1

2
Jewish-Christian Relations
The First Centuries
Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz
March 2019 (Revised Edition)

3
4
5
 ABEL MORDECHAI BIBLIOWICZ

Copyright © Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, 2016

TXu001740415 - All rights reserved.
2016 by Mascarat Publishing

ISBN: 151361648X
ISBN: B01LDIXAA4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliowicz, Abel Mordechai.
1. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Judaism (Christian
theology)—Biblical teaching. 3. Church history—Primitive and early
church, ca. 30-600. 4. Christianity and other religions—Judaism.
5. Judaism—Relations—Christianity. 6. Judaism—History—
Post-exilic period

6
 To Ronnie
Gideon, Yonatan, and Michal
Pablo, Samia, and Shiri

7
8
 *Contents

*Preview 13
*The Protagonists 19
*Endorsements 21
*Personal Introduction 25
*Timeline 28
*Acknowledgments 29

B – Jewish-Gentile Relations in the Jesus movement

01 *The Historical Background 31
02 *The first years 43
03 *Crisis in the Jesus movement 87
04 *Supersession Theology 141
05 *The Post-canonical era 181
06 *Theology gone awry 207
07 *Polemic in the New Testament 225
08 *Scholarship 237

9
C– Summaries and Afterthoughts
09 *Recapitulation 253
10 *The post Constantine era 279
11 *The responsibility for Jesus' death 289
12 *Consequences 301
13 *The Present and the future 311

 *Teaching Highlights 327

 *Bibliographies of important topics 329

The synoptic problem
Mark and the Disciples
Mark’s incomprehension motif
The Jewish followers of Jesus
Who Killed Jesus
Appropriating the Jewish Scriptures
The parting of the ways
Supersession
The myth of Jewish proselytizing
Birkhat Haminim: the benediction against the heretics
Adversus Judaeos literature

 *Citations 335

10
11
12
 *Preview+

The future of Judeo-Christian relations and the future of the Christian self-perception depend on which
meta-narrative on the Christian origins and on Jewish-Christian relations will be eventually embraced,
taught and internalized by Christian institutions and believers. Each of the relevant meta-narratives or
models; the traditional thesis, the competition thesis of Simon,1 and the thesis suggested in this
monograph, have implications of great importance and scope for the future of both religions.

This study suggests that Jewish-Christian relations stand on a complex trajectory that originates in
Jewish-Gentile relations within the Jesus movement. It suggests that the Jewish-Christian saga
originates in later misperceptions about this conflict among followers of Jesus with varying degrees of
Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations.

Therefore, and contrary to traditional interpretations, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were not
participants in this struggle. They were the subjects of a debate, (mostly) among Gentile believers - about
what belief in Jesus should be. Thus, Jewish-Christian relations do not emerge out of a conflict between
‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ Rather, the main thrust behind this saga is best characterized as a controversy
about Judaism within the Jesus movement, not as a conflict with Judaism. The crisis was about Judaism,
not with Judaism. Thus, the New Testament texts do not reflect a struggle between 'Christians' and 'Jews'
but rather a heated dispute about Judaism and about Torah observance among Jesus' early followers.
However, with the passage of time, loss of context, and later agendas, the tensions and trauma produced
by this crisis came to be understood by later believers as reflective of a Jewish-Christian conflict.

Furthermore, and similarly, when the canonical and authoritative texts denigrate Gnostics and Pagans, they
reflect an internal conflict with opponents advocating Gnostic or Pagan affinities, not a conflict with
Paganism or Gnosticism. Therefore, the anti-Jewish, anti-Pagan, and anti-Gnostic biases of the canonical
and authoritative texts are the result of complex and layered trajectories, and should be understood to
reflect, for the most part, debates within the Jesus movement—not struggles with external religious
communities.

The texts that were eventually canonized were written during the embryonic stages of belief in Jesus, a
period of tensions between believers with pro- and anti-Jewish inclinations and affiliations. This tragic
coincidence embedded a footprint of anti-Jewish sentiment in the canonical lore of the victorious faction
and in the hearts and minds of believers. The fact that the crisis in the Jesus movement lasted at least four
centuries, and that the Judeo-Gentile dimension is only one dimension of this crucible is obscured since
most of the texts reflecting the anti-Pagan, and anti-Gnostic biases of the Pauline faction were authored

13
after the canonical era, and are not included in the New Testament – creating an artificial focus on the
Judeo-Gentile dimension of the crisis.

It is noteworthy, that throughout this survey, we will rely almost exclusively on texts preserved by the
Christian tradition. This is due to the fact that, despite great efforts by many scholars, the search for the
Jewish side of these debates has yielded dismal results. Moreover, scholars have noted an enormous
disproportion in intensity and quantity—to the point of rendering insignificant, the few segments that have
been identified as possible Jewish responses.2 The absence of a commensurate Jewish response, if Judaism
understood itself to be the intended adversary, is difficult to explain. However, if the original crisis was
within the Jesus movement, as suggested here, we should not expect a significant Jewish response (at the
time, debates within the Jesus movement would be unknown, inconsequential, and irrelevant to those
outside the Jesus camp). Furthermore, the literature of the losing side is seldom preserved.

Our survey of the canonical texts will start with Paul who is, without doubt, the foremost theologian and
leading figure of the New Testament. The Pauline letters that are accepted as authentic by most scholars
(Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are the earliest
integral New Testament documents available to us. Paul introduced to the Roman world monotheism, the
concept of scripture as the basis for religion, and history as evolving towards a divinely ordained end
(teleology).3 He also pioneered the rich and fruitful universe of personal belief.

Paul was the first theologian to acquaint Western minds with the emotional and intellectual universe that
moderns call ‘individual consciousness and belief.’ Paul’s emphasis on belief was revolutionary. The notion
that what each individual believed was the arena where the drama of salvation unfolded must have been
exhilarating in a society where individual freedom, regardless of class, was very limited. Paul’s proclamation
of a universal faith, and the insight that individual belief not only mattered but was ‘the’ essence of human
existence (and the only measure for salvation) must have been an empowering message. Access to all
through a simple declaration of faith made Paul’s strand of belief in Jesus popular among Pagans spiritual
seekers. The excitement that this encounter caused among spiritual seekers in the Roman world is palpable
in the extant texts.

However, soon after the first successes of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, tensions arose as Gentile
converts to Paul’s form of belief in Jesus encountered Jesus’s disciples and first followers in the public
arena. Some, maybe most, of Jesus’s disciples and first followers seem to have conditioned fellowship on
Torah observance, and may have considered Gentile forms of belief in Jesus insufficient and lacking –
setting the stage for a confrontation. Indeed, the canonical tradition seems to shadow the embryonic stages
of the clash that ensued; a Gentile challenge to the authority and to the legitimacy of Jesus’s disciples and
first followers as the exclusive guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy, and the rejection of their core
beliefs and traditions.4

According to Paul, the standing of Gentiles before God was to be based solely on their faith in Jesus’
death and resurrection. The doctrine of justification by faith alone (not through Torah observance) was

14
originally elaborated by Paul with the specific and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile
converts to be full and rightful heirs of the promises of God to Israel. Paul defended jealously his position
against any compromise that required circumcision or observance of the Torah (Law) from Gentiles.

However, Paul's immediate successors, and maybe some of his contemporaries, used his epistles to
discredit Jesus' Jewish followers (who for the most part seem to have demanded that Gentile followers of
Jesus obey the Torah). Subsequently, in an effort to legitimize their rejection of the Torah and to challenge
the leadership of the movement, Pauline believers developed a polemical arsenal whose original aim was to
discredit the Jewish followers of Jesus and their demands on Gentile converts.

During the last decades of the first century we encounter Gentile believers whose contention vis- à -vis the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers (‘they,’ ‘the Jews’) seems to have been as follows:

Don’t let anyone cast any doubt on your legitimacy as followers of Jesus. They claim to
be the rightful guardians of Jesus legacy, but they are not. They exalt Jesus but
misunderstand the true meaning of his ministry. They never understood. We are the
rightful heirs of Jesus’s legacy. Their ancestors, the disciples and Jesus’ first followers,
betrayed and abandoned him in his moment of need. Jesus’s death and resurrection
void any value that their traditions might have had. To them, he is a human. To us he
is the divine savior. They claim to follow his path, but it is we who seek martyrdom for
his sake.

They claim to be righteous, but according to their scriptures and their prophets they
are sinful and irredeemable. Their scriptures tell us that the Jews forfeited the covenant
and God’s favor. They are no longer God’s chosen. We believe in Jesus as the
fulfillment of God’s promises to all. They claim that our belief is inadequate and
lacking, and that we must keep all their traditions, but Jesus’ actions signal that The
Law is no longer necessary. Jesus came to bring salvation to all, not only to the Jews.
Their Torah and their customs no longer have any value.

The response of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their Gentile sympathizers
seems to have been:

To be rightful followers of Jesus you need to embrace his ministry and his faith. Jesus,
his disciples and his early followers were Jews. To be a true follower of Jesus you must
live like him, and worship like him. You follow Paul who was not a disciple and did
not know Jesus. The Jerusalem leaders did not embrace Paul’s views. We do not accept
Paul’s claims that Jesus revealed to him what he did not reveal to his disciples.

15
Pauline communities experiencing anxiety and doubt caused by this crisis, needed reassurance and
guidance. They needed a legitimating foundational discourse, a dissonance-reducing narrative. In the New
Testament, we can identify attempts by Pauline leaders to reassure the Gentile rank and file that they were
rightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus
and by those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy.

Facing an uphill, vitriolic, and rancorous struggle for legitimacy against Jewish opponents within the Jesus
movement, and standing on a still-evolving theology and a chaotic constituency - Pauline leaders and
intellectuals seem to have gravitated toward a strategy built on the belittling of the disciples and on the
denigration of their beliefs and traditions. They also opted for the subversion and the appropriation of
elements, themes, and motifs quarried from their adversaries’ traditions and texts. Pauline leaders and
intellectuals crafted their narratives from within this context of estrangement and vitriol vis-à-vis the Jewish
followers of Jesus, a reality that shaped and deeply influenced their accounts of the birth of belief in Jesus.

Ironically. the lore of the Jewish founders of the Jesus movement turned out to be a trove of anti-
establishment polemical arrows that Gentile believers could use to denigrate the Jewish establishment of
the movement. In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and other
Judean sectarians, Pauline leaders found a ‘ready to deploy’ arsenal that could be used to demote the Jewish
establishment of the Jesus movement. By interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish traditions of
prophetic exhortation and self-criticism out of their historical context, and by appropriating the founders’
identity (The New Israel, The People of God) and their anti-Jewish-establishment lore - Pauline leaders
and intellectuals eventually crafted a strategy that was, in the long run, successful in de-Judaizing belief in
Jesus.

Significantly, despite the eventual hegemonic status of the Paulines, that followed the fourth century
council of Nicaea, the epic battle about Gentile attitudes toward Judaism, Paganism and Gnosticism did
not subside altogether, and did re-surface under various guises during the next centuries. The tensions
between believers with Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affiliations and inclinations were never fully
harmonized and remained latent at the core of the tradition. The footprints that these tensions left in the
lore were never extricated either. Consequently, future Gentile believers in Jesus were to internalize deeply
ambivalent attitudes toward Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism.

Over time, the context of the gentile-Jewish crisis within the Jesus movement was lost and the original
purpose of this rhetoric (to discredit adversaries demanding the observance of the Torah) gradually lost its
relevance. However, the rhetorical and theological edifice that Paulines developed against the faith,
traditions, and beliefs espoused by Jesus and against the character of the original leaders of the movement,
was canonized and became a core element of Christian theology, self-perception, and narrative. Gradually,
the Church found itself debasing Judaism as a means to discredit gentile sympathizers of the Jewish
followers of Jesus, and to eradicate Judaizing tendencies among the folk. Given this trajectory and the
Pauline rejection of Jesus’ beliefs, the Church found it necessary and beneficial to obscure the Jewish
origins of Christianity and its implications - which remained veiled from the rank and file, until the
twentieth century.5

16
Until the twentieth century, the polemical bent of the lore of early Gentile believers in Jesus was
understood, by most scholars and believers, to be the consequence of the Jewish rejection of Jesus, their
responsibility for Jesus’ death, and the Jewish loss of God’s favor. By and large, Judaism was seen as a
legalistic and morally inferior tradition that had forfeited its place as YHWH’s chosen. However, during the
second half of the twentieth century, aided by the fortuitous findings at Qumran and Nag Hammadi, new
paradigms emerged as New Testament scholarship yielded new insights and perspectives.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, mainstream scholarship and most believers have turned away from
traditional views on Jews and Judaism. The view that a proselytizing struggle between turn of the era
Judaism and early Christianity may have been the main generator of anti-Jewish attitudes among early
Gentile believers in Jesus seems to be espoused by many (the competitive thesis).6 Scholars that embrace
this model often describe anti-Judaism as the consequence of excessive militancy by the more aggressive
and vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone awry.7

A variant of this competitive thesis, or model, sees the attraction of some turn-of-the-era Gentiles to
Judaism as the main generator of anti-Jewish sentiment among early Gentile believers. Under this
construct, attraction to Judaism infuriated Gentile leaders and intellectuals and fueled the polemical fervor
that is embryonic in the canonical lore and permeates the authoritative texts thereafter.

We now know that prior to the fourth century, there were believers that advocated differing views about
what belief in Jesus was, or should be. The re-discovery of the diversity of the early Jesus movement
requires the retroactive legitimating of all interpretations of Jesus’ ministry. Therefore, we need internalize
the fact that all these believers understood themselves to be the only ‘true’ Christians and viewed their
adversaries’ beliefs as heretical, misguided, or inadequate. The implications of this early diversity and of the
re-placement of the origins of the Jewish-Christian saga within the Jesus movement, are the main themes
of this monograph.

Finally, it is important to reemphasize that this monograph focuses on one of the three polemic fronts that
impacted and shaped the Pauline narrative and self-perception; the Jewish-Gentile crisis within the Jesus
movement. The debates and the polemic with believers with Pagan and Gnostic affiliations and
inclinations are addressed only as they impact the main protagonists of this monograph; the Jewish
followers of Jesus and the gentile followers of Paul. Furthermore, whereas the Jewish-Gentile crisis
originates in processes that took place during the second half of the first century, and therefore impacted
the content of the canonical texts – the tensions between believers with Pagan and Gnostic affiliations and
inclinations, and between different gentile interpretations of Jesus’ ministry originate in processes that took
place from the early second century forward, and therefore had little impact on the content of the New
Testament. These circumstances clarify why the Jewish-Gentile crisis within the Jesus movement is over-
emphasized, and over represented, in the tradition.

17
18
 *The Protagonists+
The first centuries of belief in Jesus were characterized by great uncertainty, chaos, and unstable ground8
Groups of like-minded individuals coalesced into proto-factions and then into factions. The degree of
doctrinal cohesion of these groups is unknown. The situation ‘on the ground’ was, most probably,
characterized by great fluidity, variety, and instability. As attested by the texts surveyed in this monograph,
confusion and chaos were rampant. It appears that local variants and improvisation were the rule. It seems
that, at first, belief in Jesus was very much a local affair with some degree of coordination among like-
minded communities on a regional basis.

During the first four centuries, five groups emerge as the protagonists in the saga of the Jesus movement:
the Jewish followers of Jesus, Marcionite believers in Jesus, the Pauline faction, Gnostic believers in Jesus,
and Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction. This classification is useful and necessary even though
the affiliation, and the affinities, of individuals and communities to these groups were not always clear or
unequivocal to the participants.

The Jewish followers of Jesus9—Jesus’s disciples and first followers were Jesus’s chosen successors and
the original guardians and interpreters of his legacy. Their beliefs, customs, and traditions were grounded in
first-century Judaism. These messianic Jews seem to have venerated Jesus as an exalted human (did not
proclaim the divinity of Jesus). Most seem to have rejected the many Gentile forms of belief in Jesus that
emerged following the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. 2 Alternative
identifiers for the Jewish followers of Jesus: Jewish faction, founding fathers, descendants of the Jewish
founders, founding faction, Jerusalem faction.

Marcionite believers in Jesus—called for the rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish
followers of Jesus. Marcion’s Jesus was a new and unprecedented figure that revealed a previously
unknown deity of love and mercy. He viewed the God of the ‘Old Testament’ as an inferior deity, lacking
in wisdom and justice. Marcionites considered themselves to be the true interpreters of Paul’s legacy, and
should be identified as such. Marcion made the earliest and most radical attempt to sever the link between
Gentile believers in Jesus and the founding faction. Contrary to the orthodox complex and ambivalent
reject-but-appropriate approach to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers, Marcion advocated a
complete and radical rejection of the Jewish legacy and affiliation of the Jesus movement,10 and strived for
a thorough de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus.

The Pauline faction—The Gentile followers of Paul. Claimed to supersede (replace) the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the ‘New Israel,’ as ‘God’s chosen’ and as the guardians of Jesus’s
legacy. They struggled to define and articulate a theological compromise. Often identified by scholars as
Christian, Paulines, or proto-orthodox, they came to dominate belief in Jesus. Pauline believers saw

19
themselves as the true interpreters of Paul’s legacy.11 Ignatius may be considered the third pillar of this
faction. Ignatius adds emphasis on unity and hierarchy to the foundations provided by Paul and by the
author of Luke/Acts. Paul and Ignatius emphasized belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection (not his life and
ministry)12 and strove for a complex midway positioning13 —a cluster of themes associated with the faction
I identify throughout as Pauline. The full lineage of the strand would include Mark, Luke/Acts, Hebrews,
Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Eusebius (despite significant theological variance within
the group). I use the terms Lukan, Pauline, and proto-orthodox for this faction.

Gnostic believers in Jesus14 —Gnosticism, a controversial term, is a later designation for a variety of
spiritual trends that flourished during the first centuries of the Common Era (Hermetica, Valentians,
Mandaeans, Manichaeans). The usefulness and the relevance of the term have been criticized. However, an
alternative term has not emerged.15 In many Gnostic systems, the world is the creation of a lesser and evil
God (the Jewish God). Despair and pessimism are pronounced and permanent. The world is evil and there
is no hope for change. Salvation from this world is through secret knowledge taught by a divine savior
(Jesus) and understood only by few, the elect. Various Gnostic schools evolved from the teachings of
Ptolomey, Cerinthus, Valentius, and Basilides.16

Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction—Often called Gentile Judaizers, these were Gentiles with
varying affinities to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. Some converted to Judaism.
Most seem to have embraced some of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers of the movement.
Commitment, affinity, and affiliation with the Jewish faction varied greatly. These ‘Gentile Judaizers’ drew
some of the most vitriolic fire from Gentile leaders and literati who were incensed by their attraction to the
beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.

The implications of the emerging consensus about the diversity of early belief in Jesus will surface
throughout the following chapters. However, as we are about to enter this journey, it is important to
anticipate and emphasize one overriding implication of this proposition. Namely, that during the first five
centuries of belief in Jesus, there were ‘Christians’ that were Jewish, Marcionite, Pauline or Gnostic.
Furthermore, although all believers pledged allegiance to Jesus, they held radically different beliefs,
practices, traditions, affiliations and attitudes - making a confrontation about authority, legitimacy, and
ascendancy inevitable. Each of these communities of believers in Jesus saw themselves as the only true and
legitimate followers of Jesus, and considered differing believers as illegitimate and heretic.

The sacred texts that were eventually embraced as canonical (The New Testament) reflect the ascendancy
of the Pauline faction and the hegemony of its dogma over the narrative. Thus, for almost two thousand
years, the strand of belief in Jesus that emerged ascendant (the Gentile followers of Paul) is the only
version of belief in Jesus that Christian believers have known.

20
This monograph is a presentation, to the general public, of research first published in Jews and Gentiles in the
early Jesus movement by Palgrave, the academic division of Macmillan Publishers (2013). This version is best
suited for readers interested in detailed and substantiated discussion and analysis. Expanded introductions,
new material, reviews of historical context, content reconfiguration, new chapter structure, and enhanced
background segments characterize this expanded, and updated edition.

Praise for the academic version of this book+

"I am in fundamental agreement with Bibliowicz's thesis (that the anti-Jewish polemic in the New
Testament reflects debates between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus - not a polemic between
Christians and Jews), and with the implications which he has drawn for Christian theology... May this book
find a wide readership among people devoted to the cause of the healing of memories between Jews and
Christians."

—Peter C. Phan, Professor. Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown University; President
of the Catholic Theological Society of America

‘Standing on a brilliant and insightful reconstruction of Paul, and on a quite shocking (but perhaps
compelling) reading of Mark—the author offers a number of original and, in some cases, quite compelling
theoretical reconstructions of the context and purposes of early Christian texts... a work of sublime moral
passion.’

—David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director, Center
for Theology and Public Life, Mercer University. President-elect American Academy of Religion.
Author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context

‘An intrepid excursion into the Christian discourse... The quest of an intellectual, a humanist... Interesting
and, in fact overwhelming... A timely and honest engagement of the Christian texts, authors, and scholars
by a Jewish intellectual.’

—Burton L. Mack, – Professor of Early Christianity, Claremont School of Theology, California;

author of A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins

21
 “There is great merit to Bibliowicz's approach... I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in
the Jewish-Christian dialogue.... Scholars may disagree with a number of Bibliowicz' conclusions, as I do
with his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But even in disagreeing, scholars in the field of
Jewish-Christian studies, will learn new ways of challenging and thinking about old presumptions."

—Eugene J. Fisher, Distinguished Professor of Theology, Saint Leo University. Former staff
person for Catholic-Jewish relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Consultor to the
Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, member of the International Catholic-
Jewish Liaison Committee representing the Holy See.

‘An important work... Sensitive and deeply researched... In the deepest sense, a profound theological work.’

—Clark M. Williamson, Professor. Christian Theological Seminary, Indiana; author of Way of

Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology

‘I very much appreciated the depth and scope of the scholarship, accompanied by the kind and humble
spirit of the author…it may also prove to be one of the formidable and formative scholarly contributions
of the decade for both biblical and historical scholars. ‘

—Michael Thompson, Professor. Religious Studies – Oklahoma State University

‘In methodical and precise fashion Bibliowicz takes the reader through the relevant ancient Christian texts
bearing on the question at hand. In so doing, he proposes an intriguing, compelling thesis. The book
should prove to be a major voice in the ongoing debate.’

—Brooks Schramm, Professor of Biblical Studies, Lutheran Theological Seminary

‘Impressive work... With this impassioned study available to us, it will no longer be possible for us to
ignore the unintended ways the unthinkable came to be and still say ‘we did not know.’’

—Didier Pollefeyt, Professor. Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven Belgium; coauthor of Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel and Paul and Judaism

22
‘An original and plausible claim that goes beyond most of modern scholarship... a solid contribution to the
study of anti-Judaism in early Christianity.’

—Joseph B. Tyson, Professor. Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University; author of

Marcion and
Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle

‘Well-researched and thorough. Intelligent and thoughtful... accessible, the argumentation compelling.’

—Michele Murray, Professor. Bishop’s University, Canada; author of Playing a Jewish Game:
Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries C.E.

‘A detailed and insightful exploration of the writings of the early Jesus movement... argues convincingly
that the origins of Christian anti-Judaism are to be found among early non-Jewish followers of Jesus who
were in conflict with Jesus’s disciples and first followers... a must read.’

—Tim Hegedus, Professor of New Testament, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid Laurier
University, Canada
‘Bibliowicz uses solid scholarship to engage large and difficult topics while managing to be balanced and
clear... invites Christians to walk a deep journey toward truth... and suggests a compelling nuance that the
conflicts in the early texts were between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, not between Jews and
Christians.’

—David L. Coppola, Executive Director, Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, Sacred

Heart University

‘A meticulous study... a mammoth endeavor... goes beyond others in his interpretation of the evidence,
tracing and documenting distinctions and tensions in the early Jesus movement.’

—N. A. Beck, Professor of Theology and Classical Languages, Texas Lutheran University; author
of Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish
Polemic of the New Testament

23
‘The topics Bibliowicz engages are complex. Although some of his interpretations are controversial...
Gentile Christians should set aside apologetical agendas and honestly ponder the challenges put forward by
the author.’

—Dale C. Allison, Jr. Professor of New Testament, Princeton Theological Seminary; author of
Constructing Jesus: History, Memory, and Imagination

24
 *Personal Introduction+
‘So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning,
he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this
man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’ And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us
and on our children!’
(Matt. 27:24–25).17

The need to understand Christian attitudes toward Judaism has been with me for many years. After
searching in various directions, I stopped at the gates of Christian scripture. Without any foreknowledge or
expectations, I started reading the New Testament. The anti-Jewish bias of the texts surprised me. I did not
return to the New Testament for many years.

Some 20 years ago, I started re-reading the New Testament. I also began studying, on my own, The New
Testament, Christian history, and Christian theology. Throughout these years, I have been deeply touched
and influenced by the encounter with Christian scholars and theologians. I have benefited from their
guidance and counsel, which was given with open hearts and open minds. During these years, I have
learned that the New Testament is a complex corpus that includes unique theological statements,
extraordinary spiritual insights, edifying stories and parables, and different and differing perspectives on the
ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, I also encountered troubling and conflicting messages about the
attitudes of early Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism and toward the Jewish people. I have also
learned that pro-Jewish18 and anti-Jewish strands have cohabited in the traditions of believers in Jesus from
the earliest years, and have wrestled since for their minds, hearts, and souls. In addition to the polemical
strand that I encountered throughout the lore, I also encountered expressions, traces and echoes of
positive views toward Jews and Judaism.

For individual believers, Christianity is a religion of faith, love, grace, salvation, and redemption. The
majority of today’s believers in Jesus have no anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic inclinations. Most are unaware of
the deep and pervasive presence of polemical attitudes in their theology, culture, and lore. ‘Most Christians
are unaware of the role that Christians have played in the oppression of the Jewish people.’19 Furthermore,
many of today’s believers acknowledge Jews to be God’s people and have but the warmest attitudes toward
them. For most, whose life in Christ is one of loving kindness and mercy, awakening to the anti-Jewish
bent that permeates the canonical and authoritative lore is a troubling and disconcerting experience.20

The presence of a polemical bias in the religious tradition that gave the world the inspiring and sublime
writings of Perpetua of Carthage, Francis of Assisi, Hildegard of Bingen, Bonaventure, Meister Eckhardt,
Catherine de Siena, Thomas a’ Kempis, John of the Cross, Teresa de Avila, and Teilhard de Chardin - is
disconcerting. The abyss between the wholesomeness and the authenticity of individual belief and sixteen
hundred years of anti-Jewish teachings is hard to reconcile. For Jews, studying the canonical and the

25
authoritative Christian literature is a gut-wrenching and unsettling encounter with a strange universe in
which we, and our religious traditions, are denigrated, vilified, and ridiculed in a myriad of ways.

When revisiting the New Testament and the authoritative texts, we need to be aware of the cultural,
religious, and emotional filters through which we approach the text.21 To transpose oneself to the time and
place of the New Testament writers, and to capture the circumstances and the issues that the scribes, the
editors, and the compilers of the texts were trying to address, one needs to divest sixteen hundred years of
traditional interpretations and dogmas. To read the canonical texts as a first-century inhabitant of the
Roman Empire would, we also need to divest deeply held beliefs, values, and sensibilities. These
preconditions are necessary to capture the events as they unfolded, without the formidable impact of
centuries of retroactive editing and dogmatic indoctrination. Moreover, the destruction of the textual
traditions of differing believers in Jesus, the complexities of the texts, the intricacy of the circumstances,
the fog of history, active obstruction by the guardians of orthodoxy and the emotional and cultural shields
that protect religious dogma - conspire to make this quest difficult.

The focus of this work is limited to a survey of the attitudes of early Gentile believers in Jesus toward Jews
and toward Judaism. This emphasis should not obscure the fact that Jewish-Gentile relations within the
Jesus movement were but one facet of a protracted multilateral crisis that lasted at least four centuries, and
that followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and
inclinations were all drawn into this theological whirlwind.

