Jewish Elements in the Ancient Chinese Christian Manuscript Yishen Lun (Discourse on God)

Abstract

This article identifies and analyzes four passages in the ancient Chinese Christian manuscript Yishen Lun (YSL) that exhibit distinct Jewish characteristics. The phrase “yizhong zuo shenghua” (lines 356–358) mirrors the Book of Acts’ theme of “sanctification of the Gentiles,” rooted in the Jewish dichotomous worldview, placing Jews, or Shihu Ren, at the center. The author’s use of this phrase distinguishes him from yizhong ren (Gentiles) and aligns him with Shihu Ren. In lines 256–263, YSL directly attributes messianic declarations to Jesus, a central issue in Jewish accusations of false Messiahship. In contrast, the Gospel accounts avoid making such direct accusations, as Jesus did not openly declare himself the Messiah. This distinction highlights YSL’s closer alignment with Jewish polemical traditions and legal concerns. Additionally, the use of “City of Judah” in lines 345–347 as an archaic designation for Jerusalem, predominantly found in Jewish traditions, contrasts with the more common “City of David” in other biblical texts. A philological analysis of lines 279–281 reveals imagery analogous to the synagogue parochet covering the Ark of the Scrolls. These four Jewish elements complement the one analyzed in the author’s earlier 2024 article, “The Parable of Wise and Foolish Builders in Yishen Lun and Rabbinic Literature.” That study concludes that the parable of wise and foolish builders in lines 146–156 of YSL aligns more closely with Jewish rabbinic traditions than the Gospel version. These new hermeneutical insights should provide interesting and fresh data for ongoing research into YSL.

1. Introduction

In 1918, Toru Haneda published a brief article titled Keikyo Kyokten Isshinron Kaisetsu (An Explication of the Jingjiao Document Yishen Lun) in the magazine Geibun (Haneda 1918, 1957), introducing an ancient Dunhuang Christian manuscript bearing the title Yishen Lun, or “Discourse on God”. His subsequent articles in 1923 (Haneda 1923) and 1931 (Haneda 1931) dated the Yishen Lun (YSL) to the year 641 C.E. and released a complete set of images of the text. P. Y. Saeki translated the text between 1933 and 1934 into English (Saeki 1933, 1934) and featured it in his 1937 book, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (Saeki 1937, 1951).

Based on YSL’s temporal proximity to Aluoben’s mission to China in 635 CE, which is documented in the Daqin Jingjiao Liuxing Zhongguo Bei (Monument Commemorating the Propagation of the Daqin Jingjiao in China), both Haneda and Saeki associated YSL with Jingjiao. Saeki further speculated that it was composed by Aluoben himself. Consequently, in the study of Jingjiao or early Christianity in China, YSL and Aluoben/Jingjiao are inextricably linked.

Aluoben and Jingjiao originated from East Syriac Christianity (Church of the East), historically labeled as “Nestorian”. Saeki described YSL, along with other Jingjiao documents, as “Nestorian”, frequently using this designation in his work. However, he did not engage in a detailed discussion of Nestorianism or provide analysis to demonstrate that YSL indeed espoused those doctrines. Notably, the essential vocabulary for expressing “Nestorian” doctrines, such as qnoma, parsopa, and kyana in Syriac, or hypostasis, prosopon, and physis in Greek, was largely absent. Moreover, YSL and bona fide Jingjiao writings (those bearing the title “Daqin Jingjiao”) do not share the same set of divine appellations (Tam 2018, 2021). As a result, the characterization of YSL as “Nestorian” lacks sufficient evidence and argumentation, signaling the need for a fresh approach to its study.

A fresh start in the study of YSL must begin with close reading and analysis of the text itself, as there is little external information available. Hermeneutical efforts—through repeated readings, referencing other Dunhuang and Turfan manuscripts, translation into modern languages (whether contemporary Chinese or other languages), and dissecting the text to reveal both its parts and its whole—are essential. As a result of these interpretative efforts, this author, in his 2022 article “From ‘Here’ to Persia: The Place of Authorship of the Ancient Chinese Christian Manuscript Yishen Lun (Discourse on God)”, argues that Yishen Lun was likely authored in the Western Region, probably Turfan, based on textual evidence such as social structures, linguistic peculiarities, and material culture references in the text that align more closely with the Turfan and Dunhuang manuscripts than with Central China (Tam 2022). In his 2024 article “The Parable of Wise and Foolish Builders in Yishen Lun and Rabbinic Literature”, he compares the parable in YSL with those in the sixth-century rabbinic text Avot D’Rabbi Nathan and in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The study organizes the comparison into three key areas—imagery, piety, and worldviews—and concludes that the rendition in YSL aligns more closely with the rabbinic tradition than with the Gospels (Tam 2024).

