciples’, and the apostles’ lack of knowledge of the Torah and Prophets” (Troki 1975, p. 187).

4. Arguments from the New Testament About the Obligatoriness of the Torah for Christians

The starting point of Troki’s polemic is the eternity of the Mosaic law, the Torah. This postulate was formulated by Maimonides among his Thirteen Principles of Faith. Despite the polemics with Rabbanites about numerous legal, exegetical, and other issues, many of Maimonides’s opinions, including this one, were accepted by Karaites (Lasker 2023), and Troki was no exception. Maimonides states the principle thus:

The ninth foundation is the [denial of the] abrogation [of the Torah]—to wit, that this Torah of Moses, our teacher, shall not be abrogated or transmuted, nor shall any other law come from God. It may not be added to or subtracted from, neither from its text nor from its explanation, as it is said: “You shall not add to it, nor subtract from it”.

(Deuteronomy 4:2; Kellner 1986, p. 15)

This principle serves as a general framework for Troki’s argumentation. He reiterates this postulate on numerous occasions, providing his own interpretation of it, without referring to Maimonides (Troki 1975, p. 77). Troki considers the eternity and immutability of the Torah to apply to all mankind. Therefore, although he does not explicitly say as much, Troki views the Mosaic law as an authoritative source that remains valid and obligates Christians. To prove this assertion, he presents a variety of arguments, which will be classified as (a) arguments drawn from the New Testament itself, especially the words and practices of Jesus and his disciples; (b) arguments based on linguistic and logical considerations (including historical arguments); (c) arguments borrowed from radical Protestant theologians; and (d) arguments drawn from the prophetic books, to whose words about the End of Days he offers his own interpretation.

4.1. Jesus and His Practices in Troki’s Arguments for the Obligatoriness of the Torah

In chapter 19, Troki refutes the Christian view that the Mosaic law was not eternal but rather a temporary law that applied until the advent of Jesus, who brought another, new, law while rejecting the miṣvot. According to Troki, the real practices of Jesus testify that the abrogation of the Mosaic commandments was neither an immediate consequence of Jesus’ advent nor a legitimate act. For instance, he argues that

even their Gospels contradict their words [those of later Christian interpreters], as we find in Matthew 5:17–19: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven …” These words are in direct opposition to the belief and the assertion of the Christians that the Law of Moses has been superseded by the coming of Jesus. Thus circumcision was replaced by baptism, and the sanctity of the seventh day was replaced with the observance of the first day of the week; the other divine laws have been rejected by the Christians, with only a few having been retained.

(Troki 1975, pp. 75, 167)

Troki presents an image of Jesus as a traditional, observant Jew, thus refuting the Christian concept that the Torah of Moses was superseded by the New Testament. Troki views the late Christian approach as an invalid innovation. On the other hand, he posits that the New Testament reflects a specific historical reality, in which Jesus himself is observed to have practiced the Mosaic law, as did his disciples and Paul even after Jesus’s death. As an example, Troki notes that according to the Acts of the Apostles, “They themselves [the later Christians] admitted that Jesus, his disciples, and the apostles were circumcised, and even after Jesus, his apostle Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy, according to Acts 16:3, and this is evidence that the Torah was not, as they claim, abrogated even after the time of Jesus”. According to Troki, a late Christian innovation was “the law of Grace”, a new approach replacing the ostensibly difficult commandments of the Torah, such as those of the Sabbath or circumcision, with lighter precepts, such as baptism and Sunday observance. In his opinion, canceling the Law of Moses was not a decision of Jesus or his disciples, but a deed of the later popes (Troki 1975, p. 75).

Another important aspect of Troki’s portrayal of Jesus is that the latter is depicted as a learned person well versed in Jewish law13 and not a simple man as was a common view in the Christian tradition. Troki quotes John 7:15: “The Jewish leaders were astonished and remarked, ‘How can this man be so educated when he has never gone to school?’” Troki then comments, “Also, this is not true, as he was a student of Rabbi Joshua ben Peraḥyah14 and fled with him to Alexandria in Egypt … as the worthies of the Talmud testify” (Troki 1975, p. 180).

