Download Chapter One The Spread of Christianity

Chapter One
The Spread of Christianity
Christianity grew out of Judaism. The process of separation begun in the first century
of the Common Era would take several centuries. On the physical level, Christians
continued to live in close proximity to Jews for some time, especially in the eastern
part of the empire, and to show a certain dependence on Jews. Thus, the influence of
geography on the spread of Christianity should be considered.
The earliest evidence for the name ‘Christian’ is derived from the Book of Acts and is
found in early Greek and Roman authors. Acts will be examined for historicity and
date, and the effect of persecution on Jews and Christians will be assessed. The
evidence suggests that early Christian organisation was modelled on that of the
synagogue. It would take until the fifth century for the Bishop of Rome to assert his
influence and begin to centralise power over the western part of the church.
Though the exact number of Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the first
century of the Common Era, is not known, it has been estimated that they may have
numbered between four and five million, and numerically formed a significant portion
of the population.1 Jewish populations were to be found in all the principal cities of the
Graeco-Roman world, and along the main trade routes,2 being especially numerous in
the trade city of Alexandria, with strong communities in Rome and Antioch.3
1
See Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,
ed. and tr. by James Moffatt, (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1961), 8ff; Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans
l'Empire romain (New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 209–212. See also Sib. Or. 3. 271, which
states that Jews filled every country. Josephus, Ant.14.7.2:115; Philo, In Flacc. 7 (M.2. 524);
Josephus, J.W., 2.16.4: 398.
2
In the first century, the control of the Phoenician ports was under Roman rule, trade being
conducted coast wise, through Syrian territory, and the island of Cyprus to Egypt. See Victor
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, tr. S. Applebaum (New York: Athenaeum,
1982), 51.
3
See Robert Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman
World (London, Collins, 1971), 36. Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, its
population being between a quarter and a half million inhabitants, with an estimated twenty to forty
thousand being Jewish. See Patrick Hartin, ‘Jewish Christianity: Focus on Antioch in the First
Century’, Scriptura, 36 (1991), 40.
15
Until the catastrophic events of the last third of the first century CE, Jerusalem
remained the point from which Jews spread into the Diaspora, and the gathering place
during the great pilgrimage feasts.4 When Jerusalem fell to the Romans in 70 CE, with
Masada, the last stronghold, falling three years later, the beleaguered city became the
base of the X Legion Fretensis, with Judaea being appointed as a praetorian province
and administered by a praetorian legate.5
By the third century an estimated three million Jews had settled west of Mesopotamia.6
The greatest concentration of the Jewish population was in Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria
and Rome.7 Their numbers were particularly numerous in Syria, with a large Jewish
community in Antioch.8 Jews lived in most of the Roman provinces adjoining the
Mediterranean, as well as in Babylonia and the areas around the Black Sea and in
Mesopotamia.
Trade Routes and Geographical Influences
Christianity was initially an urban phenomenon, so that, in certain areas, Christian
settlement was located in the vicinity of Jewish populations until the third century at
least or beyond that time.9
Aptly, the Near East has been named the point of balance of the Old World. Its
strategic position made it a crossroads between trade routes, the unique features of the
region, such as resources, mountains and climate having a direct bearing on the
cultural mix of the region and the dissemination of ideas.
On the one hand, there is no land route between Europe and Africa or Africa and Asia
4
See Acts 2:1, 5–12.
5
Josephus, J.W., 7.12.3–17.
6
See Michael Grant, Ancient History Atlas, rev. edn (London, Weinfield and Nicolson, 1974 ), 81.
7
See Robert Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's
Exegesis and Theology (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971), 9.
8
See Harnack, The Mission, 2ff.
9
See Maps 1–4, and explanatory notes, at the end of this chapter.
16
except across the narrow land-bridge bounded by the Mediterranean and Red Seas and
the Persian Gulf. Another constricting factor is the mid-world desert belt to the east of
the coastal lands that include Israel, Lebanon and Syria, which reaches towards the
great mountain ranges radiating from the Armenian knot.10
The area of the ancient Near East may be defined as being between Greece in the
northwest and the Iranian plateau in the north-east, with the Libyan plateau in the
south-west and the eastern littoral of the Arabian peninsula in the south east. The
western boundary was the Mediterranean Sea, which not only served as a major
shipping route but was also one of the constricting factors which forced greater
emphasis on the roads of the littoral.
Trade was facilitated by certain natural routes, which followed the lines of least
resistance alongside the mountain ranges. The Piedmont route, which came to be
called the ‘silk road’, crossed the Zagros mountains to Babylon and the Euphrates
valley and then to India. The incense route from south Arabia to the Mediterranean via
Petra connected with the coast road, the Via Maris, which ran southwards from
Aleppo across the Levant Bridge, through Damascus and the Palestine coastal region
to Egypt.11 This road linked the Nile Valley region with Mesopotamia and the north.
Another very important road was the King’s Highway which connected Damascus
with Petra and Arabia. Until its annexation by Rome in 106 CE, the Nabatean vassal
state made enormous revenues from taxing the international caravan routes, the cost of
incense from Dhofar, silk from China, pearls from the Persian Gulf, and spice and
cotton from India doubling during transit through Nabatean controlled territory.12
Trade in slaves took place along the so called Amber route passing through Germania
to Aquileia and to the north and east of the Black Sea.13 A slave trade with the more
10
See Alan Crown, Biblical Studies Today (Sydney Chevalier Press, 1975), 68. See also James B.
Pritchard, The Times Atlas of the Bible (Sydney, Bay Books, 1987), 160ff.
11
See Crown, Biblical Studies, 69.
12
See Pritchard, The Times Atlas, 160ff.
13
See John P. Balsdon, ‘The Historical Background’, in Arts: A Second Level Course: The Early
Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (Milton Keynes, Open University, 1974), 106, 110.
17
densely populated east had existed well before imperial times, the population being
skilled in a wide variety of pursuits, more so than the German tribesmen.14
By 300 CE Jews were to be found virtually everywhere in the Mediterranean basin,
their expansion gradually extending into Western Europe. Christian populations lived
in areas of Jewish settlement. The largest Jewish settlement outside of the Roman
Empire was still in Babylonia,15 but along the main trading routes new communities
were rapidly being established.16 The caravan route passed through the Decapolis
towns from Israel to Syria, to Damascus, then through Abila, Baalbek, Emesa, Hamath
and Apameia to Antioch, and thence to Mesopotamia-from Damascus through the
Syrian towns to Hauran, Edessa and Nisibis or straight across the desert to the
Euphrates.17
The city of Edessa illustrates the importance of trade in the dissemination of
Christianity, the latter being established there between 116 and 216. Edessa, an
important link between Palestine and the Iranian empire, lay on the trade route which
passed between Syria and the Armenian mountains to the north.18 The movement of
Christianity may be traced through Antioch to Edessa and from there across the nearby
frontier into Adiabene, parts of Armenia, Khuzistan, to Fars, and to the Caucasus.
Neusner concludes on the basis of the evidence that Christianity moved out of
Palestine slowly and irregularly, being successful in some places and making no
headway in others.19 However, the reason for rejection or acceptance of Christianity
may have been influenced by the pre-Christian composition of the population. Thus
14
See Steven K. Drummond and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome (Armonk,
New York, M. E. Sharpe, 1994), 119.
15
Map 1 (at the end of the chapter) indicates that in Babylonia, where the talmudic academies were
prominent, the Christian settlement was minimal.
16
See Nicholas de Lange, Atlas of the Jewish World, reprint (New York, Facts on File, 1995), 29. See
Map 2 at end of this chapter for trade routes.
17
See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 109.
18
See Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1: The Parthian Period (Leiden, Brill
1965), 166.
19
See Neusner, A History, 168 and n. 1.
18
Neusner postulates that where tannaitic influence was strong among the local Jewish
community, as in Nisibis, where the Christian see was founded only in 300, and in
Nehardea, Christianity made little progress.20
Christianity also spread to areas of western Europe before the reign of Constantine. As
early as the late second or early third century, it appears that Christian communities in
the western part of the empire had attained some geographical independence from
Jewish populations.21 The evidence indicates that geographical separation of Jews and
Christians would take longer in the more densely populated east where there were
greater concentrations of Jews.22
The Book of Acts
The evidence from Acts shows the movement of evangelisation passing from Jewish
centres out into the Graeco-Roman populations, first from Jerusalem where the
Christian message was reported to have been announced by Peter and the apostles on
the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Acts mentions Jews who had assembled in Jerusalem on
the day of Pentecost as having come from Judaea, Galilee, Parthian, Mede, Edam,
Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts
of Libya belonging to Cyrene, with visitors from Rome, Crete and Arabia.23
Information gleaned from Acts can be variously interpreted. Authorship and date are
problematic. Since early times Luke has traditionally been accredited as the author, as
attested in the Muratovium Canon and in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius
20
See Neusner, A History, 169.
21
A list of those attending the Council of Arles names several areas of Gaul including Rheims and
Cologne and three places in Britain: Eboracum (York), Lindinonium (Lincoln) and London. See
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (54 vols,
Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), vol. 2, 476–7. As documentation is
tendentious, lack of material or literary evidence does not preclude the possibility that some Jews
were settled in these areas. Certainly in Britain there was no visible Jewish population. See Table 1
in appendix (after concluding chapter of thesis) and Map 3, at the end of this chapter.
22
See Map 2 at end this chapter.
23
Acts 2:7–11.