Moreover, the enormous corpus of New Testament scholarship is not fully surveyed here. Theological,
Christological, and creedal elements are only marginally addressed. Many derivative topics are addressed
and discussed only as they impact the subject at hand. My presentation of these complex topics is not
exhaustive; they are explored only to the extent needed to develop the main themes of the monograph.
Readers not acquainted with the vastness of New Testament scholarship should be aware that most issues
touched upon here have been interpreted and understood in different and differing ways by qualified
scholars and theologians, which I am not.

I invite Christian readers to attempt to read this book from a Jewish perspective, to explore the New
Testament and the authoritative texts anew. I present my work with great trepidation, with an
apprehension born out of the tension between my affinity with religious belief and my quest to decipher
the origins and evolution of the polemical strand. This affinity permeates and informs my life-long interest
in the religions experience and its mystical manifestations. The task of re-reading the New Testament in a
new light requires substantial effort. The evidence and the clues that sustain my conclusions emerge
gradually and slowly throughout the monograph. I hope that readers will find this rendition of my journey
edifying. Despite many unanswered questions the ongoing quest has been rewarding, the conclusions
surprising.

26
Furthermore, this work is not a religious statement, nor is it a statement about religion. Moreover, the
sensitive and emotionally charged nature of the subject at hand may cause some readers to shut-off to the
presentation and to pre-categorize this book, or portions of it, in unintended ways. Some may find the
journey emotionally difficult. The reader should continuously keep in his or her mind that this is not a
critique of the faith and beliefs of believers in Jesus, nor is it about their vast, rich, and empowering
religious heritage.

I was summoned to this task by dark and painful memories deeply etched in the Jewish consciousness, and
by ever-present storms that cloud the Jewish horizon. In this quest, I have been nurtured by the deep and
powerful wells of the Jewish collective past. Throughout this journey, I found myself surprised again and
again by intense emotions, triggered by this experience, and reflected in an emotional under-pitch that I do
not identify in my rational self. Twenty years after the beginning of this journey, the texts can still
overwhelm me. The images of their unintended consequences still haunt me.

Paradoxically, as I read and re-read the canonical and authoritative texts, I detected a gradual change in
their impact on me: to my surprise, the more I immersed myself in the material, the more I became
desensitized to the anti-Jewish content. It seems that with time, one becomes accustomed to heavy dosages
of rhetoric; it becomes an almost nonexistent background noise. It would appear that over-exposure to
verbal violence leads to numbness to it.

Any attempt at channeling the chaos, the diversity, and the uncertainty of the first centuries of belief in
Jesus into a structured narrative will fail to fully encompass the underlying complexity. Furthermore, the
enigmas, the dissonances, and the inconsistencies that we encounter in the texts before us - require a
harmonizing narrative that must go beyond the evidence. Therefore, it was necessary to sketch on this
canvass a picture that cannot be fully substantiated.

However, and significantly, none of the traditional or modern models that attempt to decipher the Jewish-
Christian saga does exhaust the textual evidence either. Nonetheless, when analyzed in light of the
suggested socio-theological trajectory, many discrepancies and difficulties, many mystifying puzzles and
previously disconnected phenomena, yield new meanings and interpretations. Whether the proposed
alternative, which builds on the work of many scholars and theologians, is deemed to better fit the
evidence and better reflect the evolution of belief in Jesus is a judgment that readers will cast.

Critique, commentaries, and dialogue are welcome jchrelationsfirstcenturies@gmail.com

27
 *Timeline+
BCE 1900–1700 The Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)
BCE 1200–1000 The Judges
BCE 1000–922 Davidic monarchy (‘J’ writer of Pentateuch)
BCE 850–720 Elijah, Jezebel, and Ahab, Amos, Hosea
BCE 850–720 Assyrian conquest of Northern Kingdom (Israel)
BCE 718–688 Hezekiah
BCE 700 First Isaiah
BCE 640–609 Josiah (Deuteronomic reform)
BCE 625–595 Jeremiah
BCE 597 First deportation (Babylon)
BCE 587 Nebuchadnezzar conquers Jerusalem
BCE 587–538 Ezekiel and Second Isaiah
BCE 465–424 Ezra and Nehemiah
BCE 63 Romans conquer Judea
BCE 4? Jesus’s birth
CE 26–36 Pilate in Judea
CE 30? Jesus’s crucifixion
CE 42? Paul’s mission begins
CE 37–41 Emperor Caligula
CE 54–68 Emperor Nero
CE 50–60 Paul’s Epistles (New Testament)
CE 65–70 Gospel of Mark (New Testament)
CE 70 Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple
CE 69–79 Emperor Vespasian
CE 80–90? Matthew, Luke/Acts (New Testament)
CE 81–96 Emperor Domitian
CE 95–105? John, The Book of Revelation (New Testament)
CE 80–135 The Epistle of Barnabas
CE 95? 1 Clement of Rome (Church Fathers)
CE 70–100 The Didache (Church Fathers)

28
CE 80–117 Ignatius of Antioch (Church Fathers)
CE 98–117 Emperor Trajan
CE 100–160 Justin the Martyr
CE 100–170 Marcion
CE 110–130? Gospels of Peter and Thomas (Gnostic gospel)
CE 110–140? The Shepherd of Hermes and Papias (Church Fathers)
CE 130–200 Irenaeus (The first ‘New Testament’ canon)
CE 132–135 Second Jewish revolt (Bar Kochba)—Jerusalem destroyed
CE 190 Melito of Sardis
CE 260–340 Eusebius
CE 300–375 Athanasius
CE 303–312 The ‘Great Persecution’
CE 306–337 Emperor Constantine
CE 325 Council of Nicaea
CE 379–395 Theodosius Emperor (the Empire is Christianized)

29
 *Acknowledgments

Scholars and lifelong students of the Jewish-Christian saga that read, commented, and criticized drafts of
this monograph: Reverend Dr. Phillip W. Tolliday, and Professors D. Fiensy and W. B. Tatum who
supported and encouraged, despite a rather crude first draft. Professor N. Beck whose wise guidance
helped me navigate difficult waters and whose encouragement and empathy made this journey a unique
experience. Professor C. Williamson whose support and kind words are deeply appreciated. Professors A.
R. Culpepper, D. P. Efroymson, Burton L. Mack, and M. Murray who reviewed drafts of the monograph
and contributed insightful commentary and prepublication reviews. Professors D. Allison, P. Cunningham,
J. Pawlikowski, J. T. Townsend, and J. Tyson who made helpful suggestions and observations. Special
acknowledgment and gratitude is due to the scholars that submitted prepublication endorsements.

Zali Gurevitch, whose warm and early encouragement played an important role in my persevering. Friends
that read the early drafts and contributed comments and much appreciated encouragement: Hanna
Bibliowicz, Jeremy Evnine, Robert Hoffman, Emanuel Jolish, Henry Kadoch, and Henya Shanun-Klein,
the guardian angel of this monograph. Finally, Ronnie, our children (Gideon, Yonatan, and Michal), and
their spouses (Shiri, Samia, and Pablo) who were supportive throughout, read, and made valuable
observations.

The views presented in this book are the sole responsibility of the author. The readers’ support was a
gracious gift, not an endorsement of the writer’s views or conclusions.

Cover images: Fifth century mosaic in the interior of the basilica of Santa Sabina (Rome) on the
Aventine over the entrance to the nave. Mosaic celebrating the establishment of the church 420-
430 CE. One right side (smiling and welcoming) represents the Ecclesia ex Gentibus (Church of
the Gentiles—The Gentile followers of Jesus), on the left side (stern and unwelcoming) represents
the Ecclesia ex circumcisione (Church of the Circumcised—The Jewish followers of Jesus).
Image courtesy of Art History Images (www.art-history-images.com).

30
Chapter 1

*The Historical Background

Historical background
The Romans and the Jews
The Romans and Gentile Believers

Historical background+
Mesopotamia and Egypt are the birthplaces of the great civilizations of the ancient Middle East. The epic
struggle between the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians was fought, mostly, in the territory of the buffer
peoples: the nations that populated the lands West of the Jordan river and the territories south of the
Anatolian peninsula. Judea was a small tribal kingdom occupying the hill country between the sea plains
and the Jordan River, in the no-where-land between these two formidable civilizations. The Israelites were
a secondary player in the area’s struggles for ascendancy. Despite being a small nation, the Israelite myth of
exclusivity and covenant with YHWH22 seems to have contributed to a Judean sense of purpose and
destiny, and forged them into impressive fighters. This myth may have been instrumental in making this
small tribal kingdom into an occasional significant regional player.

King David’s military and political success was short lived. It was due, in no small measure, to his forging
of a tribal coalition between Judea and the other Israelite tribes. His son Solomon, the wisest of all kings
(according to the Davidic dynastic accounts) was a poor politician who alienated his partners in the tribal
coalition he inherited from his father. Solomon also alienated the religious establishment by building altars
to foreign Gods (2 Kings 23:4-14), and alienated the Northern tribes by fortifying the southern border of
the kingdom and neglecting the northern frontier. Upon Salomon’s death, the Davidic coalition unraveled,
and most non-Judeans seceded and established the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom was
conquered and subdued by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. Judea fell to the Babylonians on 587 BCE. The
consequences of the fall of Judah were momentous: 23

“This political situation raised religious questions: Why did God allow the Jews to be subjugated by
Gentiles? Why didn’t God protect his people? Why do the Gentiles but not the Jews deserve temporal
power? … How should the Jews relate to the state? Should they support it, oppose it, or adopt a neutral
stance? Should their support or opposition be active or passive?

31
The answer was provided by Jeremiah. This prophet had warned the inhabitants of Jerusalem that their
rebellion against the king of Babylonia was also a rebellion against God. The prophet counseled surrender.
Nebuchadnezzar was performing God’s will in his assault on the holy city, and the Jews were foolish to
believe that they could flout God’s will. The Jews were condemned to failure due to the fact of their sins;
Nebuchadnezzar was merely God’s agent for their punishment (Jer. 25). In this conception, Jeremiah
transferred to his own day the prophetic interpretation of the fall of Samaria enunciated by Isaiah
generations before (Isa. 10).

But Jeremiah also added a different interpretation, a new conception not articulated by previous prophets.
The fall of Jerusalem and the triumph of Babylonia are the consequence not of sin and punishment but of
immutable fate. God, who controls the destiny of nations and empires, has for undisclosed reasons decided
that Babylon shall rise and that Judea and other states shall fall (Jer. 27:2-8). The dominion granted the
Babylonians was only temporary; after a predetermined amount of time, whether the three generations of
Jeremiah 27 or the ‘seventy years’ of Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10, the Babylonian empire will fall and/or the
Jews will return from exile in triumph and glory…

How much of this was enunciated by Jeremiah during the dark days of the 590s and 580s BCE, and how
much was added by later disciples and editors, is not easy to determine, but, whatever their origin, these
ideas had an enormous impact on subsequent Jewish thought and practice…The prophecies of Jeremiah
also provide the ideological context for the political behavior of the Jews in antiquity (and, indeed, of
medieval and modern times as well). When Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 539 BCE
and issued his edict permitting the Jews to return home and rebuild their temple (Ezra 1:1-4), many Jews
chose to remain... Of all the nations exiled from their lands by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, only the
Jews returned to their homeland to rebuild their ancestral temple. For these Jews, the redemption promised
by Jeremiah was to consist of repatriation and the renewal of the temple cult; perhaps many of them also
hoped for a restoration of the kingship and political independence, but they were to be disappointed.” 24

Following the fall of Babylonia, the Judeans became Persian vassals until the conquest of the area by
Alexander of Macedonia. Judeans regained their independence under the Hasmonean dynasty (143-63
BCE). In 63 BCE Pompey led the Roman armies that conquered Judea. During the early years of the
Roman conquest (63 BCE-66 CE) Judea was governed by local rulers subservient to Rome or by direct
Roman Rule. First century Judeans yearned for a Messiah, a descendant of King David, who would bring
about deliverance from foreign oppression. Using modern terminology, we may describe this as a
nationalistic yearning, not a religious one.25 However, the Roman appointed religious establishment of
Judea, aware of Roman might (and subservient to it) opposed any attempt to challenge the Roman
occupation and to incite messianic fervor.

Several groups may be identified as active in Judea at the dawn of the first century:26

32
Pharisees – Contrary to their portrayal in the New Testament,27 the Pharisees (Hebrew: Prushim) were
committed to high religious and ethical standards.28 They opposed the Roman occupation, but did not
actively promote subversive activities. Theologically, the Pharisees advocated reliance on oral traditions to
interpret the Hebrew Scriptures. The Pharisees, the socio-theological descendants of the Hasidim of the
Maccabean era, are at the epicenter of the rhetoric and invective of the New Testament but are minor and
secondary figures in Jewish history, literature and lore. We find that ‘in the whole of Talmudic literature not
a single sage is designated as a Pharisee, and the word appears only in some isolated usages.’29

Sadducees - The Sadducees (Hebrew: Zadokim)30 were the party associated with the Judean religious
aristocracy. According to tradition, they were entitled to the office of the High Priest. Their collaboration
with the Romans earned them the animosity of the people. Theologically, they were strict literalists. They
were considered theological and social conservatives.31 Some modern scholars distinguish between
Sadducees who acquiesced with the foreign occupation and Zadokites (who opposed the ruling priestly
families appointed by foreign occupiers).

Apocalyptics - Groups and individuals associated with eschatological (end of times) and apocalyptic
(revelatory) imagery or inclinations32 i.e., John the Baptist, Jesus, Qumran, Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 1
Enoch and The Apocalypse of Abraham.33 Most scholars identify the community that produced the Dead
Sea Scrolls at Qumran as the Essenes mentioned by Flavius Josephus.34 Apocalyptics believed that an
imminent ‘end of times’ was near, and would bring deliverance from the current age of evil. Some of these
groups developed dualistic and alienated views of reality.

Subversive militants - Zealots, Sicarii, and uncompromising nationalists (called by Josephus Flavious ‘The
Fourth Philosophy’). Groups that fought to expel the Roman occupation and were instrumental in igniting
two major, costly, and failed revolutions (70 & 135 CE).35 These groups considered paying tribute to a
foreign ruler a major sin. This category may include fringe elements of the previous groups that advocated
armed resistance.

The people – The vast majority of the inhabitants of first century Judea (the ‘silent majority’) did not
belong to the groups enumerated above. Most were rural peasants with mundane concerns, conservative
beliefs, and traditionalist inclinations and life-styles.

Given the scarcity of reliable sources, the characteristics and demographics of these groups, their respective
theologies, relative influence and inter-relationships, are the subject of inconclusive debates. We are
advised against drawing far-reaching conclusions from the conflicting and incomplete evidence we
possess.36 It seems that the Pharisees and the Sadducees are best characterized as educated elites.37
Apocalyptics were, mostly, religious enthusiasts that had a variety of religious predispositions and
inclinations – and were not a socio-political group. They may have recruited most of their members among
the poor and the marginalized, and among religious charismatics and enthusiasts. Whether first century
Judaism should be seen as mostly homogeneous, or mostly diverse, remains a controversial issue. Whereas

33
most Christian scholars seem to favor diversity38 and division, most Jewish scholars tend to emphasize
homogeneity and continuity.

Politics and the Hebrew Scriptures - The Hebrew Scriptures provide us a window into the Israelite
mythical past going back 4500-4000 years. In the Torah39 we can trace the evolution of the Judean
understanding of creation and of the divine realm. We can detect a trajectory from archaic mythical
anthropomorphism (Genesis), to YHWH as a henotheistic warrior God (Judges, Kings) and lastly to the
monotheistic God of the later prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah). Jahwism40 and monotheism were gradual and
hard-fought processes.

The Torah (Pentateuch- the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is a complex and layered corpus that
seems to preserve the footprints of various schools, and many authors, compilers, and editors. The Torah
underwent several editing and doctrinal reconfigurations. Updated forms of the Documentary Hypothesis
(DH) are currently the dominant academic theory for the evolutionary path of the Torah.

This hypothesis, in its many variants, is the result of centuries of increasingly secular readings of the Bible
(Hobbes, Spinoza, Eichhorn, Graf, Wellhausen, F.M. Cross, R.E. Friedman, B. Halpern, Baden and
others). According to most of the variants of the Documentary Hypothesis,41 The Pentateuch (Torah)
contains four (J, E, D, P) sources and one redactor. The J source seems to be the legitimating saga of the
House of David. E, D and P appear to originate in contending priestly groups vying for religious
ascendancy. E, the Elohist, seems to originate in the northern kingdom of Israel. D contains most of
Deuteronomy. Most agree that P, the Priestly Law, is a late and post exilic addition. While the hypothesis
has been criticized and challenged, it continues to be the main framework for academic discussions on the
composite nature and origins of the Torah (Pentateuch). Thus, the Pentateuch42 is the depository of
layered and intertwined accounts of the early annals of the Israelite people, and of the legitimating lore of
the Davidic Dynasty.

The Priestly Law (the P source of DH) seems to reflect the victory of the Aaronid priestly clan (claimed
Moses’ brother Aaron as their ancestor) in the power struggle over religious ascendancy in post-exile Judea.
With the return from the Babylonian exile (approximately 538 BCE) the Judean religion undergoes a
transformation under priestly control. The Pentateuch was, most probably, given its final editorial and
textual form under Ezra, an Aaronid priest.

The Priestly Law reflects tree phenomena: the end of the monarchy, the end of the prophesy, and the
reversal of the rise of the Mushite priests from Shilo (descendants from Moses) to preeminence during
the last decades preceding the exile (Josiah’s reign onward). The Aaronids returned to power under the
Persian patronage bestowed upon Ezra. From Ezra onward, the Davidic dynasty and the Mushite priests
of Shilo (the priestly group associated with Samuel, Abiathar and the prophet Jeremiah) the probable
originators of the Deuteronomist components of the Pentateuch - mysteriously and unceremoniously
disappear from Jewish history. In terms of dynastic politics, whereas the Aaronids rose to preeminence
during the reign of Hezekiah, the Mushites enjoyed the patronage of Josiah.

34
In terms of regional politics, we can infer the probable pro-Babylonian inclinations of the Mushites
(Jeremiah’s advice not to confront the Babylonians) and the probable anti-Babylonian stance of the
Aaronids. The Aaronids, exiled (with most of the aristocracy) to Babylon, were back in favor when the
Persians overthrew the Babylonian Empire, and the Persian king looked for allies to govern the provinces.

Second temple Judaism (538 BCE – 70 ce) was, by the standards of the era, tolerant of deviant belief. Many
sects flourished. Persecution of sectarians was rare. Striving for Torah43 observance was not a vehicle for
salvation; it was a lifestyle conducive to living in accordance to the ancestral covenant with YHWH. Torah
observance was conducive to God’s favor in this world, not to salvation in the afterlife. This period is
considered by most Jewish scholars as the crucible of the emergence of the priestly mindset of Second
Temple Judaism.

Monotheism, intolerance and religious polemic – Polytheistic cultures were, for the most part, tolerant of
diversity. The concept that ‘many paths lead to the divine’ resonates in the polytheistic mind, but has no
full parallel in monotheism. Monotheism tends to breed exclusivity. Exclusivity breeds intolerance.
Monotheistic religions are prone to intolerance and are often harnessed to legitimate established political
power. The increase in intolerance that seems to be associated with monotheism and the atrocities that
have been committed in the name of ‘God’ by followers of monotheistic faiths are sobering. Christianity
and Islam, the two universal and worldwide contenders that embrace Ethical Monotheism,44 had from
early-on worldwide claims and goals and did become persecutory. In Judaism, all righteous people enjoy
good standing before God, regardless of origin or belief (the Noachide laws -Genesis 9: 1-6). This early
universalistic stand and Judaism’s early henotheism may have contributed to its milder militancy and its
weaker proselytizing zeal.45 Minority status, self-criticism and Torah observance may have also contributed
to weaker persecutory impulses.
Among today’s religions, only Islam was from its inception fully and unequivocally monotheistic. A close
reading of the Hebrew Scriptures reveals that First Temple Judaism was henotheistic (worship of one God
- no denial of the existence of other Gods - Exodus 20:4-5). The Hebrew Scriptures, and the archeological
evidence, support an evolutionary view of the Jewish understanding of the divine. Polytheistic vestiges and
residues in the Hebrew Scriptures seem to favor an earlier period of polytheistic and henotheistic co-
existence. The Jewish sacred scriptures are cultural depositories that contain both; sublime ethical
articulations, and accounts of past religious and political struggles. They also include rhetoric directed at
the nation’s enemies.

Indeed, the Torah contains passages that are disturbing to modern sensibilities and ethics.46 N. Beck’s
presentation of this type of polemic in the Hebrew Scriptures:47

‘In the Hebrew Scriptures polemic includes subtle degradation of Babylonian and Egyptian celestial and
terrestrial deities (the greater light, the lesser light, the stars, and the sea monsters) in the Priestly creation
account, Gen. l: l-2:4a, followed by admonitions in Deut. 4:19 and Zeph. 6:5 against worship of the sun,
the moon, the stars, all the hosts of heaven, and material things that the Lord God has provided. The

35
Tower of Babel account in Gen. 11 is apparently in part polemic against Mesopotamian city cultures with
their gateway-to-heaven towers at the summits of their ziggurats. Anti-Egyptian polemic is inherent in
Israel’s basic confession of faith that Adonai delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage. Polemic against the
nearer neighbors of the Israelites, the Canaanites, and against their cultic practices is much more common.
Canaan is personified and cursed; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers because of his sexual
perversions (Gen. 9:20-27). The serpent, a phallic symbol within the Canaanite fertility cults, is the agent
for the seduction of Eve (Gen. 3). In the Jahwistic creation account there may be skillfully subtle polemic
against fertility cult practices of intercourse with animals when it is recorded that among all the cattle, the
birds of the air, and the beasts of the field there was not found a helper fit for the man; instead, the Lord
God made from a rib of the man a woman and brought her to the man to be a helper fit for him (Gen.
2:18-25).

There was a time when the use of household gods had been customary among the ancestors of the
Israelites, in the Jacob story in Gen. 31 the use of such objects was put down when Rachel was said to have
stolen her father’s household deities, placed them in the camel’s saddle in her tent, and sat upon them. She
refused to get up while her father searched the tent for them, claiming that she was in the midst of her
menstrual cycle, thus covering them with her uncleanness. Within the Shechemite Dodecalogue, in the
Decalogue in Exod. 20 and Deut 5, and elsewhere, there are the well-known prohibitions against making
graven images in the form of any figure, male or female, of any beast, bird, reptile, or fish. Beyond this
there are vitriolic denunciations of the various Baal cults and their worship practices. To cite only one
example, in Deut. 12:1-3, 29-31, it is commanded that the places where the people whom the Israelites
would dispossess had served their gods upon the high mountains and the hills and under every green tree
must all be destroyed. The Canaanite altars must be torn down, their pillars dashed into pieces, and their
Asherim burned. The graven images of their gods must be cut down and the name of their holy ones
destroyed. It is said that these antecedents of the Israelites have done every abominable thing, even
burning their own sons and daughters in the fire of their gods.

These instances of polemic are indications that the Israelite cult developed alongside of, to some extent out
of, and in opposition to the local fertility and weather deities whose worship was widespread in agricultural
Canaan. Certainly, the political conquest of the land was no easy task, as the records in Judges and 1
Samuel indicate, and the religious conquest of the agricultural deities was an equally long and frustrating
struggle.

As a result of the extensive military achievements of David and the establishment of the empire, large
numbers of non-Israelites were brought into the nation and into the royal court. Elijah, a few generations
later, is said to have felt that he alone remained as one who would speak for Adonai; he had to be
reassured that Adonai would leave seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed to Baal and kissed him (1
Kings 19). In Hos. 2:2-13 we read that although it was Adonai who gave Israel its grain, wine, oil, silver,
and gold, these precious gifts were all - too frequently offered as oblations to the Baals. During Josiah’s
reform, vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the hosts of heaven were brought out of the temple
of Adonai and burned outside Jerusalem. The priests were deposed whom the kings of Judah had ordained
to burn incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon, the constellations, and all the hosts of the heavens, and
Josiah is commended for defiling the high places that Solomon had built for Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Mil-

36
corn (2 Kings 23:4-14). The polemic against the making of idols and against the cult of idols continues in
Isa. 40:19-20; 41:6-7; 42:17; 44:9-20; 45:16-17, 20b; 46:5-8; 48:22; Ps. 97:7; and many other places, most
graphically in the Bel and the Dragon additions to Daniel.’

Fortunately, the consequences of these ancient inflammatory remarks are now buried in the archives of our
lore and did not have a significant impact on Jewish hearts and minds. These archaic vestiges do not
disturb us due to the fact that most of the peoples and nations involved are long gone, the issues at center
stage have changed, and Judaism did not develop a sustained persecutory bent. Confusion arises when we
do not differentiate between core theological statements, and tribal and military exhortations that are often
adversarial, confrontational, and derogatory toward other tribes and nations.

Non-Israelites and the Torah - King Hammurabi’s law code (Babylonia 1795-1750 BCE) is the earliest
extant Law code and the first known attempt to recruit the divine realm to edify and control the king’s
subjects. It is the oldest effort to inculcate good behavior through the agency of religion. The biblical
Noachide code (Genesis 9:1-6) stands on Hammurabi’s law and reflects the core theological stand of
Judaism toward non-Jews. According to biblical Judaism, non-Israelites can be ‘right in the eyes of God’ by
being righteous. Maimonides, probably the foremost Jewish philosopher of the early Middle Ages, did state
unequivocally that everyone who accepts the Noachide commandments and observes them carefully is one
of the righteous of the nations of the world, and has a share in the world to come.48 In Judaism, there is no
requirement or expectation that Gentiles become Jews or keep Jewish customs.

Torah observance is a duty that derives from the covenant between God and the Israelites. According to
the Judean tribal myth, God promised protection and favor in return for keeping his commands. Right
behavior was paramount to Israelites and was considered a necessary precursor and enabler of ethics. Right
belief, in the later Christian sense, was not a central tenet of first century Judaism. Thus, an individual’s
place in God’s plan was a consequence a person’s being a member of the group, an Israelite in good
standing.49 It may be said that there is no individual quest for salvation in the Jewish literature of the first
centuries of the Common Era. First century Judaism did not focus on salvation of the soul. It did focus on
serving God by complying with his commands.50

The monarchic mindset (1000 – 587 BCE) - Judea was a warrior kingdom ruled by the Davidic dynasty.
King David (circa 1000 BCE) founder of the longest lasting Israelite dynasty, was a Judean. The tribe of
Judah was the largest and most influential of the twelve Israelite tribes. The mindset of the Judean
monarchic period was heroic, mythical and sensual. The Pentateuch contains the legitimating myth of this
dynasty. The Biblical author(s) cast King David in a mythological mold. David is the beloved of ‘God.’
There is no King that ‘God’ loves more; there is no one more exalted. David’s narrative is the longest for
any Judean King. In fact, it is the longest for any biblical figure. However, the court scribe that was
commissioned to write a foundational account of the dynasty may have been too forceful in his zeal to
please his employers: he did cast ‘God’ as extending a promise of eternal rule to the Davidic dynasty, a
promise that was not kept. Nonetheless, God’s promise to David (II Samuel 7 and Psalm 89) may be one
of the most successful Acts of political self-promotion in history. It did legitimize, and thus facilitate, 400
years of Davidic rule over Judea, one of the longest dynasties humanity has known.

37
The Davidic myth became deeply embedded in the Judean cultural fabric.51 Two Davidic descendants did,
apparently, return from the Babylonian exile. The text is silent as to the fate of these last Davidic scions;
they vanish without trace or explanation. ‘God’s’ promise is not kept, and the Davidic dynasty leaves
history silently and unceremoniously by the backdoor, to be replaced by priestly rule.