Numerous medieval Jewish sources portray Jesus as someone who deceived the people and was involved in sorcery, defining him as an apostate. Examples are found in the Babylonian Talmud (before its tractates were censored by the Church). For instance, “On the eve of Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy’” (Sanhedrin 43a). In an example found elsewhere, “The Teacher said: ‘Yeshu practiced sorcery and corrupted and misled Israel’” (Sanhedrin 107b). These and similar narratives are also found in Sefer Toledot Yeshu15 (Meerson et al. 2014), and some were quoted in Jewish polemical texts.

Troki, who quoted the Talmud and was possibly familiar with Sefer Toledot Yeshu, does not use these stories and has little in common with their rude satiric style and fabulous narratives. Instead, he refers to Jesus’s education. Troki makes reference to having read the story of Simon Magus in Acts 8:9–24. This Simon “misled the Jews with his miracles … Those who saw him were very impressed and regarded him as a man of God”. Additionally, Troki notes that he encountered a Polish chronicle that mentions Simon, who is purported to have resurrected the dead and been regarded as a god by all16 (Troki 1975, p. 188). Troki does not offer any conclusions about the parallel with Jesus, abstaining from blaming him for lying, practicing sorcery, or misleading people as the aforementioned sources do. Nevertheless, Troki’s message seems quite clear: Miracles alone do not necessarily testify to the divine or messianic qualities of their doer.17

Troki’s focus on the practice of the miṣvot among early Christians does not indicate his full endorsement of those Christians or their ideology. On the contrary, Troki criticizes Jesus’s teachings and practices when they appear to diverge from the core principles of Judaism. For instance, Troki criticizes Jesus’s exhortation to sell all property and divide it among the poor and Jesus’s admonition to “love your enemies”, which Troki retells based on Luke 6:27–29: “Make a favor for your hater, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also; if someone takes your outerwear, do not prevent from him to take your underclothes” (Troki 1975, pp. 160–61). Troki rejects these appeals by Jesus to his disciples as violations of the Torah’s prohibition to “add to it or subtract from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Flusser questions these same views and practices and explores them in the context of the Second Temple period, when Judaism was still in its formative phase and therefore quite different from its subsequent development. He suggests that some of these cases originate in the influence on Jesus of the radical morality of the Essenes (Flusser 1969, pp. 75–84).

Troki also expresses doubt that what he deems radical interpretations of Jesus on the Mosaic law (such as his exhortations to sell all property and to turn another cheek) were genuinely embraced within Christian society: “This is one of his instructions that I have never seen carried out by even a single Christian” (Troki 1975, p. 159). He asserts that even Jesus himself did not follow this teaching and, for support, refers to John 18:22–23: “One of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. ‘Is this the way you answer the High Priest?’ he demanded. ‘If I said something wrong’, Jesus replied, ‘testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?’” “When the man slapped his cheek”, Troki observes, “Jesus did not give him another cheek, but became angry from just a single slap, saying ‘why did you strike me?’”.

As another example, Troki gives the similar case of Paul’s wrathful reaction when the High Priest Ananias orders him struck on the mouth in Acts 23:2–3: “Then, Paul said to him: ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!’” Troki is unequivocal in his assessment: “Paul did not give another cheek, but cursed him instead. This directly contradicts the foundation of their religion, which they claim is easier to observe. If even Paul, who was devoted to Jesus, could not comply with his command, it is indisputable that ordinary believers cannot (Troki 1975, p. 178).

Troki’s principal criticism concerns the discrepancy between early Christian observance of the Mosaic law and the subsequent rejection of that law by Christians of later eras. He states that although Jesus and his disciples accepted and the apostles prescribed observance of the commandments (the latter in Acts 15:20, 29), such as prohibitions rooted in the Torah about consuming blood (Deuteronomy 12:23–24) and eating strangled animals (Deuteronomy 14:21),18 these were not followed by later Christians: “Yet you Christians eat blood and strangled animals and disregard the apostles’ warning and instructions” (Troki 1975, p. 159).

Troki provides another example of such a discrepancy in relation to prayer and cult practices within Catholicism: “Jesus did not order the making of idols and icons to worship. On the contrary, he warned against it repeatedly. You cannot deny that you worship and venerate the idols of bread [the host, or communion wafer], pray to them, and say that this is your God” (Troki 1975, p. 160).