19
and Jerome.24 Dating the text of Acts is also difficult, and has generated a wide range
of opinion.25 Talbert sets the limits of the dating by postulating that the document
must have been composed later than the events of Acts 28 (the early 60s) and before
the time of Justin Martyr’s First Apology in the mid second century which he sees as
indicating that Justin was familiar with the plot of Acts as well as its connection to
Luke 24:25–27, 32.26
Afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them,
and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things
were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him
ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power
sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they
taught these things and were called apostles (First Apology 50).27
James Dunn has asserted that a date in the middle of the second generation of
Christianity (the 80s) best fits with the evidence which he summarises as: 1) it is a
work written some time after the Gospel of Luke, itself usually thought to be
dependent on Mark’s Gospel (usually dated to the late 60s or early 70s); 2) the author
had probably been a companion of Paul, and 3) his depiction of the earliest Christians
seems to reflect the concerns of the post-Pauline generation.28 Talbert concludes that
‘enough corroborating data has been assembled already by scholars to enable one to
conclude that Acts is not mere fiction and that its record is reasonably reliable in areas
where it can be checked’.29
24
See Irenaeus, Cont. Haer. 3.14.1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.12; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3:4;
Jerome, Comm. in Is 3:6, Ep. 53.9.
25
Colin Hemer lists the range of scholarly opinion on dating which varies from the early sixties to
the year 135. See Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 49 (Tübingen, Mohr-Paul Siebeck,
1989), 363–410, especially 366–70.
26
See Charles Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on The Acts of the
Apostles (New York, Crossroad, 1997), 1.
27
Translation from the series: The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to AD 325,
revised A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 1, 179.
28
See James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, (Epworth Press, 1996), xi.
29
See Talbert, Reading Acts, 254.
20
When the Pauline mission began its outreach to the gentiles, the exegesis of Jewish
scriptures in the synagogues to highlight the role of Jesus often caused friction and
riots, thus capturing the attention of non-Jews.30 Feldman notes that the effect of the
assimilation of Greek language and culture was not defection from Judaism but rather
the creation of a common means of communication with non-Jews.31 It would appear
that successful Jewish propaganda which showed the superiority of Judaism as a moral
and monotheistic religion over paganism paved the way for the Christian mission.32
In the beginning, most local churches appear to have developed from an original
nucleus of Jewish believers. When the Pauline mission began, Acts 16 indicates that
Paul’s main focus of activity was in areas of Graeco-Roman population, where Jewish
communities were less prominent than in the east. Paul’s workers whose names are
recorded in Acts are Jews, and include women.33 An exception was Titus, a Greek,
whom Paul did not compel to be circumcised.34
By the end of the first century of the Common Era, the Christian movement had
already attained a wide geographical spread throughout the Roman Empire. Numbers,
however, do not seem to have been large. Acts, for example indicates that gentile
converts were quite few. The church at Troas, for example, could fit into one upper
room.35 Again, according to Acts, initially there appear to have been large numbers of
Jews converted to Christianity, but this changed with the activities of Paul among the
non-Jews. 36
30
See Acts 13:43–48; 14:1–4, 10–13; 18:5–8.
31
See L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton University Press, 1993), 83.
32
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish–Christian Schism’, Immanuel, 16 (1983), 39.
33
See for example Acts 18:1–2 (Aquila and Priscilla); Acts 13:1 (Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of
Cyrene, Manaen).
34
See Gal 2:3; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13.
35
See Acts 20:6–8. See also Acts 17:12, 34.
36
See Acts 2:41, 47 (more than 3000); Acts 4:4 (4000); Acts 6:1, 7 (the number of converts in
Jerusalem continued to grow and included some priests). Though perhaps the numbers have been
exaggerated, the evidence indicates that initially, there were more Jewish converts than gentile.
21
Paul’s first missionary journey was to the east, beginning in Antioch in Syria, passing
to Seleucia, Cyprus, Salamis, Paphos, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia and
Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.37 During this time, whilst his visits were welcomed by
non-Jews, considerable tension was stirred up in various synagogues along the way.
In some communities, Christianity had preceded the Pauline mission.38 By the time of
the first Epistle of Peter in the late first century, there were Christian communities in
Asia, Galatia, Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia.39 The Book of Revelation speaks of
the seven churches of Asia – Smyrna, Magnesia, Tralles, Laodicea, Philadelphia,
Sardis, Thyatira and Pergamum.40 The letters of Ignatius (d. 107) were addressed to
Christians in Smyrna, Magnesia and Tralles, as well as Ephesus, Rome and
Philadelphia.41 All these cities had Jewish populations.42
On his second and third journeys, Paul had travelled west to the region of Macedonia
and Thrace, a region inhabited by non-Jews.43 Flusser affirms that this change in
direction from the east, where the Jewish population was most numerous, to the west,
which was settled by non-Jews, was pivotal to the success of the Christian mission,
and resulted in Christianity developing into a European religion. He argues that
liberalism, an intrinsic element of western culture, added to Christianity’s movement
away from ritual and ceremonial prescriptions concerning ‘food and drink and various
ablutions’ (Heb 9:10). In addition, he holds that had Christianity spread first to regions
of eastern Asia, it would have developed specific ceremonial and ritual practices based
37
Acts 13:1–14:28.
38
See Acts 11:19. ‘Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over
Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one
except Jews’.
39
See 1 Peter 1:1.
40
Rev 1:11.
41
See M. J. Rouet de Journal, Enchiridion Patristicum, 4th edn (Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder, 1937),
xi.
42
See Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain (New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 179–209.
43
Acts 15:36–18:22 (second journey): Acts 18:23-21:17 (third journey).
22
on Jewish law in order to have been accepted as a religion in that part of the world.44
Thus, he sees western liberalism as a contributing element in the non-Jewish world’s
acceptance of the Pauline ideological framework.45
New Testament texts indicate that the first Christians were made up of two groups,
one which accepted proselytes on the condition that they kept the Noahide laws (Acts
15:19), and the other which objected to the admission of proselytes who did not accept
Jewish halakhah. This group also accused Peter of socialising with the uncircumcised
(Gal 2:12; Acts 11:3).
The Name ‘Christian’
Antioch, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was the city in which the followers of a
new messianic movement were first called Christians.46 The first Christians belonged
to the local synagogues, but began to differentiate themselves at an early date from
other Jewish communities by nomenclature, rather than by structure.47 For a time the
community was known intramurally as the Way (hê hodos).48
At first Christians were not distinguished from Jews by the Romans.49 Thus Suetonius
(ca 69 CE to first half of the second century century CE), in describing the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome by decree of Claudius in 49 CE, does not at this point distinguish
between Jews and Christians.50 However, when narrating the steps taken by Nero
44
See David Flusser, Jesus, 2nd edn (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1997), 56ff.
45
Flusser, Jesus, 56.
46
Acts 2:7–11.
47
See further in chapter 2 on the Jewish-Christians, a term used for the original Christians. James
Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest
Christian Communities (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 279 and n.14.
48
Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22.
49
See Edwin Judge, ‘Judaism and the Rise of Christianity: A Roman Perspective’, Tyndale Bulletin,
45:2 (1994): 356. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem,
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), vol. 2, 113.
50
Divus Claudius, 25:4. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 113.
23
against the Christians in 64 CE, he no longer confused Christians with Jews.51 Stern,
discussing the exaction of the Fiscus Iudaicus, adds that by the time of Nero, the
Roman Government was aware of the difference between Christians and Jews.52
The earliest textual evidence showing that Christians were differentiated from Jews is
supplied by Tacitus, who speaks of the time of Nero:
Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in
the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and
the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out
once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the
capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect
and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were
arrested; next, on their disclosures vast numbers were convicted, not so
much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And
derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’
skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and
when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had
offered his gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his
Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted
on his car.53
The second century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus (Chronica 2.30.6, 7), who may
carry a certain pro-Christian bias, but is probably dependent on Tacitus, writes that
Titus had urged the destruction of the Temple in order ‘to extirpate the religion of both
the Jews and Christians, which, though mutually hostile, sprang from the same source.
As the Christians derived from the Jews, the extermination of the root would easily
cause the offspring to perish’.54 However, this text does not prove Titus was aware of
a distinction between Jews and Christians in Jerusalem
Impact of Persecution
Philo details persecutions of the Jews in Alexandria under Flaccus, who was
51
Nero 16:2: ‘afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae’. See
Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 108.
52
Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 130.
53
Annales 15:44:2–5, Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 89.
54
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 64–6.
24
persuaded to declare that the Jews were aliens who had no citizenship rights, thus
stirring up a violent attack.55 Eventually Flaccus was arrested and sent to Rome, and
the new Emperor Claudius explicitly reaffirmed Jewish rights in the year 41 CE, but
hostilities still smouldered, the Jews staging a rebellion in the year 115 against the
Greeks, in the latter days of Trajan. This was completely suppressed by the Romans in
the year 119.56 The outcome of the rebellion exacted a terrible cost in Jewish lives as
talmudic references indicate.57 The community in Alexandria never regained its former
glory when, according to Philo, they numbered no fewer than a million in the first
century.58
At the same time, there is no satisfactory direct evidence for the existence of Christian
communities in Egypt during the first century, but as Alexandria was the greatest port
in the eastern Mediterranean, it is likely that Christianity had reached Alexandria by
the end of the century. Although sources give little information on the history of Jews
and Christians in the second century, it is known that Christianity existed in Egypt, for
the gnostic writers Valentinus and Basilides were active in Alexandria in the second
third of that century.59 The Edict of Decius against Christians in 250 indicates that
Christianity had spread to Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt.
Though Christianity suffered some persecution in the early years, this does not appear
to have curtailed its expansion.60 Where Jewish populations suffered oppression and
persecution in these early years, there appears to have been a diminuition in the initial
spread of Christianity in the affected areas, at least in the case of Alexandria and the
55
In Flaccum, 8.54.
56
See Molly Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco–Roman Views (Cambridge University Press,
1984) 11.
57
t. Peah 4: 6; t. Ket, 3:I.
58
In Flaccum, 6.43.
59
See H. Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco–Roman Egypt (Liverpool University Press, 1953) 79
–80.