The priestly mindset (587 BCE – 70 CE) - The Persian King appointed Ezra, an Aaronid priest, to lead the
second attempt to revitalize Judea following the failure of the Davidic scions to do so. Ezra was the pivotal
figure in the transition from the monarchic era to the priestly domination of the nation that lasted until the
failed revolution of 70 CE. Under Ezra’s stewardship the authoritative scriptures were apparently edited
and rendered ‘priestly friendly.’ Most variants of the Documentary Hypothesis attribute the final editing of
the Pentateuch, including the insertion of the priestly code, to Ezra and/or his followers. The goal was to
solidify the religious power of his priestly clan, the Aaronids, who emerged victorious after centuries of
infighting with the Mushite priestly clan from Shiloh. Priestly scribes made certain that scripture instructed
the nation that most kings ‘did bad on the eyes of the Lord,’ and stifled any attempt to criticize priestly
rule. Whereas the return from exile is traditionally understood as the birth of Judaism, it was in fact a shift
from a monarchic to a priestly mindset. For many, this shift marks the transformation of the Israelites into
‘Jews.’52

Since time immemorial political and religious elites seem to have had the ‘inside track’ on ‘God’s’ wishes. It
is not surprising, therefore, that the groups that controlled the nation left their footprints in the lore, and
are the ones that benefited most from the latest version of ‘scripture’ and its ‘correct’ interpretation.
Following Ezra’s editing, the Deuteronomy Law Code seems to legitimize the Aaronid agenda. It seems
that ‘God’ also preferred the Aaronid clan (descendants of Aaron and Ezra’s clan) over the Mushite clan
(descendants of Moses), decreed the abolition of the ‘high places’ and the centralization of sacrifices in the
Temple (a point of contention between Mushites and Aaronids) and gave the Aaronids exclusivity over the
temple, sacrifices and tithes. We do not know to what extent the ‘Torah’ that Ezra read to the people
(Nehemiah 8) following his arrival to Judea was similar to the Torah we read today.53 Many scholars think
that the ‘Priestly source’ was incorporated into the Judean lore at this stage, given that the ‘Priestly Law’
includes a long list of prerogatives dear to the Aaronids and reflects, and legitimizes, their ascent to power.

The return from the Persian exile also marks the end of the prophetic era, an interesting by-product of the
priestly ascendancy. During the monarchic period prophets were often ‘on the record’ chastising the king
into compliance with the ‘ways of the Lord,’ and into protecting the weak and the poor. According to
Judean tradition, God’s wishes and God’s guidance to his people were communicated through the nation’s
prophets. However, when the religious elites took control of the nation’s destiny, the charismatic and
maverick nature of prophecy was seen as a threat to the religious establishment that supported it in the
past, and prophecy came to be seen as potentially subversive.

From the return from the Persian exile onward, God’s channel of communication with his people is
monopolized by the priestly establishment and prophecy ‘ceases’ with the writings of Haggai, Zechariah
and Malachi. It seems that prophets were useful as an opposition tool when the nation was dominated by

38
the monarchy, but disappeared as the priestly class takes over the reins. Excluding the interlude of
sovereignty under the Hasmoneans, nationalistic yearnings were suppressed. The priestly hold on the
nation’s soul was strengthened by inserting a cycle of sinfulness and deliverance into the Pentateuch, and
into the nation’s psyche. Sin and guilt became tools to solidify the priestly grip over the nation and quell
nationalistic and messianic yearnings. The priestly mindset is one of submission, of resignation, to the
futility of attempting to recover national sovereignty.54

The post-priestly mindset - As the priestly preeminence winds down following the destruction of The
Temple (70 CE), we see the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and the continuing rise of apocalyptic
(revelatory), eschatological (end of times) and mystical literature.55 Apocalyptic and mystical literature
surface in the period preceding the turn of the era, and may signal the surrender of the Judeans to the
harsh reality of foreign conquest and the turn away from reality to the esoteric, the hidden and the
fantastic. Although the origins of Jewish mysticism56 are shrouded in mystery and are the subject of
inconclusive debates, it seems that as foreign oppression is perceived as unchallengeable, the fantastic and
the mystical rise to the forefront and provide escape and sublimation.
.
From Alexander’s conquest to the second century CE, except for the short Maccabean interlude, Judean
national life was curtailed by foreign conquest. Revelation and end-of-times literature (Daniel, Qumran
etc.) may have been forerunners of the esoteric and fantastic imagery that will flourish in early Merkava and
Heichalot mysticism. Esoteric mysticism may have also functioned as a sublimation mechanism that
alleviated subjugation and suffering.57 Traditionalists see Jewish esoteric mysticism originating and evolving
parallel to normative exoteric Jewish culture. Others think that Jewish mysticism may have evolved from
visionary and eschatological lore.58

As time passed and the unacceptable reality of conquest persisted, the process of withdrawal from
engagement with the mundane intensified. When reality becomes hopeless and unjust, when God’s justice
and mercy tarry, and when despair permeates every facet of life - individuals and communities develop
coping mechanisms. In these circumstances the phenomena of apocalyptic, eschatological, messianic and
mystic literature may have functioned as dissonance reduction mechanisms. The rise of mystical disciplines
may reflect increasing disillusionment with, and disengagement from, reality – offering a world beyond the
control of foreign oppressors. A world of spiritual freedom and mystical escapism. These theological
outlooks reflect yearnings from within a world lacking justice, balance, harmony or hope. With the
destruction of the second Temple came the demise of the Judean priesthood. Apocalyptic and mystical
strands, already on the rise, become part of mainstream Judaism.

The Romans and the Jews59+

The high status of Judaism in the Roman Empire was the result of a long relationship with the Romans
that started circa 164 BCE when Judas Maccabeus,60 leader of the Judean revolt, sent an embassy to Rome
to secure an alliance against the Greeks. A steady increase in the status of Judaism characterized the next
three centuries.61 Even though life in the Roman Empire was fraught with uncertainty and shifting tides,

39
the Jews established communities throughout the Roman Empire and made significant contributions to
commerce and culture. Jews comprised approximately 6-8% of the empire’s population, although
estimates vary. They were a significant minority, numbering four to six million out of a population of
approximately sixty million. In the provinces where Christianity first established itself – Judea, Syria, Egypt,
and Asia Minor – the Jews comprised a larger percentage of the populace.62

At the time of Jesus’ ministry, the Jews of the Roman Empire were a respected and privileged minority
whose influence was enhanced by a relatively high level of literacy. The Jews were granted a number of
unusual concessions by the Romans (the right to observe the Sabbath, to refuse military service, and to
substitute prayers for the emperor in place of participation in the imperial cult). They were freed from
military service by Julius Caesar – who was also supportive of Jewish life in the Diaspora. This tolerant
attitude was emulated by the rulers of the provinces. Julius Caesar's enmity toward Pompey, who had
conquered Jerusalem and defiled the Holy of Holies, enhanced his status among the Jews. His restoration
of the unity of Judea, his deference toward the high priest Hyrcanus II, and his benevolent attitude made
him very popular with the Jewish masses.

Under the Romans, the Jews were relatively secure—the adherents of a tradition of laudable antiquity, high
morality and considerable intellectual appeal. They were an accepted part of the landscape, viewed with
curiosity and respect and with occasional suspicion and antipathy.63 It seems that their idiosyncrasies, and
exalted status, did not go unnoticed and engendered occasional resentment in some quarters. However,
despite their privileged status in the Empire, Roman conquest was not acceptable to most Judeans who
were fierce and proud nationalists. The Jews were the only people in the Near Eastern provinces to stage
several full-scale national uprisings against the Romans. They rebelled twice in attempts to regain
independence (two major wars in 66-73 and 133-136 CE, in addition to uprisings in Alexandria and
Cyrene).

These attempts, fueled by fundamentalist fervor, proved misguided. They exacted a heavy toll and
exhausted the Judean nation. The intensity of these wars, xenophobia and Jewish prerogatives64 and
idiosyncrasies, were at the root of anti-Jewish feelings in some segments of Roman society.65 These
confrontations did cause temporary erosions in the status of the Jews in the empire. However, these
reversals were temporary and did not have permanent or sustained impact. Remarkably, despite their
rebelliousness and continuous nationalist ferment, Judeans seem to have maintained, most of the time,
their unique privileges.66 After downturns in the relationship, the privileges Jews enjoyed were generally
reinstated67 and continued until Theodosius I (379-395 CE) made Christianity the official religion of the
Empire.68

The descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers (the founding faction of the Jesus movement) would
be indistinguishable from ‘regular’ Jewish communities. They were Jewish in their self-perception and in
their individual and collective behavior and would be viewed as Jews by the Roman authorities – and
would have paid the ‘Jewish tax’ (Fiscus Judaicus). Being Jews, they would be exempt from sacrificing to
the Roman Gods and would consequently be exempt from persecution and martyrdom. It is plausible that

40
such exemption from Roman persecution would have triggered resentment by Gentile believers in Jesus
bearing the brunt of Roman persecution – another source of friction between the parties.

The Romans and Gentile Believers+

Romans, for the most part, were tolerant in matters of religious belief and allowed countless religious sects,
cults, saviors, and redeemers to proselytize without restrictions. Loyal and submissive members of society
could believe in any Deity they wanted, including Jesus. Belief was a private matter of no interest to the
Roman authorities. Roman cohesion was based on obedience to authority and on public pledges of loyalty
to the state - epitomized by symbolical sacrifices to the Roman Gods.69 Contrary to later misperceptions, at
first, Romans did not oppose belief in Jesus. Rather, Romans persecuted whoever refused to pledge loyalty
to Roman authority, to the inclusion of those believers in Jesus that refused to sacrifice to the Roman
Gods (the equivalent of an oath of allegiance).

Furthermore, during the second and third centuries the Paulines developed an exclusivist theological
understanding of their religious commitment to Jesus that put them on a collision course with Roman
culture. In antiquity, appeasement of the Gods through sacrifices was a universally recognized practice
that guaranteed the proper functioning of the universe. The Pagan masses were predisposed to attribute
drought, floods, earthquakes and all sorts of calamities to the refusal to honor the imperial Gods. When
calamity struck, the populace would blame and attack Christians as instigators of divine wrath due to their
refusal to sacrifice to the Roman Gods. Mob violence was further exacerbated by a variety of
misperceptions, superstitions and stereotypes about Christians that took hold among the common
people.70

Moreover, at the dawn of the second century, the Jesus movement entered a period of extreme religious
fervor and militancy, internal conflict, flux and chaos. The Pauline focus on Jesus’ death nurtured a culture
of ‘Imitatio Christi’ that engendered a subculture of fascination with martyrdom.71 This mindset
predisposed some Paulines to ideological intransigence that resulted in their becoming the targets of a
disproportionate share of Roman persecution. It is noteworthy that although Pauline orthodoxy has
promoted the belief that the refusal to sacrifice was widespread among most believers in Jesus - not all
believers in Jesus were uniformly committed, militant and exclusivist. From the epistles of Ignatius and
Polycarp we know that many Gentile believers became crypto-Christians. Others obtained forged
certificates of compliance. Most seem to have complied with the edict.

The demographics of Christian martyrdom are unknown, but human nature and the extant accounts, seem
to suggest that most believers in Jesus opted for accommodation. 47 Although the vast majority of
believers in Jesus seem to have compromised with Roman authority and culture (sacrifice to the Roman
Gods, payment of taxes, submission to authority, acquiescence with slavery, individual property and
wealth) some did frame their stance in absolute terms, triggering persecution.72

To the exclusion of the Jews, Roman emperors demanded that all citizens and inhabitants of the empire
make a public display of political submission. These rituals were symbols of submission to Roman might –

41
not ceremonies of religious conversion. The alleged incompatibility between belief in Jesus and submission
to authority was baffling to the Romans. The refusal to perform a sacrifice to the emperor, a symbolical
manifestation of submission to imperial authority, was seen by the Romans as an act of political
subversion. At first, Romans did not require Christians to recant their beliefs. Their aim was to discipline
whoever took a public stance of defiance against imperial authority.

All individuals living in the Roman Empire were free to believe whatever their souls desired, as long as the
traditional protocol of symbolic submission and allegiance to imperial authority was performed.
Christianity was outlawed only after two centuries of persistent behavior that the Romans interpreted as
defiant and subversive, and after three official persecutions failed to quell what the Romans considered to
be seditious behavior. Pagans could not but interpret the refusal to sacrifice to the Roman Gods (by some,
not all Gentile believers in Jesus) as an act of political defiance. The point of contention, as seen from the
Roman side, was not belief in Jesus. It was the refusal to acknowledge imperial authority. ‘The polytheistic
worldview of the Romans did not incline them to understand a refusal to worship, even symbolically, the
state gods.’73 Wilson concluded that eventually, ‘Christians’ (i.e. Pauline believers) would have been
suspected of conspiracy and disloyalty. Per Wilson, Christianity appeared as a movement that promoted
disruption of the established order and dangerous social tendencies. The prejudice became so instinctive
that eventually, mere confession of the name Christian could be sufficient grounds for execution.74 Per
Zetterholm, the Jesus-believing Gentiles of Antioch found themselves in the peculiar position of having to
publicly identify themselves as Jews subject to the tax to avoid prosecution for neglect of the cult.75 The
author of Revelation seems to imply that those ‘that say they are Jews but are not’ (Rev 2:9 and 3:9) are
doing so to avoid persecution.76 Avoidance of persecution, by seeking the protection of ‘religio licita’
enjoyed by the Jewish followers of Jesus, would have further incensed Pauline leaders and intellectuals -
exactly what we encountered. Roman persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus lasted more than two
centuries and included harassment at the local level, and officially sanctioned or decreed persecution.
Officially sanctioned Roman persecution was most intense during the reigns of Marcus Aurelius (161-180),
Decius (249-251), Diocletian (281-205) and Galerius (305-312).

We do not know much about the attitudes of non-Pauline believers in Jesus toward the pledge of allegiance
to the emperor. The fate of Marcionite and Gnostic believers in Jesus is opaque to us. Gnostic theology
and mindset may have predisposed these believers to go underground, to living a crypto lifestyle. Gnostics,
inclined to an esoteric lifestyle, may have become crypto Gnostics and may have avoided the collision that
Paulines experienced with the Roman authorities. I doubt that they would have chosen martyrdom to
avoid an ‘external’ vow or pledge. Thus, it is possible that the Jewish followers of Jesus and Gnostic
believers may have avoided persecution altogether and that Paulines and (maybe) Marcionites bore the
brunt of it. The communities of the descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers, being
indistinguishable from other Jewish congregations, would have continued to enjoy all the privileges of a
‘religio licita.’

42
Chapter 2

*The First Years

Introduction
Paul
The New Testament and Qumran
The James enigma
A Growing Tension
What Is at Stake
Summary

Introduction+
The legacies of towering founders anchor the great religious traditions of the world. Most of the great
religious leaders (Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Mohammad, and Paul) enjoyed long lives and long ministries.
Long ministries helped them develop, clarify, and cement their legacies among their followers. A lifetime of
leadership and teaching enabled them to develop and articulate a comprehensive vision and to inculcate in
their followers a solid understanding of their legacy. Upon their death, their followers had a path to follow
and they could rally around a mature doctrinal legacy.

Jesus’s ministry lasted only 18 to 36 months.77 This extraordinarily short ministry may account for the fact
that his followers seem to have been unprepared for his death. Jesus’s death seems to have plunged his
disciples and followers into a crisis that may have contributed to the theological and doctrinal anarchy that
followed. Instead of embracing a clear legacy, Jesus’s followers had to figure out what his legacy should be.
The absence of a substantial formative period and a large influx of converts from Paganism seem to have
contributed to the emergence of differing Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.78

In Judaism, with the probable exception of Qumran, messianic movements have come undone upon the
leader’s death. Thus, continuation of the Jesus movement required the articulation of a vision of Jesus’s life
and ministry that would support continuity. Lacking an authoritative pattern to follow, some may have left
the movement. Others searched the Jewish sacred scriptures for an explanation.

Paul’s Epistles were authored in the decades following Jesus’ death and are the earliest extant attempts to
formulate Jesus’ legacy. Other attempts to understand the meaning of Jesus’s life and death engendered Q,

43
James, proto-Matthew, and proto-John. This would be the earliest, and Jewish, layer of the New
Testament. The canonical Gospels, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, Barnabas, the Gnostic Gospels
of Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, the Gospel of the Truth, the Apocryphon of John, and the Dialogue of the
Savior, are later texts that showcase the diversity of the early Gentile strands.

Any attempt to gaze at the two– three decades following Jesus’s death must be highly qualified. Attempting
to make sense of the pre-Synoptic period is an excursion fraught by low visibility and unpredictable
ground. Of special interest to our pursuit is whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical texts had
antecedents in the pre-synoptic era. The pre-Synoptic phase of the Passion narratives is the arena where we
may find important indications that may clarify the emergence of the ‘Jewish responsibility’ libel.79 Whether
these attitudes were held by the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or grew mostly among
non-Jews, is critical to our attempts to understand the emergence of anti-Judaic attitudes among early
Gentile believers.

If the Passion narratives originate in one of several pre-Gospel traditions, the rhetoric against the Jewish
followers of Jesus can be assigned to a unique and concrete situation (one community, one faction, one set
of circumstances). On the other hand, if the canonical Passion narratives originate from a wide spectrum
of pre-Gospel traditions or from a single but widespread tradition, the anti-Jewish strand would have
emerged out of a wider foundation, and a wider consensus. If the former is supported, we have one
tradition that has overtaken others. If the latter is upheld, it may indicate that there was a tradition of anti-
Jewish-establishment suspicion regarding Jesus’s death that was widely espoused.

As we travel backward in time we need to tune our sensibilities to fit the militant tone that characterized
religious clashes during the first centuries of the era; there is considerable evidence that turn-of-the-era
religious disputes were intense and vitriolic. Debates were often rancorous. ‘Bashing the competition’ was
the norm. Misrepresenting the opposition was unexceptional. Moreover, as we try to understand the spirit
of the age, we must separate our analysis of the author’s original intent from its subordination to service
later agendas. Furthermore, we need underline that, for the most part, religious texts were deployed to
proselytize —not to inform. They were authored to shape the beliefs and attitudes of believers, rather than
to provide an accurate historical account.

44
45
 Paul

Paul and Judaism

The Theological Paul
The Controversial Paul
Paul and the Jewish Followers of Jesus
Paul, Faith, and the Law
Paul in Modern Scholarship
The Acts Rendition
Summary
My Paul

Introduction+
The Pauline letters that are accepted as authentic by most scholars (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are the earliest integral New Testament documents
available to us. Paul is one of the most studied and researched individuals in the Western tradition. He is,
without doubt, the foremost theologian of the New Testament and he underpins the New Testament. Paul
is also a charismatic, enigmatic, and frustrated religious visionary that was unable to reach, in his lifetime,
the recognition and the legitimacy he craved. Great efforts have been made by theologians and by
academics to interpret and to harmonize Paul’s seemingly dissonant theological statements. These efforts
have produced a bewildering labyrinth of arguments and counter-arguments. Incursions into this minefield
are demanding. The superstore of Paul interpretation offers a wide array of choices. Each creedal,
theological, and denominational predisposition has its team of favorite scholars.80

I do not attempt to present a comprehensive study of Paul’s theology, personality, thought, or deeds. My
interest centers on the controversial, polemical, and rhetorical Paul - the originator of the anti-Jewish
strand, according to traditional scholarship. Whether this role is in substantial harmony or dissonance with
Paul’s intent is one of the puzzles that will confront us.

Paul and Judaism81+

46
Paul’s statements about Jews and about Judaism are, to many readers and scholars, erratic, contradictory,
confusing, and inconsistent. Throughout the ages, Judaism has viewed Paul as a traitor that was disloyal to
his people and caused great suffering. Paul’s relationship with, and attitudes toward, Judaism are complex
matters that are the subject of intense debate and study.

A couple generations after Paul’s death, his followers appear to have split into two main strands:
Marcionite and Lukan. Paul’s legacy, as it regards Jews and Judaism, was interpreted by both groups to
signal ambivalence and antagonism.82 According to Gager,83 any reader of Paul has to address two separate
sets of statements that are in full contradiction:

The anti-Israel and anti-Law (anti-Torah observance) set:

a. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse. (Gal. 3:10)
b. [N]o man is justified before God by the law. (Gal. 3:11)
c. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Gal. 6:15)
d. For no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law, since through the law
comes knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20)
e. Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law.
(Rom. 9:31)
f. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil
remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is
read a veil lies over their minds. (2 Cor. 3:14–15)

The pro-Israel and pro-Law (pro-Torah observance) set:

a. Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. (Rom.
3:1–2)
b. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
(Rom. 3:31)
c. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! (Rom. 7:7)
d. So, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
e. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law,
the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the
flesh, is the Christ. (Rom. 9:4–5)
f. I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! (Rom. 11:1)
g. [A]nd so all Israel will be saved. (Rom. 11:26)
h. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. (Gal. 3:21)

Throughout the centuries theologians and thinkers have wrestled with the apparent inconsistency and
incompatibility of Paul’s declarations. Paul’s letters were crafted to address issues at hand; they were not

47
intended to form a consistent theological whole. Therefore, and unfortunately, we do not have an explicit
and comprehensive theological summary that would enable us to navigate his seemingly conflicting
conjectural statements. The closest we have, to a possible theological summary, may be the Epistle to the
Romans.84

One’s conclusions on the complex questions that surround Paul’s legacy will depend on one’s assessment
of the reliability of the sources available to us. Students of Paul must address the tensions and the
inconsistencies between the two main early sources of information about his ministry: The Acts/Luke
rendition and Paul’s Epistles. Scholars also differ on Acts’ agenda. Was Acts written to present an historical
account, as implied? Or was it crafted to portray followers of Jesus as loyal to Rome, to mitigate Rome’s
persecution, to exonerate Rome from responsibility for Jesus’s death, to oppose Marcion or to legitimate
Paul by presenting him as respectful of authority and hierarchy?85

Traditional scholarship has emphasized Acts as a guide to decoding Paul, and has read Paul as supportive
and suggestive of anti-Judaism. Modern scholarship attempts to understand Paul through his own writings
and tends to reject other texts as biased and tendentious – leading to a different, and non-anti-Judaic Paul.
Whether we reach the conclusion that Paul was anti-Judaic (as the traditionalists would have it) or not-anti-
Judaic (as the revisionists would have it) will color our understanding of his theology.

The historical setting of Paul’s Epistles is crucial. Sanders points out that the Epistle to the Romans, 1 and
2 Corinthians and Galatians were all written within a very short period.86 Thessalonians seems to be from
several years earlier, and Philippians is somewhat difficult to date. Sanders, reflecting mainstream
scholarship, concludes that since most discussions of Paul inevitably focus on the letters first mentioned, it
must be recalled that they represent Paul at a crucial moment in his history—with difficulties in his
previously evangelized churches breaking out just as he was hoping to complete the collection for
Jerusalem and press on to the west—and these circumstances forced him into a critical examination of his
gospel and the restatement of it vis- à -vis seriously competing views.87

To assess Paul’s contribution to anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus, we need to
address the following questions:

1. What were Paul’s teachings regarding Jews and Judaism?

2. Were Paul’s teachings regarding Jews and Judaism consistent or erratic?
3. Did Paul attempt to lure Jews away from Judaism?
[+pg 55]
The Theological Paul
Many traditionalists (Bousset, Harnack, Holtzmann, Morgan, Reitzenstein, and others) supported an
understanding of Paul as grounded in the religious milieu of first century Rome. Accordingly, Judaism,
Gnosticism, Platonism, and the Mystery Religions were all seen as significant contributors to the new

48
religion. Traditional scholarship advocated a fundamental antithesis between Paul and Judaism. In modern
scholarship, there is a growing emphasis on continuity (Davis, Sanders, Gager, Gaston, and many others).
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, an increasing number of scholars see Judaism as the dominant
component of Paul’s background and thinking.88

W. D. Davis pioneered the shift of emphasis from antithetical to consonant and derivative. Davies
emphasized Paul’s close relation to Rabbinic Judaism and concluded that we cannot too strongly insist that
for Paul the acceptance of the Gospel was not the rejection of Judaism nor the discovery of a new religion
wholly antithetical to it (as his polemics might lead us to assume). Rather, per Davies, Paul advocates the
recognition of the advent of the true and final form of Judaism, in other words, the advent of the
Messianic age of Jewish expectations.89

During the last decades of the twentieth century new inroads were made in the attempt to carve out a
‘revised’ Paul, free from the anti-Jewish interpretations of his immediate and later followers. My
understanding of the theological foundations visible in Paul’s Epistles is as follows:

Judaism —Judaism contributed monotheism (one omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God), a
teleological view of history (history unfolds toward a destination and reveals God’s purposes) and a
scriptural religion (scripture as a vehicle for safeguarding, transmitting, and legitimating religion, tradition,
and political power). Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded a recognition of the debt of the Pauline creed
(The Kerygma - 1 Cor. 15.3)90 to Jewish sectarian theology. Judean sectarians, as exemplified by the
Qumran community, may have had a strong influence on Pauline tenets and may have contributed
elements that were attributed by earlier research to non-Jewish sources. Dead Sea Scrolls research has also
contributed to the growing understanding that Paul’s dualism may have originated from Jewish sectarian
lore. Paul’s vision of the world as a battleground between dualistic forces (good and evil, soul and flesh, sin
and righteousness, light and darkness) may have originated in Jewish sectarian-eschatological-dualistic
theologies, to the inclusion of the Two Ways tradition.91

Gnosticism —Gnosticism is a modern designation for a variety of spiritual trends that flourished during
the first centuries of the Common Era (Hermetica, Valentians, Mandaeans, and Manichaeans). According
to Gnosticism, salvation comes from secret knowledge received and understood only by the few, the elect.
The divine spark within is to be freed, and a redeemer/savior will provide escape from suffering (Gal. 4:3;
Eph, 3:10, 12; Col. 2:8).92 Gnostics believed that both their origin and their destiny lay in a supreme deity.
The supreme God dwells in a heavenly place removed from the evil world, which is seen as the creation of
a disobedient angel or demiurge. The demiurge seeks to hold humans in ignorance of their true identity - in
sleepiness and intoxication. A divine messenger will come and awaken humans and free them from the
bonds of ignorance by bringing true knowledge.93 Harnack and others since, see some features of Paul’s
theology as deriving from Gnosticism.94

Mystery Religions —the cults of Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus, Adonis, Demeter, and others are
known as ‘mystery religions.’ This is a modern designation for a variety of ancient Greek, Persian, and

49
Egyptian cults that competed for Roman interest and patronage. Little is known about these religious
groups given that their members held their rituals and beliefs in secret. As the Jewish grounding of Paul has
been increasingly acknowledged, the emphasis on this source seems to have weakened.95 The Mystery
Religions have been a preferred source for the sacrifice of the savior as a vehicle for atonement and
salvation, for the negative view of the flesh and of sex, and for a pervasive and overwhelming sense of
sinfulness and deprivation. (Sandon, the official god of Tarsus, Paul’s birthplace, is a suffering and
resurrecting savior God).

Overall, Paul’s theological synthesis is unique and powerful—so much so, that Jesus would not have
recognized it.96 Paul’s integration of Jewish and non-Jewish influences is a personal synthesis reinforced by
a claim to revelation (Gal. 1:11–17; 2 Cor. 12:1–6; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). Paul’s extraordinary theological
synthesis seems to reflect his personal cultural background, and may be substantially dependent on
Qumran theology.97

Paul’s emphasis on salvation by ‘faith alone’ was an intrepid attempt to introduce the ethical core of
Judaism to Gentiles, without the eccentricities that were most alien to Gentile converts: Torah observance,
circumcision, and dietary Law.98 Although Paul’s synthesis could be seen as the natural expression of
personal experiences and exposures, it is nonetheless a remarkable accomplishment.

The Controversial Paul

Paul was a charismatic religious visionary deeply convinced of the centrality of Jesus’s death and
resurrection as the pivotal event of human history. This belief overrode all else. Paul’s sense of mission and
uniqueness was centered in his claim to superior standing over the disciples and was grounded on his
experience of direct revelation from Jesus (Gal. 1:11–12). Unfortunately, Paul left us sketchy descriptions
of the revelation he experienced and of his meetings in Jerusalem. On these crucial events, we are almost
wholly dependent on the author of Acts. Although sympathetic to Paul, Acts seems to deny him the status
he yearned for. Paul’s claims to higher status (on the basis of revelation) are addressed by omission.