This paper builds on these previous hermeneutical efforts, arguing that in addition to the parable of the wise and foolish builders, YSL also reveals other Jewish–Christian attributes. These attributes are evidenced by expressions and terminology related to Gentile conversion, messianic self-claims, the designation of Jerusalem, and the curtain-splitting event at Jesus’ death. Each of these elements is independently argued and discussed in detail in the following sections.

2. Gentile Conversion

YSL manifests a profound sense of Christian evangelism, as illustrated in lines 306–309, which echo Jesus’ directive to propagate his teachings to all peoples. While scholars might diverge on nuances of translation, there is a consensus that this section parallels Matthew 28:18–20. In this biblical passage, Jesus commands his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV). The text in lines 306–309 articulates this command as follows:

306 … 弥師訶弟子分

… [To] the disciples of Mishihe

307 明處分1：”向一切處，將我言語，示語一切種2。人

[he] clearly conveyed his directive: “Go to all lands and proclaim my words to all peoples. As they

308 來向，水字於父、子、淨風3。處分具足。所有我

come forward, baptize them in the love of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All instructions are complete. In all circumstances

309 迷[逑]4汝在，比到盡天下。”…

I will accompany you, to the very end of the world”. …

Subsequent passages cover the foretelling of the Holy Spirit (310–312), the event of ascension (312–313), the proclamation of victory over Satan (313–322), the coming of the Holy Spirit (322–326), the post-Pentecost sermon (326–338), and the ministry and persecution encountered by the disciples (356–361). Collectively, these sections correlate with the pivotal events depicted in the early chapters of the Book of Acts.

In its discussion of the disciples’ ministry and the persecutions they endured, YSL states:

356 …有誰事弥師訶者，亦

… Anyone who serves Mishihe

357 道名字，分明5見是天下，所作作處，世尊6化術。

must also proclaim His name and bear witness to the world. Wherever this takes place, the Lord’s transformative power is at work.

358 異種作聖化，計校籌量，亦是他家所作。

People of other races were sanctified with deliberate plans and strategies, precisely as His teachings dictated.

Our discussion in this section centers on the phrase “異種作聖化 yizhong zuo shenghua” found in line 358, which has received varied interpretations by different scholars. Saeki interprets it as “Sanctifying Transformation of the different races of men” (Saeki 1951, p. 225). Tang Li renders it as “other races will be sanctified” (Tang 2002, p. 179). Aguilar Sanchez sees it as “to sanctify also for different nations/races” (Aguilar Sanchez 2021, p. 188). Nicolini-Zani describes it as “performing sanctifying work in the midst of all nations” (Nicolini-Zani 2022, p. 261). Neither Wu Changxing nor Wang Lanping offers a translation of the phrase, although Wu notes that “yizhong” could imply “種種 zhongzhong (all kinds)” (Wu 2015, p. 125), while Wang suggests the term might denote “non-believers” (L. Wang 2016, p. 34.). However, they have not provided additional exposition or clarification to support or elucidate their comments.

There should be little doubt that “yizhong 異種” signifies “different kinds” or “various kinds”. Its application is evident in Dunhuang manuscripts such as the Vimalakirti Sutra (維摩詰經講經文), which states, “輕羅拭體，吐異種之馨香 (light silk robes brushing against the body, emitting fragrances of various kinds)” (Z. Wang 1957, p. 620) and “附以多異種香花，隨心自在 (adorned with many different fragrant flowers, as one pleases)” (Z. Wang 1957, p. 624). Similarly, it appears in the Sutra of Suppressing Demons and Transformations (降魔變文), which mentions, “修治院宇，香泥塗餚，異種精華 (renovating the mansion, applying fragrant clay, and using precious substances of various kinds)” (Z. Wang 1957, p. 363), and in Autumn Serenade (秋呤一本), which describes, “身披異種綺羅裳，四德三從豈讚揚 (wearing different kinds of silk robes, how can we not praise the Four Virtues and Three Obediences?)” (Z. Wang 1957, p. 620). These examples corroborate that “yizhong” means “different types” or “various kinds”, and in the context of lines 356–361, it denotes “other kinds of people” or “people of other races”. The notion of “all other peoples” or “all other races” can also be found in the term “一切種 yiqie zhong” in lines 306–309.