60
According to tradition there were ten persecutions against Christians recorded before the reign of
Constantine: Nero (after fire of Rome in 64 CE), Domitian (96), four other less serious
persecutions, then Decius, Valerian (253–60), Aurelian (270–75) and the worst under Diocletian
(303). See F. A Wright, Fathers of the Church: A Selection from the Writings of the Latin Fathers
(London, Routledge, 1928), 6–7.
25
land of Israel, where the Jewish resistance to Roman rule was prolonged and religious
persecution of Jews exacted a terrible toll. This evidence shows exceptions to the
accepted historical tradition of Roman tolerance towards Judaism and other cults.61 It
appears that the Hadrianic persecution of Jews weakened the initial spread of
Christianity in Israel. The Jerusalem Church did not attain importance till after
Constantine, Caesarea having a greater rank.
Christian Organisation Based on Synagogue
The Book of Acts reflects a style of organisation consisting of presbyters and the
sharing of goods in common as well as a hierarchical structure reminiscent of that
revealed in the Damascus Document and other Dead Sea Scroll texts. However, unlike
the latter situation, priests are not functionaries in the early church. The early Christian
bishop emerged as the leader of the local Christian community based upon the town.
Steven Fine claims, in addition, that the Diaspora synagogue exerted a powerful
influence on both the liturgical practices and the organisational structure of early
Christian communities.62 Several functions of the ™κκλησ…α that appeared to have
been derived directly from the synagogue include the collection of offerings from the
gentile churches for the mother church of Jerusalem, a practice which resembles the
sending of envoys carrying the Temple tax from the Diaspora synagogues to Jerusalem
(1 Cor 16: 1–3; 2 Cor 8:9; Rom 15:25–27). In addition, there was the reading and
interpretation of scripture, common prayer and meals shared in common (1 Cor 11:
17–34, 14:26). Again, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to settle their own legal
affairs within their assembly may also derive from synagogue practice (6:1-7).63
Burtchaell sees the office of the episkopos (Phil 1:1) as being parallel to that of the
archisynagogos, the Christian presbyteroi (Acts 20;17; 1 Pet 5:1; James 5:14,15) as
61
See Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.), translated and
edited by Gershon Levi (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1980), vol. 1, 70–1.
62
See Steven Fine, Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New
York, Oxford University Press, 1996), 93.
63
See Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1983), 80–81 and Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 284–88.
See also Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second
Temple Period (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, 1997), 395.
26
being analagous to the Jewish presbyteroi and the diakonos (Phil 1:1; Rom 16:1) as
being the counterpart of the hypērtēs.64 In the earliest period, however, there was no
great concern for community organisation, as charismatics were the spiritual
authorities, and Paul’s assistants were referred to by name and never by title.
Burtchaell points out that the way in which Christian communities designed their own
titles shows they were overlaying Jewish structures with their own.65 Grant sees the
Didache as marking a turning point in Church organisation, where the author instructs
his congregations to appoint bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi).66
From the fourth century there also appears to have been the adoption of the names of
some temple functionaries. Thus the expressions levite, as well as readers, singers and
priests as church functionaries occur frequently in the church council canons.67
However, though initially the Christian group had no priests, the Epistle to the
Hebrews speaks of Christ as the high priest par excellence and Christians as a whole
are called a priestly people (1 Pet 2: 5; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
From Jerusalem to Rome
For the first three centuries, there existed in Israel only the sees of Jerusalem and
Caesarea, the latter being elevated to pre-eminence over Jerusalem in the time of
Hadrian. The elimination of the Jews in Jerusalem meant also the departure of the
Jewish-Christians. This is indicated by Eusebius, who lists the bishops of Jerusalem
till Hadrian as having been of Jewish origin, whereas after that time he says they were
of gentile origin. Again, his numbers differ in both the Ecclesiastical History 4–6 and
64
See Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 338–72.
65
Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 346–7.
66
See Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the
Roman World (London, Collins, 1971), 172. See Didache, 15: 1–2ff. The date is much disputed,
but may belong to the late second century. It is possibly a composite document.
67
These names occur in the wording of canons from synods held in Rome in 386 and Carthage in 393.
See Canon 9 of the latter. See Joseph von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church from the
Original Documents, reprint (New York, AMS, 1972), vol. 2, 387. See also Mansi, vol. 3, 670:
‘suademus quod sacerdotes & levitae cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia in ministerio ministri
quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur’ and Mansi, vol. 3, 709–10. Canon 3: ‘episcopos, inquam,
presbyteros & diaconos, ita complacuit, ut condecet sacros antistites ac Dei sacerdotes, nec non &
levitas’.
27
Chronicle, his source appearing to have been local tradition.68 In both works he gives a
complete lists of bishops in the churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem
from the time of the apostles to his own day.
In 451 Jerusalem was raised to a patriarchate, thus being ecclesiastically superior to
Caesarea, while it remained subordinate to it in civil matters.69 By the fourth century,
the literature reveals that a rapid rise in the number of Christian communities had
taken place.70 From the time of Constantine’s defeat of Licinius in 324, when the
eastern provinces were added to his realm, the Empire and Church were closely
linked, with the ecclesiastical divisions now closely matching the civil. Each city had a
bishop, and an archbishop assumed his seat in the capital of each province.71 This was
to increase still more in the fifth century.
The Papacy and Centralisation of the Western Church
It is in the fifth century that evidence reveals that the Bishop of Rome had begun to
centralise his authority over the whole
western church. Little is known about the bishops of Rome in the first three or four
centuries of the church’s existence, but the Roman church is the only one in the west
which could claim the distinction of having been founded by the immediate followers
of Christ, Peter and Paul. The decree of Valentinian II in 445, during the time of Leo
the Great (440–461) was a significant step towards centralising the western church
under the leadership of the Pope.72
68
See C. H. Turner, ‘The Early Episcopal Lists’, JTS, 1 (1900), 181–200 & 530–1.
69
See Michael Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to
A.D. 640): A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1966), 122.
70
Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, Eusebius, Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, etc.
71
See Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, 122. See table in appendix of thesis for ecclesiastical divisions at
the time of the Council of Nicaea and, at the end of this chapter, the map of the bishoprics of those
attending Nicaea in relation to Jewish towns. The correlation varies in the provinces, being most
marked in the Province of Palestina. This demonstrates that in some areas Christian communities
had moved away from Jewish populations.
72
See James Harvey Robinson, Medieval and Modern Times: An Introduction to the History of
Western Europe from the Dissolution of the Roman Empire to the Opening of the Great War of
1914 (Boston, Ginn, 1916), 47–8.
28
Since, then, the primacy of the Apostolic See is established by the merit
of St Peter (who is the chief among the bishops), by the majesty of the
city of Rome, and finally by the authority of a holy council,73 no one,
without inexcusable presumption, may attempt anything against the
authority of that see. Peace will be secured among the churches if every
one recognize his ruler. 74
Also suggesting the aspirations for the prominence of the see of Rome is the letter of
Pope Gelasius I written in 494 to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of spiritual
over temporal power.
By two indeed, August Emperor, is this world chiefly ruled: the sacred
authority of pontiffs, and the kingly power. Of these, the burden of the
priests is heavier in that, under divine scrutiny, they are to render to
Lord an accounting for the very kings themselves.75
Gelasius is the first pope to have left written texts on the relationship between Jews
and official Christianity. His understanding of Judaism was based on his reading of
scripture, which reflected the theological antisemitism of his age,76 but he also counted
some Jews as personal friends,77 and on one occasion intervened in his official
capacity as the juridical head of the church, in an affair in which the interests of a Jew
were at stake.78
73
Council of Sardica (343 or 344 CE). Canon 5, stated in the name of Osius of Cordova, asserted
Roman primacy. For discussion see Hefele, vol. 2, 119–29.
74
Translation of Decree of Valentinian III (445). See James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European
History: A Collection of Extracts from the Sources Chosen with the Purpose of Illustrating the
Progress of Culture in Western Europe Since the German Invasions (Boston, Ginn, 1904), vol. 1,
72.
75
See Edward A. Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York, Macmillan, 1965),
32.
76
Gelasius is reported as having called him the devil’s workman, whilst on other occasions he
defended the Jewish origin of the Church. See Synan, The Popes, 32, n.3. See also PL 59:103A–B,
107C, 120C.
77
See PL 59:146C. Gelasius’ intervention was on behalf of the Jew, Telesinus.
78
See PL 59:146D–7A.The affair concerned a certain Judah who had complained to the church
authorities at Venafro that although he had been born a Christian, he had been circumcised by a
previous Jewish master. Gelasius ordered an investigation for fear that ‘religion should suffer
contempt,’(nec religio temerata videatur) or a slave succeed in derogating ‘the legal rights’of a
Jewish owner through a false accusation. ‘nec servus hac obsectione mentitus competentis jura
domini declinare contendat’. See Synan, The Popes, 34, n. 9. There was need of diplomacy in the
situation as the circumcision of Christian slaves was forbidden by imperial law (C. Th.16.9.1) but
29
Conclusion
The physical relationship between Jewish and Christian populations has been
demonstrated. Trade led to the dissemination of ideas. Early local churches developed
originally from centres of Jewish life. Paul’s work in the west led to the church
becoming predominantly gentile. Although there are problems with historicity and
dating, Acts provides the earliest evidence for the use of the term ‘Christian’.
Organisationally, early Christianity owed much to the synagogue structures.
Jerusalem, which originally was a community of Jewish believers was superseded in
time by the centralising of power in the papacy in Rome.
The relationship of Jewish populations to Christian settlement has been shown in the
following series of maps.
Map 1 shows the relationship of Christian populations to Jewish populations in the
third and fourth centuries, Christian populations being mostly in the vicinity of Jewish
populations, but were beginning to move to areas where apparently no Jews were
located, such as Britain and Arabia. The trade routes are indicated.
Map 2 is a detailed map of the trade routes.
Map 3 is comparative map showing Jewish towns and the bishoprics of those who
attended Council of Nicaea. Most of these delegates to Nicaea came from the east,
from towns with a Jewish population.