These examples drawing on Jesus and his disciples illustrate how Troki uses the texts of the New Testament as a source that reflects certain practices and views rooted in the Jewish background of early Christians.19 Yet according to him, the later Christian exegetes failed to properly comprehend the texts and context of this background and therefore provided incorrect interpretations that led to erroneous views and practices.

4.2. Logical and Historical Arguments

Troki complements his textual analyses with logic. He addresses another point in his view of the commandments by posing a question: If, according to the Christian view (which contradicts that of Jesus), the laws of Moses expired and were therefore canceled, why was their abrogation only partial? Most of them are found in the New Testament and remain relevant for Christians. Troki writes,

It seems that the Christians intend to uproot the Law of Moses … but neither Jesus nor his disciples ever ordered this. If Jesus had wanted to release [the people] from the commandments written in the Torah by Moses … why did he order to keep some of them, such as honor of father and mother, love of neighbor, charity, as well as interdictions against murder, adultery, theft, and perjury, as mentioned in Matthew 19:18–19?

(Troki 1975, p. 76)

Troki concludes that this partial acceptance of the Mosaic law, which is evident in many areas of life, reflects an inconsistency in Christianity and has implications for society. There are numerous contradictions between religious and secular law in Christendom, with the unlawful permitted and the lawful forbidden. Troki asks,

If they abrogated numerous commandments of the Mosaic law that determine the relationship between man and his fellow, why did Jesus not introduce new regulations instead of the Mosaic laws? Today Christians are guided by a mixture of Mosaic law and human enactments. These include the edicts of emperors, the Magdeburg Statute, and the laws of Poland and Lithuania. They make changes and alterations, adjusting them to every temporary need of the day, rendering established principle subservient to temporary wishes and arbitrary innovations. Our divine Torah, conversely, proceeds from highest wisdom and is complete and perfect in its purpose. Therefore there cannot be any change, deviation, addition, or subtraction.

(Troki 1975, pp. 76–77)

Troki’s argument is that Christianity, in contrast to Judaism, does not regulate all aspects of private and social life. Thus, cancellation of the Mosaic law without an appropriate alternative has resulted in disorder and a vacuum in the legal domain.

In addition to general logical discussion, Troki employs historical argumentation in his textual analyses. He states,

Christians claim that the New Testament was a new teaching given to them by Jesus. However, this is not supported by the Gospels themselves. As we know, the Gospels were written in the days of the Emperor Constantine, approximately 300 years after Jesus’ death … Therefore, if this new teaching was not composed in the days of Jesus, how could he possibly have given it to them? This has been averred even by Jerome, the translator of the Bible into Latin, who writes in his introduction to the New Testament that Mark and Luke wrote merely from hearsay. He apparently intends that they wrote a long time after Jesus’ death and were not his contemporaries. Therefore their evidence is doubtful … and the Gospels contradict each other in many instances. Moreover … even in their quotations from the Prophets … they change and distort, and thus contradict the original meaning … All this proves that the New Testament, which they [the Christians] call “the teaching of Jesus”, is not of divine origin, but the product of vain and lightheaded persons who were not experts either in the scriptures or in their meanings.

(Troki 1975, p. 162)

Troki is believed to have been influenced by the 11th-century Jewish scholar Abraham Ibn Daud of Toledo and his book The Chronicles of the Roman Empire, in which Ibn Daud traces history from the founding of Rome and insists on the presence of a gap of 300 years between the crucifixion of Jesus and the “teaching of the Christians” in the days of the emperor Constantine (d. in 337). Although it is not said explicitly, his statement implies the lack of a continuous Christian tradition. It follows that the New Testament must be not the true teaching of Jesus but a text of uncertain origin (Abraham 1514, p. 35a). As we now know, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were composed not in the days of Constantine but much earlier, in the late first century (Bernier 2022; Wenham 1991), albeit after the time of Jesus. Ibn Daud, whose lead Troki follows, may, however, have been referring to the Council of Nicaea (the first ecumenical council of the Church, held in July 325 AD), which was convened by Constantine I and resulted in the Nicaean Creed, canon laws, and ancient summaries of Christian texts.