According to Acts, when confronted by the Jewish followers of Jesus in the Jerusalem meetings, Paul
submits to the authority of James.99 He is submissive and subservient and does not claim authority of any
type. In Acts, James is the undisputed leader and Paul submits to his authority.100 Paul is also a surprisingly
candid and self-professed master of theological gymnastics. He displays an approach to proselytizing that is
unparalleled in religious recruiting. In his own astonishing self-description:

20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I
became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might
win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law
(though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win
those outside the law. (1 Cor. 9: 20–22)101

50
Most academic studies attempt to bypass the ‘controversial Paul’ by assigning one text (mostly Galatians or
Romans) as the pivotal and defining text. This approach understates the contradictions that surface when
all the Pauline texts are compared. Paul, the center of gravity of the New Testament is difficult to pin
down. Attempts to salvage a consistent Paul have intensified in recent decades. Some assign the
inconsistencies and contradictions in Paul to his contingent target audiences; others point to his rhetorical
technique.102

Paul and the Jewish Followers of Jesus103

The New Testament texts and later orthodoxy attempt to convey recognition of Paul and his mission (and
by inference of his theology) by James and the disciples—while understating the ambivalence and
opposition he seems to have faced.104 Paul’s relationship with the ‘founding fathers’ seems to have been
difficult, complex, and turbulent. I explore these relationships further in the chapter dedicated to the
Epistle of James.105 Furthermore, Paul claims pre-eminence over the founding fathers on the basis of
revelation, a stance that they would have rejected—if aware of it:106

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is
not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came
through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11–12) ... was pleased to reveal his Son to
me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh
and blood. (Gal. 1:16).

Furthermore, the Acts depiction of James’s blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15) if historical,
is short and leaves many questions unanswered. Although Acts, the M material in Matthew, and the Epistle
of James reflect James’s wish for the Jewish followers of Jesus to remain Jews and to obey the Torah,
scripture does not clarify James’s vision on how the missions to the Jews and to the Gentiles were to relate
to each other. James’ cryptic statement, if historical, left many unanswered questions as to fellowship
between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. Whether James bestowed upon Paul’s mission to
Gentiles believers equal standing to the Torah observant mission to the Jews, and whether (and under what
circumstances) fellowship between the parties was allowed – are open questions.107 Chances are that we
will never know what James’s intentions were.

According to Acts, during the period between the first and second meetings with James, Paul breached
James’s blessing by promoting attitudes toward the Torah and toward Judaism that would be unacceptable
to followers of Jesus of Jewish origin. Paul’s anti-Law hyperbole, even if used only while addressing
Gentile audiences, was detrimental to the status of the Torah and would be anathema to Jesus and the
disciples. If Paul’s claim that the Law (the Torah) was to be considered replaced by belief in Jesus’s death
and resurrection (Gal. 3:10, 11; 6:15; Rom. 3:20; 9:31) was proclaimed to audiences containing Jewish
believers, it would be an affront to the ‘founding fathers.’

According to the Acts rendition of the second meeting (Acts 21) James expected Paul to limit his activities
to Gentiles. James’s blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles may have unintentionally created a two-tier

51
movement and may have planted the seeds of future frictions between the factions. It would seem that
tensions between Paul and the Jewish leaders of the Jesus movement escalated due to the fact that he had
not kept his side of the deal; Paul was accused of luring Jews away from Judaism (Rom. 7:1–5; Gal. 4:21–
29; 1 Cor. 9:20–22; Acts 21:21) and Acts corroborates that point.108 This evidence seems to contradict the
argument that Paul’s rhetoric can be explained and justified on the grounds that his audiences were
Gentile, as some modern scholars contend.

It took years before gossip became rumor, and rumor became suspicion. Eventually, Paul had to answer
the accusations leveled against him that he was luring Jews away from Judaism; of targeting Jewish
communities and of breaching the boundaries of James’s blessing. Paul’s position did become untenable:
he needed James’s blessing to vest his mission to the Gentiles with respectability and with legitimacy, but
seems to have transgressed his directives.

Corroboration of James’s position about Torah observance and works may have been preserved in the
Epistle that bears his name:

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it...
What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his
faith save him?... So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead... But some one will say,
‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I
by my works will show you my faith. (James 2:10–18)

Unfortunately, the authoritative lore does not educate us as to the extent of James’s awareness of Paul’s
ambivalent proclamations on Torah observance and Judaism. I speculate that James, an upholder of the
Law, would have had no room for Paul’s ambivalent messages about Torah observance, even while
addressing Gentile audiences. We can summarize the position of James, as reflected in Acts and James, as
follows: 1. James blessed Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. 2. Gentiles don’t need to keep the Torah.109 The
Torah was not abrogated, superseded, or changed in any way.110

Although the author of Acts places Paul center stage, he did not want Paul as the founder of Christianity.
For the author of Luke/Acts and for his audience, the maverick Paul was problematic. The author of
Luke/Acts fashioned a legitimating narrative that emanates from Jesus and his disciples, not from Paul.
The Acts rendition of the second summons to Jerusalem (Acts 21) is a masterful attempt to present an
embarrassing situation in the best possible light. Paul was accused of undermining the status of the Torah
and of the founding faction (as the authoritative leaders of the movement)—while evangelizing under the
respectability bestowed upon him by James’s blessing. Paul, claimant to independent and superior status
before Christ, was confronted about his theological acrobatics.

The Acts rendition of this episode is laconic: Paul was to undergo a public ceremony designed to
demonstrate his unequivocal adherence to the Torah. the charges are presented and James orders to
conduct a ceremonial ritual that would demonstrate Paul’s Judaism. The announcement is made without

52
giving Paul an opportunity to respond and without Paul asking for one. Acts makes every effort to cast
Paul as a Torah-observant Jew111 and subordinates Paul to James, inheritor of Jesus’s leadership. According
to Acts, James tried (by the device of the ceremony), to no avail, to save Paul from the mob. The ceremony
(Acts 21) was not sufficient; Jews were incensed by Paul’s actions. Paul was arrested to protect him from
people that were out to kill him.

We can only guess why the guidelines set by James were breached. We have indications that they may have
collapsed at both ends: whereas ‘some from James’ may have caused a split in the Antiochene community
by demanding that Gentiles keep the Torah (Gal. 2:11–14), Paul may have lured Jews away from Judaism
(1 Cor. 9:20– 22 and Acts 21:18– 26) and may have been disrespectful toward the Torah while addressing
Gentile audiences (Gal 3: 10-11, Gal 6:15, Rom 3:20, Rom 9:31, 2 Cor 3: 14-15) exacerbating tensions
between Jews and Gentiles. It would appear that, if historical, James’s blessing of the mission to the
Gentiles was unclear and/or dysfunctional. It seems that James’s directive disintegrated upon impact with
reality on the ground.112

The Acts Rendition

The Act accounts are cryptic and focused on vesting Paul’s ministry with the approval of James. It remains
unclear whether James granted non-Jews equal standing in the covenant, or just applied the Noachide Laws
to the specific circumstances at hand. We must assume that Paul traveled twice to Jerusalem in search of
something more than a partial reiteration of the Noachide Laws, which do not require James’ confirmation
and cover all humans. We do not know whether Paul and James debated his understanding of Jesus’s
legacy, his rejection of Judaism as it pertains to Gentiles, the possible emergence of two parallel but
incompatible communities, or his claim to higher standing based on direct revelation from Jesus—a claim
he seems to have made while addressing Gentiles. We may never know whether Acts’ rendition of James’s
blessing of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles should be read as historical or as a legitimating myth. Either way,
Paul’s journeys to Jerusalem indicate that James’s blessing was quintessential to Paul.

It seems that the understanding reached in the first Jerusalem council (circa 45-49 CE), if historical,
whereby there would be two separate missions, one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles, proved to be not
viable. It is possible that the Acts version of the events, two dispensations—one to the Jews and one to the
Gentiles—could be a posterior Pauline expansion of James’s application of the Noachide Laws to the
specific circumstances at hand. Be it as it may, Paul’s later statements and the tensions between Jews and
Gentiles in the Jesus movement would appear to signal that Paul may have heard more than James said.113

Paul, Faith, and the Law+

Paul put emphasis on a series of dualistic pairs that have been central in apologetics since, and are a
distortion of first-century Judaism. Paul’s presentation states:

Jewish belief Torah=Law - Sinful - Flesh - Works - Darkness > Superseded

53
Pauline belief Faith=Faith - Saved - Spirit - Belief - Light > Supersedes

Paul’s use of these imaginary contrasts requires looking into. Contrary to traditional Gentile presentations,
the Torah/Law does not replace or negate faith; it reinforces it. The Torah edifies the individual and
promotes good and compassionate behavior.114 Paul’s dramatic juxtaposition of faith and the Law, of belief
and works, and of spirit and flesh is heavily influenced by Gnostic and Jewish sectarian dualism.115 It
carries the Gnostic seal of infatuation with sin and a negative attitude toward the body (flesh) as the
incarcerator of the spirit. These illusory juxtapositions were successful with Gentile audiences that had no
prior knowledge of what the Torah, or Judaism, actually were. With time, the Gentile followers of Paul
became infused with high doses of anti-Law rhetoric and the Law became a major emotional ‘red flag,’ a
central ‘wedge issue’ in the drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus.

The confusion engendered by Paul’s anti-Law rhetoric is highlighted by indications of an ethical void
among some believers that inferred that rejection of the Law implied rejection of moral behavior. It would
appear that Paul’s anti-Law polemic created an ethical vacuum that engendered confusion, anarchy (Rom.
16:17–19;1 Cor. 1:10–13; 15:23–24; Gal. 1:6–9; Phil. 3:1–2), sin, and transgression (Rom. 3:8; 6:1; 6:15; 7:7;
13:10–14; 1 Cor. 5:1–5; 2 Cor. 2:17; 1 Thess. 4:3–10). This result was unforeseen and unintended by Paul
who often calls upon his congregations to behave ethically, and to restrain deviant behavior. [+pg 59]

Paul in Modern Scholarship

Traditional interpretations of Paul’s writings are on the defensive following path breaking works by
scholars such as K. Stendahl, W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, P. Gaston, and J. Gager who stand on earlier
calls against traditional readings by G. F. Moore, James Parkes, and T. Herford. Moreover, traditional
scholarship reads Paul as anti-Jewish, stresses Paul’s confrontation with Judaism and has attempted, by all
possible means, to present a consistent Paul. The shift away from traditional readings of Paul116 has gained
momentum in the last three–four decades. This shift has two main pivots:

a. The discovery by Christian scholars of real first-century Judaism.

b. The attempts to understand Paul outside the orthodox hegemony (a ‘revised’ Paul).

Gager best summarized traditional views about Paul as follows: Paul underwent a typical conversion from
one religion to another, in this case from Judaism to Christianity. As a result of this conversion, he
preached against the Jewish Law, against Judaism, and against Israel. The content of this negative teaching
was that the Law, the old covenant with Israel, was no longer the path to salvation, for Jews or for
Gentiles. Indeed, God had never intended it to be. God had rejected the Jews/Israel as the chosen people.

54
Most traditional interpreters maintain that Paul’s attacks against the Law are founded on a sound
understanding of ancient Judaism. The radical antithesis between Judaism and Christianity is represented as
a decisive transition from religious particularism to religious universalism. Accordingly, Paul transcended
Judaism.

Gager articulates Paul’s unintended origination of the polemical strand and his centuries-long status as the
fountainhead of anti-Judaism as follows:

This rejection-replacement view of Judaism quickly became the dominant stance within
Christian circles in the early centuries; it underlies the message and structure of the
New Testament as a whole. And it is within this structure that Paul stands as the
central figure. For the New Testament and certainly for those who created it, Paul was
the theologian of Christian anti-Judaism.117

Pivots in scholarship emerge gradually. Most originate in changes in focus and emphasis. Krister Stendahl
stands at such an historical juncture. A shift of emphasis by Stendahl (1964) and E. P. Sander’s attack on
the view of Judaism as work-righteousness (1977) questioned the traditional Christian understanding of
Judaism. Sanders argued that Judaism cannot be understood or defined by reading Paul. Sanders also
repudiated the view that first-century Judaism was legalistic and he opposed interpretations of Paul as anti-
Jewish. Nonetheless, he saw Paul as devaluing and deemphasizing Judaism:

The Law is good, even doing the Law is good, but salvation is only by Christ; therefore,
the entire system represented by the Law is worthless for salvation... Paul in fact
explicitly denies that the Jewish covenant can be effective for salvation, thus consciously
denying the basis of Judaism.’118

Stendahl, a leading Lutheran theologian, articulated his revolutionary views on Paul:

[A] doctrine of justification by faith was hammered out by Paul for the very specific
and limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be full and genuine
heirs to the promises of God to Israel. Their rights were based solely on faith in Jesus
Christ. This was Paul’s very special stance, and he defended it zealously against any
compromise that required circumcision or the keeping of kosher food laws by Gentile
Christians. As the apostle to the Gentiles he defended this view as part and parcel of
the special assignment and revelation that he had received directly from God. In none
of his writings does he give us information about what he thought to be proper in
these matters for Jewish-Christians.119

In other words, Stendahl challenged the focus of Paul scholarship by giving to Paul’s letters a conjectural
status. This ‘revised and new Paul’ may be labeled ‘non-anti-Judaic.’120 According to Stendhal, we should
not read Paul’s letters as general theological statements addressed to Jews and Gentiles. Stendahl reads

55
Paul’s letters as directed toward, and applying to, his Gentile audience exclusively. Consequently, Paul’s
anti-Law and anti-Judaic statements are to be read within the context of his fierce battle against those
among the Jewish founders and their Gentile sympathizers who opposed a separate dispensation for the
Gentiles. These opponents insisted on a stronger affinity to, and affiliation with, Judaism.121 Thus,
according to Stendahl, Paul’s statements are irrelevant to Jews, or to the relationship between Judaism and
the Law. In summary form, Stendahl’s understanding of Paul may be summarized as follows:

a. The focus is ‘Paul the apostle to the Gentiles.’ Failure to retain this focus can only lead to
distortions, misconstructions, and blocked access to Paul’s original thought.
b. In particular, it was Augustine’s discovery of Paul’s introspective conscience, along with Luther’s
focus on justification by faith, that led readers to impose (to read back) meanings that were
absolutely the opposite of what Paul said.
c. Modern translations of the Bible regularly reflect this Augustinian and Lutheran Paul.
d. In Galatians, Paul is defending his Gospel against Judaizers within the Jesus movement, not against
Jews outside it.
e. Romans Chapters 9 – 11 represent the culmination of his thinking, not an incidental appendix.
f. If Paul argues against anything in Romans, it is against the first signs of anti-Judaism among Jesus
worshipers, not against Judaism.122
g. We should not speak of Paul’s conversion as if it implied a transfer out of Judaism; he had no
concept of ‘Christianity as we know it’ or of his Gospel as a new religion.
h. Paul remained a Jew throughout his life; we should always read him within the context of traditional
Jewish thought, not against it.
i. Paul does not speak of Jews and of Judaism in terms of the customary stereotypes put forward by
many scholars.

Fifty years after Stendahl’s proposal for a revised Paul, a significant number of scholars have elaborated
and nuanced Stendahl’s views. New voices have taken center stage. Prominent New Testament scholars
are working toward a new understanding of Paul’s ministry and of his relationship to Judaism. The
‘revised Paul,’ and ‘Paul within Judaism’ are current academic terms for the perspective that emerged out
of this paradigmatic shift in Pauline studies. This ‘revised Paul’ interprets Paul as fully grounded in first
century Judaism. Stendahl, Sanders, Gaston, Gager, Stowers, Nanos, Zetterholm and others highlight the
Gentile nature of Paul’s mission and frame Paul as a torah-observant Jew who was opposed to
demanding Torah observance from Gentiles.

A deluge of books, cooperative surveys, dissertations and articles followed Sanders’ and Stendahl’s
pioneering works on Paul and on the true nature of Second Temple Judaism.123 As expected following
paradigmatic shifts, recent scholarship seems to indicate that some scholars are attempting to reevaluate,
nuance, and mitigate the impact of the New Perspective on Paul:

‘The new perspective by no means replaces the old perspective, but the debate it has
fostered cleans the lenses of both and allows the Pauline perspective to be seen in more
of its idiosyncratic fullness.’124

56
 Westerholm acknowledges that Sanders’ positive contribution lies not so much in the details of his
depiction of Judaism as in the serious effort he made to understand Judaism on its own terms, as based
on its own literature.

‘As an (almost immediate) result, it became no longer acceptable to perpetuate earlier

caricatures of Judaism with little basis in the texts. Even Sanders’s sharpest critics
acknowledge that depiction of Judaism prior to Paul and Palestinian Judaism were often
misleading, at times maliciously so.’125

A commendable, and recent, attempt to present balanced views on the traditional and new perspectives is
to be found in Longenecker Bruce W. and Still Todd D. Thinking Through Paul: An Introduction to His Life,
Letters, and Theology (2014) where the authors assess strengths and weaknesses of both, and by doing so
offer a useful summary.

For the most part, Luther’s Paul (the traditional Paul) is now seen as embarrassing and as immaterial to the
true nature of the first-century crucible.126 However, each scholar reads Paul somewhat differently.
Positioning is highly nuanced.
The ‘new’ Paul is nothing short of a revolution, not only in Paul scholarship, but also in New Testament
studies—and inevitably in the Christian self-understanding. Since Paul is the theological foundation of the
New Testament, re-forming Paul leads to the inevitable reconstructing of the tradition.

Paul – Summary+
Paul, unlike Buddha, Plato, and Mohammed, did not write or transmit to his followers a comprehensive
and systematic articulation of his views— setting off the emergence of radically divergent interpretations of
his legacy. In the absence of a methodical and comprehensive presentation of his mature theology,
believers have created a cacophony of Pauline voices. Paul, the elusive first-century religious visionary, who
wanted to mold himself to fit all audiences, got a fitting legacy: every denomination and faction has its
Pauline scholars of preference. Every predisposition has its affiliated branch of Paul scholarship.

The anti-Judaic/anti-Law Paul is still deeply ingrained in the lore and in the minds and hearts of believers.
Many have made one or more steps toward the ‘revised’ Paul, but have difficulties in divorcing themselves
from the traditional paradigm altogether. In addition, whether Paul was obscure but consistent or clear but
erratic remains a contentious topic.127 According to the supporters of the ‘revised’ Paul, the traditional
‘anti-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Law’ Paul is (mostly) based on a misrepresentation of his message and intent, and on
the misinterpretation of his letters as a systematic theological statement.

57
Great effort has been invested in explaining Paul and in making him more appealing to modern
sensibilities. It is unclear what impact this shift will have on non-academic readers of the texts. So far,
access and exposure to the revised Paul has been limited. For the most part, the polemical impact of the
texts on the literal reader remains largely unchanged. Unfortunately, the revised Paul is difficult to articulate
and defend for it requires deviation from long-ingrained and more inherently intuitive readings of the texts.
Centuries of traditional readings of Paul make the revised versions counterintuitive, too contrary to the
literal Paul that people encounter when reading the New Testament.128

My Paul+
Paul not only introduced ethical monotheism,129 scriptural religion, and teleology130 to the Roman world,
he also pioneered the rich and fruitful universe of personal belief. He was the first to familiarize ‘Western’
minds with the emotional and intellectual universe that moderns call ‘individual consciousness and belief.’
This contribution has not received proper credit due to our intuitive inclusion of beliefs and values within
the realm of religion and to our (modern) awareness of ‘individual belief.’

However, for first-century Romans, belief (i.e., the beliefs of individuals) was to a large extent an unknown
and unappreciated component of the human cognitive and religious experience. Individual belief was of no
concern to the Roman authorities, religious or secular. The focal point of Roman life, culture, and religion
were actions and deeds—not the beliefs of individuals. Religion was largely cultic. To most Romans,
religion was a ritual act of allegiance with few requirements or implications. Beliefs and values, so central to
moderns, were part of philosophy, not of religion.

St. Augustine is considered by many to be the first existentialist of the Western tradition for his early
investigation of inner consciousness. However, after studying Paul, I consider him to be the true precursor
of the Western exploration of individual religious introspection.131 Paul’s emphasis on individual belief
must have been novel and empowering. Moreover, by gravitating to the Gentile world, Paul became one of
the great trans-cultural figures.

By distilling the Jewish message to its essence and by choosing belief as the delivery vehicle, Paul designed
one of the most effective campaigns in the history of theological trans-cultural ideological transfers.132 ‘Sola
Fide’ (by belief alone), Paul’s doctrinal battle cry, turned out to be the perfect channel, the perfect vehicle
for the penetration of the Roman cultural and psychological defenses for it ‘delivered’ the essence of
Judaism to his target audience.

Individual belief, as understood by moderns, was an under-developed and consequently unprotected,

dimension in Roman religious thought. By concentrating on belief, Paul fashioned an intellectual and

58
religious Trojan horse that targeted an open flank in the Roman armor. Paul’s message did penetrate the
Roman cultural and emotional defenses, without activating the defense mechanisms that protect sacred
tenets. Paul’s emphasis on belief must have been revolutionary. The notion that the beliefs of every
individual were the arena where the drama of salvation unfolded must have been exhilarating in a society
where individual freedom, regardless of class, was very limited. Furthermore, the idea that individual belief
not only mattered, but was ‘the’ essence of human existence and the only measure for salvation, must have
been an inspiring insight. For the first time in Western history what each individual believed was crucial.
We can only imagine the great impact that this encounter must have caused in the Roman mind.

On the other hand, Judaism was too alien, demanding, and idiosyncratic for most. ‘Selling’ Judaism to the
Romans would have necessitated a multi-dimensional overhaul of Roman society and was destined to fail.
Paul understood that Judaism’s customs and traditions were a stumbling block on the path to bringing the
Pagan masses to righteousness.133 Similar to the Muslim, Hindu, and Parsee religions, first-century Judaism
was a wide-ranging worldview of prescriptions and regulations that governed the totality of individual and
community life.134 Although (mostly) respectful of Judaism and intrigued by it, most Romans would not
embrace it.

My reading emphasizes Paul’s confrontation with fellow Jewish followers of Jesus and their Gentile
sympathizers. What incenses Paul is the opposition of some among the founding fathers to his de-Judaized
interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. What ‘they’ (the Jerusalem leadership and their Gentile sympathizers)
‘reject’ and ‘do not understand’ is not belief in Jesus, but Paul’s version of it. Contrary to the traditional
view (Paul’s theology as grounded in his theological confrontation with establishment Judaism),135 I see the
integrity of the Jesus movement and its fidelity to Torah as the central issues at stake.136 Since Paul was
expecting an imminent second coming (Rom. 8:18) it seems that his ministry was not aimed at the creation
of a new religion. Nonetheless, in retrospect, we can see that Paul’s ministry was the beginning of a new
religion that developed ambivalent attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. Both may have been unintended.
As to the Jewish dimension, I see no clash between the historical Paul and mainstream Judaism. Paul’s
confrontation was with the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement,137 not with ‘external’ Jews.138

It seems to me that what Gentile followers of Paul did or did not do would be of no interest to mainstream
first-century Jews – unless Paul acted against Torah observance among Jews, or attempted to lure Jews
away from Torah observance. However, being a Jew, Paul’s actions would be subject to strict scrutiny.
According to Paul, he was flogged five times (2 Cor. 11:24). This type of sentence was dispensed in
extreme circumstances, that is, when individuals violated sacred boundaries. Paul’s words and activities
suggest that he did attempt to lure Jews and God fearers139 away from Judaism. We have noted that Jews
and Jewish followers of Jesus accused Paul of luring Jews away from the Torah, and we learn from Paul’s
letters and from Acts that Paul proselytized to Jews (Rom. 7:1–5; Gal. 4:21–29; 1 Cor. 9:20–22; Acts 18:4
and 21:21).140 Paul’s evangelizing among Jews would be perceived as threatening Jewish identity and
integrity. This behavior would have led him to conflict with Jews everywhere. Furthermore, Paul’s attacks
on Torah observance and on Judaism while addressing mixed audiences may have become common
knowledge, would be opposed by the Jewish faction, and would have triggered retaliation.141

59
I am not fully convinced either that Paul’s anti-Judaic and anti-Law statements can be explained solely as
rhetorical techniques or as limited to Gentile audiences. A ‘non-anti-Jewish’ Paul may fit modern
sensibilities and minds, but may have little in common with the first-century charismatic and exclusivist
Paul.142 Moreover, and unfortunately, since literal readings of Paul tend to yield an anti-Jewish Paul, the
arguments that support the revised Paul may feel counterintuitive, complex, and inaccessible to lay
audiences.

The existence of a relatively good relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership, as portrayed by
Acts (J. B. Lightfoot, Köstenberger, Schnabel, and Bauckham), is countered by the argument that the Acts
rendition is an attempt to cover up the tensions (The Tubingen school— Bauer, Robinson, Koester, and
Dunn)143 as indicated in (Acts 15:1; 21:20–21; Gal 2:11–14; 5:1–12). Due to the circumstantial nature of his
Epistles, each student of Paul has to assign to this extraordinary figure a center of gravity, a defining focal
center. In Galatians Paul is beyond himself with fury and resentment at ‘those from James.’ Therefore,
those that emphasize Galatians tend to see anger, resentment, estrangement and conflict. In Romans (9–
11, 11:1) Paul is introducing himself to Roman believers. Therefore, those that emphasize Roman tend to
see maturity, thoughtfulness, and reflection.

We have seen that the supporters of the ‘revised’ Paul contend that the traditional understanding of Paul as
anti-Jewish stems from a misinterpretation by Paul’s followers. For them the question is whether the anti-
Judaism is truly Paul’s own or whether it belongs to the interpretative assumptions of his readers. Indeed,
Stendahl, Gaston, Gager, and E. P. Sanders emphasize that the process that led to the canonization of the
Pauline letters has also determined a polemical reading of them in subsequent orthodox theology.
Regardless of one’s understanding of Paul,144 his (intended or unintended) legacy was understood by his
immediate followers to be one of ambivalence toward Jesus’s disciples, toward Torah observance, and
toward Judaism. Both factions of Pauline followers (Paulines and Marcionites) were very close to Paul in
time, location, and predisposition. It is interesting that they, who probably knew him best, considered him
the apostle of the rejection of Judaism. How far can the leader’s ideas be from those espoused by his
immediate and most fervent followers? Was Paul misunderstood and misinterpreted by his immediate
theological descendants, as put forward by supporters of a non-anti-Jewish Paul? Whether a true
interpretation of Paul’s thinking or not, we will see that as the confrontation with the Jewish faction and its
Gentile sympathizers unfolds, anti-Judaic sentiment became endemic among Paul’s followers. Paul's
immediate successors, and maybe some of his contemporaries, used his epistles to discredit Jesus' Jewish
followers (who for the most part seem to have demanded that Gentile followers of Jesus obey the Torah).
Consequently, in an effort to legitimize the rejection of the Torah and to challenge the leadership of the
movement, Pauline believers will develop a polemical arsenal whose original aim was to discredit the
Jewish followers of Jesus.

My understanding of Paul emphasizes a conflict with the Jerusalem leadership over his interpretation of
Jesus’s legacy, his marginal standing among them, the rejection of his claims to direct revelation and to
authority (if aware of them) and his luring of Jews away from the Law.145 I am inclined to think that the
founding fathers of the Jesus movement wanted to remain a sect within Judaism. Paul, on the other hand,
attempted to craft a rationale for a Gentile, and de-Judaized, strand of belief in Jesus.