Map 4 shows the locations of the bishoprics of most of the documented thirty-three
signatories who attended the Council of Arles in the western part of the empire in 305.
In this case, there are fewer who come from towns with Jewish populations.
The maps illustrate that separation is taking place, but that on a physical level, Jews
and Christians continued to live in the same areas, but to a lesser extent in the less
densely populated western part of the empire.
required by rabbinical law (b. Yeb. 48b, 70b; b. Git.43b).
30
Chapter Two. The Jewish-Christian Schism.
The Book of Acts indicates that the process within early Christianity was one of
progressive de-judaisation, a process which, in the Pauline communities appears to
have been more marked. When Paul refused to impose any ritual obligations on his
non-Jewish disciples, the texts indicate he claimed to have the agreement of the
‘pillars of the Church’, Cephas, James and John (Gal 2:9 ff). In the long term, it was
the Jewish-Christians, those who practised Jewish law but followed Jesus as the
Messiah, who became ostracised by both Jews and Christians. They could be seen as
casualties of the ambiguous nature of Christianity, which claimed the place of Israel
but did not follow Jewish ritual law.
The Jewish-Christians
Traditions about the fate of the Jerusalem church are partially contradictory. The
Tübingen School characterises the relations between the Jerusalem church and the
apostle Paul as being tense, whilst others including Lüdemann believe that Paul
maintained harmonious relations with the church of Jerusalem.1 He sees the
opposition to the apostle to the gentiles, notably in Galatia, as emanating from an
intransigent branch of the primitive Christian community, whose influence remained
limited and quickly disappeared from the scene.2
Evidence for the replacement of the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church with
gentiles is derived from Eusebius, as mentioned previously. Thus, Eusebius relates
that until the time of Hadrian there were fifteen bishops of Jewish origin belonging to
1
The Tübingen School, an influential school of research, active in the late nineteenth century
argued that most of early Christian history was centred on a vitriolic dispute between Peter,
representing Jewish-Christianity and Paul, who was the spokesperson for hellenised, radical
Christianity. See Christopher Forbes, ‘Archaeology and the Acts of the Apostles’, in The Acts of
the Apostles, History of the New Testament: 08.16, reprint of General Interest Seminar, Friday 16
& Saturday 17 March 1984 (Sydney, Macquarie University School of History, Philosophy and
Politics, 1998), 18–21.
2
See Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat sur le Judéo-Christianisme?’, in Daniel Maguerat
(ed.), Le Déchirement. Juifs et chrétiens au premier siècle, Le Monde de la Bible no. 32 (Paris,
Labor et Fides, 1996) 250−1.
35
the circumcision. After Hadrian they were of gentile origin.
The first, then, was James who was called the brother of the Lord; and
after him was the second, Symeon; the third, Justus, the fourth
Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John;
the eighth Mathias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh,
Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth,
Joseph; and last of all, the fifteenth, Judas. This many were the
bishops in the city of Jerusalem from the apostles to the time
indicated, all of them belonging to the circumcision (Hist. eccl, 4:5).3
Role of James
The fall of Jerusalem and the decentralisation of Jewish authority which moved the
centre of the church from Jerusalem, lead to the eventual establishment of Rome as
the seat of authority in the western church, and the elevation of Peter. Was this the
cause of the obscuring of the position of the part played by James, who was head of
the Jerusalem followers of Jesus before his death? Was James’ position minimised
because of the success of the Pauline mission, when non-Jews were exempted from
the rituals of Jewish law? The evidence suggests that the history of the early church
was written to favour the gentile movement and Rome to the detriment of the Jews.
The fact that Christianity, which began as one of several reforming moments within
Judaism in the Roman Empire, emerged in the period of Constantine in the fourth
century as the official religion of the Roman Empire, lends some credence to this
view. 4
The evidence about James is not wholly clear. One could agree with Joachim
Jeremias, who suggests that originally it was Peter who had been displaced by James.
He points out that in early Christian tradition, the appearance of Christ to Peter (I Cor
15:5; Luke 24:34), despite its fundamental significance, is never portrayed as the first
appearance by Matthew, Luke, or John or by the ‘spurious’ ending of Mark. In
stating that the Gospel of the Hebrews assigns the first resurrection appearance to
James the brother of the Lord, he suggests it was the radical groups in Palestinian
3
See. Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History (New York, Fathers of the Church, 1953) 212.
4
See L. Michael White, Building God's House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation
Among Pagans, Jews and Christians (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 3.
36
Jewish-Christianity who took offence at the universalism of Peter (Gal.2:12b; Acts
11:2) and therefore displaced Peter from the position of having been the first to
experience an appearance of the risen Christ.5
A different picture of church leadership is presented by the Gospels, which show
Peter, who received a special spiritual authority from Jesus, to be the leader,6 while
the Epistles and Acts point to James.7 The Pauline letters represent the centralisation
of the Christian movement at Jerusalem, which appears to be under the leadership of
James, Cephas and John, who are described as the στàλαι (pillars) of the church,8
and exercise extensive authority over faith and practice. James the leader is called
‘the brother of the Lord’.9 Robert Eisenman, who has written extensively on the
subject, may be correct in maintaining that James is the key to a re-evaluation and
reconstruction of Jewish Christian history and the Jewish-Christian relationship.10
The narrative of Acts shows that decisions about the new faith are taken by the
Church of Jerusalem, and agrees in essence with the Pauline material about the
position of James. He appears abruptly as a person of authority in Acts 12:17,
whereas, up to this point in the narrative, Peter had been designated as the leader of
the community of disciples at Jerusalem.11
5
See Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, SCM, 1967), vol. 1, 306–7.
6
See Matt 16:17-19; John 21:15–17.
7
See Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9 12; Acts: 21:18–26.
8
See Gal 2:9.
9
Gal 1:18, 19; 2:12. See also Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18.
10
See Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (London, Faber and Faber, 1997) 7. Eisenman's
main thesis that identifies or finds parallels in James with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ is based
on his re-dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a dating that is generally unacceptable in the light of
cumulative evidence on the history of the sect. Even so, he raises some interesting questions that
have never been satisfactorily answered, pointing to the marginalisation of James and the
numerous similarly named characters in the New Testament, for example. The confusion created
that he sees as part of the process of minimising the family of Jesus. See Eisenman, James, xvii.
11
See Acts 8:14 (Samaritan question); 11:1–18 (Gentile conversion at Caesarea); 11:22–4;
(Evangelisation of Gentiles at Antioch); 15:6–29 (Council of Jerusalem and decision on
conditions for admitting gentiles).
37
He (Peter) motioned to them with his hand to be silent, and described
for them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he
added, ‘Tell this to James and to the believers’. Then he left and went
to another place (Acts 12:17).
James’ second appearance occurs at the Council of Jerusalem, where he is clearly the
leader of the assembly.12 Thus a gap exists in the picture presented of the church’s
government, in moving from the earlier epistles, through Acts and the gospels.13 The
Gospel According to Thomas, written in Syria in the early post-apostolic period,
which consists of sayings of Jesus purporting to have been collected by Didymus
Judas Thomas, makes this claim:
12 The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know that you will depart
from us. Who is to be our leader?’
Jesus said to them, ‘Wherever you are, you are to go to James
the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’
(Gospel of Thomas, Sayings 12).14
This non-canonical Gospel from the Nag Hammadi gnostic writings thus presents
another point of view that differs from that of the canonical gospels. This variation in
viewpoint hints that the real significance of James, who would not compromise on
12
See Acts 15: 13-21 ‘Therefore I (James) have reached the decision that we should not trouble
those Gentiles who are turning to God.’ Acts 15:19.
13
Not all are agreed that the Epistle of James is the work of James, the brother of Jesus. Painter
points out that what counts most strongly against the recognition of the epistle as the work of
James the brother of Jesus is that it is unattested until 180 CE, when Irenaeus cites James 2:23 in
AH 4.16.2. Origen in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17 speaks of James’ reputation for
righteousness, but while mentioning a letter written by Jude, mentions no letter written by James.
Again James was not listed as a canonical work at the Council of Nicaea. See John Painter, Just
James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (University of South Carolina Press, 1997),
235.
14
See Sayings 12 (34:22), Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, Bentley Layton (ed.), The Gospel
According to Thomas, tr. Thomas O. Lambdon (Leiden,. Brill, 1989). The Gospel of Thomas does
not appear to depend on the canonical Gospels of the New Testament, and consists of wisdom
sayings. Though the text speaks of the authority of James, this is shown to have been superseded
by that of Thomas (Saying 13), whose authority in turn is contrasted with that of Peter (Gal 1:18;
2:7–9) and Matthew (Matt 16:15–19). Unlike other writings from the Nag Hammadi Library,
there is no proclamation of Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection or mention of christological titles
such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Messiah/Christ and Lord’. Though The Gospel of Thomas portrays some
elements of a gnostic theology e.g. Sayings 83–5; 88; 101, it recognises ecclesiastical authority
(Sayings 12). See Layton’s ‘Introduction to The Gospel According to Thomas’, 38–49.
38
Jewish law, has been obscured in favour of the more liberal Peter. The latter was
ready to modify conditions for allowing non-Jews to join Christianity, without being
subject to the rituals of Jewish law.
Blood and Ritual Purity
In Acts 15, James’policies towards the new non-Jewish converts are clearly revealed.
It seems evident that initially, Jews who joined Christianity continued to follow the
rituals of Jewish law. However, according to Acts, it was decided these rituals were
not to be imposed on non-Jews as an added burden.
Now therefore why are you testing God —to lay a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples (™πιθε‹ναι ζυγÕν ™πˆ τÕν τρ£χηλον)
which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?’ (Acts 15:10).