Despite Troki’s chronological inaccuracy, we have here an early attempt at biblical criticism, both textual and historical. Its purpose, through the deconstruction of the New Testament, is to emphasize the eternal character and validity of the Mosaic law for all people as an exclusive message of divine origin.

4.3. Arguments from the Arsenal of Radical Protestant Theologians

As noted, some of Troki’s arguments derive from radical Protestants’ arsenal. He employs their writings to substantiate the tenets of Judaism, such as the validity of the Mosaic law. In other cases, he utilizes their works to reject certain Christological interpretations of Scripture or to refute some principles of Christian faith. One of these principles is that of the Trinity, which Troki considers to be in fundamental contradiction with monotheism and in disaccord with the image of Jesus as a human being who followed the Torah’s commandments:

In our present generation, many of their scholars, called in their language the Ebionite sect, the Socinianist sect,20 and the Arian sect, dispute both sects—the Catholic as well as the Lutheran—conceding the oneness of the God, may He be blessed, and repudiating the belief in the Trinity, and this is what the scholar Nicolò Paruta wrote in his treatise, composed in Latin, concerning the oneness of the Creator, may He be blessed, called in their language De Uno Vero Deo,21 which is to say that its intent and meaning concern the oneness of the God, may He be blessed. And thus the scholar Marcin Czechowic in his book Dyalogi (Czechowic 1575), which he authored in Polish, in the second essay, repudiates with powerful proofs from Scripture and logic the view of those who believe in the Trinity. And thus in his book entitled Trzech Dni (Czechowic 1578), from folio 28 to folio 69, he negated all of the proofs of those who believe in the Trinity, which they derive from their Gospels.22 And thus many scholars of those aforementioned sects, each in his own book, utterly negated all of the proofs of those who believe in the Trinity.

(Troki 1975, p. 54)

In discussing the Hebrew Bible, Troki uses, among other things, the Polish translation of the Bible23 authored by his contemporary Szymon Budny (1530–1593), the Lithuanian leader of the anti-Trinitarian movement. Budny regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary and as the messiah, while accepting the Seven Noahide Commandments 24 as being valid for all mankind. Troki considered Budny’s translation “the most accurate Christian translation of the Bible” and used his interpretations of the Old and New Testaments to validate his own conclusions. Troki quotes Budny’s words in the following passage on the validity and eternity of the Torah:

The Christian scholar Szymon Budny wrote in his book Obrona [Apology]25 that the divine Torah, which was given to Israel by Moses on Mount Horeb, is perfect and valid forever and that there was no other divine law besides it. All those who proclaim that there are two divine laws—one being the Mosaic law and the other being the teachings of Jesus—are mistaken, for Jesus did not give us a new divine law, but he himself ordained that the Law of Moses be observed, and he [Budny] substantiated this with prophetic and rational proofs.

(Troki 1975, p. 78)

Budny argued that the New Testament contained numerous contradictions and later additions, including references to the divinity of Jesus (which Budny did not accept). Therefore, his translation of the Bible was an important source confirming Troki’s own views and some of Troki’s interpretations of both the Old and the New Testament.

4.4. Arguments from the Prophetic Books About Gentile Acceptance of the Jewish Faith

Among his various arguments, Troki makes extensive use of the prophetic books, quoting from them more often than from the other books of Scripture. This fact reflects his intention to propose a model of an eschatological order in which Christians will accept the religion of Israel. In this context, he provides details concerning the messiah and his times, as well as the place of the Gentiles in this eschatological picture.

One of Troki’s points is his denial of the messianic role of Jesus. Based on a juxtaposition of the Gospels with the Prophets’ eschatological perspective, he refers, for instance, to the words of Jesus reported in Matthew 10:34–35: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. I came to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”. Troki perceives these words as completely opposite to those of the Prophets concerning the messiah, citing Malachi 3:24 (“He will turn the heart of fathers to their sons, and the heart of sons to their fathers”) and Isaiah 2:4 (“Nations will not raise swords against nations, and they will not learn warfare anymore”) (Troki 1975, p. 168).