60
Paul was a charismatic theologian that laid down the foundations of the Christian edifice as-we-know-it.
He was the pivot and the trendsetter that paved the pathway that led his Gentile followers to a religion,
distinct and separate from the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers. Paul was a visionary that was driven by great emotional stamina, militancy, enthusiasm, and a
deep personal yearning for recognition and legitimacy. Overall, to me, Paul comes out high on theological
creativity and synthesis, high on polemical skills, problematic on consistency, ambivalent in his attitudes
toward the Torah.146

Paul is the most intriguing persona in the New Testament, a theological thinker, an enigmatic itinerant
visionary, a grassroots organizer, and a turf nurturer and protector. Paul’s trajectory, from a rather extreme
and enthusiastic persecutor of the Jewish followers of Jesus, to his extreme and militant defense of his de-
Judaized mission to the Gentiles, point to an extreme personality. He is willful, gutsy, temperamental, and
explosive. Paul was a theological and rhetorical innovator and acrobat, as well as the dominant, most
engaging and enigmatic character of the New Testament.147 [+pg 68]

61
 The New Testament and Qumran

The Qumranites,148 similar to other Judean sectarians,149 saw themselves as the only lawful holders of the
covenant with YHWH.150 The members of the community understood themselves to be ‘the true Israel,’
living apart from the rest of Israel, which is seen as wicked and sinful.151 The Qumran sect blights those
outside the sect as ‘the congregation of traitors’ (CD 1.12). The adversaries in the Thanksgiving Hymns are:
‘an assembly of deceit, and a horde of Satan’ (2.2.2). In the War Rule: they are ‘the company of the sons of
darkness, the army of Satan’ (CD 1.1). The Pharisees (the arch-villains of Matthew) may be among
Qumran’s opponents. In Pesher Nahum, ‘Those who seek smooth things’ (those who advocate lenient
interpretations of the Law) and the ‘deceivers’ are identified by most Jewish scholars as the Pharisees.

The Qumran community is the clearest example of a ‘sect’ (in the modern sense of the word) within first-
century Judaism. Its distinctiveness has become more apparent as the more sectarian of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (from Cave 4) have been published, showcasing strong predestinarian, dualistic, and mystical
themes and motifs. The community evidently regarded itself as an alternative to the Jerusalem Temple
(hence its withdrawal to the wilderness), determined membership by reference to its own understanding
and interpretation of Scripture, and applied strict rules for novitiate and continuing membership (1QS 5–
9). Most like the earliest Jesus movement in its sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and eschatological
fulfillment and anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM), it was distinct from the former in a strict application of
purity rules and discipline.152

I Enoch and Jubilees provide us additional windows into the worldview of Jewish sectarian communities. I
Enoch scourges fellow Jews and presents the world in sharp binary contrasts: ‘sinners/irreverent’ on one
side, ‘righteous/pious’ on the other (1.1, 7–9; 5.6–7). Daniel and I Enoch contributed to the substantial
apocalyptic literature that we encounter in the late Second Temple period and had a definitive impact on
messianic imagery among Jews (the son of man - a primordial being who would preside over a final
Judgment and would usher in the resurrection of the faithful)153 and later among early believers in Jesus.

Dualism is another possible link between the early Jesus movement and the Judean sectarian milieu. ‘Two
Ways’ is the designation given by scholars to a worldview that surfaced during the two centuries prior to
the turn of the era and that, for the first time in Jewish history, saw this world as a battleground between
the forces of good and evil. The Two Ways theology resonates with the Gnostic understanding of this
world as dominated by evil and suffering; the creation of an evil God. It also resonates with Zoroastrian
dualism that preceded it and may have influenced Judaism during the Persian era.

62
The resentful, righteous, and militant posturing of Judean sectarians is oftentimes intertwined with the
Two Ways material. The juxtaposition of ‘good—evil,’ ‘us—them,’ ‘sons of light—sons of darkness,’ which
we encounter among some Gentile believers in Jesus, may have originated in the sectarian-separatist
posture of the descendants of the Jewish founders and in the Two Ways mindset developed by Judean
sectarians, most notably at Qumran.154

Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded insights that we may harness in our excursion to identify the cultural
and religious traditions and antecedents that the New Testament authors may have used to fashion their
accounts of Jesus’s ministry. Knohl155 argues the intriguing possibility that Jesus knew himself to be the
Messiah, and expected to be rejected, killed, and resurrected—based on the antecedent of the messiah
from Qumran. Moreover, in Qumeran’s Self-Glorification Hymn we see a combination of divine or angelic
status, and of suffering, not previously known outside the Jesus story. The author describes himself in the
image of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later emulated-incorporated-appropriated
by early Gentile believers in Jesus.156

Overall, I see strong similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found in Qumran and the
earliest strata of the New Testament, pointing to a significant connection whose observable elements will
surface throughout our inquiry. This understanding of the affinities between some New Testament texts
and the Judean sectarian milieu diverges somewhat from the consensus among scholars.157 The current
consensus seems to be moving away from dependence and tends to tone down the importance of
continuity.

A minority of New Testament scholars see significant affinity between Paul’s theology and the Qumran
Dead Sea Scrolls, and little affinity between Jesus and his disciples, and Qumran.158 According to D.
Flusser (a minority view) there existed a stratum of thought that was influenced by sectarian ideas, and
John the Evangelist, Paul, and the authors of some NT Epistles based themselves on the theological
achievements of this stratum.159

The similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found at Qumran and the earliest, and Jewish,
strata of the New Testament:
a. The earliest (and Jewish) followers of Jesus, similar to the Qumranites160 and other Jewish sectarians
would have perceived themselves as the only rightful holders of the covenant with YHWH161 and
understood themselves to be ‘the true Israel,’ living apart from the rest of Israel, which is seen as
wicked and sinful.
b. The Pesher (Hebrew for ‘meaning’) method allows biblical passages to be interpreted as addressing
present circumstances, not the original historical context in which they were first written. The
Pesher exegetical method (Typology) was unique to Qumran and was emulated-appropriated by
Pauline believers.
c. The main Pesher texts in Qumran are of the prophetic books Habakkuk, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah,
Nahum, and the book of Psalms, which are also popular typological texts in the New Testament.162
d. In the Qumran library, the most attested and most important biblical books are Deuteronomy,
Isaiah, and Psalms. These are also central in the New Testament.

63
e. Both Qumran and some early believers in Jesus followed a charismatic leader and considered
themselves communities of the ‘chosen,’ guided by divine revelation, existing between the powers
of good and evil.
f. The arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery deployed by the Pauline faction against the
establishment of the Jesus movement seem to emulate the arguments, attitudes, language, and
imagery that Jewish sectarians, most notably Qumran, deployed against the Jewish establishment.
g. Except for the Qumran community, there was no antecedent for the survival of a messianic sect
after the death of its leader.163 Following Jesus’s death, the Qumran community (having survived
the death of The Teacher of Righteousness) may have offered a template to follow.
h. The Qumran Messiah was believed to have resurrected after three days and his second coming was
anticipated. Jesus’s suffering, death, and resurrection after three days suggest that his followers may
have used the pre-existing template of this messianic predecessor, the suffering servant of the Dead
Sea Scrolls.164
i. Qumran, contrary to mainstream Judaism, believed in continued revelation beyond the biblical
prophets, a theological stance present in the New Testament.
j. Both communities had a sense of divine grace (1QS 11; 1QH) and eschatological fulfillment and
anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM). An end-of-times and earth-shattering battle is described in the
War Scroll, in the Rule of the Congregation IQSa, and in Revelation.165
k. The ‘new covenant,’ of great significance to Qumran (CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12; IQpHab 2:3f.), is also a
central theme in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 7:1–6; Gal. 3:23–25; Heb. 8:1–15, 8:6–13, 10).
However, Qumran reads Jeremiah 31:31–34 as emphasizing renewal, the NT as emphasizing
replacement.166
l. The covenant, as a result of the intervention of an extraordinary individual,167 is the possession of
the community and not those outside it, who have forfeited their right to it through their sins.
m. Dualism and the Two Ways imagery168 are present in Qumran’s Community Rule (I QS 3.13–4.16)
and in the New Testament (mostly Paul and John).169 Qumran’s world is divided into good and evil.
‘Sons of light’ imagery occurs in The War Scroll in Qumran, and in John 12:38 and 1 Thessalonians
5:5.
n. In Qumran’s Self-Glorification Hymn the author describes himself in the image of the suffering
servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later emulated-incorporated-appropriated by early Gentile
believers in Jesus.
o. Both Qumran and early believers in Jesus distanced themselves from the official Jewish sacrificial
system and considered the priesthood unqualified and sacrilegious.
p. Celibacy, disapproved of in Judaism, was practiced by some Essenes and was idealized by early
Paulines. Polygamy and divorce, approved by first-century Judaism, were forbidden by both
communities.
q. Similar to some early communities of believers in Jesus, Qumran led a communal lifestyle with
communal meals and no personal possessions.
r. Ritual immersion for the removal of ritual impurity was normative for first-century Jews, but
Qumran and the New Testament present something new: immersion as an initiation rite (baptism).
s. The most probable influence on Hebrews’ priesthood of Melchizedek seems to be IQMelchizedek
discovered at Qumran Cave 11,170 although Attridge instructs us of other instances of Melchizedek
speculation (Philo, the fragmentary Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek [NHC 9, 1], 2 Enoch, and 3
Enoch).171

64
 t. Both communities lived in anticipation of an eminent end of times and a final judgment. The pitch
is militant and resentful, as we would expect from separatist and self-righteous groups.
u. John the Baptist and Jesus ministered within walking distance from Qumran,172 at a time when the
community seems to have been active, pointing to a plausible connection.

In regard to Pesher exegesis (item b) it is important to emphasize that it is highly unlikely that early Pauline
believers in Jesus, mostly recent converts from Paganism, developed on their own the typological
interpretation of a religious tradition alien to them. Consequently, the use of typology is one of the
strongest indications that Pauline believers emulated-appropriated a number of Qumran traditions and
peculiarities. The emulation of this exegetical idiosyncrasy by early Gentile believers in Jesus is one of many
hints that Judean sectarian lore, views, and traditions migrated to a Gentile setting (most probably) through
the agency of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or their descendants.

However, despite the substantial evidence for a link between Qumran and the early Jesus movement, we
should be cautious about its interpretation. The availability of large numbers of Qumran texts, compared
to other sectarian communities, may cause us to overstate this connection. Rather, we should contemplate
the possibility that this evidence may be indicative of a connection between the early, and pre-Gentile,
Jesus movement with the general Judean sectarian milieu (Qumran being a specific example of this broader
phenomenon). It seems to be the case that the Qumran sect and the pre-Gentile Jesus movement were
contemporaneous sectarian Jewish streams, accounting for the similarities we have encountered.

In summary, the parallels between the Judean sectarian milieu and the New Testament are too numerous
and too substantial to be set aside, and point to a significant and important connection. Although none of
the similarities and parallels would be (by itself) conclusive proof of a nexus, their cumulative impact
should tilt the balance toward the view that Pauline believers in Jesus inherited-appropriated many
Qumran-like peculiarities. Since we do not have any indication of direct contact between Gentile believers
in Jesus and Qumran, we must assume that Jesus’s disciples and first followers (who were Jewish sectarians
with, plausibly, significant affinities and similarities with Qumran) are the most likely agents of the
migration of lore and self-perception to non-Jews.

65
 The James Enigma

Introduction
Jewish-Gentile fellowship
The historical James
The canonical James
Major themes and addressees
James and Jesus
James and Peter
James and Paul
James and Judaism
James’ theology and ethics
My James

Introduction+
During the last decades, the epistle of James has attracted considerable scholarly interest. A bibliography
of several hundred articles and monographs is now available to those interested in this short but
enigmatic, and challenging text. The increased interest stems from a surge in the quest for the historical
James,173 his beliefs, his role within the Jesus movement, and the study of his relationships and views
vis-à-vis those of the other central figures of early Jesus movement; Jesus, Paul and Peter. The James
revival is also associated with the growing awareness about the Jewish grounding of the epistle and of
the early Jesus movement.174 As Christian scholarship and theology have gravitated to a more
comfortable embrace of the Jewish grounding of the early Jesus movement,175 and of the diversity of
early belief in Jesus, interest in the earliest layers of the tradition has been on the rise.

Although the composition of James is attributed by most to a second century author or community,
there seems to be a consensus that its theology, ethics and Torah observance emanate from the earliest
strata of the lore. The epistles of James and Jude, Q (The Q source is believed to be, by most scholars,
the oldest material of the tradition, is extant in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is usually dated about 50
CE.)176 and the M (the unique material associated with the author of Matthew),177 are among the traces of
the founding fathers of the Jesus movement that survived the Pauline hegemony over the shaping of the
canon. Their survival, and the dissonance between these materials and the rest of the Pauline corpus,
eventually triggered, facilitated and enabled the growing embrace of the diversity of the early Jesus
movement. The Jewishness of James’ epistle seems now obvious, given that ‘the essence of the Judaism
of the epistle of James is similar to the Judaism of the pre-rabbinic period.’178

66
Eusebius (mid-fourth century) informs us that James was a disputed text, unknown to many earlier
writers, and is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.179 The epistle was canonized following its
inclusion in Athanasius’s suggested canon (367 ce). The Pseudo-Clementine traditions that emphasize
the authority of James do not know anything about this important document.’180 Given this background,
it is important to query the epistle’s inclusion in the canon: first, it is plausible that by the time the
canonization process gained momentum, the Epistle of James was authoritative and, similar to Matthew,
could not be excluded. Second, a pro-Torah observance and socially subversive text in the canon would
be unacceptable, unless it was believed to have been authored by Jesus’ brother. Third, we have some
evidence that constituencies with affinities to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers remained
influential throughout the fourth century (Pro-Jewish and pro-Torah texts and sources in the New
Testament: Q, the M material in Matthew, and James. Outside the NT: The Didache, and the Pseudo-
Clementine literature)181

At the time of canonization literacy was minimal, access to the texts was limited, and the perceived
danger of inclusion was low. Therefore, we may tentatively conclude that the inclusion of this
problematic text, that advocated Torah observance, did not mention Paul's teaching on faith in Jesus’
death and resurrection, and was antagonistic to wealth and power, was deemed less damaging than its
exclusion.
Until the 20th century, the epistle was shunned by many early theologians and scholars182 due to its
advocacy of Torah observance and deeds, an uncomfortable challenge to Pauline orthodoxy. Famously,
Luther disliked the epistle due to its lack of Christology and its focus on Torah observance,183 and
sidelined it to an appendix due to its non-Pauline orientation.184 For many centuries, Athanasius strategy
of incorporate-but-subvert problematic traditions proved successful: James’ divergence from orthodoxy
did not cause major problems to the Church and for the most part, until modern times, the epistle was
relegated to benign disregard. ‘Modern scholarly study of James has also been overshadowed, until quite
recently, by a strong tendency to read James in the light of Paul, leading not only to depreciation of
James by scholars with strongly Pauline theological predilections, but also to a serious failure to
appreciate the distinctive characteristics and qualities of James's letter in their own right.’185 Although the
epistle of James derives its legitimacy from the founders and is vested with the authority of James, we
must query whether it escaped Pauline editing - given its survival within the Pauline corpus.

Recent readings that divest the Pauline hegemony over the discourse have begun to re-place the epistle
and the historical James in a more accurate historical context; the early and Jewish grounding of the
Jesus movement.186 During the last decades, the epistle has been subjected to a variety of inquiries and
new methodologies and has been read from multiple perspectives, yielding an appreciation for its
historical, theological and sociological importance. Since the 1960s, rhetorical criticism, textual-redaction
criticism, and literary and structuralist strategies have paved the way to new insights on the epistle.

Koester H. (1965) and Kloppenborg J. (1987) are widely recognized for bringing about the pivot from
emphasis on James as wisdom literature, to focus on the apocalyptic and pre-Gentile context of James.
Later studies strengthened this recent appreciation for the pre-Gentile foundations of Q, M, and James.187
Outside the New Testament, traces of the Jewish followers of Jesus are to be found in the extra-canonical

67
Jewish Gospels (Nazoraeans, Ebionites),188 in the Didache189 and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature,190
texts not focused on Jesus’ death and resurrection that either advocate, or seem to advocate, Torah
observance.

In addition to earlier works, students of James now benefit from a growing number of quality individual
and collaborative commentaries published during the 21st century. Among the latest individual works we
find Popkes (2001), Hartin (2004); Blomberg and Kamell (2008), McCartney (2009), McKnight (2011),
Painter and deSilva (2015), and Allison (2015). Noteworthy recent collaborative surveys include Chilton
B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001), Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig
The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005), Webb, Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. Reading James
with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (2007), and van de Sandt, Huub and
Zangenberg, eds. Matthew, James, and Didache (2008).
Jewish-Gentile fellowship+

Jewish-Christian fellowship within the Jesus movement is a complex issue that surfaces in various
configurations throughout this survey. As we move forward in time, and engage the texts before us in
approximate chronological sequence, we will follow the evolution and the manifestations of this
relationship. Our discussion here will focus on two events: The crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal
2:11-14, and Paul's visits to Jerusalem - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-
29. I adhere to the majority view; that the Antioch crisis followed the Jerusalem council.

The crisis at Antioch191 - Antioch was the center of the Seleucid kingdom until 64 BCE, when it was
annexed by Rome and made the capital of the province of Syria. It became the third largest city of the
Roman Empire in size and importance (after Rome and Alexandria). The city was the headquarters of the
Roman garrison in Syria, whose principal duty was the defense of the empire’s eastern border from Persian
attacks. Antioch was also one of the earliest centers of belief in Jesus; it was there that followers of Jesus
were first called Christians, and the city was the headquarters of Paul’s early mission (47–55 ce).

During or following the Jewish War of 70 ce, some among the Jewish followers of Jesus fled to Pella while
others went to Antioch (to which refugees from earlier persecution had fled, and where they had
established a significant community (Acts 11:19-20) which, at first, was Torah observant and accepted the
leadership of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem (Acts 11:28)192 It is commonly assumed that when
these refugees arrived to Antioch they brought with them their lore; a collection of sayings of Jesus that
was later incorporated into the canonical Matthew and is commonly designated as M. The M material,
unique to Matthew, originated in the lore of the pre-Gentile Jesus movement that has left textual traces in
James and Matthew. According to Streeter193 the M tradition originated in Jerusalem, and reflects the
authority of James who is a strong advocate of the Law (the righteousness of believers must exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees). The Q document is believed to be, by most scholars, the oldest
material of the tradition, is extant in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is usually dated about 50 CE. Q’s
existence has been inferred. No actual Q document, in full or in part, has survived. Q is mostly a collection
of Jesus’s sayings. It is unclear where the Q tradition originated though it was used by Mark and Matthew
and written in Aramaic.194 The Greek translation of Q, which Streeter dates around 50 C.E., is seen by

68
many as the original Gospel of Antioch.195 However, it seems to me, that given geographical proximity and
the affinity between these communities, we should assume that the lore of the communities of followers of
Jesus at Jerusalem and Antioch were substantially homogeneous, and would include M and Q.

During the late first century, the community at Antioch (originally mostly Jewish and Torah observant)196
was experiencing the impact of a large influx of non-Jewish converts. It seems that the majority of these
Pagan converts where of Pauline affiliation and inclination, but it is plausible that other forms of Gentile
belief in Jesus were also represented at Antioch. Painter posits that the missions to the Gentiles and to the
Jews at Antioch were divided into six factions. The factions of the circumcision mission broadly fit the
description of the first of two types of Jewish believers distinguished by Justin (Dial. 47 – pg. 293).

At Antioch, up to the arrival of the emissaries from James (Gal 2:11-14) there seems to have been some
degree of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. Historically, most scholars have agreed
that the issue at the core of the incident at Antioch was table fellowship:197 In Gal 2:12 Paul writes about
Peter’s role in the Antioch incident:

for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after
they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

The current academic discussion seems to center on whether the arguments behind the table fellowship
episode where about ritual or moral purity, and whether the underlying dislocations where mostly
theological or socio-ethnic. Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles was understood by
traditional scholarship to be due to the incompatibility of Jewish food traditions with Gentile eating
practices. Recently, moral impurity claims have been the focus of several studies, an emphasis that seems to
have gained the center stage. Claims of moral impurity may have surfaced due to Gentile participation in
sacrifices to the Roman Gods, a requirement on all inhabitants of the Roman empire – from which Jews,
including the Jewish followers of Jesus were exempt.198 Significantly, Paul seems to acknowledge that moral
impurity is the issue and is concerned about the purity status of Gentile believers in Jesus (Gal. 2:14-17 and
1 Cor. 6:11).199

Given that avoidance of idolatry,200 and of the foods associated with Pagan sacrifices, was a central demand
of the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)201 and are connected to moral impurity in Jewish tradition,
table fellowship would be unacceptable to the founding fathers.202 ‘This boundary is of paramount
importance for the men from James, but it is important because it was thought to protect Jews from the
contaminating influence of the idolatry and immorality thought to pervade Gentile society. Ignoring the
boundary is likely to lead into actual sin.’203 Furthermore, if moral impurity was indeed the central issue,
‘…according to James, and despite Paul’s efforts to turn morally impure non-Jews into purified
worshippers of the God of Israel, intimate contact between Jews and non-Jews still constituted a threat to
the moral purity of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

69
In this situation, where close social relations between Jews and non-Jews already existed, James may have
concluded that this could only continue if non-Jews were turned into Jews. Thus, from these assumptions,
the rationale behind James’s course of action in Antioch was his rejection of Paul’s way of dealing with the
moral impurity problem.’204 If Acts’ rendition of the Apostolic decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) is historical,
and if the common interpretation of it (granting equal status to the mission to the Gentiles)205 is
sustainable, the participation of some Gentile believers in Jesus in Pagan sacrifices would have violated
James’ directive.

If emissaries from James appeared in Antioch requiring circumcision of non-Jews (Gal 2:12)206 it would
have contradicted the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)207 as traditionally understood. However, a
demand requiring circumcision of non-Jews as a condition for table fellowship may reflect James’ position
on this subject – and may be seen as a clarification of the decree. Some scholars see the demand as
reflective of a reversal of James’ previous position, or as reflective of the existence of a conservative faction
among the Jewish followers of Jesus that opposed the decree and required Torah observance from non-
Jews.208

Implementation of James’ stricter guidelines as to table fellowship would have led to Jewish-Gentile
segregation at Antioch. It seems that estrangement between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus did
indeed fester and intensify, feeding rancor and animosity - although visibility as to the aftermath of this
event is low. Whether the incident at Antioch was historical or symbolic, we have little evidence about its
impact on Antioch’s community. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume an escalation of tensions between
Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus from that point forward. It is noteworthy that the resentment that
must have accompanied the estrangement between Gentile followers of Paul and the founding faction at
Antioch (and elsewhere) would have fueled the polemical sentiment that we encounter in the lore.

James’ apparent victory at Antioch seems to have temporarily strengthened the Torah observant
mission.209 We know, however, that the influx of Gentile converts will gradually lead to a growing Gentile
majority and to Pauline ascendance in the city during the second century,210 and to the first Gentile bishop
there (Ignatius). This incident has been understood as a turning point in relations between Jewish and
Gentile believers at Antioch. The crisis in Antioch has attracted much scholarly attention due to the fact
that it exemplifies and encapsulates the core issues behind the estrangement between the Jewish followers
of Jesus and the Gentile followers of Paul. According to Pauline orthodoxy, this crisis also reflects and
epitomizes a divergence between James’ and Peter’s views on Torah observance.

However, it is unclear whether the cryptic information available to us justifies the edifice that Pauline
theology has erected on it. If historical, Peter’s table fellowship with Gentiles may reflect a more
accommodating and flexible personal attitude toward Gentiles, rather than a rigorous and thought-trough
theology that advocates a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles – as claimed by Pauline orthodoxy.
Peter, whose persona was appropriated by the de-Judaizing camp to stand as a compromise between James
and Paul, has been cast by orthodoxy as the embodiment of the via media, the compromise creed
championed by the Paulines.211

70
Paul's visits to Jerusalem – Tensions at Antioch and elsewhere, about the salvation status of non-Jews,
may have led to the apostolic council. Acts 15: 1-2 informs us that the core issue at the Jerusalem council
between Paul and the leaders of the Jesus movement was whether Gentiles had to observe the mandates of
the Torah. In Acts 15: 28-29 James responds to Paul’s request to legitimize his mission to the Gentiles by
implying that Paul’s followers were to comply with four mandates:

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further
burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep
yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

This cryptic statement leaves many unanswered questions as to fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in
the Jesus movement, and we must question whether James intended that compliance with these
minimalistic requirements would suffice for Gentile membership in the New Israel, the new people of
God.212 Unfortunately, the meaning and implications of ‘If you keep yourselves from these, you will do
well.’ was left open to interpretation. It seems to me that for James, full Torah observance was a
requirement for acceptance to the Jesus movement and to becoming rightful believers in Jesus. To James
(and to most first century Jews) the four mandates of Acts 15:28-29 and the Noahide laws were variants of
minimal ethical behavior guidelines for all non-Jews, whether Pagans or Gentile believers in Jesus – but
would not confer membership in God’s people.

Furthermore, and unfortunately, we do not have anywhere in the New Testament a reliable clarification of
James’ views on the relative standing and relationship of the missions to the Jews and to the Gentiles.
James’ ruling at the council on the inclusion of Gentiles seems to have been either unclear, incomplete,
insufficient or dysfunctional – and seems to have disintegrated upon contact with reality on the ground.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the epistle of James ‘… never alludes to the existence of Gentile
Christians (and can discuss the law and the relationship of faith and works with no reference to the
controversies around these topics that the conversion of Gentiles to the Christian message provoked)’213

The discrepancies regarding the first visit have the most far-reaching consequences.214 Whether James
bestowed upon Paul’s mission to the Gentiles equal standing to the Torah observant mission to the Jews,
and whether (and under what circumstances) fellowship between the parties was allowed – are open
questions that were not addressed by Acts. ‘That Paul does not harken back to the accord in the debate
with Cephas indicates that he knew there was more than one way to read the accord.’215 According to Acts,
a Pauline perspective, following the breakdown of the accord Paul accused Cephas of hypocrisy because he
had not lived consistently as a Jew himself and yet was attempting to compel Gentiles to live as Jews Gal
(2:11-14).

… Paul's criticism was aimed at the Jerusalem position of demanding circumcision and
law observance if there was to be full fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers.
That is the point of the withdrawal of table fellowship.’216

71
In summary, it is plausible that at first, the Gentile mission and the Jamesian circumcision law-keeping
party coexisted with some degree of fellowship.217 At first, Gentiles may have joined the Torah observant
synagogues of the Jewish followers of Jesus, but due to increasing alienation between Jews and Gentiles
within the Jesus camp – they seem to have seceded amidst great resentment, and established separate and
non-Torah observant communities. Whether historical or symbolic, Peter’s withdrawal from table
fellowship with Gentiles did become emblematic of the parting of the ways between Jewish and Gentile
followers of Jesus, and the subject of a vast literature. Belief in Jesus outside of Judea was becoming
increasingly Gentile, and the Jewish faction gradually became a minority at Antioch. [+pg 79]

The historical James

James seems to have enjoyed great authority among the Jewish followers of Jesus. The James most
believers are acquainted with emerges out of Gal. 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:7 and Acts 12, 15, 21. However, we have
useful accounts about James in Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypses of
James, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementine literature - most of whom cast him as
righteous and as the undisputed leader of the Jewish camp.218 His influence is central and palpable in
Jerusalem and in Antioch, despite the fact that he did not minister at Antioch. Although we are dependent
on sources dominated by the Pauline perspective, the role and influence of James overshadow all others at
Antioch. Sources outside the ‘mainstream’ show that James remained the single most powerful figure
among the Jewish followers of Jesus.219 To the proto-orthodox, intent on de-Judaizing belief in Jesus and
uncomfortable with James’ demand for strict Torah observance, it was important to limit his role to
legitimizing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.220

Other than the Epistle of James, we do have a few pro-Jewish and pro-Torah observance segments in the
New Testament (Mostly the Q source in Mark and the M material in Matthew). These seem to be, for the
most part, appropriations and incorporations of the lore of the Jewish founders into texts authored or
edited by Gentile believers. Whereas segments, that are supportive of the character, traditions and beliefs
of the Jewish founders, should be considered appropriations of the identity and lore of the Jewish faction
by the emerging Pauline majority – James is unique in the canon by its explicit and wholehearted support
of Torah-observance. Not only is this text a unique view into the milieu of the Jewish founders - its
inclusion in the canon signals that as canonization begun (fourth century onward) Torah observance
among believers in Jesus was still authoritative and could not be delegitimized by exclusion.