However, this policy caused dissension among the Jewish-Christians, as with the
question of circumcision from which non-Jewish converts were exempt.15
Acts 15 presents two controversies. The first deals with the obligations of nonJewish converts to observe the Law,16 and the second concerned the controversy
about social relations between the two groups of Christian converts, the Jewish
Christians and those who were of gentile origin.17 The decision was reached that nonJews who adopted belief in Jesus were not required to obey the Mosaic law.18
However, significant exceptions were made for abstaining from food polluted by
idols,19 from sexual immorality (πορνε…aj),20 from the meat of strangled animals21
15
See Acts 11:3; 15:1. Paul did not impose circumcision on non-Jewish converts (Gal 2:3; 5:12).
16
See Gal 2:1–10.
17
See Gal 2:11–14.
18
Acts 15:9–11.
19
The flesh of animals slain for non-Jewish sacrifices. See also Acts 15:29; 21:25, I Cor 8:10 and
m. Hul. 6:2. See Lev 17: 8–9.
20
This word appears to refer to the irregular unions listed in Lev 18. Such practices involved legal
impurity. In some manuscripts, haimatos (the blood) is mentioned before porneias, indicating
emphasis on the former. The western text omits πορνε…aj. In general, the eastern churches
39
and from meat with the blood (Acts 15:20; 27–29). These prescriptions would insure
that the Jewish Christians would feel they could mix with Christians of gentile origin
without incurring legal impurity.22 In prohibiting the consumption of food sacrificed
to idols, it is stated elsewhere that the chief concern was to avoid scandal.23 Again, it
appears that Roman temples often had attached dining rooms, so that Paul was
anxious to dissuade believers from eating there, to avoid offending the consciences
of those who took idols seriously.24 Paul placed the prohibition of blood on the same
level as other ritual law, claiming Christ had superseded the law.25
The severity with which Jewish law forbids meat with blood, explains James’
unwillingness to exempt non-Jews from this prohibition.
26
The non-practice of
Jewish law as a cause of dissension became an important element that brought about
separation between Christianity and Judaism. Early Christianity, in ceasing to
observe Jewish practices, and in view of its growing gentile membership, was well
on the way to separation.
Neusner claims that both the issue of purity of the Temple and the reintepretation of
purity in non-cultic settings tended to occur most commonly in connection with
sectarian strife within the Jewish community.27 He explains that purity had so
retained practices that were closer to Jewish practices than the Western Church. Since there was a
larger concentration of Jews in the east, this is not surprising.
21
See Lev 17:13–14. See also Clem Hom 7.8; 8.19; Clem Rec 4.36.
22
See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135-425), tr. H. McKeating (Oxford University Press, 1986), 334ff.
23
I Cor 10: 27ff.
24
See Edwin Judge, ‘With Whom Did the Cults Compete?, in Christianity and Competing Cults,
Macquarie University Continuing Education Program. Conference Friday 8 & Saturday 9 May,
1998 (Macquarie University, Society for the Study of Early Christianity, 1998), 3.
25
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists.’ I
Cor 8:4.
26
Lev 1:5; Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 17:10–14.
27
See Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism 1: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
from the First to the Seventh Century (40 vols, Leiden, Brill, 1973), 111.
40
prominent a part in inter-sectarian politics because the sectarian movements
determined to define their relationship to the established Temple, while coming to
terms with, and taking over its rules, either by reinterpreting them or rejecting them.28
This explanation fits the description in Acts 15. Again, for Paul in I Cor 3:16-17,
Christ is the foundation of the ‘spiritual’ temple, which is the church. In Ephesians,
Christ is the cornerstone of the Temple. Neusner sees this as the context in which the
role of purity in early Christianity should be interpreted.29
Paul interprets purity mainly in regards to food and sexual relations, considering the
former as no longer subject to impurity.30 James 4:8 compares clean hands to a clean
heart in referring to Ps 24:4. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in a similar way to Philo,
treats the rules of purity as being a metaphor for a higher reality. In chapters 8–10,
the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Jesus’ sacrifice in the heavenly
sanctuary to the Levitical priestly sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary.31 The synoptics
treat purity under three aspects: ethics, bodily afflictions,32 and unclean hands and
food.33
After the fall of the Temple, and the failure of Bar Kochba, about which it is related
that the Christians refused to aid Bar Kochba against the Roman troops,34 the oral
law codified by Judah Ha Nasi spelt out the Jewish position controlled by the
Pharisaic movement. Was one reason the Christians did not help the Jews because
they could not accept Bar Kochba as the Messiah?
28
See Neusner, The Idea, 112.
29
See Neusner, The Idea, 59.
30
See Rom 14: 14–23; I Cor 6:12–13; Gal 2:11 (food offered to idols); I Thess 4:7 (marital
relations).
31
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to be familiar with the halakhah of Yoma.
32
See Jesus’ touching and curing of lepers: Mark 1:40–44; Matt 8:2–4; 10:1,8; 11:5; Luke 5:12–14,
17:22; 17:11–19; healing of the woman with an issue of blood: Mk 5:24–34; Matt 9:20–22; Luke
8:43–8.
33
See Mark 7:15,19; Matt 23:25–6, Luke 11:39–41. See Neusner, The Idea, 60–6, for a
comprehensive discussion. The author of Revelation 21:27 sees cleanliness as a symbol of inner
sanctity, so that nothing unclean should enter Jerusalem.
34
See Dio Cassius, Roman History 69:12–15. This writer is dated to ca. 160–230 CE.
41
Christianity’s abandonment of the oral law increased the drawing apart, for Judaism
began the closing of its ranks through the codification of oral law. Torah study and
strict observance of the precepts became of supreme value in tannaitic Judaism, as a
result of efforts to fill the vacuum created by the destruction of the Second Temple.35
Four Distinguishing Features of Judaism in Graeco-Roman Authors
By the second century, Christians were not encouraged to fulfil the law of Moses.
Jews who had converted to Christianity were bound by the same prescriptions
against Jewish practices. As Christianity claimed to be the true expression of
Judaism, Christian anti-Judaism invented more virulent new arguments against Jews,
rather than merely echoing the main motifs of Graeco-Roman antisemitism, which
would have compromised Christianity in its claim to be the New Israel. Early in the
church’s history, gentile Christians tended to have these same prejudices used against
them.36 In the authors quoted by Josephus there was a consensus that the Jews who
had settled in Egypt were expelled because of some pestilence, usually leprosy,
reaching Judaea under Moses’ leadership.37
Some regarded the customs that Moses had introduced as anti-social and pernicious.
Greek and Roman authors commented consistently on circumcision,38 the
35
See Aharon Oppenheimer, The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People
in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, tr. I. H. Levine (Leiden, Brill, 1977), 98.
36
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism (Part 1)’, 16 (1983/4), 32–3. For example, the
accusation of ass worship first levelled against Jews by Mnaseas was likewise attached to
Christians. See Tertullian, Apol. 16:1–3; Ad Nationes, 1,14; Minicius Felix, Octavius, 9,3. Noted
by Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976), vol. 1, 97.
37
See for example Josephus, Contra Apion 1:26ff re Manetho’s views. Manetho combined a story
of a defiled people of shepherd kings with that of Moses and the Jews. These people, whose
bodies were wasted by disease were lepers, and were also plunderers. Moses was called a
charlatan and imposter. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1,83, Contra Apion, Bk 1, sect. 14 &
15,27–31). Manetho, in referring to the Exodus, names the number as having been eighty
thousand lepers, a theme elaborated upon by Lysimachus, who lived in the second or first century
CE. See Josephus, Ap, Bk. 1, 33.
38
Tacitus, Histories 5:1. Stern names at least twenty references in his Greek and Latin Authors.
42
Sabbath,39special food laws,40 and belief in one God,41 these being the four main
characteristics which they saw as distinguishing features of Judaism. In addition,
they noted other Jewish customs such as Passover.42 It was over these very questions
that Christianity moved apart from Judaism. The Christian writers continually
emphasised that the ritual prescriptions of Judaism were not to be taken literally,
appealing to the spiritual sense.43
Judaising Christians and Jewish-Christians alike were condemned within the
developing Christian Church for following Jewish practices. On the other hand, the
Romans regarded belief in one God as a pernicious superstition.44 However, if
Jewish-Christians were circumcised, judaising Christians who were not Jewish by
birth and therefore not halakhically Jewish may not have taken this step.
Christianity as a Philosophy in the Graeco-Roman World
When the Graeco-Roman writers began to write about Christians they did not speak
of them in connection with circumcision, the Sabbath or special food laws, but like
39
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 318–20; 348–9; 359; 431; 562. Stern cites at least 39
references.
40
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 415; 444; 542; 555–7; 566; vol. 2, 25; 99–100; 665
(abstention from pork); vol. 1, 436 (fish eaten on Friday evenings by Jews); vol. 2:441 (Jews
forbidden to eat fish with scales).
41
See Stern, Greek and Latin, for numerous examples such as: Seneca, vol. 1 ,430–4; Perseus, vol.
1, 436. Stern cites at least 30 comments about the God of the Jews. In later centuries, a theme
such as blood libel that had been part of Graeco-Roman antisemitism (Posidinus vol. 1 147)
surfaced in Church antisemitism as in the instances of Simon of Trent or Julian of Norwich.
42
See Stern, Greek and Latin, 1, 563–4.
43
Edwin Judge also suggests that there may be here a hint about commercial interests being upset
by Christians not making sacrifices. ‘ One may most economically assume that he (Pliny) is being
fed dramatic rumours by someone whose interests are at stake in the meat trade.’ (cf. the
silversmiths at Ephesus, Acts 19:24). Judge, ‘With Whom’, 3. See also Barn. 2:7-9; Irenaeus,
Haer 4.17.1–3 (sacrifices); Barn. 9:6; Justin, Dial. 16.2; 19.2 (circumcision); Ignatius of Antioch
Magn 9.1 (Sabbath). The Epistle of Barnabas may have set a precedent among the patristic
writers in spiritualising Jewish ritual laws, and saying they were not to be taken literally.