Among the prophecies to be fulfilled in the messianic age, Troki states, “there will be in the world only one faith and one religion, and that is the religion of Israel”. He adds that “there will be in the world only one kingdom, and that is the kingdom of Israel” (Troki 1975, p. 38). Troki bases these claims on numerous quotations from the Prophets, such as Isaiah 45:23: “By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear”, and Zefania 3:9: “For then will I restore to the people a pure language, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Troki 1975, p. 181).

Troki also quotes these passages in the context of the Gospel of John 10:16, which he interprets as an allusion to prophetic predictions about the future of the Gentiles (in contrast to the common Christian interpretation that refers them to Jesus): “’And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd’. Look: in this case as well, truth came out of his [John’s] own lips, that in the future there will be one belief and one king, as the Prophets testify” (Troki 1975, p. 181).

Troki further concludes that all these and similar prophecies foretell the messianic era, when all the nations will believe in the God of Israel and accept the commandments of the Torah. Among the additional details that Troki provides about the Gentiles in his messianic scenario, he mentions that the peoples who survive the war of Gog and Magog and join the people of Israel will visit Jerusalem to pray and offer sacrifices in the Temple. Those who live close to it will visit the Temple every week, while others located far enough away from Jerusalem will visit it once a month or once a year. He confirms this by quoting Isaiah 56:6: “Also, the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, and to bless the Lord’s name, observing the Sabbath without profaning it, and who hold fast my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer”. He also quotes Isaiah 66:23: “And from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all humanity will come to worship before me, says the Lord”, and Zechariah 8:23: “This is what the Lord of the Heavenly Armies says: ‘In the future, ten men speaking all the languages of the nations will grab hold of one Jewish person by the hem of his garment and say, ‘Let us go up to Jerusalem with you, because we heard that God is with you’” (Troki 1975, pp. 148–49).

On the subject of Jerusalem, Troki says, “In the days of the messiah, the Gentiles will recognize the holiness of the Land of Israel, which will be in their eyes as holy as Jerusalem, and Jerusalem will be as holy as the Temple” (Troki 1975, p. 98). He explains that after the ingathering of the exiles in the Land of Israel, these will be the foreigners (gerim) mentioned in the above verse from Zechariah and in Isaiah 14:1: “He will settle them [Jacob] in their own land, and foreigners will join them, affiliating themselves with the house of Jacob”.

The identity of those who will join the sons of Israel is worthy of further consideration. One existing concept is the alien resident (ger toshav), that is, one who lives among the Jews and whose status has sometimes been defined as that of people who accepted the Seven Noahide Commandments.26 A similar but different concept is that of the ger ṣedeq, who accepts upon himself all the commandments of the Torah and becomes part of the Jewish people (corresponding to the modern use of the word ger). By contrast, the ger toshav remains a non-Jew and chooses to observe only certain commandments (Polonsky and Akhiezer 2021, pp. 118–19; Erder 2024, pp. 43–47). In the context of messianic times, Jewish sources are rather reticent on the subject of Gentiles. The prevailing view among Jewish scholars is that in messianic times, Gentile conversion to Judaism will not be accepted. The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 24b) is quite categorical in this regard: “Proselytes will not be accepted in the days of the messiah. Likewise, they were not accepted in the days of David and Solomon”. Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah (Kings and Wars 11:4), following a polemical passage on Christianity and Islam, does not advocate the conversion of their adherents: “When the true messianic king will arise and prove successful, his position becoming exalted and uplifted, they [the Gentiles] will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage and their prophets and ancestors caused them to err”. Troki, however, goes further and expresses a view that is quite uncommon in Jewish tradition (both Rabbanite and Karaite). According to his abovementioned commentaries about the Gentiles’ fate mentioned in the prophetic books in an eschatological context, he considers these “foreigners”, or gerim, as proselytes.