It is noteworthy, that to the exclusion of Paul’s letters, the texts of the New Testament come from the
period after the Jewish War. Following the Jewish War, and the decimation of the communities of believers
in Jesus that accompanied it,221 the Torah observant traditions associated with Peter and James lost ground
and were gradually appropriated-subverted by the Pauline proto-orthodox:

‘Apart from the Epistle of James, which has been subverted to appear as a General
Epistle, there is no writing in the New Testament that takes the part of James… What
had begun as a Jewish movement was now increasingly isolated from Judaism and
James became increasingly identified with what was simultaneously Jewish and
Gnostic. In the great church, though he was honored, his relationship to Jesus was

72
 interpreted in a way that distanced him from Jesus, and he was made subject to
apostolic authority. For James the brother of Jesus, this path was truly a dead end.’222

The canonical text

The debate about the authorship of the canonical text is inconclusive and parallels the debates about its
Christology, and about the extent to which the text is informative regarding the beliefs of the historical
James. The final text reflects second century Pauline influence on, or appropriation of, traditions
emanating from the early (and Jewish) Jesus movement. Although few support direct authorship by
James, many acknowledge the text’s affinity to Torah observance, good deeds, and the traditions that
emanated from the historical James. The earliest extant texts of the epistle date to the third century,223
necessitating scholarly debate as to authorship. A partial summary regarding the authorship of James:
 Not authored by James, brother of Jesus - Dibelius and Greeven 1975; Laws 1980; Pratscher 1987;
Burchard 2000; Popkes 2001; Edgar 2001
 The letter contains teachings coming from the historical James, but the final composition was later -
Davids 1982; Martin 1988; Painter 1997; Walls 1997; Davids 1999; Byrskog 2000, 167-71; Evans
2001; Davids 2001; Chilton 2005; Painter and deSilva (2015)
 Authorship by James - Hengel 1987; Adamson 1989; Johnson 1995; Bauckham 1999; Bauckham
2001; McKnight Scot 2011

Although James eventually became part of the NT, was subject to Pauline theological appropriation-
subversion, may be suspect of Pauline editing, and was absorbed into the Pauline narrative – its grounding
in the early and pre-Gentile Jesus movement (and its affinity to the Q and M materials, its resonance with
the Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature) are increasingly acknowledged by a growing number of
scholars. Although these linkages are indications of a common, earlier and pre-Gentile layer, the epistolary
greeting common in Pauline circles, and possible parallels with 1 Peter and the Shepherd of Hermes224 may
reflect later incorporation-appropriation into the Pauline corpus. If the epistle of James is a second century
text originating in a community with affinities to the traditions emanating from the Jewish followers of
Jesus, it may reflect their need to respond to the Pauline advocacy of non-Torah observance among
Gentiles.

However, if the existence of textual echoes between James, Paul and later Gentile authors,225 a minority
view among current scholars, gains ground – a Gentile audience or a substantial Gentile layer in the
evolution of the text may have to be posited. This evolutionary trajectory would be strengthened by the
fact that the epistle’s Greek seems ornate and learned226 and its theology is alleged by some to echo Pauline
themes and imagery.227 If this scenario gains the upper hand, it may indicate that a Gentile author was
attempting to be inclusive toward the Jewish faction and/or was attempting to fashion a text that would
strengthen the Pauline claim to continuity with Jesus’ Jewish followers.

Major themes, addressees, and context

Martin Dibelius’s 1921 commentary on the Letter of James was very influential for well over half a
century.228 Dibelius viewed James as paraenesis, a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical

73
content.229 Influenced by Dibelius, most scholars saw no dominant theme grounding the letter. In
twentieth century scholarship, the wisdom character of James was front and center. Recently, a possible
eschatological background has received growing attention. Fine-tuning our understanding of the co-
existence, symbiosis, and relationship between these elements is now a main concern.230

Recent scholarship sees James as focused on the community of the poor, emphasizes his anti-
establishment tone, and highlights his dispensation of misfortunes on community opponents.231 Most
among recent scholars, including Hartin, Allison, McKnight,232 Bauckham,233 and Painter argue that the
intended addressees are Jewish and that the epistle reflects the continuation of the mission to the Jews.
Hartin supports Walter Bauer’s thesis that the Christian movement developed as ‘numerous independent
Christian communities each with its own theologies and understandings’ and identifies James’ audience
as a community with an eschatological outlook.234

The addressees seem to be Jewish followers of Jesus, although it is plausible to claim that the epistle
hopes to include Jewish non-believers in Jesus in its audience. Overall, to the exclusion of this reflection
of the mission to the Jews, nothing in the epistle requires us to expand the horizon or the intended
addressees of James’ epistle beyond a Jewish milieu. Some, including Dibelius, Cargal, and Wall see ‘the
twelve tribes of the Dispersion’ (1:1) in the opening of the epistle as metaphorical and therefore open
somewhat the door to inclusion of Gentiles in the intended audience.

A detailed argument for the Jewish grounding and audience of the epistle has been made recently in
Allison:

The strange truth is that, aside from 1:1 and the textually dubious 2:1, James,
although certainly written by a believer in Jesus, explicitly says nothing distinctively
Christian. It is as though the readers are neither assumed nor required to be members
of the church themselves. The whole epistle rather stays within, or at least could be
read within, a Jewish frame of reference. One modern scholar has opined that 'every
sentence... could have been written by a proto-rabbi' (Sigal 1980:424). Readers of
James often miss this, because, consciously or not, they are canonical readers,
assuming that James must be saying what the New Testament says elsewhere, but he
does not. He remains resolutely silent in remarkable ways, even when we would
expect otherwise.235

Much has been written about the main intent behind the authorship of this peculiar text. It seems to me
that whereas the canonical text would appeal to Jewish audiences and to Gentile sympathizers with the
founding faction, we can postulate that audiences affiliated with the Pauline mission would be
unreceptive to it. The Jewishness of the messages and exhortations, the call for strict Torah observance,
and the author’s silence on Jesus’ death and resurrection seem to preclude a Pauline audience for the
earliest layer of the text. Proto-James seems to reflect a group of Jewish believers in Jesus still engaged in
the mission to the Jews, and attempting to battle those advocating non-observance of the Torah.

74
James and Jesus
Uncompromising ethical demands, Torah observance, and radical anti-establishment and anti-wealth are
strikingly common to both, the teaching of Jesus (the M material in Matthew) and the Epistle of James.236
It seems that James follows Jesus’ ethical concerns. In M, the Sermon on the Mount, and the narrative of
the rich young ruler, the teaching of Jesus assumes the obligation of charity.237 However, although the
epistle is acknowledged by most as echoing Jesus,238 it has little to say about the historical Jesus, including
about his death and resurrection.239

The debate about James-Jesus affinities is a proxy for the debate about James’ affinities with the pre-
Gentile strata of the Jesus movement, to the inclusion of Q, the M material in Matthew, and in The
Didache and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. James mentions the forgiveness of sins (5:15) but does
not mention Jesus' atoning death, a clear indication that the context is not Pauline. Overall, James seems to
fit the early, and Jewish, strata of belief in Jesus alongside Q and M.240 ‘The evidence of the Gospels
suggests that James, in limiting his active role in mission to the Jews, was consistent with the practice of
Jesus…’241

James and Peter

Petrine theology242 is a Pauline construct that stands on texts attributed to Peter and James243 and emerged
during the second century. The Petrine texts may have been authored to legitimize the Gentile followers of
Paul as the authoritative leaders of belief in Jesus. As the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus became
increasingly influential, Peter’s Torah observant mission was appropriated, subverted and rendered pro-
Pauline. Peter’s Torah observant emphasis244 was obscured and veiled, and he was transformed into a
quasi-Pauline evangelist - the rock on which the Church’s Pauline evangelical impulse was to stand.
Worded differently:

In the light of the emergence of the Gentile mission Peter's position became more
important and Acts obscures the leadership of James in order to portray the Jerusalem
church in terms closer to Peter than James. The emergence of the leading role of
Petrine tradition is imposed in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the
dispersal of the Jerusalem church.245

During their lifetimes, the preeminence of James is self-evident. However, Peter, head of the Torah-
observant mission and more visible to Gentile audiences, eclipsed James in the Pauline narrative. Given the
ambivalent attitude of Luke/Acts toward Paul, and persistent rumors about tensions between him and the
Pillars, Peter’s more accommodating attitude toward Gentiles was harnessed and converted into a Pauline
construct that advocated the supremacy of the Gentile mission to the Gentiles – facilitating the
transformation of the Jesus movement into a Gentile and non-Jewish undertaking.

Further corroboration of the Pauline appropriation and distortion of Peter’s persona into the rock on
which the Church’s theology was built (Petrine theology) is to be found in the fact that Mark, writing a few
decades earlier, aimed his choosiest polemical arrows at Peter. Indeed, throughout his gospel, and in line
with the ancient tradition of denigrating the ancestors of one’s opponents, Mark disparages the Twelve

75
Apostles, the special Three, and Peter. However, Peter is the recipient of the lion’s share of Mark’s arrows
and seems to be the leader of those that are seen by Mark as his adversaries.

Although a cautionary caveat about possible Pauline bias in the selection and content of canonical texts is
always necessary, James and 2 Peter, to the extent that they are instructive about the historical figures
‘show a Peter and James growing apart, inhabiting two different worlds. The one remained in the Jewish-
Christian world that would collapse with the war of 66-70 CE and never regain the importance that it had
enjoyed before that time. The other left that world for the Graeco-Roman world and thus becomes part of
the stream that would be the leading influence in the church in the successive decades and centuries.’246

Contrasting and comparing James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter is a fruitful exercise that sheds light on the
transformation of Peter into an advocate of a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles and into the
rock on which the Catholic Church chose to stand. The authors of 1 Peter and 2 Peter, in the footsteps of
Luke-Acts, seem to have wanted belief in Jesus to be Pauline – but wished to distance themselves from the
controversial Paul. It seems that placing Peter as the cornerstone of the Catholic Church was considered a
safer and more conservative move.

James and Paul

The crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14
Paul's visits to Jerusalem - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-29

Recent scholarship seems to have gravitated toward the view that the epistle of James reflects the views of
the historical James. However, and significantly, there is a lack of consensus on the matter of the James-
Paul relationship. We have already noted that James' preeminence in early Christianity is attested
throughout and is showcased by the incident at Antioch (Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14), the Apostolic
decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and James’ command to Paul to undergo the ceremony accompanying the
Nazirite vow Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-29.247 The majority of recent scholarship describe the
relationship as adversarial, including Popkes,248 Edgar,249 Painter,250 Jackson-McCabe.251 A minority see it as
compatible – Mitchell,252 McKnight.253 Chilton’s remarks on this matter are insightful and yield a different
perspective: ‘Where Paul divided the Scripture against itself in order to maintain the integrity of a single
fellowship of Jews and Gentiles, James insisted upon the integrity of Scripture, even at the cost of
separating Christians from one another.’254

Jas 2:14-18 is a key passage that highlights another James-Paul dissonance (‘faith without deeds is dead’
versus ‘by faith alone’):

‘14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no
deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes
and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’
but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith
by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, ‘You have

76
 faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by
my deeds.

Not surprisingly, scholars representing all possible methodologies, inclinations, affiliations, and
predispositions have weighed-in on the debate about this segment. As anticipated in the introduction to
this chapter, my reading of Jas 2:14-18 follows and supports my view on the Torah observance and self-
segregation of the Jewish faction, and the resentment and estrangement it may have caused among
Gentiles. Whether the author is the historical James (doubtful) or a later community associated with him,
the segment seems to be targeting those favoring ‘faith without deeds.’ This is a plausible perception of
Paul’s Law-free mission to the Gentiles – as seen from the perspective of the Jewish-founders, and a
response to Pauline rhetoric on the matter (1 Corinthians 5-6 being the best known).

Charity, an essential part of James’ emphasis on deeds, is not in any way optional. It is essential to faith.
Paul, in contrast, views charity as voluntary. Furthermore, ‘…nowhere in the Pauline corpus is there a
reference to scriptures teaching tithing or other charitable giving. One assumes that this is because to do
this would mean his returning to the Law, which would cost him his Christological base as well as
undermine his argument about freedom from the law. It may show the reality of one's confession, but
he never makes it essential to the reality's being there.’255

James and Judaism+

The M source within Matthew is widely acknowledged as a window into the way James, and the pre-
Gentile Jesus movement, interpreted the teachings of Jesus. The M material, unique to Matthew,
originated in the lore of the pre-Gentile Jesus movement that has left textual traces in James. We have
noted that, according to Streeter,256 the M tradition originated in Jerusalem, and reflects the authority of
James who is a strong advocate of the Law (the righteousness of believers must exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees).257 Although Pauline apologetics tends to engage each
command and tradition separately, for Jews they are part, and inseparable from, Torah observance.

James and Torah observance - According to some scholars James, Q, and the M Material in Matthew,
the Didache, and the pseudo-Clementine literature reflect a similar ethos, ethical perspective, and stand
on, or assume, Torah observance. James call to Torah observance (1:22-27) insures salvation (2:12-13,
14-26). Hartin is supportive of the focus on Torah observance (1999) compares these documents and
concludes that they support faith through action and sees them as reflecting the milieu of the Jewish
followers of Jesus (2008).258 Hub van de Sandt sees Matthew’s and James’ Torah observance reflected in
a similar use of the Jewish Two Ways theme259 which is detectable in the Didache too (3:1–6).260
McKnight thinks that Torah observance is at the heart of James’s ethics.261 A strong message against
those advocating the rejection of Torah observance characterizes, and emanates from, this tradition:

Some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various
interpretations, in order to teach the dissolution of the law; as though I myself were of
such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to
act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne
witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: ‘The

77
 heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
away from the law.’ (Matt 5:18).262

The Jewish followers of Jesus had to fight two fronts simultaneously: they defended the messiahship of
Jesus vis-à-vis fellow Jews, and advocated Torah observance vis-à-vis fellow believers in Jesus. Paul’s
followers do not keep the commandments and teach others to break them as well (Matt 5:19 and cf.
Acts 21:21) and they are chastised for it.

To some scholars, M and James seem to propose a more radical and demanding interpretation of the
law than mainstream Judaism. However, we must keep in mind that the six antitheses of Matt 5:21-48
advocate a rigorous interpretation of the Law; they do not encourage breaking or dispensing with it.
The antitheses seem to advocate an intensification of Torah observance and argue that Jesus’ followers
are not only part of Judaism, they are more righteous and observant than their Jewish critics.

James, the antitheses specifically, and the M material in general, may reflect a posture aimed to exalt
belief in Jesus and to fend off claims from mainstream Jews that questioned the Jewishness of Jesus’
followers. ‘The antitheses set out the demand for greater righteousness. There is nothing here to suggest
any relaxation of the demands of the law. Matthew may be going beyond, not going against, the biblical
laws.’263 ‘No doubt James takes for granted his readers' observance of the whole law, while focusing his
attention on its moral demands. There is no reason why a Palestinian Jew should not do this, especially
if he were a disciple of Jesus, who also seems to have foregrounded the moral aspects of the Torah
without negating others.’264 What makes Israel the chosen people, is the Torah.

According to Neusner, during the first century, Judaism’s view of Torah observance may be
summarized as follows: (1) Israel differs from non-Israelites because Israel possesses the Torah and the
non-Israelites do not; (2) because they do not possess the Torah, non-Israelites worship idols instead of
God; and (3) therefore God rejects non-Israelites and identifies with Israel. Non-Israelites deprived
themselves of the Torah because they rejected it, and, showing the precision of justice, they rejected the
Torah because the Torah deprived them of the very practices or traits that they deemed characteristic,
essential to their being… which, by an act of will, as we have noted, they can change.265

James and Works - Throughout the ages, mainstream Judaism has considered all the requirements of
Torah observance as mandatory. Opinions diverged on implementation and actual execution varied, but
there was little argument as to what was required from observant Jews. James’ emphasis on deeds
(works) derives from his emphasis on Torah observance, where the impetus for deeds originates.

James and the M material in Matthew are unique in the canon in their stand against the Pauline rejection
of works and deeds. Given the Pauline traditional view of Judaism as legalistic and sinful, Judaism was
often presented as divested of ethics and good deeds. In Pauline theology, the term ‘works’ has been
divested of ethical grounding, is part of the terminology deployed to characterize Judaism as legalistic, and
is often used to divest Torah observance from its ethical grounding. However, for James and all Jews,
faith is alive when it is reflected by Torah observance. In other words - what we believe in, demonstrates
itself through practice and manifestation. For James, claims about belief are empty, unless they are alive
in action, works and deeds.266

78
 James’ theology and ethics - In James, the traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and quotations
from Hebrew Scripture enable the idea of wisdom as the way to perfection.267 James’ ethics and
spirituality have been ably explored in recent studies.268 James does reflect a Jewish milieu and does
emphasize the ethical teachings and requirements embedded in Torah observance. Although James’
focus on strict Torah observance must be assumed to include its derivative themes (Sabbath observance,
dietary traditions, circumcision, deeds, charity etc.…), the focus on some subjects and the brevity of the
epistle preclude engagement of all the traditional Jewish markers.269

One theme that is elaborated in detail is concern for the poor. The emphasis on the poor that
characterizes the epistle (1:2-8, 2:8; cf. 1:22-25, 1:27; 1: 17-21, 2:12-13) is one aspect of the spiritually we
encounter in the epistle that includes the spirituality of integrity, of friendship with God, of prayer, and
of love of neighbor.270

The debate about the Christology of the epistle of James is inconclusive but seems to be tilting toward a
consensus that acknowledges the predominance of a Torah observant theological outlook. Standing on
Dibelius’ famous conclusion that the epistle has no specific theology,271 many scholars did not recognize
the fact that Torah observance is embedded in (and is reflective of) a Jewish theological context. Recent
scholarship seems to be gravitating toward assigning a pre-Gentile theological grounding to the text,
coupled with the qualification that the author’s belief system is implied – rather than explicit.

Most agree that there is an emphasis on Torah observance which delineates the boundaries of the
theological context. A minority detects an implied high Christology.272 Some scholars wrestle with
James’ lack of Christology and attempt, by all means possible, to categorize the epistle as ‘Christian’ –
despite the multiple meanings of the term and the confusion it engenders. Although some see in James
resonances with NT texts, these echoes seem to originate in the Pauline de-contextualization of Jewish
traditions and in the infusion of Christology into the appropriated lore.

My James+
In Acts 21 James tells Paul about the "many thousands" (21:20) among the Jews who have come to faith.
Even if this was an overstatement, it is likely that there were a significant number of Jewish followers of
Jesus in the first century. However,
traditional scholarship has tended to obscure the existence of an active mission to the Jews, attempted to
veil the Jewish origins of belief in Jesus, and emphasized ‘the Jewish rejection of Jesus’.

During the twentieth century, initial progress was made toward the acknowledgement that a significant
mission to the Jews existed beyond Jesus’ ministry. Recent scholarship has started to open the flood gates
on this subject. Although the devastation of the Judean strongholds of the Jewish faction during Jewish
War of 70 CE. seems to have inflicted a significant blow to the activities of the mission to the Jews,
evidence supportive of the continuity of the Jewish followers of Jesus and of their mission to the Jews well
into the fourth century273 emerges from significant affinities and resonances between James, Q, the M
material in Matthew, the Didache, the Pharisaic believers of Acts 15:1, 5, the Jewish followers of Jesus in
Justin, Ignatius’ Jewish antagonists, Justin’s Jewish followers of Jesus, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and
Jewish echoes in the Pseudo-Clementines (fourth century).

79
The epistle of James, is now widely acknowledged by many scholars as a second century text that emanates
from traditions associated with the historical James who was part of an active mission to the Jews, and
aims at a wide Jewish audience. The historical ‘James looked to winning Jews to faith in Jesus the Messiah,
who was to come again in judgement.’274

Given that the effort to legitimize Paul’s non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles is central to the
canonical corpus,275 we should be cautious about Acts’ renditions regarding the meetings in Jerusalem and
the nature and details of James’ blessing of a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles. The author of
Luke/Acts, while crafting a narrative that would legitimize the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movement, the
demotion of the founding fathers as the custodians of Jesus legacy, and the Pauline ascendancy - needed a
transitional figure that would bestow upon the Pauline mission the authority inherent in Jesus’ disciples.
The author of Luke/Acts first, and later Pauline authors in his wake, assigned that role to Peter and
fashioned an apologetic persona that personifies the demotion and replacement of the Jewish followers of
Jesus as the New Israel, the New People of Good.

The Pauline faction needed a bridge between James and Paul to facilitate the transition from a leader
affirming Torah observance, the Jewishness of belief in Jesus, and the preeminence of the Jewish followers
of Jesus within the Jesus movement - to the Pauline view of a law-free mission as the true fulfillment and
expression of Jesus’ ministry (Gal 2:15-21). In Pauline theology and lore, ‘Petrine Christianity’ is the vehicle
that smooths and ushers-in the transition from Jesus’ and James’ Torah observance, to Paul’s non-Torah
observant mission. ‘James’ … ‘strategy was to preserve the mission to his own people. History proved his
worst fears concerning the Pauline mission to be correct. The mission to the nations ensured the ultimate
failure of the circumcision mission.’276

80
 A Growing Tension+

Most Gentile believers in Jesus were inhabitants of the Roman Empire and were culturally and ethnically
diverse. Creedal confusion, organizational chaos, ceremonial improvisation, and religious experimentation
were rampant.277 Therefore, it is not surprising that differing accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus were
written during the first and second centuries, reflecting the transitional and tentative nature of this period.
Whereas several Gospels have survived, only four are included in the New Testament canon.

As Gentiles grew increasingly assertive in their opposition to the imposition of the beliefs and traditions of
the descendants of the founding fathers, they began using Jesus’s life story, parables, epistles, homilies, and
sermons to address questions and issues of concern to their rank and file, and to provide guidance to their
beleaguered communities:

1. Should belief in Jesus be Jewish, Pauline, or Gnostic?

2. Could Gentiles follow Jesus without becoming Jews?
3. How did Gentiles fit in the ministry of a Jewish Messiah?
4. Why did the disciples reject Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s ministry?
5. How to explain the Gentiles’ estrangement from the descendants of the founders?

During the period between the two failed Judean uprisings (70–135 CE), reassured by the success of the
Pauline and Gnostic missions and by the devastation of the strongholds of the Jewish faction in Judea,
Gentile intellectuals and leaders deployed a variety of rhetorical and literary platforms to put forward their
claim as rightful believers in Jesus. However, lacking the means to impose an outcome, the internal struggle
within the Jesus movement lingered through two–three centuries of impasse and slow attrition. The battle
about ‘what belief in Jesus should be’ deteriorated into a long-drawn-out struggle in which the weapons of
choice seem to have been defamation and bitter and derogatory vitriol. The canonical Gospels were
authored during this transitional period.

Gentile believers, diverse and lacking a coherent and normative theology, had to steer through counter-
currents of continuity and discontinuity vis- à -vis the legacy of the founding fathers. The Pauline claim of
a superior understanding of Jesus’s ministry vis- à -vis that of the founders, the casting of the disciples as
not understanding, denying and betraying Jesus, and the Pauline rejection and denigration of the character,

81
traditions and beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Torah-Law observance, dietary traditions,
circumcision, etc.) seem to part of the attempts to navigate this turbulence. These mutually sustaining
polemical tools seem to signal to Gentile converts that opposition to the imposition of the beliefs and
traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers is legitimate.

Overall, the tactical dilemma of the Pauline literati was how to de-Judaize belief in Jesus, without appearing
irreverent toward the founding fathers and to Jesus’s religious beliefs. In pursuit of these goals they
gradually gravitated toward a strategy that had two components: to insert a wedge between Jesus and his
disciples and first followers, and to build on the aversion of most Gentiles to the beliefs and traditions of
the founders.

The Synoptics gave their communities, beleaguered by dissent and self-doubt, a legitimating narrative: The
Jewish faction may be the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers but their ancestors did not
‘understand’ Jesus’s true message. Moreover, his messiahship was hidden to ‘them’ but clear to ‘us.’ As
proven by their scriptures, the Jews were sinful and had lost God’s favor. Consequently, the descendants of
the founding fathers cannot claim to be the custodians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy.

The Qumran-New Testament connection seems to support a major thesis of this manuscript, namely, that
in their quest to de-Judaize the Jesus movement, Pauline believers subverted-emulated-appropriated the
anti-Jewish-establishment traditions, attitudes, and rhetoric of the founding fathers toward the Jewish
mainstream, and converted them into an anti-Jewish-establishment tool within the Jesus movement.

This ‘second generation’ anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric will be aimed at the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers, who were (at the time) the establishment of the Jesus movement and the
authoritative guardians and keepers of Jesus’s legacy. In the New Testament, these two anti-Jewish-
establishment layers are intertwined and provide the scaffold for Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus
movement. In other words, the ‘Jews’ of the canonical Gospels seem to reflect the fusion and confusion of
two types of Jews, the antagonists of two distinct struggles. In the most ancient strata, the protagonists are
the Jewish followers of Jesus and their antagonists are Judeans in positions of authority (i.e., the Pharisees,
the scribes, the elders, the High Priests). In the later strata, the protagonists are Gentile believers in Jesus
and their antagonists are the founding faction and their Gentile sympathizers. The earlier stratum reflects
the debate among Jews about who Jesus was (messiah or not).278 The later one reflects the debate among
Gentile believers about ‘what belief in Jesus ought to be (Jewish, Pauline, Marcionite, or Gnostic), and
about who Jesus was (human, divine, or both).

In the canonical texts, we find corroborating hints that a challenge to the legitimacy of the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers, the original guardians of his legacy, was brewing up. The main clues
that did steer our inquiry in that direction are:

 The denigration and vilification of the disciples and their character.

82
  Denigration of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus.
 Family, friends, and disciples that ‘do not understand, deny and abandon.’
 Shift of culpability from ‘the chief priests, the scribes and the elders’ to ‘the Jews.’
 Appropriation and de-contextualization of the identity and lore of the founders.279
 Intensification of the polemical incitement as time passes.
 Exoneration of the Romans, and culpability of ‘the Jews,’ in Jesus’ death.
 Embrace of the biblical narrative while divesting beliefs and traditions demanded by it.

In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of Judean sectarians, Pauline believers found a ‘ready to deploy’
arsenal that could be used to demote the establishment of the Jesus movement: the descendants of the
founding fathers. This throve of anti-Jewish-establishment lore will become a tool to sever the influence of
the founding faction and to de-Judaize belief in Jesus. By appropriating and by de-contextualizing the
Judean anti-establishment lore of the founding fathers and other Judean sectarians, and by de-
contextualizing the Judean prophetic tradition and the Judean tradition of self-criticism - Pauline believers
embedded the campaign to de-Judaize belief in Jesus in seemingly authoritative and venerated claims.

In light of these conclusions, I found it necessary to suggest a modified and expanded version of Hare’s
terminology (his categories of anti-Judaism)280 as follows:

1. Prophetic anti-establishment criticism, as found among the Jewish prophets.

2. Jewish sectarian anti-establishment polemic.9 The anti-Jewish establishment lore of Jewish
sectarians (Enochic, Jubilean, and Qumran rhetoric as well as the anti-establishment polemic of the
Jewish followers of Jesus).
3. Gentile anti-Jewish-establishment polemic. Gentile polemic directed against the Jewish
establishment of the Jesus movement.
4. Gentile anti-Judaism. The anti-Jewish strand, the polemic that emerged out of fusion and
confusion of the previous layers, and the transformation of a conflict about Judaism, into a conflict
with Judaism.
5. Anti-Semitism, the later culture of disenfranchisement, hatred, and persecution that emerged out
of the sacrosanct status of the anti-
Jewish strand in the canonical lore.