44
Tacitus, for example, accused the Jews of despising the gods, of conceiving of one god only, and
that with the mind only, and that they set up no statues. Hist 5:1ff, Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2,
26–7.
43
Pliny, linked the spread of this ‘depraved, immoderate superstition’ with the collapse
of the public cults.45 Robert Wilken makes the observation, that in order to become
acceptable as a religion, Christianity needed not only to define itself as against
Judaism but also in terms understandable to Graeco-Roman culture. Early Latin
sources refer to Christians as practising superstitio,46 a derogatory term which Cicero
had used to mean the ‘empty dread of the gods’,47 in contradistinction to the
expression religio, which was expressed as ‘confined to their pious cult’. In order to
rid itself of the label of ‘pernicious superstition’ Christianity needed to define itself
as a philosophy.48 Yet, although in the eyes of the Romans, Christian worship was
not dignified with the term religio, it was recognised that they did posses certain
theological beliefs.
Pliny the younger mentions among the practices of Christians, their custom of
meeting regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses to ‘Christ as to a god’
(Christo quasi deo).49
In Roman circles, the deification of a man was not unknown (divus Augustus) but
here, there was no sacred space (templum, sacrarium) or object by which the god's
presence was manifested, or sacrifice.50 Acceptance within the Graeco-Roman world
was necessary in order for Christianity to establish itself. Judaism, on the other hand
was well established within the Graeco-Roman world.
Marcel Simon argues that the three fundamental problems that continue to appear in
the anti-Jewish literature are firstly, the rejection of Israel and the corresponding call
45
Pliny, Ep.10.96.7. See Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1966), 702–10.
46
See Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7; Suet. Nero 16.3; Tacitus, Ann., 15.44.4.
47
Nat. Deor. 1.42.117.
48
See Robert Wilken, ‘The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them’, in E. P. Sanders et
al. (eds), Jewish and Christian Self Definition 2 (3 vols, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1981), 100–25.
49
See Ep.10.96.7.
50
See Judge, ‘With Whom’, 3.
44
of the gentiles and secondly, the law and its observance, and thirdly, monotheism and
christology.51
It seems clear that the Jewish-Christian movement, where Christians continued
Jewish practices, was quelled through the attitude of the majority non-Jewish
membership of the church.
Fate of the Jewish-Christian Jerusalem Church
Where the fate of the Jerusalem Church is not wholly explained by certain passages
in the New Testament in Acts and the Epistles, one has to rely on later authors, such
as Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Eusebius or Epiphanius, for further shreds of
information. How does one weigh the evidence, which is so incomplete and sketchy,
and doubtless biased? Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late forties,
scholars have looked in the direction of Qumran for further enlightenment on the
question of Jewish-Christianity.52 However, Qumran studies also do not provide
answers.
In a recent survey Jean-Daniel Kaestli declares that the term ‘Jewish-Christianity’
should be applied to a precise historical phenomenon, and its use restricted to groups
of Christians who observed all or part of Jewish ritual as decreed by the Law, and
who showed their attachment to the particular destiny of the Jewish people.53 He adds
to this definition, the concept that an important part of Jewish-Christianity affirms its
identity in reaction to Paul, the apostle to the gentiles.54 Kaestli maintains that the
role of Jewish-Christianity should not be minimised.55 Again, the use of the term
‘Jewish-Christianity’ is associated with those groups named in the patristic
heresiological lists who practised a syncretistic form of religion that was a mixture of
51
See Simon, Verus Israel, 181–7ff.
52
See for example: David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes
Press, 1988) or Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, (London,
Fontana/Collins, 1976).
53
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 272.
54
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 250.
55
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 272.
45
Judaism, gnosticism and heterodox forms of Christianity.
Emmanuel Testa defines Jewish-Christianity as those converts of the Mother Church
of Jerusalem who were poor and needy Jews (Acts 6:1), several of whom were
‘judaisers’ and were jealously attached to the Mosaic law (Acts 21:20) including a
large number of priests (Acts 6:7) and some Pharisees (Acts 15:5).
They grouped themselves around the ‘pillars’ of the Church of the
circumcision – James, Cephas, and John (Gal 2:9) with a veiled
antipathy toward the ‘Hellenists’, privileged ones, in their view,
especially through Paul, whom they accused of scant orthodoxy
because of his ‘universalism’ (Acts 15:1,5; 21:21), even though their
leaders considered themselves in communion with him (Gal 2:9b).56
Joan Taylor states that if the term ‘Jewish-Christianity’ were to be defined as
encompassing all Jews who were also Christians, then the term would be
meaningless. She argues that for this term to have any real meaning, it must refer not
only to ethnic Jews but to these, as well as gentile converts who upheld the praxis of
Judaism.57
Patristic Texts on Jewish–Christianity
When the Fathers of the Church write about Jewish-Christians, the picture is not
clear, repeated information being passed on one from the other, including, no doubt,
actual facts and errors as well as prejudices.58 Their writings point to a proliferation
of Jewish-Christian sects, and much confusion as to their identity.59
56
See Emmanuel Testa, The Faith of the Mother Church: An Essay on the Theology of the JudeoChristian, tr. Paul Rotondi. (Jerusalem, Fransciscan Printing Press, 1992), 12.
57
See Joan Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford,
Clarendon, 1993), 20.
58
Eusebius appears to quote Irenaeus, while Jerome bases his information on Origen. See Ray Pritz,
Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period until its
Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988), 22–4.
59
Epiphanius, the Bishop of Constantia listed some eighty heresies in Panarion, which he
completed in 376. As a whole, his work is tendentious in its use of sources. See Pritz, Nazarene,
29ff.
46
Bauer set out to challenge the commonly held view that ‘for the period of Christian
origins, ecclesiastical doctrine already represents what is primary, while heresies, on
the other hand, somehow are a deviation from the genuine’.60 Strecker maintains that
this understanding of history, which has dominated church history since the time of
Eusebius is incorrect. On the contrary, in many areas the heresies were ‘primary’.61
Realising that according to the New Testament writings, Jewish-Christianity stands
at the beginning of the development of church history, he concludes that it is not the
gentile ‘ecclesiastical doctrine’ that is primary, but rather a Jewish-Christian
theology. This fact was forgotten early in the church heresiological tradition. Thus,
for example, the Jewish-Christians were usually classified as Ebionites, and
apostates, and were deprecated as being an insignificant minority in comparison with
the ‘great church’.62
While it is clear that Jewish-Christianity is a complex phenomenon, Strecker also
alludes to the fact that the ‘transition from Jewish Christianity to gentile-Christianity’
was fluid. He sees this as being illustrated by the adoption of gentile-Christian forms
by Jewish-Christians, and on the other hand, by the judaising of Christians from the
gentile ranks.63
The decrees of early church councils also reveal ‘Jewish’ tendencies, whose cause
was linked to the Jewish-Christian question. Thus, the problems of JewishChristianity were part of the process of Christian self-definition. The church had an
ambiguous position, for, while seeking to disassociate itself from Judaism and take
on life as a separate entity, it also sought to proclaim itself as the fulfilment of
Judaism. The struggle was painful and protracted. The problem also relates to the
fact that Christianity is based upon Jewish concepts from the very beginning, and
60
See Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, translation of second German
edition (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1971), xxiv.
61
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem of Jewish Christianity’, in Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 241.
62
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem’, 241–2.
63
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem’, 243.
47
that it accepted a biblically based moral and ethical code. From the origins of the
church, when non-Jewish believers were welcomed into its ranks, they found a
religion with well defined beliefs and concepts taken from Judaism.
Certainly, those Christians who continued to hold on to Jewish ritual laws such as
circumcision, food laws and other practices not assumed by the church, were
ostracised and eventually driven out from orthodox Christianity. 64 The new religion,
(for that is what Christianity became), soon would not long tolerate members who
professed to be Christian, yet, retained Jewish practices. The Jewish-Christians also
came under gnostic influences and were considered to have embraced beliefs that
were unacceptable to the developing mainstream church. Eventually the JewishChristians disappeared as a movement. The isolating of the Jewish-Christians was
part of the process of the separation of the church with Judaism.
Flusser argues that since the authority of the founding church in Jerusalem and
Palestine was quite strong in matters of faith, those who developed its Christology
took Jesus’ self awareness and concept of his sonship as the point of departure. He
suggests that during the period between Jesus’ death and Paul’s conversion, a group
of Jewish believers, whose faith was already strongly demythologised, interpreted
Jesus’ self-awareness, the cross and the belief in his resurrection in terms of their
own understanding of the Jewish faith. He suggests that although this group was
probably a minority in the founding church, it had caused Christianity to become a
new religion. He asserts further, that it was the developed christology of the church,
and not Jesus’ faith that became the main content of the Christian religion.65 Thus,
according to David Flusser, it was the Jewish-Christians, the Christians of Jewish
origin, who caused Christianity to become a new religion.66
64
Circumcision, however, was also practised as part of pharaonic Egyptian religion, and Coptic
Christians continued its use. See Jean Doress, Des Hiéroglyphes à la Croix: Ce que le Passé
pharaonique a légué au Christianisme (Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut
in Het Nabije Osten, 1960), 33–4.
65
Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism (Part 1)’, 38.
66
See Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 623.
48
On the other hand, it could be argued that Christianity became a new religion, not
because of the Jewish-Christians, who apparently possessed a different christology,
but because of the influence of the gentile membership who vastly outnumbered
them. The question should be asked ‘At what stage and how did separation lead to
Jewish practices being identified as non-Christian by the Christians?’