Troki adds that some foreigners will not enter Jerusalem, referring to such verses as Isaiah 52:1: “Awake, awake, Zion, clothe yourself with strength! Put on your garments of splendor, Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and unclean will not enter you anymore” (Troki 1975, p. 98). These two categories of foreigners—the uncircumcised and the unclean—are defined by major Jewish exegetes as idol worshipers. Even so, Troki opines that they, respectively, connote Christians and Muslims. He identifies them with the words of Isaiah (66:17) regarding pagans: “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to enter the groves, following one who is among those who eat the meat of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow, says the Lord”. Troki introduces his discussion about the identification of these individuals with Edom (Christians) and Ishmael (Muslims) thus: “‘Those who consecrate and purify themselves’ [ha-mitkaddeshim ve-ha-miṭṭaharim] …—as one of them eats pork and detestable things, including rats … and the prophet intended [by “those who … purify themselves”] the sons of Ishmael, who are also called impure. In addition, he exhorted ‘consecrate and purify’—that is, with the reflexive verb form [binyan hitpaʿel]—because they [Muslims] consider themselves holy and pure people, washing their body according to their custom five times a day. Yet they are not pure: They are tainted with evil deeds and shameful desires” (Troki 1975, p. 147).27

Troki provides a short but quite detailed historical discourse in the context of the above words of Isaiah prophesying that “the uncircumcised and unclean” will not enter Jerusalem. He offers a concise historical overview of the ongoing power struggle between Christians and Muslims over Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. He concludes by asserting that the two groups will no longer be permitted to enter Jerusalem. Although Troki does not say so directly, he seems to see this as a punishment and an act of restoration of historical justice.

In contrast to the eschatological picture of the Gentiles presented in the prophetic books (and the major Jewish exegeses) as idol worshipers who form a dyad with the sons of Israel, Troki instead presents an opposition between the sons of Israel, on one hand, and Christians and Muslims, on the other. Even so, Muslims do not occupy a central place in his polemic, inasmuch as the focus of his book is on Christianity, the New Testament, and the validity of the Mosaic law for Christians.

5. Possible Influences on Troki’s Eschatological Model

Troki’s view of the obligatoriness of the Mosaic law for Gentiles (with Christians at the center of his polemic), as well as his eschatological model in general and particularly their conversion, differs markedly from the prevailing Rabbanite and Karaite approaches to this issue, both in the Middle Ages and in his own time. However, a review of the available sources indicates that certain aspects of his perspective can be found in both Rabbanite and Karaite sources.

Notwithstanding Maimonides’s discussion of his view of the fate of the Gentiles in the messianic age, Jewish scholars frequently avoided this theme or limited themselves to a brief mention of Gentiles’ recognition of the one God. Nevertheless, certain eschatological motifs emerge in Rabbinic liturgical, midrashic, and kabbalistic texts. One is the downfall of Edom (and occasionally Ishmael) in the messianic era as revenge for the persecutions of Israel. This motif can be traced to the early Middle Ages, as evidenced by the early medieval liturgical poems (piyyutim) of Yannai and Elazar Ha-Qallir, who flourished in the Land of Israel, and early midrashic literature. It is notable that during this time, the phenomenon was not particularly prominent. The motif subsequently grew in importance, as well as in frequency of use following the periods of the persecutions of the Jews, especially during the First Crusade (Yuval 2006, pp. 93–115). In this context, Yuval puts forth two concepts: “vengeful redemption” (geʾullah noqemet), which he ascribes to the German Jewish Pietists (Hasidim) of the 12th to the 14th century, and “proselytizing redemption” (geʾullah megayyeret), which he posits was more prevalent among Spanish (Sephardic) Jews, particularly in the wake of the expulsion from Spain, and among Oriental Jews (Yuval 2006, pp. 92–131). The former of the two concepts entails the destruction of those Gentiles responsible for persecuting and forcibly converting the people of Israel. It typically emerges in conjunction with the idea of divine vengeance. Distinct from it is the latter concept, which primarily concerns the conversion of Gentiles who have repented and acknowledged the supremacy of the one God (Yuval 2006, p. 109). Most of the examples provided by Yuval are drawn from midrashic literature, from the liturgical poems (piyyutim) and chronicles of the German Jewish Pietists.

Some scholars (Grossman 1994; Fleischer 1994) posit that neither of these approaches was confined to a specific region. Grossman also highlights the fundamental difference between poetic or midrashic literature and scriptural exegesis, the last of which possesses a less emotional, more binding, and more structured character (Grossman 1994, p. 326).