83
 What is at Stake+

Many scholars active in the twenty-first century have embraced the diversity of the early Jesus movement.
The argument as to whether the Jesus movement was significantly uniform, or substantially diverse, still
rages—but the balance is tilting toward the latter. Jesus’s ministry was the common ground, but the view
that the emerging factions were diverse to the point of incompatibility is gaining support. For the pre-
Synoptic period (40-70 CE), scholars have identified communities with differing theological anchors:
Torah observance (the descendants of the founders), Jesus’s death and resurrection (Pauline believers),281
Jesus’s sayings and teachings (the Jewish followers of Jesus, Q, M, and some Gnostic communities)282 and
esoteric and secret knowledge (Gnostic believers in Jesus). Scholars have also classified early Gentile
believers in Jesus according to their affiliation to either of two broad and somewhat mutually exclusive
Jesus traditions:

The ‘life tradition’ is an academic term applied to traditions about Jesus’s life and ministry. This tradition
was centered on Jesus’s teachings and sayings and had a strong anti-establishment bent that would alienate
the Roman elites. The life tradition is reflected in the gospel of Thomas, Q, M, James, the opponents of
Paul in 1 Corinthian 1–4, in Gnostic texts, and in some of the opponents of the Johannines.

The ‘Cross tradition’ is an academic identifier given to the tradition focused on Jesus’s death and
resurrection. This tradition, embraced by the Pauline factions, deemphasized the subversive and anti-
establishment message of Jesus’s ministry and emphasized Jesus’s death and an otherworldly creed. The
Cross tradition deemphasized ‘Jesus the social critic’283 and emphasized ‘Jesus the divine being’ and thus
opened the door for the successful introduction of the new faith to the Roman elites. This tradition
dominates most of the New Testament texts.

Hypotheses about pre-Gospel passion traditions284 are crucial for our search for they can shed light on
Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, as we encounter them in the canonical texts. For our
purposes, the relevant questions at the pre-Synoptic level can be phrased in several ways: were polemical
feelings central to all pre-Synoptic Gentile communities? Are the anti-Judaic arguments, themes, and
imagery that permeate the canonical passion narratives factional or are they present throughout the pre-
Synoptic lore and texts? Was the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif present in all the pre-Synoptic groups? If
widely held, did it have the same meaning, centrality, and intensity for all believers? Is there a connection

84
between focus on Jesus’s death and anti-Judaic attitudes? Was the focus on Jesus’s death a Pauline theme
or was it widely accepted and authoritative?

Whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical passion narratives originates in the Pauline appropriation-
emulation-intensification of the anti-Jewish-establishment sentiment of the Jewish followers of Jesus, or is
mostly the creation of non-Jewish believers - is significant to our journey. The work of Crossan, Flusser,
Koester, and others on the pre-Gospel layers of the passion narratives (a minority view) points to a factional
origin. The work of these scholars supports the view that the canonical passion narratives emerged as part
of a legacy that was not an intrinsic and constitutive theme for all believers in Jesus. The growing recognition
that anti-Jewish themes were central for some (but were not universally authoritative for all) early believers
in Jesus is central to my analysis of the socio-theological context that gave birth to the canonical texts.

The question is, in a nutshell, whether the passion narratives we encounter in the canonical Gospels originate
in one of multiple and differing pre-Synoptic strands (Flusser, Crossan, Koester) or originate in a wider pre-
existing tradition (Brown, Dunn). This question has shadowed the battle over variants of the ‘Jewish
responsibility for Jesus’ death.’ If Mark and John are independent, and stand on a widely embraced pre-
Synoptic tradition, it is supportive of some variant of the claim. If there were multiple pre-Synoptic traditions,
some of which did not stand on the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ theme, it points to a factional
origin.

85
 The First Years - Summary+
Turn-of-the-era Jewish theological battles were occasionally bitter but they were also mostly harmless. The
pitch could be intense, but we have almost no examples of violence between Jewish sectarians and the
Jewish mainstream. In line with other Jewish sectarians, the Jewish followers of Jesus would have
considered themselves to be the ‘New Israel,’ a community living against apostate and sinful Israel.
Characteristically, those outside the community would be seen as bound for damnation and outside God’s
favor. The Qumran community and the communities that produced other Judean sectarian texts may have
been precursors or templates for the Jewish followers of Jesus and may provide ‘the missing link’ to re-
place the early Jesus movement in continuation to turn-of-the-era sectarian Judaism. The anti-Jewish-
establishment rhetoric that the Jewish followers of Jesus may have deployed against fellow Jews, a
characteristic motif among Jewish sectarians, is not extant outside the Christian authoritative texts.

Acknowledgment of the similarities and continuity between Gentile anti-Jewish rhetoric and the anti-
Jewish-establishment rhetoric of turn-of-the-era Jewish sectarian movements is an important shift in our
understanding of the attitudes of Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism. Probable parallels between the
lore of the early Jesus movement and the lore of Jewish sectarians provide us a new perspective on the
early anti-Judaic polemic we encounter in the New Testament. Many themes, motifs, traits, and imagery
traditionally seen as radically new and opposing Judaism may have originated in the Jewish sectarian milieu.

As we started our journey, we overheard echoes of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers
denigrating fellow Jews. As our train stops at the midway stations scattered along our path, we will
eavesdrop on debates, mostly among Gentile believers. We will hear them vilify ‘the Jews’ (their Jewish
opponents within the Jesus movement) with ever-increasing viciousness. At the later stations of our voyage
we will hear Gentiles denigrating all Jews.

86
Chapter 3

*Crisis in the Jesus movement

Introduction
Mark
Matthew
Luke/Acts
John
Revelation
Summary
A personal note

Introduction+
When a scribe or community leader sat down to write an account of Jesus’s ministry, he had goals and
alternatives. The paths chosen were not inevitable; they reflect the writers’ concerns, and agendas.
Therefore, NT texts are windows into the conflicts and debates that characterized the authors’ specific
context. The understanding that factional agendas and the specific circumstances of the author(s) and
editor(s) underpin the writing of the texts available to us is increasingly accepted by New Testament
scholars. Early communities of Gentile believers, challenged by theological confusion, estrangement from
the descendants of the founding fathers, disarray, and growing Roman persecution needed reassurance and
guidance.

Each of the four canonical gospels presents to us a different rendition of Jesus’ ministry, and they reflect
differing emphases and theology. These renditions of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth became
canonical some three hundred years after their authorship. The full canon first emerges in a list compiled
by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (ca. 367 ce). The earliest extant identification of the four canonical
gospels as authoritative, is by Irenaeus (c 180 ce).285 These texts were written at a time when anti-Christian
sentiment was rising throughout the empire. From Jesus’ death onward, for the next 300 years, Gentile

87
believers in Jesus were considered by the Romans to be a seditious and potentially rebellious sect. At the
time of the earliest gospel, the first Roman persecution may have already taken place (Nero 64 c. E.).

We can identify two main trajectories for the emergence of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus: missionary and
secessionist communities. Most communities seem to have emerged out of one of these pathways. Some
communities may have experienced a layered or mixed trajectory. This distinction will be useful in our
attempts to understand the evolution of belief in Jesus. The suggested distinction between missionary and
secessionist trajectories will be fruitful in our attempts to decipher the curious coexistence of intense
rhetoric against the character, traditions and beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus,286 in texts that seem to
reflect significant Jewish influence and/or knowledge of Jewish traditions.

Secessionist communities —during the decades following Jesus’s death, and in areas and towns where
there was a presence of the Jewish faction, Gentile individuals or groups may have joined synagogues or
communities of the descendants of the founding fathers. This would be a natural consequence of the sway
that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would have exerted over recent converts. Some
of these Gentiles may have integrated successfully with the host communities. Many, would have felt
alienated in the Jewish milieu of these Jewish sectarian communities - rejected Judaism, seceded, and
formed Gentile communities.

These Gentile believers, that seceded from communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus would display the
most strident and extreme ‘anti-Jewish’ bent. Their grievances, their anger, and their rancor would be
personal and vindictive. These communities or individuals would incorporate, appropriate, and emulate
elements of the identity and lore of the parent community (possible candidates: the community that
appropriated Q and incorporated it in Mark, the community that appropriated M and incorporated it in
Matthew, the Gentile layer of John, and (possibly) Barnabas and Hebrews). The short-lived fellowship
between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus that characterizes these communities may explain the
existence of Gentile leaders and intellectuals with exposure to, and some knowledge of, Judaism.
Secessionist communities would be the most likely agents for the incorporation-appropriation of the
identity, lore, beliefs, and traditions of the founding fathers into Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.287This
seems to have been a smaller, but militant and influential, evolutionary track that produced some of the
most resentful ‘anti-Jewish’ rhetoric.

Missionary communities288—communities founded by early Pauline and Gnostic evangelists. This

trajectory contributed the main thrust that propelled the growth of the Jesus movement. These
communities would have little or no interaction with the Jerusalem faction during the embryonic stages of
community formation. Members of missionary communities would have limited exposure to, or knowledge
of, Judaism. Tensions would have resulted from the encounter of these new converts with the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, or their Gentile sympathizers, in the public arena. It is plausible that
most members of these communities did not differentiate between followers of Jesus of Jewish origin and
mainstream Jews, and may have understood the Pauline legacy as one of confrontation with, and negation
of, Judaism. Compared to members of secessionist communities, their grievances and their vitriol toward
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers (and toward their beliefs and traditions) would be

88
more cerebral, less intense - less rancorous (candidates—Mark (to the exclusion of Q), Matthew (to the
exclusion of M), Luke/Acts, and Justin).

Another source of knowledge about Judaism among Gentile believers would be Jews that converted to
Paul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus. Reidar Hvalvik informs us that thirty percent of Paul’s immediate
circle may have been Jews.289 This could be another source of knowledge, among Gentiles, about Judaism.
However, we can only speculate on the impact of this source on the Pauline polemic against the Jewish
followers of Jesus. Given that we do not know the extent of their knowledge about Judaism, whether these
individuals had a moderating, exacerbating, or no influence on the Jewish-Gentile relationship in the Jesus
movement is unclear.

It seems that, for the most part, Jews and Gentiles did not enjoy a cordial fellowship within the Jesus
movement. For a while, some may have attempted full fellowship and may have coexisted in an
asymmetrical relationship; where Gentile believers would have felt marginalized and un-empowered.
Furthermore, it appears that most Gentiles found the Jewish milieu of the descendants of the founding
fathers alien and yearned for recognition and legitimacy as rightful followers of Jesus—despite their
rejection of of the founding generation. On the other hand, members of the Jewish faction may have
remained ambivalent and equivocal about the many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced following
the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles, resulting in self-segregation, estrangement, and mounting
tension.

As time passed the anti-establishment militant posturing, characteristic of secessionist communities,

merged with the milder strand originating in the Pauline missionary communities. If we add the pro-Torah
but anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of the Jewish founders, we have the rhetorical collage that we
encounter in the New Testament. These multiple originating trajectories yield the confusing, ambivalent,
and seemingly contradictory signals about Jews and Judaism that we encounter in the lore. The fusion and
the confusion of these rhetorical layers in the hearts and minds of later Pauline believers may have become
an ingrained tradition before the turn of the first century.

It seems that the distinction between three types of ‘Jews’ (mainstream Jews, the Jewish followers of Jesus,
and their Gentile sympathizers) started to fade quite early. The use of the terms ‘they/them’ and ‘Jews’ to
address and identify the various ‘Jewish’ antagonists is present already in the gospel of John and in
Barnabas, and may have been commonplace at the time,290 adding further confusion and ambivalence to
the mix.

89
 Mark

Introduction
Delegitimizing the disciples
‘Their’ beliefs and traditions
The responsibility for Jesus’s death
My Mark

Introduction+
Most modern scholars consider Mark to be the earliest canonical gospel.291 Some are opposed to the
majority view.292 Throughout the ages Matthew was believed to be the earliest gospel and was, therefore,
placed at the beginning of the New Testament. Theories about the positioning of the gospel of Mark in the
synoptic sequence and its socio-theological context abound: Mark is the first Gospel (the ‘Perrin school’),
Mark opposes the leadership (T. J. Weeden, W. Kelber), Mark tones down the original traditions (H.
Koester; M. Smith), Mark is in harmony with the original traditions (Brown).293 The hypothesis that the
Gospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Paul has gained momentum in the recent decades.294 Despite
noted resonances, the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) diverge widely in their interpretations of
Jesus’s ministry. Each gospel has a substantially different Jesus, and a distinct Christology.

Mark’s Jesus is a Jewish preacher, an unrecognized and misunderstood messiah who dies in agony and
despair (Mark 8:29–30). According to Mark, no one seems to understand Jesus. The people closest to him,
his family and his disciples and first followers, ‘do not understand.’295 The synoptic gospels were written at
a time when anti-Christian sentiment throughout the empire was rising. From Jesus’s death onward, for the
next three hundred years, Gentile believers in Jesus were considered by the Romans to be a seditious and
potentially rebellious sect. At the time of Mark’s authorship, the first Roman persecution may have already
taken place (Nero 64 ce).296

At the time of authorship, Pauline communities seem to have experienced dissonance, anxiety, and doubt
caused by the estrangement from the descendants of the Jewish founders. Standing on Mark, the synoptic
tradition seems to shadow the embryonic stages of a Gentile challenge to the authority and to the
legitimacy of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the exclusive guardians and
interpreters of his legacy.

90
Pauline communities needed reassurance and guidance. They needed a legitimating foundational discourse,
a dissonance-reducing narrative. Pauline leaders needed a narrative of the birth of belief in Jesus that would
address existential issues facing Gentile converts, and would reassure Pauline believers torn by the
estrangement from the Jewish founders. Such text should:

First, reassure believers that they were rightful believers in Jesus despite their rejection of the Jewish beliefs
and traditions that grounded Jesus’ ministry, and despite the demands for Torah observance from some,
maybe most, of the Jewish followers of Jesus. Second, cast the history of belief in Jesus in a way that would
support the proto-supersessionary297 impulses that were brewing-up among Paulines, and are echoed in
Mark’s narrative.

Mark’s casting of Jesus as trespassing traditional Jewish markers, the denigration of the disciples and their
casting as misunderstanding Jesus’ messiaship, ministry, and legacy - addressed both concerns.298 Additional
support for the impetus behind the Markan storyline is to be found in the circumstances following the
Jewish War of 70 CE: the decimation of the Judean communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus during the
Jewish War created a vacuum, a window of opportunity, that enabled and facilitated the transition from the
initial Pauline yearning for recognition as rightful believers in Jesus, to the emergence of more assertive
claims. Namely, the appropriation of the self-perception of the Jewish founders as the New Israel, the New
People of God – the embryonic stages of the supersessionary trajectory.

Furthermore, the fact that Hebrews and Barnabas, the standard bearers and articulators of supersession
theology, are roughly contemporaneous with Mark – may provide corroborative support for the existence
of a proto-supersessionary impetus among Pauline believers that may have impacted the authorship of the
first Gospel. However, whereas Hebrews’ and Barnabas’ aims and agendas are easier to decipher, Mark’s
underwrite the narrative and must be speculated about.

Indeed, Mark attempts to reassure the rank and file that they are rightful followers of Jesus despite their
rejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus and by those chosen by him to be the
custodians of his legacy. He does so by denigrating the disciples and by casting Jesus as trespassing
traditions associated with his disciples and first followers – signaling that their beliefs and traditions can be
rejected. When reading Mark in the narrow context of our attempt to decipher the anti-Jewish
phenomenon, and with the intent of identifying underlying and unstated agendas, we have grounds to
suspect that his narrative operates on three levels:

First, he casts Jesus as violating purity law, dietary law, the temple, and the Sabbath—signaling to his
community that they are rightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions of
those chosen by him to be the guardians of his legacy. Second, Mark uses the gospel platform to denigrate
the founding fathers, casting them as not understanding Jesus’s ministry and as abandoning him. He does

91
so in an attempt to justify to his congregation their estrangement from the descendants of Jesus’s disciples
and first followers. Third, Mark incorporates-appropriates and emulate elements of the identity and lore of
the Jewish followers of Jesus (best exemplified by the appropriation of the Q source and of the Hebrew
Scriptures)299 to legitimize his version of belief in Jesus. Fourth, he intensifies or invents a rumor about the
involvement of the high priests, the scribes and the elders (14:53) as instigators of Jesus’s death. By casting
Jesus’s crucifixion as caused by a Jewish conspiracy, Mark exonerates the Romans and casts followers of
Jesus as respectful of Roman authority. He may have done so, in an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate
Roman persecution, and to facilitate evangelizing among Roman audiences.

Delegitimizing the disciples+

Mark seems to stand on a tradition of opposition to authority that may have originated among the
founding fathers and resonates with Judean sectarian traditions. Mark’s adversaries are specific groups
(scribes, elders, chief priests) within Judaism, not ‘the Jews’ - pointing to a probable Jewish sectarian source
for his anti-establishment rhetoric, most probably the lore of the Jewish founders.

Throughout his gospel, Mark criticizes the twelve apostles, the special three, and Peter—the theological
ancestors of those that are seen by Mark as his adversaries. Throughout the ancient middle-east denigration
of the ancestors of one’s opponents was common. In line with this tradition, the ancestors of Mark’s
adversaries, Jesus’s closest associates and companions, ‘do not understand’ —implying that their
understanding of Jesus’s legacy is wrong (a stealth message that is of great interest to us). Hindsight derived
from our knowledge of what was to come helps us identify the belittling of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers as the first salvo in the confrontation between the Jewish faction and their Gentile sympathizers
on one side, and Pauline believers on the other.

Mark writes the earliest, and still tentative, Gentile challenge to the legitimacy of the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers as the exclusive guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy.300 The author of
Mark implies that the Jewish followers of Jesus did not understand Jesus’s messiahship (they rejected Paul’s
understanding of his ministry) and he denigrates them for that—a first sign of the upcoming debates about
who Jesus was, and about what belief in Jesus should be. Mark’s depictions of the disciples are complex
and ambivalent, almost of two minds. On the one hand, they were Jesus’s chosen companions and
successors. On the other, they are the target of a puzzling torrent of innuendo.

We are informed by Mark that the disciples ‘do not comprehend’ (e.g., 4:13; 6:52; 7:18; 8:14–21), ‘do not
understand’ (e.g., 6:37; 8:31–33; 9:38–41), are ‘hard of heart’ (e.g., 8:17; cf. 3:5; 10:5), blind and deaf (8:18;
cf. 4:12), that they abandoned him in his moment of dire need (14:50; 14:66–72). The delegitimizing of the
disciples via the ‘incomprehension’ motif, and via their alleged abandonment of Jesus during his arrest -
has been, recently, the subject of intense scrutiny.301

Contrary to the almost universal veneration of the disciples of the founder in other world religions, Mark
(and the synoptics that stand on his work) is unique in his denigration and belittling of the disciples, those
that Jesus chose as custodians and guardians of his legacy. The few that knew Jesus best, the ones that

92
shared his ethnicity, his religion, his journey, and his worldview, are the targets of Mark’s belittling and
ridicule.302 The denigration and vilification of the ‘founding fathers’ of the movement is a peculiar motif
that will reverberate throughout the canonical texts and throughout the tradition.
It would appear that a crisis of identity and of legitimacy facing new converts underwrites the Markan
narrative. At the time of authorship (ca. 60–80 ce) Paul’s mission to the Gentiles appears to have been
successful in attracting new Pagan sympathizers and recruits. However, shortly after conversion, these new
recruits must have realized that they had joined a beleaguered faction at odds with the ‘founding fathers’ of
the movement.

Yearning for recognition and for legitimacy as rightful believers in Jesus, some of these new converts
would be attracted to the Jewish faction. Most of these converts, however, seem to have remained loyal to
the Pauline perspective but needed a legitimating foundational discourse. Mark seems to address the
Gentile yearning for acknowledgement as rightful followers of Jesus - a theme that will take center stage in
later canonical and non-canonical texts.

The earliest of the gospels addresses the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles implicitly, not explicitly and
overtly. The juxtaposition of the disciples that deny and abandon Jesus at his moment of need with the
centurion that recognizes Jesus as the ‘son of god’ (15:39) may be a hint at the inclusion of Gentiles. The
Gentile author/compiler of the final text may have also added other hints on the inclusion of Gentiles in
god’s plan: the magi (2:1–12), the centurion at the cross (27:54), the nations (28:16–20), the great
commission (21:33–46; 24:14, 28:16–20) and possibly 15:21–28.303 Other than these debated hints of a
mission to the Gentiles, the earliest indications of a mission beyond Israel’s ethnic borders are in Luke 7:1–
10; 8:26–39; John 4:1–42; 10:16; 12:32; Acts 1:8 – pointing to the late first century for the first possible
attestations (Given my inclination for a second century date for Luke-Acts)

The Markan narrative is, on the surface and per traditional readings, about a conflict between Jesus and
Jews in positions of authority. However, skeptical readers can detect a crisis of identity and of legitimacy
among Gentile believers in Jesus, as seen from a Pauline perspective. Mark’s critique of purity law, dietary
law, the temple, and of Sabbath observance while acceptable commentaries, interpretations, and valid
discussion topics among Jews - became potentially malignant when harnessed by Gentiles to undermine
opponents that were Jews. Indeed, along the way we shall encounter cumulative evidence that attacks by
Gentiles on external-establishment Judaism should be considered a later, distinct, derivative, and secondary
phenomenon.

‘Their’ beliefs and traditions+

Mark seldom states unequivocal positions. Rather, the text seems to hint, imply, and subvert—a stance
characteristic of those opposing established and revered authority. Mark casts Jesus as trespassing certain
behavioral markers of Judaism with the apparent purpose of signaling to Gentile believers that their non-
observance of the Torah does not disqualify them from being rightful followers of Jesus, contrary to the
views of some among the Jewish faction. Although Mark stresses his agenda to the breaking point, we do
not find in the gospel an unequivocal statement on Jesus’s rejection of Torah observance.

93
Indeed, Mark avoids casting Jesus as severing the bond altogether; he stops short of casting him as
explicitly rejecting Torah observance. Jesus’s statement in 11:17 stands on a typological de-
contextualization of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Characteristic of Mark’s often ambivalent positioning
and contradictory messages, and despite traditional readings, Mark’s Jesus seems to affirm the law (7:1–13;
12:28–34) and the temple cult (1:40–45). On the other hand, the temple is also a focal point in Mark’s
depiction of Jesus’s final journey (11:15–17, 27; 12:35; 13:3; 14:48–49; 15:29; 15:38). His actions in 11:15–
16, seen in the context of the cursing of the fig tree (11:12–14), seem to imply a divine verdict against the
temple.

Mark’s anti-temple rhetoric resonates with the anti-temple rhetoric of Judean sectarians, and may be an
emulation of an anti-temple stand originating in the Jewish followers of Jesus. This seems to be another
variant in his attempt to justify the break with the beliefs and traditions of the founding generation. By
claiming god’s judgment on the temple, Mark signals that it is no longer the cultic center and dwelling of
god, undermining the claim of the Jewish followers of Jesus to being the New Israel, and god’s new
chosen. Whether this points to the temple’s destruction in 70 CE or reflects the effort to undermine
Mark’s opponents by challenging their continuing affiliation with the traditions associated with the temple,
is debatable.

Mark seems to be signaling to his Gentile audience that some beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers
are of human origin and may be debated (2:23–28; 3:4), a position that would not be seen by Jews of that
period as a rejection of the Torah. Jesus’s rejection of ‘the traditions of the elders’ and his declaration that
all foods were clean (7:1–13) would be seen by contemporaneous Jews as a radical critique, but would not
signal to them Jesus’s dismissal of the Torah. Mark seems to target adversaries who are Torah-observant
and who may have negated table fellowship to Gentiles. Mark’s logic seems to be that if Jesus is cast as
eating with ‘toll collectors and sinners’ (2:13–17), eating with unwashed hands (7:1–23), and eating unclean
foods (7:14–23),304 the demand of some among the descendants of the founding fathers that Gentile
believers should adhere to their traditions is delegitimized.

The evangelist’s message to believers experiencing the distress associated with the estrangement from the
descendants of the Jewish founders is: don’t pay attention to ‘their’ claims as to the inadequacy of our form
of belief in Jesus. Jesus’s actions prove that they are wrong. They misunderstand his ministry and his
legacy, they never understood.

The responsibility for Jesus’s death305+

We do not know, and we may never know, whether Mark invented or inherited his claim about the
involvement of some Judeans in Jesus’s death. This theme may have originated with him or may reflect an
intensification or de-contextualization of traditions originating in the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of the
descendants of the founding fathers. We may never know which elements are incorporations or
intensifications of pre-existing attitudes and which are original. It is plausible that following Jesus’s death, a
variety of accusations and rumors may have originated among his followers. Whether fact, rumor, or

94
grounded on a pre-existing Essene template,306 these accusations may have been part of the folklore of the
Jewish followers of Jesus – and may have been appropriated-incorporated by Mark. We do know, however,
that the ‘Jewish culpability theme’ was central only in the Pauline strands of belief in Jesus—pointing to a
possible factional origin.

Mark’s often contradictory and ambivalent positioning is noteworthy. Mark informs us that Jesus’s identity
as the messiah is both; the trigger for his death sentence (14:61–65; 15:26) and part of god’s will and plan
(8:31; 9:11–13; 14:21, 27). This position, however, does not restrain Mark from placing at the core of his
work a seemingly contradictory claim. Namely, that Jesus’s death was not a consequence of Jesus’s
messianic claims or of Roman charges of sedition, but the result of a conspiracy by wicked priests and
scribes who opposed him. Per Mark, the trial was a Jewish conspiracy to put Jesus to death (14:55).

Furthermore, Mark casts Pilate as a ‘reluctant’ crucifier.307 Pilate was ‘forced.’ He tried to save Jesus, to no
avail (15:9–10, 12–14). Pilate, a ruthless and notoriously cruel Roman prefect, is cast by Mark as indecisive
and subject to the influence of those ruled by him. The chief priests (11:18; 14:43, 53–65; 15:31–32) and
the scribes (1:22; 9:11–13; 11:18, 27; 12:35–40; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31) are, per Mark, the main culprits in
Jesus’s death.308 Mark’s casting of ‘the crowd’ as asking for Jesus’s crucifixion (15:12–14) implicates the
Jewish people too.

Thus, Mark may have had multiple agendas in mind. By casting Jesus’s crucifixion as caused by a Jewish
conspiracy, Mark may be attempting to signal to internal and external constituencies that Jesus’s followers
are not a threat to Roman society. By emphasizing Jewish culpability, Mark was successful in deflating the
Romans’ responsibility for Jesus’s death, an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate persecution. Mark may have
also aimed at addressing concerns among prospective converts, some of which would be reluctant to join a
sect at odds with the Roman authorities.

My Mark+
Mark may have been the first Gentile to use Jesus’s life as a platform to claim a ‘truer’ understanding of
Jesus’s ministry and legacy vis- à -vis the Jewish founding fathers. Articulated long before the end of the
mission to the Jews,309 the Markan ‘rejection’ of Jesus by ‘the Jews’ is an anachronism and one of the clues
to his unstated agendas. Thus, Mark’s casting of Jesus as rejected by the Jews may tell us more about the
author’s goals and about the Jesus movement at the end of the first century—than about Jesus’s ministry.
Mark’s peculiar texture has led scholars to suspect that his polemical bent originates in conflicts and
tensions that afflicted the movement decades after Jesus’s death. It seems that tensions between Gentile
and Jewish followers intensified as time passed, and that the polemical escalation reflects this trajectory.

Mark addresses a Gentile community of believers in Jesus and conveys the following message: we are true
and rightful followers of Jesus. Don’t let anyone cast any doubt on your legitimacy as believers in Jesus.
Even though ‘the Jews’ (i.e., the Jewish followers of Jesus) are the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers—they do not understand the true meaning of Jesus’s ministry. Nor did their ancestors; the
disciples. The disciples not only misunderstood Jesus’s true identity and message, they abandoned and

95
betrayed him at the moment of his greatest need. They have forfeited any prerogatives they may have had.
Whatever they say you should do, is no longer valid or necessary. We have the true and right understanding
of Jesus’s legacy, and we are his rightful followers.