It is difficult to pinpoint the moment where Jews identify Christians as non-Jews,
since the process is complex. In the first stage , after the fall of the Temple, during
the process of adaptation to the loss of the Temple cult and new circumstances, there
was a move for the multi-strand pluralistic Jewish philosophies to became one
strand, or a standardised form of Judaism. As part of the process, these Jews, the
Pharisees and their successors, who were the architects of the new Judaism that arose
from the ashes of the Temple, saw all others including Samaritans, Essenes, or
Nazoraeans (Christians)67 as alien, and did not wish to include them in the ranks of
Judaism.68 This process took from 70–135, or perhaps till 200, with the codification
of the Mishnah, whose stipulations defined who was Jewish and who was not
considered to be one of the fold. By this time, Judaism had cut itself off from its
varieties, and made the move to close its ranks. The fact that Judaism in fact did not
achieve uniformity is indicated by archaeological evidence.
The same process was taking place in Christianity. In the beginning of Christianity
there were many varieties of Jewish-Christianity, the original form of Christianity.
The situation changed with the admission of the non-Jews, and the permitting of
non-Jews to be dispensed from Jewish law, with the exception of the stipulations
outlined in Acts 15. However, there was early in Christianity, a movement to force
Jewish-Christianity to conform to a uniformly acceptable form of Christianity, where
the practice of Jewish law was forbidden. The church councils formalised this
67
Mimouni proposes that the disciples of Jesus of Jewish origin, till the year 100 or around 135 were
designated as Nazoraeans or Nazarenes. In Antioch the followers of Jesus were first called
Christian. After the formation of the Ebionite and Elkasaite movements, the term Nazoraean was
used for the group the Church Fathers considered as ‘orthodox’. See Simon C. Mimouni, ‘Les
Nazoréens: Recherche étymologique et historique’, RB, 2 (1998), 208.
68
The problem of the non- acceptance of non-Orthodox Jewish conversions by Orthodox Jewry in
Israel today is an analogous situation.
49
process from the fourth century.
A uniform strand of Jewish-Christianity was never achieved, for Jewish-Christians
were coerced to renounce their Judaism in order to gain acceptance as Christian. At
the same time, their Christian beliefs appeared to have been heterodox. If there was
an accepted form of Jewish-Christianity in Justin’s area of influence, from the
Christian point of view, there do not appear to be any other examples documented
from this time forwards. Thus, the question could be asked: ‘If baptism in Christ was
a stipulation for initiation into Christianity from the early days of the Church, at what
stage did a formal conversion process become acceptable to Christianity with such an
institution as a catechumenate?’ Such an institution would mark a definite break.
Justin Martyr and Jewish-Christians
In the mid-second century, Justin Martyr still differentiated between the two groups,
the radical Christians of Jewish origin who insisted that the gentiles should observe
mitzvot, and those who were ready to accept believers who did not practise halakhah.
He was ready to allow Jewish-Christians to continue to follow the Law of Moses on
condition they did not expect other Christians to follow their example, as can be
gleaned from his dialogue with the rabbi, Trypho.
And Trypho again inquired, ‘but if some one, knowing that this is so,
after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and
obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he
be saved?’
I said, ‘In my opinion, Trypho, such alone will be saved, if he does
not strive in every way to persuade other men – I mean those Gentiles
who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same
things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they
do so…’
‘But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such
institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some
virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reasons of the
hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ,
and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and
50
piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said
before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or
to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I
hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them
in all things as kinsmen and brethren’. (Dialogue with Trypho, 47) 69
On the other hand, Justin was not tolerant of Jewish-Christians who first
acknowledged Christ and then retracted their belief.
And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man
to be Christ, and who have gone back from some cause to the legal
dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have
repented not before death, shall by no means be saved (Dialogue with
Trypho, 47)70
The Twelfth Benediction (Birkhat ha-Minim)
This benediction has been discussed at length in a plethora of works on Jewish
prayer.71 At the turn of the century, it was Elbogen who repeated that the twelfth
benediction was instituted by Rabbi Gamaliel so as to drive out Christians from the
synagogue.72 This statement has been accepted uncritically by previous generations of
scholars,73 but its validity is now disputed, the belief being that the expression min
did not apply in particular to Christians but rather to the whole gamut of minim, over
many years74 In the first century, the benediction already existed, and was expanded
69
See The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to AD 325, revised A. Cleveland
Coxe (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 1, 218.
70
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 218.
71
See for example Ismar Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichltichen Entwicklung.
Leipzig, Gustav Fock, 1913. See also Joseph Heinemann, Hatefilah be-tekufat ha-tana’im ve
ha’amoraim: Tiba ve-defusiah, 2nd edn (Jerusalem Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1966).
72
See I. Elbogen, Ha-tefilah be-yisrael be-hitpathutah he-historit, with additions by Joseph
Heinemann (Tel Aviv, Davir, 1972). Joseph Heinemann relates that Israel Lewy was the first to
suggest that before the institution of Benediction of the Minim, there were only seventeen
benedictions (MGWJ, 25, 1886). See Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and
Patterns. (Berlin,Walter De Guyter, 1977), 224–5, n. 20.
73
See example, Vincent Martin, A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways Between Synagogue
and Church, A Stimulus Book (New York, Paulist Press, 1995), 153.
74
See Naomi Cohen, ‘Mah hidesh Shmu'el ha-katan ba-birkhat ha-minim’, Sinai, 94:1–2 (1984), 68.
51
and revised over the years.75 The target of the benediction changed over time, minim
originally being a blanket statement against deviant Jews. The talmudic texts relate
that:
rsxv kg kthknd icr hbpk ,ufrc j"h rhsxv hkuepv iugna : r",
vbchc
Simon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in the presence of
Rabbi Gamaliel in order at Yavneh (b. Ber. 27b–28a)
Rabbi Gamaliel said to the sages: Nothing does a man know how to
institute the blessing of the minim. Simon Ha Katan stood up and
related it. The following year he forgot and tried for two and a half
hours, and did not remember it (b. Ber 27b–28a)
The wise men of Javneh have before now appointed the benediction
against minim (y. Ber.8a)
The benediction relating to the minim was instituted in Jamnia (b.
Ber. 28b)
It appears that Shimeon HaPakuli did not compose hatefilah anew, but just called to
mind the benedictions that already existed and put them in order.76 The implication is
that the Twelfth Benediction against the Minim was not instituted at Yavneh but
already existed. In support of this view, Reuven Kimelman shows that the themes of
the Amidah are all biblical.77 Further evidence is to be adduced from Qumran to show
that the benediction against heretics was earlier than Christianity. David Flusser
argues that the publication of new Dead Sea Scroll material from the Damascus
Document (4QMMT) supports the view that the twelfth benediction originally was
against the Essenes. Flusser postulated that the twelfth benediction was the second in
a series of three sections which were inserted in the middle in the later Maccabean
period, and, in support, refers to a fragment of the Damascus Document first
75
See Heinemann, Prayer, 225.
76
See the article by Naomi Cohen, ‘Shimeon ha-pakuli hisdir yod-heth berakhot’, Tarbiz, 52:4
(1983) 547–54.
77
See Reuven Kimelman, ‘The Daily Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption ’, JQR, 2–3 (1988–
1989), 165–97, especially 175-6.
52
published in 1991. The text which speaks of cursing occurs in a list of transgressions.
Or one who reveals the secret of his people to the gentiles, or curses
[his people or preaches] sedition against those anointed with the holy
spirit and error...78
Bilhah Nitzan adds to Flusser’s case by pointing out that in the recently published
Qumran texts, blessings are counterposed against curses in a covenantal context.79
Thus, if such material is preserved at Qumran, might not other Jews have used a
benediction against the minim?
Flusser adds that Christians are explicitly mentioned only in two Palestinian texts
which were found in the Cairo Genizah. These are remnants of the old Palestinian
rite from the fourth century, showing that the reference to Christians is secondary. He
believes it is evident that the term for Christians was added to an older text which
spoke only about heretics. The presence of the expression notzrim in the Cairo
Genizah texts of the Palestinian version is but one variation in the complex history of
the development of the curse against the heretics. 80
However, Flusser believes that from the second century, this benediction referred to
the Christians, and was inserted before 140 CE. He takes his evidence from Neapolis
born Justin Martyr and from the fact that both Jerome and Epiphanius stated that in
their synagogues the Jews cursed the ‘Nazoraeans’ (Nazarenes). However, though
the latter may have believed that the Jews cursed the Christians in their synagogues,
Flusser argues that the word itself may not have appeared at that time in the
78
See David Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the
Benediction Against the Heretics’, [Hebrew] Tarbiz, 61: 3–4 (1992) 342–3.
79
1 QS col. ii, etc. See Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, tr. Jonathan Chipman,
(Leiden, Brill, 1994) 122–3.
80
See 4Q270 2ii 12–14 in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVIII. Qumran Cave 4: The
Damascus Document (4Q266–273), ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten (Oxford, Clarendon, 1966), 144–
6.
53
benediction. 81
The Jerusalem based Dominican scholar Etienne Nodet believes these minim to be
Jews from the same observant milieu who taught doctrines dangerous for their group.
He argues that to identify these minim with the ‘Nazoraeans’ is not valid, for the term
‘Christian’ developed outside of Judea, and could also describe the uncircumcised.
He argues that there was no reason for Christians at this early stage to constitute an
internal threat to the group at Yabneh.82
For the apostates let there be no hope, and uproot the kingdom of
arrogance speedily uprooted in our days.
May the Nazoraeans and the sectarians perish at a moment.
Let them be blotted out from the book of life and not be written
together with the righteous.
You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant.83
Textual evidence, however, indicates that expulsion from the synagogue did
occur in certain circumstances. Several texts in the New Testament appear to
allude to expulsion, as for example:
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you,
revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man
(Luke 6:22)
or
His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews;
for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed
Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue
(John 9:22).84
81
See David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988),
638f, and see also ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT)’, 374.
82
See Etienne Nodet,‘“Les Nazoréens:”’ Discussion’, RB, no 2 (1998), 265.
83
Jacob Mann, ‘Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service’, HUCA, 2 (1925), 306.
Restored in accord with S. Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR, os. 10 (1898), 657, 659.
84
See also John 12; 42; 16:1–3.
54
Other examples are to be found in rabbinic literature.