“聖化 Shenghua” is a notable term in YSL, distinct in its absence from other Tang Christian documents (or “Jingjiao documents”). Traditionally, its use was predominantly reserved for describing the policies or actions of emperors aimed at civilizing and integrating non-Han populations within or adjacent to the Chinese empire. According to the online dictionary Handian, it translates to “to be civilized by the emperor”.7 In YSL, this term is repurposed to delineate Jesus’s mission (“世尊聖化 Shizun shenghua” in lines 351 and 364) to evangelize and sanctify non-Jews (the Gentiles) globally.

In our analysis, the phrase “異種作聖化 yizhong zuo shenghua” strongly echoes the core theme and terminology of the Book of Acts regarding the sanctification of the Gentiles. From the perspective of Jewish Christians, the Book of Acts illustrates the pivotal moment when it became evident that the Gentiles could be sanctified and receive the Holy Spirit. This realization includes their initial recognition that God accepts the Gentiles (Acts 10:28–29), their astonishment at the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles (Acts 10:44–48), and their subsequent discussions regarding the observances required of the Gentiles (Acts 15:7–11). The terms “sanctification” and “the Gentiles” are especially prominent in Apostle Paul’s recounting of his conversion experience, in which Jesus told him:

I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.

(Acts 26:17–18; NRSV)

In the context of biblical and Jewish literature, the term “gentile” (ἔθνη or ethnos in Greek) was employed by Jews to denote non-Jewish or non-Israelite nations or peoples. This terminology served to demarcate themselves as God’s chosen people, distinct from all others across the globe. The word “sanctified” (ἡγιασμένοις or hegiasmenois) fundamentally means “to make holy” or “to sanctify”.

Thus, the theme and language of “sanctification of the Gentiles” in the Book of Acts are effectively mirrored in the phrase “yizhong zuo shenghua” in YSL. While the former expresses a Jewish dichotomous view of humanity, with those using the phrase identifying themselves as Jews, the latter reflects this same perspective, with the users, such as the author, likewise identifying themselves as Jews. The author’s use of “yizhong zuo shenghua” sets him apart from “yizhong ren” and aligns him with “Shihu Ren”, a term in YSL that refers to the “Jews” (lines 255, 292–301, and 343–346), the only explicitly mentioned group within the text.

3. Messianic Self-Claim

Lines 256–263 of YSL recount the trial of Jesus, during which his accusers charged him with claiming to be the Son of God and the Messiah. They sought to arrest him and transport him to Caesarea to obtain authorization for his execution. They demanded his crucifixion without further interrogation, citing their religious laws and his self-declared Messiahship as justification for his condemnation:

256 從自家身上作語，是尊兒，口論：”我是弥師

He proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, saying “I am the Messiah!”

257 訶！” “何誰作如此語？此非是弥師訶！誑惑！欲捉，

(Accuser:) “Who can say such a thing? This is not the Messiah! He lies! We want him to be arrested.

258 汝作方便。”…

You must provide the assistance”.…

261 “…上懸高！汝等語，當家有律文，據當

“… Crucify him! As you have said, we have our own laws, and according to

262 家法，亦合死所以。從自身作此言，誰道：’我

those laws, he deserves to die. He made this declaration himself. Who would say, ‘I am

263 是世尊’？息論。” …8

the Son of God’? There is no need for further discussion”.

In the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial, his accusers refrained from outright accusing him of making a messianic declaration, as they lacked evidence to support such a claim. As Johannes Weiss observed, “Jesus had been very reticent about his own person and in advancing his claims to Messiahship, so much so that it had been extremely difficult to formulate the charges upon which he was condemned” (Weiss 1959, p. 14). Lacking a solid basis for this accusation, they resorted to probing questions during the trial, attempting to compel him to admit that he was the Son of God or the Messiah (Matthew 26:63–66, Mark 14:61, and Luke 22:70). When he affirmed their inquiries, his accusers pushed for his crucifixion.

In contrast, when Jews recounted this trial story, particularly in polemical literature against Christians, they had no hesitation in stating that the accusers charged Jesus with making a messianic claim. In Toledot Yeshu (compiled between the 4th and 6th centuries, with material from rabbinic traditions dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries; van Putten 2019, p. 110), this assertion is prominently featured, as can be seen in the following quotes from van Putten (2019, p. 120):

“Yeshu said to his disciples, ‘I am the Messiah, the son of David, now I have come!’”

“You should know, my lady [Queen Helena], that I am the Son of God, and I (do) not (act) with sorcery”.