In contrast to Yuval’s perspective, Grossman asserts that the two forms of redemption are not mutually exclusive but represent distinct stages in the messianic process (Grossman 1994, pp. 333–34). This combination is present in Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah. Troki mentions the destruction of Gentiles as a phase of the messianic process, while the subsequent phase is the conversion of those who survive. He quotes, for instance, Isaiah 60:12: “For the nation or kingdom that will not serve you will perish; it will be utterly ruined”. This verse, says Troki, predicts the “defeat and destruction of those Gentiles who will not follow Israel” (Troki 1975, p. 42). Additionally, Troki refers to the stage of conversion, citing Zechariah 14:16: “Every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of Tabernacles”. Troki comments, “He [Zechariah] intends that in the days of the messiah, not only the sons of Israel, but also those Gentiles who survived the war of Gog and Magog and joined the people of Israel, [will do this]” (Troki 1975, p. 112).

It is noteworthy that the destruction of the Gentiles does not constitute a central point of Troki’s eschatological model, and vengeance against the Gentiles, which is a common theme in Rabbanite literature, is not explicitly present in Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah.

Grossman identifies instances of proselytizing redemption in the commentaries on the Prophets produced by renowned scholars such as Rashi and his contemporary French scholar R. Joseph ben Simon Kara (Grossman 1994, pp. 334–39).28 Through numerous examples from Rashi’s commentaries, Grossman demonstrates the conjunction of two concepts: the destruction of the Gentiles, as referenced by Rashi in his commentary on the downfall of Esau [Christians], and their proselytization. In the second case, Rashi deviates from the plain meaning of the scriptural text, advancing the concept of conversion. One example is Rashi’s commentary on Isaiah 56:6–8, in which the prophet states, “And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him … these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”. Rashi comments, “For my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations, not only for Israel, but also for converts (gerim)”. The prophet continues, “The Sovereign Lord declares—he who gathers the exiles of Israel: ‘I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered.’” Rashi comments, “From the nations who will convert and join them [Israel]” (Grossman 1994, p. 335).

R. Joseph Kara makes similar remarks in his scriptural exegesis, such as on Zefania 3:9, in which the prophet says, “I restore to the people a pure language, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder”. Kara writes, “They all will convert” (Grossman 1994, p. 338). As demonstrated above, Troki too views these passages and others as referring to conversion.

Was Troki influenced by any of these sources? There is no doubt that he was familiar with Rashi’s works of scriptural exegesis, which were widespread in Troki’s Rabbanite surroundings. He even quotes Rashi in his Polemics against Rabbanites. However, in almost all these cases, being a strict proponent of the peshat exegetical method (which insists on the plain meaning of the text), Troki repudiates or disregards both Rashi’s approach and his specific interpretations (Akhiezer 2006, p. 451, 464 n. 54), which are frequently based on the use of derash (the homiletical or interpretative method (Garfinkel 2000)). Although there is no direct confirmation by Troki himself, the above examples of Rashi and R. Joseph Kara’s messianic perspective on the fate of Gentiles may reflect their impact on Troki. Those authors, however, do not discuss the obligatoriness of the Mosaic law for Gentiles.

Some Karaite authors employ the concept of the destruction of the Gentiles. For instance, Judah Hadassi’s 77 “wonders of the messiah” in his book Eshkol ha-Kofer (The Cluster of Henna) include the destruction of the prayer houses and the religions of Edom and Ishmael (Ankori 1960, pp. 192, 195, 197, et al.). The prominent Byzantine–Ottoman Karaite scholar Caleb Afendopolo (1465–1523) develops and extends Hadassi’s wonders of the messiah in his commentary on Hadassi’s book Naḥal ʾEshkol (The Stream of the Cluster, published by Bacher (1896, pp. 206–8), where he offers a similar perspective.