‘Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I (Akabya ben
Mahalaleel) be made a godless man before God even for an
hour; for they shall not say of me, He retracted for the
sake of office’… Whereupon they laid him under a ban
[niddui]; and he died while he was yet under a ban;
and the court stoned his coffin. (m. Eduy. 5:6).85
Justin Martyr was the earliest of the Church Fathers to declare that the Jews cursed
Christians in their synagogues, a claim which some interpret as meaning that by the
mid-second century in the land of Israel, the benediction was directed towards the
Christians, although this is not made specific in rabbinic texts.
Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live
according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before
death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those
who have anathematised and do anathematise this very Christ
in the synagogues (Dial.47).86
For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him
Christians (Dial. 96).87
And scoff not at the King of Israel as the rulers of your synagogues
teach you to do, in your prayers (Dial. 137).88
However, Gedaliah Alon notes that these statements by Justin are generalised, and
refer to all Christians and therefore cannot be applied unequivocally to the Birkhat
ha-Minim. 89
85
See Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief
Explanatory Notes, first published 1933 (London University Press, 1980), 432.
86
See Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 218ff.
87
Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 247.
88
Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 268. See also Dial. 108.
89
See Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 CE), translated and
edited by Gershon Levi (2 vols, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1980–1984), vol. 1, 289. .
55
Origen likewise states that:
The Jews continue to curse Christ every day
Christus usque in hodiernum diem a judaeis anathema fiat (Hom II.8
in Ps. 37). 90
but as there is no explicit mention of the cursing of the Christians or its role in
Jewish liturgy, it is not clear that Origin is referring to the twelfth benediction and
may be a general statement.91
Again, the evidence from Epiphanius is not conclusive. Epiphanius’ report about the
benediction suggests he has not himself heard it, but has it from hearsay.92
They are in every respect enemies of the Jews. For not only do the
children of the Jews hate them, but rising in the morning, at midday,
and in the evening, three times a day when they offer prayers in the
synagogues they curse and anathematise them, three times a day
saying, ‘God curse the Ναζωρα‹οj Nazoraeans’.93 The reason is that
they especially resent them, because although they are of Jewish stock
they preach that Jesus is <the> Messiah, which is in opposition to
those who are still Jews and who do not accept Jesus (Panarion
29:9.2)94
It appears that Jerome interpreted the prayer in question as referring to
Christians in general who were given the name Nazoraeans.95
…until today in their synagogues they [the Jews] blaspheme the
Christian people under the name Nazoraeans (In Amos 1, 11–12).96
… up to the present day they[the Jews] persevere in blasphemy and
three times a day in their synagogues they anathemise the
Christian name under the name of Nazoraeans (In Esaiam 5:18 –19). 97
…for they[the Jews] curse him in their synagogues three times
every day under the name of Nazoraeans (sub nomine Nazarenorum)
90
91
PG 12:1387.
See Lawrence Schiffman, Who was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the JewishChristian Schism (Hoboken, New Jersey, KTAV, 1985) 57, n. 35 & 36 and Pritz, Nazarene
Jewish Christianity, 105, n. 51.who cites Origen. ‘Enter the synagogue of the Jews and see them
scourge Jesus with the language of blasphemy’. (Hom. Jer. 18.12).
56
(In Esaiam 49:7).98
in your synagogues, who night and day blaspheme the Saviour,
they utter curses against the Christians three times a day, as
I have said, and the name of Nazoraeans (In Esaiam 52,4–6).99
The Nazoraeans
Simon Mimouni’s carefully documented arguments illustrates that the sources at our
disposal do not allow us to reach any accurate conclusion about the JewishChristians and the ‘Nazoraeans’100 Etienne Nodet points out the term ‘Nazoraean’ is
associated with James, the brother of Jesus and his followers. Again, the harmony
suggested in Acts is contradicted in the writings of Paul, especially in Galatians. The
first Christians were not a homogenous group. He argues that Jesus, in choosing to
be baptised by John also effectively separated himself from his family.101 He sees in
92
See A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, (Leiden, Brill,
1973), 175. Epiphanius’ dates are 315–403 CE.
93
Epiphanius uses the term ναζωρα‹oj (Nazoraeans) to designate a group of Jesus’ disciples who
are of Jewish origin (Panarion 29.6.5). The expression ‘Nazoraeans’ may be translated as
‘Nazarenes’.
In
Panarion
Epiphanius
distinguishes
between
two
groups,
the νασαρα‹οι (Nasaraeans), who are Jews who do not accept the Pentateuch (Panarion 18.1.1),
and whom he considers heretical, and the ναζωρα‹οι ( Nazoraeans), whom he calls Christians
because of the city of Nazareth, and because at that time there was no other name in use
(Panarion 29.6.5).
94
See The Panarion of St. Epiphanies, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, tr. Philip R. Amidon
(New York, Oxford University Press, 1990), 93. See also b. Abod. Zar. 4b /b. Ber 7a – the story
of R. Joshua b. Levy involving a min, a cock tied to a bed, and cursing, which may be a reference
to the Amidah and the 12th benediction. See also y. Ber 9c which speaks of removing any reader
from office who, by omitting certain benedictions (the benediction concerning the resurrection of
the dead), the humbling of the arrogant (12th) or of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (15th) came under
the suspicion of heresy.
95
See Schiffman, Who was a Jew? 58.
96
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 219.
97
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 221–222.
98
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 225.
99
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 225.
100
See Simon C. Mimouni ‘Les Nazoréens. Recherche Etymologique et Historique’, RB, 150: 2 (Apr
1998), 208–62.
101
See Nodet,‘“ Les Nazoréens’”, 264.
57
Acts a literary effort to show that Jesus and Paul represent the legitimate posterity of
Jesus’ family. In addition he proposes that the interest of Eusebius and Epiphanius in
James and his successors stems from Acts, being an effort to underline the unity of
the immediate successors of Jesus.102
The Ebionites
Origen designates both ‘Nazoraeans’ and another group as Ebionites, and thus the
picture is not wholly clear. While both groups kept the Law of Moses, and saw Jesus
as the Messiah, one group apparently accepted the orthodox view of christology
while the other denied Jesus’ divine origins.
Some stood up who accepted Jesus so that they in addition to this
boasted of being Christians and yet wished to live according to the
Law of the Jews like the mass of the Jews. These are the two kinds of
Ebionites, some confessing that Jesus was born of a virgin as we do
and others who deny this but say that he was born like the other
people (Contra Celsus 5:61).103
Here, Pritz suggests that the orthodox group in fact were probably ‘Nazoraeans’, and
that Origen has misused the term ‘Ebionite’ to include all Jewish-Christians who
keep Jewish Law.104 Another source, Hegesippus claims that the ‘Nazoraeans’ were
the descendants of the Jerusalem believers who had fled to Pella (Panarion 29.1.1–
29.9.4) whilst Origen adds that the Eucharist was celebrated by the Ebionites with
unleavened bread at the same time as the Jewish Passover.
And Passover lasted one day but the unleavened bread seven, in
which case the day of Passover was obviously counted with the other
six. In accordance with this somebody with no experience perhaps
does some investigating and falls into the Ebionite heresy (starting
from the fact that Jesus during his life celebrated Passover in the way
of the Jews and also likewise the first day of the unleavened bread and
102
See Nodet,‘“ Les Nazoréens”’, 264.
103
See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 135.
104
See Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 21.
58
Passover) saying because it behoves us as imitators of Christ to do
similarly (In Matth. comm. ser. 79). 105
Irenaeus describes Ebionites who use only the Gospel of Matthew, and repudiate
Paul’s writings, practise circumcision and Jewish Law and pray towards Jerusalem.106
In addition, they deny the virgin birth107 and celebrate the Eucharist with unleavened
bread and water.108 Epiphanius adds that they used to meet in synagogue and had
elders and archisynagogues.109
Tertullian speaks also of Ebionites who deny the virgin birth of Jesus.
So then, even as he is made less than the angels while clothed with
manhood, even so he is not less when clothed with an angel. This
opinion could be very suitable for Ebion who asserts that Jesus is
mere man and only of the seed of David, that means not also the son
of God; although he is obviously more glorious than the prophets – so
as to say that an angel is in him in the same way as in Zachariah.(De
Carne Chr. 14).110
Jerome records that the Ebionites who practised the Jewish law and accepted the
virgin birth, used a gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
They (Ebionites) believe in Christ, the Son of God born of Mary the
virgin, and they say about him that he suffered and rose again under
Pontius Pilate, in whom we also believe, but since they want to be
both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians (Epist.
112:13).111
Again, in the fourth century, Epiphanius also appears to be acquainted with a similar
105
See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 133
106
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.26.2.
107
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3. 21. 1 and 5.1.3 .
108
Adv. Haer. 5:1.3. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.1.
109
Panarion, 30.18.
110
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 109.
111
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 201.
59
group of Ebionites. However, he says that for some time Ebion’s followers have been
differing from each other in what they say about Christ.112
Conclusion
The picture of Jewish-Christianity presented by the Church Fathers is confusing, the
sources not allowing for any precise conclusions. It is evident that JewishChristianity was marginalised by both Jews and Christians. Judaism did not accept a
group whose heterodox ideas were not strictly Judaic. Christianity did not accept a
group whose christology was suspect, and who professed to be Christian, yet
continued to practise Jewish law. Jewish-Christians did not remain as part of
Christianity in much the same way that Jews did not remain as a part of Christianity.
The same issues that were unacceptable to Jews, such as the divinity of Christ and
the fact that Jewish ritual law was not practised, but also expressly forbidden, were
unacceptable to the Jewish-Christians. The Jewish-Christians were driven from
Christianity. A compromise was not reached. Jewish-Christianity, once the original
form of Christianity, when Christians were still Jews, was marginalised. It did not
survive as an acceptable movement within either Christianity or Judaism.
112
See Panarion 30.3.1.
60