“Yeshu replied, ‘I am he, the Messiah, and I have the ability to do all of that, and even to revive the dead’”

Armed with these statements from Jesus, the accusers persuaded the authorities that he had deceived the people through acts they considered sorcery and had led Israel astray by proclaiming himself as the Messiah (van Putten 2019, p. 123). Furthermore, they argued that Jesus could not be the Messiah, as he had not fulfilled the prophecies outlined in Isaiah 11:4 and Jeremiah 23:6 (van Putten 2019, p. 121).

The issue of making a messianic self-proclamation was a matter of serious Jewish concern. For example, when Bar Kokhba, a leader of a Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire in the mid-2nd Century, made such a proclamation, his fellow Jews tested him and arrived at the conclusion that he was an imposter and killed him. This episode is explicitly documented in the Babylonian Talmud:

“Bar Koziva (Kokhba) ruled for two and a half years. He said to the rabbis, ‘I am the Messiah’. They said to him, ‘Of the Messiah it is written that he smells and judges [i.e., judges by smelling]. Let us see if he can judge by smelling’. When they saw that he could not judge by smelling, they killed him”

(Marks 1994, p. 21)

Within the Jewish community, a false claim of Messiahship was regarded as both a criminal offense and an act of blasphemy, making such a claim the central issue in any accusation. When Jews recounted this narrative, the self-proclamation inevitably became the focal point; without it, the accusation would be incomplete, and the trial could not proceed. In this respect, YSL diverges from the Gospels and aligns more closely with Jewish accounts. The accusers in YSL showed no hesitation in asserting that Jesus had declared, “I am the Messiah” and “I am the Son of God”, repeating these proclamations three times (lines 256, 262–263, 265). Thus, the author of YSL, along with his audience, seems to clearly understand and embody the religious and cultural nuances and sensitivities of the Jewish people.

4. Designation of Jerusalem

Lines 345–347 tells an event in which a city was attacked by the Romans:

345 …石忽不他，所以拂林向石國伊大城裏，聲處破

… The Jews did not relent, which is why Byzantine Empire turned to Shiguo Yidacheng. The sound of destruction echoed,

346 碎，卻亦是向量從。石忽人被煞，餘百姓並被

and what followed was in proportion to their deeds. The Jews were slain, and the remaining populace

347 抄掠將去，從散普天下。…

was plundered and taken captive, scattering across the world. …9

Our focus is on the name of a city in line 345: “石國伊大城 Shiguo Yidacheng”. P. Y. Saeki interprets this as “the walled city of Ita (i.e., Judea) in the Rock-country (i.e., Syria)” (Saeki 1951, p. 223), and in a footnote, he suggests it refers to Jerusalem. Both Tang and Aguilar Sanchez translate it as “the Jewish city Jerusalem” (Tang 2002, p. 178; Aguilar Sanchez 2021, p. 188), while Nicolini-Zani renders it as “their great city in Judea”, with a footnote proposing that “Shiguo” is likely a contraction of “石忽國 Shihu guo”, meaning “the country of the Jews”, with the “great city” being Jerusalem (Nicolini-Zani 2022, p. 260). Weng Shaojun interprets “石國 Shiguo” as “猶太人的家園” (the homeland of the Jewish people) and “Yidacheng” as “耶路撒冷” (Jerusalem) (Weng 1995, p. 146). Wu equates “伊大 Yida” with “猶大 Youda” (Judea) and “Yidacheng” with “猶大城 Youda Cheng” (the City of Judea) (Wu 2015, p. 124). Wang agrees with Saeki and Wu that “Yidacheng” means “Youda Cheng”, but interestingly, he also considers “Shiguo” to refer to “the ‘Shiguo’ of the Nine Surnames of Zhao Wu” (L. Wang 2016, p. 233).

Li Dawei, in his (Li 2021) article “Jewish Information as Seen in the Jingjiao Christian Documents of the Tang Dynasty”, argues that “伊大城 Yidacheng” should be literally translated as “the Great City of Jerusalem”. He bases this translation on the idea that the first character “伊 yi” corresponds to “Jerusalem” due to its phonetic resemblance to the first syllable of the Hebrew name for Jerusalem, “ירושלים”. Li notes that abbreviating a country’s name was a common practice in Chinese literature; for instance, “漕矩吒 Caojuzha”, an ancient city in present-day Afghanistan, was simply referred to as “漕國 Caoguo”, and “黎軒 Lixuan”, the city of Alexandria, was represented by only two of its syllables (characters). However, it is important to note that Li has not provided direct evidence that Jerusalem was ever referred to as “伊 Yi”. Moreover, the examples he cites (“Caojuzha” and “Lixuan”) lack modifiers such as “大 da (great)” or “小 xiao (small)”, which makes them less compelling references for interpreting “Yidacheng”.