In addition, we find some models analogous to Troki’s in the writings of early Karaite authors associated with the Mourners of Zion (ʾAvelei Ṣiyyon) movement.29 Some of their texts, translated from Arabic into Hebrew, were disseminated among Karaite communities. However, as indicated by the extant manuscripts, their circulation was relatively limited in Eastern Europe. In Troki’s time, those authors were not considered to belong to mainstream Karaite thought. Moreover, Troki himself makes no reference to them. However, numerous parallels can be identified between Ḥizzuq ʾEmunah and the works of some Mourners of Zion. Those parallels align with several aspects of Troki’s messianic vision, which is founded, as demonstrated above, upon his exegesis of the prophetic books. Levi ben Yefet (Jerusalem, 10th–11th centuries) in his Book of Precepts (Sefer ha-Miṣvot) also discusses the obligation of the Gentiles to fulfil the commandments of the Torah. According to him, “the Gentiles must convert to the religion of the Torah, and when they convert, all the commandments will oblige them as they oblige Israel” (Erder 2024, p. 40).

Yefet ben ʿEli (the father of Levi ben Yefet; Jerusalem, 10th century), one of the most prominent authors among the Mourners of Zion in Jerusalem, whose exegetical and legal works contain polemics against Christianity and Islam, posits a comparison between Edom and Ishmael. According to his messianic model, the Gentiles will convert to Judaism. Yefet believes that the Gentiles would accept the religion of Israel. In his commentary on Ezekiel 44:9 (“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites”), he writes,

If someone were to ask: ‘Will the people of the world not convert, who are then the uncircumcised aliens?’ The answer is that the rest that will remain of them will convert until the conversion of all will be completed. And he meant that until they will convert, do not allow them to enter my Temple.

(Erder 2024, p. 59)30

Troki’s above argument, supported by Zefania 3:9 (“… I will restore to the peoples a pure language …”), that Hebrew will be the only language in messianic times has a number of parallels in the texts of the Mourners of Zion. Yefet and other authors express the same opinion: that other languages will no longer exist (Erder 1997, p. 46, n. 99).31

In early Karaite literature, there are other interpretations of scriptures concerning the messianic era that hew close to Troki’s perception of the Gentiles’ obligation to fulfil the commandments of the Torah, as well as to his messianic model of the conversion of the Gentiles (but those earlier sources are outside the scope of this article). Although there is no clear evidence that Troki used texts of the Mourners of Zion, we can suggest that their exegesis may have shaped his views on these specific issues. At the same time, we can see that he did not simply copy the words of those authors but creatively reworked them, adapting their concepts to the context of his own cultural and religious milieu and to his anti-Christian polemic. Troki did the same with his Rabbanite and Protestant sources, and thus, his book presents an unusual combination of sources consisting of early medieval Karaite texts, radical Protestant ideas, Rabbinic texts, and Renaissance historical materials.

6. Conclusions

As seen from Troki’s book, arguments based on the New Testament occupy a special place in his polemics. Prominent among them are the figure and practices of Jesus, though the image that Troki paints of him is quite a controversial one. Troki refutes Jesus’s divinity and messianic status, which according to him were an addition by later Christians and not proclaimed by Jesus himself. He sees him as a historical figure, a learned Jew devoted to the commandments of the Mosaic law. Therefore, the legal practices of Jesus (and his disciples) provide Troki with arguments for the eternity of the Mosaic law and its obligatoriness for Christians as well. Troki reinforces this conception with quotations from prophetic verses and radical Protestant opinions. At the same time, Troki criticizes some of Jesus’s injunctions that he regards as erroneous and as radical interpretations of the Mosaic law. Nevertheless, the critique of specific elements of Jesus’s teachings and practices does not preclude Troki from employing Jesus’ figure and activity in the service of his polemic.

The New Testament is often referenced by Troki as proof of the Mosaic law’s validity, while in other instances he uses the New Testament as an illustrative example of the Christians’ misunderstanding of the fundamental texts of the Hebrew Bible. In any case, such presentations ultimately serve to undermine the authority of the New Testament as a divine source. This entails a continual contrast of the beliefs and practices of the early Christians, which the author identifies as aligned with the commandments of the Torah, with subsequent Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible.

Troki proposes a model for the eschatological destiny of the Gentiles, who are expected to accept the religion of Israel. This model follows from his idea of the validity of the Mosaic law for Christians and is based to a great extent on the books of the Prophets and seemingly on some opinions of the Mourners of Zion and Rabbanite scholars, such as Rashi and J. Kara. Meanwhile, Troki’s view reveals his own interpretation of prophetic predictions.