As such, while the scholarly community holds diverse views on the interpretation of “石國 Shiguo”,10 there is general consensus that “Yidacheng” literally means “City of Judah”, referring to “Jerusalem”, although the rationale for this interpretation varies significantly across the scholarly community. However, “伊大城 Yidacheng” (or “City of Judah”) is an unusual designation for Jerusalem. In biblical tradition, when Jerusalem is referred to in the form of “City of…”, it is almost always “Ir David עִיר דָּוִד” (City of David), not “Ir Yehudah עִיר יְהוּדָה” (City of Judah). The latter is rare, appearing only once (II Chronicles 25:28) in some English versions of the Bible and not at all in others. For instance, in versions such as the Complete Jewish Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible, NIV, and YLT, II Chronicles 25:28 uses the term “City of Judah”, while most other versions employ the phrase “City of David”.

A critical detail appears in the NIV’s footnote for “City of Judah” in II Chronicles 25:28, which notes: “Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac (see also 2 Kings 14:20): David”. This indicates that while most Hebrew manuscripts use “City of Judah”, other manuscripts, along with the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions, prefer “City of David”. Furthermore, the corresponding verse in 2 Kings 14:20 also uses “City of David”.

The fact that most Hebrew manuscripts employ “City of Judah” is particularly intriguing. Indeed, the Leningrad Codex, the oldest extant Hebrew Bible manuscript, dated to around 1008 CE, uses “Ir Yehudah” for this verse. This designation for Jerusalem is thus rare, archaic, and preserved mainly in manuscripts maintained within Jewish communities. The appearance of this term in YSL is, therefore, surprising, particularly given its absence in the Peshitta, the Bible of the Syriac tradition. This is noteworthy because, since Saeki’s works, YSL has consistently been regarded as an Aluoben text—thus labeled “Nestorian” and associated with Syriac origins. Early Chinese Christianity is widely believed to have been rooted exclusively in the Syriac tradition, making this divergence especially significant.

5. Curtain-Splitting Event at Jesus’ Death

Matthew 27:51 recounts that at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross, “the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split” (NRSV). In YSL (279–280), the event is recounted this way:

279 …地動山

… the earth moved and the hills

280 崩，石罄上氍𣭻蹹壁，彼處張設聖化，擘作兩

broke apart. Upon the stone vessel, where the sanctified was placed, a woolen mat was applied to the wall. It

281 段。 …11

split in two.

The meanings of the beginning and ending parts of this short passage are clear: the opening states, “the earth moved and the hills broke,” while the end reads, “… it split into two” respectively. However, the middle parts in line 280 are more challenging and require more work. There are two phrases in the line: “石罄上氍𣭻蹹壁 shiqing shang quyan tabi” and “彼處張設聖化 bichu zhangshe shenghua,” and between the two, the former requires a more detailed analysis.

The first two characters, “shiqing,” refer to a stone vessel, as “qing” denotes “the space inside a vessel,” according to the classical dictionary 説文 Shuowen.12 This usage is also attested in Dunhuang manuscripts, further supporting the interpretation.13 Thus, the first three characters “shiqing shang” translate to “above the stone vessel”. “Shiqing shang” is followed by “quyan tabi”, indicating that the latter is something placed on or above the former, namely, the stone vessel. Nie Zhijun interprets “quyan” as related to “氍毹 qushu” and “氍氀 qulu”, both of which refer to a type of blanket or woolen mat (Nie 2016, p. 41). Regarding “tabi”, Nie connects it to a term from a ninth-century Buddhist dictionary that means “applied to the wall” (Nie 2016, pp. 41, 118). Thus, the phrase could be translated as “Upon the stone vessel, a woolen mat is applied to the wall”. However, despite this interpretation, Nie ultimately concludes that “quyan tabi” represents the curtain in the Temple of Jerusalem. The imagery of the temple curtain, which separates the Holy of Holies from the Place of the Holy in the Temple of Jerusalem (Exodus 26:31–33), is distinct from YSL’s description of a woolen mat placed on the wall above a stone vessel, suggesting that Nie diverged from his initial exegesis, possibly in an attempt to align the text with the biblical account.

How do we account for YSL imagery? We propose that it represents the “פָּרוֹכֶת parochet (curtain)” of the synagogue, covering the Torah Shrine that was either laid against or built into the Jerusalem-oriented wall. As noted by Rachel Hachlili, an Israeli archaeologist and scholar known for her expertise in the field of synagogue architecture in ancient Israel:

The Bible also reports that the curtain of the temple was removed to cover the Ark of the Covenant when the Tent was travelling (Num. 4:6). Illustrations of arks covered by a veil appear on the Dura Europos wall paintings on Wing Panel III, …. The existence of the veil is known from remains found in synagogue excavations and through artistic depictions on synagogue mosaic pavements showing the curtain (parochet) hanging down in front and screening the facade of the Ark or the Torah Shrine.

(Hachlili 2013, p. 210)

Inside the hall, the congregation prayed while facing the Torah Shrine and the Jerusalem-oriented wall, aligning themselves with Jerusalem. This emphasis on the Torah Shrine and the orientation toward Jerusalem served as symbols of the place’s sanctity and as a poignant reminder of the Temple (Hachlili 2013, p. 210). The term “Torah Shrine” denotes the architectural stone structure on the Jerusalem-oriented wall, which housed the Ark of the Scrolls. A Torah Shrine could take the form of either aedicula, niche or apse, and while an aedicula could be a standalone structure against the wall, a niche or an apse latter are built into it, and the parochet covering the Torah Shrine would be, especially in the scenarios of a niche or an apse, covering the wall as well (Hachlili 2013, p. 164).

This imagery fits the description of “shiqing shang quyan tabi” quite well. The Shiqing would be the Torah Shrine, quyan would be the parochet, and “蹹壁 tabi” would describe how the parochet covers the wall and, therefore, the Torah Shrine. The comparability is further strengthened by the subsequent phrase “彼處張設聖化 bichu zhangshe shenghua (there the Sanctified was placed)” in line 280, which would refer to the Ark of the Scrolls inside the Torah Shrine.

The Author and his community appear to operate in a synagogue-like setting. This should not be surprising. As P. Figueras points out in his 2014 book An Introduction to Early Christianity, the Jewish Diaspora had provided a valuable resource for Christian missionaries spreading their message, and according to Acts 17:1, the apostle Paul routinely visited synagogues in each city he reached to deliver his message. It was only natural for these missionaries, many of whom being Jewish themselves, to integrate into Jewish communities within the Diaspora (Figueras 2014, p. 26). The imagery and scenario portrayed in lines 279–281 suggest that the Author and their community were closely linked to the Jewish lineage.

6. Conclusions

In this article, we have identified four passages in YSL that appear to embody distinct Jewish elements. In lines 356–358, the phrase “yizhong zuo shenghua” mirrors the Jewish-Christian theme of the “sanctification of the Gentiles” found in the Book of Acts. Both expressions are rooted in the Jewish dichotomous view of humanity, placing Jews, or Shihu Ren, at the center. The author’s use of this phrase distinguishes him from yizhong ren and aligns him with Shihu Ren, a term referring to the “Jews” in YSL (as seen in lines 255, 292–301, and 343–346). In lines 256–263, YSL aligns with Jewish polemical literature by explicitly attributing messianic declarations to Jesus. These self-proclamations, repeated three times (lines 256, 262–263, 265), reflect the central issue in Jewish accusations of false Messiahship and demonstrate a clear understanding of the religious and cultural sensitivities within Jewish tradition.

In lines 345–347, the use of “City of Judah” is noteworthy, as it is an archaic designation for Jerusalem, primarily preserved within Jewish traditions. In contrast, in most biblical traditions outside of Jewish contexts, “City of David” is the more commonly used term. In lines 279–281, a detailed philological examination of the phrases “shiqing shang quyan tabi” and “bichu zhangshe shenghua” reveals imagery of a woolen mat covering the wall over a stone vessel, analogous to the parochet that covers the wall behind the Ark of the Scrolls in synagogues.

In addition to these four passages, lines 108–159 of YSL present the parable of the wise and foolish builders. A comparison of this parable with those found in the sixth-century rabbinic text Avot D’Rabbi Nathan and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke was undertaken in this author’s 2024 article, “The Parable of Wise and Foolish Builders in Yishen Lun and Rabbinic Literature.” This study, organized around three key themes—imagery, piety, and worldview—concludes that the YSL rendition aligns more closely with the rabbinic tradition than with the Gospel accounts (Tam 2024).

These new hermeneutical insights should provide valuable and fresh data for ongoing research into YSL, or early Chinese Christianity in general.