The Jewish faction interprets Jesus’s life and legacy differently than us due to the fact that Jesus’s ministry
was deliberately hidden. The disciples did not realize the true nature of his mission, ‘they did not
understand.’ the people closest to him, his family, his disciples, his neighbors, and fellow Jews,
misunderstood who he was and what was the true meaning of his life and legacy. We are the true guardians
of his heritage.

What is it that the disciples, who shared Jesus’s ministry as well as his ethnicity, religion, and socio-cultural
background, did not understand? what is it that Mark, who did not know Jesus and whose background and
life experience were alien to his, did know that his disciples did not? unfortunately, Mark does not present
his ‘bonafides’; he does not disclose the source of his detailed knowledge of the events. It seems that what
the disciples ‘did not understand’ is not belief in Jesus, but Mark’s version of it.
Mark is our first clue that the gospel tradition shadows the early stages of a Gentile challenge to the
authority and to the legitimacy of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the sole
guardians and interpreters of his legacy. As we progress we will accumulate corroborating clues on this
effort, although (for the most part) during the canonical era it seems to have been put forward in implied
and veiled formats.

Whether intended to open the door to Gentiles as rightful followers of Jesus or aimed at eroding the
authority of the descendants of the founding fathers and furthering the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus,
Mark’s gospel paved the road for both. Under skeptical scrutiny, the Markan disciples that did not
understand Jesus’s ministry and abandoned him in his moment of need may emerge as a clever move to
explain to recent Gentile converts the conundrum posed by their rejection of the beliefs and traditions
espoused by Jesus and by those chosen by him to be the caretakers of his legacy.

As stated previously, and as it pertains to the evolution of the polemical strand, we can identify three
Markan legacies:

1. Jesus the unacknowledged messiah, a stranger among his family, his friends, and followers—an
alien among fellow Israelites.
2. The denigration and vilification of the disciples, of Torah observance, purity law, dietary law, the
temple, and of Sabbath observance.
3. The exoneration of the Romans and culpability of the high priests, the scribes and the elders.

The Markan repertoire will be expanded upon by later leaders and intellectuals in their quest to de-Judaize
belief in Jesus. Although Mark is the foundation of the synoptic edifice, he does not deploy the intense
anti-Judaic invective that we will encounter in later writers. Mark’s tone and demeanor are those of a
community leader that attempts to craft a foundational account of Jesus ministry that may confer
recognition and respectability on Gentiles experiencing the distress and anxiety caused by the falling-out

96
from the descendants of the founding fathers. The rhetorical aim of Mark is to shore-up Gentiles
undergoing this painful estrangement and to articulate a validation of it.

Mark’s writing craft is superb. Mark’s foundational saga of Jesus’s ministry signals to his Gentile audience
that their being non-Torah observant does not impede their being rightful followers of Jesus. By casting
Jesus as defying traditional identity markers of Judaism, Mark signals that demands on Gentiles, by some
among the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers (to observe the Torah and to embrace a
Jewish lifestyle) are contrary to Jesus’s own actions and deeds.

Mark is moderate when compared to Matthew, Luke, and John. The rhetorical demons are still under
control. In Mark the Gentiles are not yet Yahweh’s new favorites and the Israelites are not yet an apostate
people. Furthermore, in Mark, ‘the Jews’ occurs only in the non-Jewish designation ‘king of the Jews’ (15:2,
9, 12, 18, and 26) and in 7:3 where ‘all the Jews’ signals Mark’s unfamiliarity with Jewish rituals. None of
these instances are derogatory of Judaism.

It is not obvious whether Mark weighed alternative versions against specific goals. However, the intricacy
and the delicate balancing of the apparent intended messages suggest, to me, thoughtful intent. As we
move forward in time, the main Markan themes will recur and resurface in varying guises and with
increasing passion all through the emerging tradition.

To what extent Mark’s basic themes and story line, on which the gospels according to Matthew and Luke
elaborated, are historical renditions or are reflective of the confrontation between Jewish and non-Jewish
followers of Jesus will be at the core of our quest. As we move forward, we will concentrate our attention
on those elements, motifs, and themes that seem to point to the concerns and the agendas of the authors
of the canonical texts. We will use these texts to attempt to figure out what brought about the composition
of this unique literature.

97
98
 Matthew

Introduction
Authorship and setting
Matthew and Judaism
A Gentile editor/compiler
My Matthew

Introduction+
By the end of the first century the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers310 may have become a
minority in the Jesus movement and a problematic sect within Judaism. The emergence of Gentile forms
of belief in Jesus, did challenge the status of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the
exclusive interpreters of his legacy.311 Among the synoptics, Matthew is both; the most anti-Judaic and the
most knowledgeable about Jewish traditions.312 There is great urgency and an agonizing undertow in the
gospel according to Matthew. Its location, at the beginning of the canon, induces and ushers-in a potent
polemical tone throughout the lore.

Many of Matthew’s stories stand on Mark. Deviations from Mark may be indicative of setting and intent.
In Matthew, the assaults on the Judean authorities intensify. The chief priests and elders are in power
(16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20; 28:11–12). Scribes and Pharisees are associated with the synagogues
and tend to be opponents in disputes over the law (3:7; 5:20; 6:1–18; 15:1–20; 19:3; 21:33–46; 22:15; 23:13–
33).313

Matthew’s polemic is mostly aimed at the Judean establishment, especially the Pharisees, but he also draws
his opponents’ followers into his polemic (10:12–15, 20–24; 26:57; 27:24– 25). The central role that the
Pharisees play as the archenemies in Matthew contrasts sharply with the rather minor role they play in
Jewish literature and may be indicative that they were polemical proxies.314 Saldarini suggests that the level
of animosity against the Pharisees in Matthew suggests that the scribes and Pharisees represent
contemporaries with whom the author is in conflict.315 If the attacks on the Pharisees originate in the later
and gentile stratum of Matthew, an intriguing possibility would be that the Pharisees are substitutes that
allow the gentile author to indirectly attack the Jewish followers of Jesus (who, most probably, were
Pharisees).

99
Overall, the emphasis is on increased polemical sentiment and on variation from Mark.316 Matthew tends
to bundle all ‘figures of authority’ and intimates a monolithic Jewish opposition to Jesus. Matthew also
broadens the blame: ‘all the people’ take the responsibility for condemning Jesus to death. Compared to
Mark, there is increased and widened malevolence in Matthew’s depiction of the Jews: ‘you brood of
vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaks’ (12:34). Judas’s 30 pieces of silver, the field of blood, Pilate’s wife dream, and most importantly—
the first unequivocal articulations of Jewish collective responsibility (23–24:33–36 and 27:25–26) are also
part of Matthew’s intensification of the anti-Jewish rhetoric.317 In the parable of the weeds the Jews are
demonized: ‘the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil’ (Matt.
13:38–39). [+pg 103]

Authorship and setting

The canonical Matthew is unusual among the synoptic gospels in that it contains an odd mixture of themes
and emphases that do not fit later orthodox views. Stendhal, probing the similarity between the Matthew’s
and Qumran’s use of scripture, concluded that the gospel of Matthew was the product of a school.318
Echoing this conclusion ‘a consensus that the Matthew community went through several stages of
interaction with the Jewish communities close to it, and that these stages have left fossils in the strata of
tradition and redaction may be in place.’319

Matthew’s authorship enigma stems from the coexistence of Markan themes (culpability of the Jews,
exoneration of the Romans, and an enhanced passion narrative), non-Pauline themes (strict Torah
observance 5:17–20, 22:35–40, and 23:2–3), anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric (attacks on Judean figures
of authority 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47; 27:1, 3, 12, 20; 28:11–12),320 and socially subversive motifs (10:22,
10:35–37, 12:30).321 Given the overall trajectory of increasing polemical sentiment and the growing Gentile
ascendancy within the movement, Matthew’s defense of Torah observance is most intriguing.

Whereas, per most scholars, Gentiles authored Mark and Luke, Matthew defies classification.322 Tradition
(Irenaeus and Eusebius) asserts that the original text of Matthew was written in Hebrew. Others have
supported Aramaic as the original language of the earliest layers. Was Matthew authored within one
community that underwent change and transformation? or, did a later Gentile community incorporate
earlier traditions originating among the Jewish founders and containing pro-Torah observance elements? if
the canonical Matthew is an integral text authored by a community of Jewish followers of Jesus, how does
a text authored by Gentile believers (Mark) become authoritative to descendants of the Jewish founders, an
apparent reversal in the flow of theological legitimacy?323 Those that argue for a proto-Matthew324 text
authored by a community of Jewish followers of Jesus that was appropriated by a later and Gentile
community, provide a plausible explanation for this Matthean authorship enigma.

Ferdinand Christian Baur (1847) first proposed the existence of a proto-Matthew. Flusser, somewhat in the
wake of Bauer, has claimed a non-Greek original, a proto-Matthew (The Q and M materials)325 More
importantly, he claimed that the non-Greek sections of the text do not contain anti-Judaic elements and
that the polemical sections are all of later, and Greek, origin. In proto-Matthew, the new people of god are
the Jewish followers of Jesus. Torah observance, the law, and the prophets are not abolished, they are

100
embraced. Proto-Matthew is firmly anchored in Judaism. Jesus brings salvation and renewal to Israel.
Written at a time when the mission to the Jews was only a couple of decades old, proto-Matthew’s rhetoric
is reflective of a strident dispute among Jews about Jesus messiahship, a legitimate and recurring question
that has surfaced throughout Jewish history whenever claimants to messianic status emerge.

Matthew and Judaism326+

The biblical flood story, the Moses infancy account, the Jesus passion, and Matthew’s Jesus seem to have
been molded on pre-existent traditions (the Gilgamesh epic, the legend of Sargon of Akkad, Israelite
traditions,327 and the Moses story in the Pentateuch, respectively). Using the authoritative texts of
preceding cultures as templates to fashion new religious narratives is an ancient technique deployed to vest
contemporaneous protagonists with the legitimacy and the authority of ancient traditions and figures.
Thus, in the canonical Matthew Jesus is cast as mirroring Moses,328 the towering Jewish figure.

Matthew’s infancy narratives (Matt. 1:18–2:22) and Jesus’s earlier ministry emulate Moses’ life story. In
Matthew, Jesus is the clear and obvious fulfillment of Jewish eschatological329 and messianic expectations.
Jesus is no longer Mark’s unrecognized messiah. Proto-Matthew’s teachings about Jesus are firmly rooted
in Jewish traditions.330 In the New Testament, proto-Matthew seems to be among the earliest originators
of the predictive nature of the ‘old testament’ and of prophecy fulfilled (4:14; 8:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 26:54).
This exegetical system (Pesher)331 that originates in Qumran, and will be appropriated by Pauline authors in
their quest to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and will take center stage in Barnabas and in the epistle to the
Hebrews. In proto-Matthew, followers of Jesus are cast as perfect Jews, Jesus as the most Jewish of
preachers:

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to
abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt. 5:17)

Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so,
shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19)

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you
will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:20)

he answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
(Matt. 15:24)

Due to their being diametrically opposed to the de-Judaizing thrust of the synoptics, calls to Torah
observance in Matthew are our best indicators of the incorporation-appropriation of a Jewish proto-
Matthean text into the canonical version. Some scholars consider that pro-Torah observance segments in
Matthew may be true expressions of Jesus’s views, on the grounds that they go counter to the polemical
tendency otherwise apparent in the canonical gospels. It is plausible that these verses represented old and
revered traditions that could not be easily erased; a Jewish Proto-Matthew. It seems that wherever the
context seems to reflect a debate among Jews, or when Jesus is seen as the realization and fulfillment of

101
Jewish expectations and traditions—we could be facing traces of the lore of the Jewish founders of the
Jesus movement (Jesus the messiah, son of Abraham and david [1:1–17; 5:17–20; 21:33–46) or Jesus the
new Moses [l:18–2:23; 5:1–2; 8:1–9:34; 11:25–30; 17:2–9; 28:16–20].

Some scholars support the integrity of the canonical version.332 Per Saldarini, a supporter of an integral
text, Matthew’s discussions of Jewish law, customs, and practices fit within the acceptable range of debates
in first-century Judaism. Saldarini’s Matthew defends his positions with sophisticated arguments
comprehensible to a Jewish community, and he sees himself as an authoritative teacher of an existing
tradition, not as the spokesperson for a new religion.333 Those supportive of an integral and coherent
Matthew face the need to harmonize the text’s dissonant messages about the disciples, and about
Judaism.334 Saldarini’s integral text comes at the cost of assigning Jewish authorship to segments that
denigrate the disciples, the ancestors of Saldarini’s designated authors—creating a significant conundrum.
It also comes at the cost of assigning Jewish authorship to segments that contain condemnations of the
Jewish people. This positioning, I assume, would be unacceptable to any Jew, to the inclusion of the
descendants of the Jewish founders.

Although the canonical Matthew may feel anti-Jewish to a twenty-first-century literal reader, significant
portions seem to originate among the Jewish followers of Jesus (The Q and M materials) and may reflect
their sectarian posturing toward the Judean establishment. The seemingly contradictory juxtaposition of
pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish establishment elements may indicate a situation where the exaltation of Torah
observance is simultaneous with rejection of mainstream Judaism - a traditional Jewish sectarian posture.

The claim that the Jewish followers of Jesus were the New Israel,335 would reflect the sectarian anti-
establishment tradition of a Jewish proto-Matthean community. This early layer of Matthew would address
an audience of followers of Jesus of Jewish origin, and would be aimed at segregating the community from
establishment Judaism, while calling for strict Torah observance. Several enigmatic passages that may fit
this context:

Matthew 12:30—he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather
with me scatters.

Matthew 10:22—and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures
to the end will be saved.

Matthew 10:35—for I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Matthew 10:36—and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.

Matthew 10:37—he who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

102
Families and communities are being torn apart, are being undone. The way back is being shut. Members
are told to find solace in Jesus’s anticipation of their circumstances. The writer’s message to the addressees
seems to be: Jesus foretold your suffering; this is all part of the divine plan. You cannot go back. If
necessary, you must leave your community, your family, and your past.336 The estrangement reflected in
these verses may be reflective of either of two distinct schisms; the earlier separation between the Jewish
followers of Jesus and the Jewish mainstream, or a later failed fellowship between Jewish and Gentile
followers of Jesus. My inclination is for the earlier setting, although we cannot dismiss the later one.

Oversimplifying for the sake of clarity, we may say that when Matthew attacks specific Jewish groups or
individual Judean figures of authority, when Israel is deemed sinful and unrepentant, when Israel is
threatened with the loss of god’s favor—we have a good chance that we are looking at residues of a
militant anti-establishment Jewish Proto-Matthew, in a tradition edited-incorporated-appropriated-
subverted by later Gentile authors, editors, and compilers. The conflict between the proto-Matthean group
and other Jews suggests that the larger community sees this group as deviant.

Indeed, Proto-Matthew’s posturing against his opponents is typical of Jewish sectarians. His accusations of
hypocrisy against his opponents are biased attacks on their integrity. In matters of substance Proto-
Matthew claims the high moral ground. By stressing love, mercy, justice, and faith, the text implies that the
community’s opponents neglect or oppose these fundamental principles of biblical life and theology.
Needless to say, the text does not give an objective picture of Proto-Matthew’s opponents, but testifies to
the intensity of the struggle. The footprints of this proto-Matthean layer, if identified, presented, taught,
and read as an example of Judean anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric (without the imposition of later
superssesional and/or Pauline connotations or resonances), would be a Qumran-like sectarian text that
should not be part of our conversation about the polemical strand. However, its appropriation-
incorporation into the canonical text and the reading of the canonical Matthew as an integral Pauline-
orthodox text does place Proto-Matthew at the center of our concern. [+pg 106]

A Gentile editor/compiler
Scholars differ on the socio-theological background that brought about the creation of a canonical text in
which a Jewish proto-Matthew, Mark, and some instances of pro-Gentile redaction are identifiable.
Whereas proto-Matthew’s intense rhetoric against the Judean establishment is a Qumran-like call to all
Jews to recognize Jesus as the messiah of the Jewish tradition, the Gentile editor/compiler of the canonical
text created a complex document that reflects a layered trajectory.

As the author(s) of the canonical text combined the Markan text and the harsh proto-Matthean anti-
Jewish-establishment rhetoric of the founding fathers (proto-Matthew) he had a wide spectrum of possible
choices. His selection of ingredients and their proportions provide us some clues as to his mindset and
intentions. By incorporating the proto-Matthean diatribe against establishment-Judaism without clarifying
its original context, the author/compiler of the canonical text created a particular mix that, when read as an
integral text, conveys an incendiary anti-Jewish message.

103
Thus, Proto-Matthean lore that argued that the Jewish followers of Jesus were the new people of god
(21:43) was subverted by later Gentiles to claim their right to being the newer people of god and to
marginalize the descendants of the founding fathers. From the same quarry: the forfeiture of national
privilege (21:43), a staple Judean sectarian warning against mainstream Judaism, was subverted to claim the
unqualified loss of god’s favor by the Jewish people.

As the chastisements of Jewish sectarians against establishment-Judaism were appropriated-incorporated

by Gentiles intent on de-Judaizing belief in Jesus, they became tools in the delegitimizing of the Jewish
faction. Whether intended or accidental, the incorporation of the piercing anti-Jewish-establishment
rhetoric of proto-Matthew into the final text created a polemical climate that could not but weaken the
founding faction.

Eventually, Pauline believers in Jesus embraced Matthew as authoritative and read this text as ‘Christian,’
despite its dissonances, contradictions, and its call for strict Torah observance and ambiguity regarding the
stance of proto-Matthew toward the inclusion of Gentiles.337 Furthermore, the reading of the anti-Jewish-
establishment lore of the early Jewish followers of Jesus through the Pauline lens could not but bring about
the perception of a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ These phenomena will be at the center of
our journey and will preoccupy us throughout. Although crafted in the context of a Gentile challenge to
the establishment of the Jesus movement, the canonical text was to be read by later believers from within a
Pauline -orthodox mindset and was interpreted throughout the centuries as sanctioning and sanctifying
anti-Jewish attitudes. The Pauline orientation of most of the texts included in the New Testament, and
dogmatic reading, did camouflage and mitigate the non-Pauline outlook of proto-Matthew. Obviously, the
Gentile editor/compiler that incorporated-appropriated the proto-Matthean anti-Jewish-establishment
rhetoric into the canonical text did not, could not, anticipate the long-term implications of his actions.

My Matthew+
Early Gentile authors and compilers attempted to grapple with the fact that belief in Jesus was originally
Jewish and that, originally, Gentile forms of belief in Jesus represented an anti-establishment element
within the Jesus movement. The editor/compiler of the Matthean canonical text is part of the synoptic
sequence that argues, in a subtle and almost veiled manner, against the imposition of the beliefs and
traditions of the founding fathers on Gentile converts as a precondition to being considered rightful
followers of Jesus.

The pro-Torah segments in Matthew, and in the epistle of James, provide us unique access to the mindset
of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The survival of these pro-Torah and anti-Pauline
elements may indicate that proto-Matthew and proto-James had become authoritative before the Pauline
canon was formalized, and could not be rejected, nor fully re-edited to comply with the Pauline emerging
narrative.

104
These characteristics seem to corroborate that proto-Matthew migrated from a community of Jewish
followers of Jesus to a community of Gentile believers. A Gentile group that incorporated pre-existing
materials, to the inclusion of Mark, proto-Matthew, and the Q source, may have compiled the canonical
Matthew. This argument is based on the following:

1. If the community that produced the final version of Matthew would include (literal or theological)
descendants of the Jewish founders, the denigration and vilification of the disciples (their ancestors)
cannot be assumed to originate with them.338 This observation is reinforced by the consensus that,
in the ancient middle-east, denigration of the ancestors of adversaries and enemies is intentional and
reflects later conflicts and agendas.339
2. The final text expands Mark’s circle of those to be blamed for Jesus’s death to the Jewish people
(Matt 27). This accusation would be unacceptable to all Jews, follower of Jesus or not.340 Even
those followers of Jesus of Jewish origin that may have come to believe that the Roman appointed
traitors, collaborators, and minions paraded by the canonical gospels as ‘Jewish authorities’—may
have acquiesced or collaborated in Jesus’s death—would not have authored such an expansive
accusation.
3. Exoneration of the Romans is a related but separate component of the author’s positioning. The
idea that descendants of the founding fathers would participate in exonerating hated conquerors
and oppressors can only originate in a later, and Gentile, perspective.341
4. Since Mark is acknowledged by many scholars as earlier and of Gentile provenance, how would
elements of his text end up in the sacred text of a community of followers of Jesus of Jewish origin?
such migration (from a less authoritative, to a more authoritative faction) seems to violate the
expected flow of beliefs from the older and authoritative lore of the founding group, to the still-
evolving views of Gentile believers in Jesus.

If we posit that the canonical text was authored a Jew, he would have to be a staunch observant of the
Torah who would embrace the disparagement of his beliefs and traditions, the disparagement of his
biological and theological ancestors, the exoneration of the Romans, and the culpability of all Jews—an
unlikely combination.342 Furthermore, under what circumstances would the descendants of the founding
fathers, who saw themselves as the keepers and inheritors of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, incorporate
elements from Mark—a later, adversarial, and Gentile interpretation of Jesus’s legacy? The implausibility of
this counter-gravitational flow seems to support the existence of a Jewish proto-Matthew that was
incorporated by a later Gentile community into its lore.343 This conclusion is contrary to the majority view
that seems to advocate an integral text by a Jewish follower of Jesus.344

If the canonical Matthew is the product of the incorporation of a proto-Matthew by a later and Gentile
community of believers in Jesus, it may be the earliest instance of the appropriation of the heritage of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers into Gentile dominated traditions, a trend that will
intensify thereafter. A layered Matthew would explain the odd coexistence of Pauline-Markan hallmarks
with pro-Torah themes and motifs, including some of the most enigmatic thematic textures and some of
the more baffling verses of the New Testament.

105
The incorporation of the anti-Jewish-establishment invective of the Jewish founders may reflect an attempt
to carry forward a complex agenda that argues for the recognition of a de-Judaized form of belief in Jesus
as a valid dispensation. At the hands of the Gentile editor/complier and assisted by the Markan material,
the proto-Matthean claim that rejection of Jesus’s messiahship is rejection of god’s salvation and incurs
god’s judgment (originally an argument between the Jewish followers of Jesus and mainstream Jews)
morphs into hints that that rejection of the author’s form of belief in Jesus is tantamount to rejection of
god’s salvation and incurs god’s judgment—on all Jews, to the inclusion of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

In the final text we encounter, in embryonic form, the tools that will bring about the de-Judaizing of belief
in Jesus and the demotion of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers from their status as the
guardians of his legacy: The disciples that ‘did not understand’ (therefore the Jewish followers of Jesus
cannot understand Jesus’s legacy) the Jewish loss of god’s favor (therefore the founding faction cannot
claim to be the new people of god) and the ‘Jewish’ responsibility for Jesus’s death (an expansion of the
Markan culprits to include all Jews).

The destiny of the proto-Matthean Jewish followers of Jesus was tragic and ironic. The proto-Matthean
community found itself estranged from Judaism, and from Gentile believers. Two–three generations after
Jesus’ death, it found itself at the epicenter of a religious struggle that engulfed the Jesus movement for the
next two hundred years. At the end of this strife - their identity, and lore sequestered, and their Torah
vilified and ‘superseded,’ they will become marginal, isolated, and inconsequential. This outcome is
Machiavellian: some among the descendants of the Jewish founders, whose beliefs were the closest to
those of Jesus and his disciples, may have been lured away from Judaism by the Matthean promise to fulfill
the Torah. However, within a generation or two, Gentile followers of Paul will oppose, denigrate, and
eventually marginalize and demote, the Jewish followers of Jesus on the grounds that the beliefs and
tradition espoused by them and by Jesus were heretical.345

106
 Luke/Acts

Introduction
Marcion and Luke/Acts
Respectability and legitimacy
My Luke/Acts

Introduction+

In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have
been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the
beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,
having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of
which you have been informed. (Luke 1:1–4).

Why did the author of the gospel according to Luke consider that a new telling of the short history of
belief in Jesus was necessary? who’s telling needed correction? Mark’s? Matthew’s? both?

Whereas, during the later decades of the first century the Jesus movement was torn by tensions between
Gentiles converts and the descendants of the founding fathers, during the first decades of the second
century a multilateral socio-theological confrontation engulfed the Jesus movement.346 Most scholars have
concluded that the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were authored during the decades following the
destruction of the temple (70 CE). A minority347 supports authorship during the first decades of the
second century.348 Thus, if the later date is embraced, the protagonists impacting the author’s world would
include not only the Jewish faction, their Gentile sympathizers, and the Paulines - but Marcionites and
Gnostics too.

The status of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the guardians and interpreters of
Jesus’s legacy seems to have been a central, although unstated but implied, concern for Luke/Acts. Luke
continues the Markan framing of the events as ‘the rejection of Jesus by the Jews’ at a time when the
mission to the Jews was ongoing and followers of Jesus of Jewish origin were active among fellow Jews. At
the time, a definitive end of the mission to the Jews was still in the future, an outcome unknown to the
protagonists. Therefore, exploring this peculiar framing of the events may shed light on the author’s
agenda.

107
The framing of the events in the synoptic gospels as ‘the rejection of Jesus by the Jews’ became an
ingrained misperception among later believers due to the fact that the mission to the Jews did eventually
die out, and due to the effort to veil the Jewish grounding of the founding generation, and obscure the
drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus. Similar to the other synoptics, the Luke/Acts narrative puts forward, in
narrative form, the claim of Gentiles to the guardianship of Jesus’s legacy. The author of Luke/Acts
refined the Markan myth of origins: he hands over the mantle of leadership and of legitimacy (from the
descendants of the Jewish founders) to the Pauline faction - without calling attention to this shift, or to its
consequences.

The Roman maxims of order, hierarchy, continuity, antiquity, and legitimacy are catered to. The disciples
and Jesus’s followers, subtly denigrated by Mark and Matthew, enjoy ‘slightly better press.’349 Luke/Acts
give us non-Jewish believers in Jesus as the rightful heirs of Jesus’s ministry and legacy and a submissive
and Roman-friendly Jesus movement. Paul’s maverick and controversial ministry is legitimized by casting
Paul as submissive to James’s authority. The Luke/Acts narrative signals the pivot of ‘Christianity’ (i.e., the
Pauline mission) toward Rome. It faces forward, toward a Roman future.

Some scholars consider Luke to be the peak of the anti-Jewish motif in the synoptics. According to others,
the Jewish people fare a bit better than in other canonical texts. We find scholars at both ends of a range:
those impressed by Luke’s leniency350 and others that highlight his anti-Judaic stance.351 Some identify
segments in Luke/Acts that seem to reflect non-anti-Judaic attitudes toward the Pharisees and toward the
Jewish people. Given the Roman veneration for legitimacy, hierarchy, ancestry, and antiquity - the better
attitude toward Judaism, that some scholars detect in Luke/Acts, may be part of a self-serving
presentation: such improved Lukan positioning vis- à -vis Judaism could be a public relations effort of self-
promotion, not an articulation of a less anti-Judaic theological stance.

Strangely, and anticipating future developments, in Luke/Acts the rejection of the beliefs of the founding
fathers is embedded in a claim to harmony with Jewish traditions.352 However, Luke’s ‘continuity’ with
Judaism353 is no continuity at all. The descendants of the founders are offered the olive branch of
continuity with the requirement of self-negation. The improvement is therefore illusory; it disguises a
profound negation, deployed in a more refined manner. That said, in Luke/Acts the Pauline rejection of
Judaism (i.e., worldview of the descendants of the Jewish founders) does not come from the gut. Whereas
the author of the canonical Matthew fashioned an intense and resentful text, the Lukan author is seemingly
deliberate and cerebral—less visceral.354

Luke/Acts also broadens the scope of the polemical theme: ‘Jews’ had tried to kill Jesus prior to his
crucifixion (4:28–29). Scribes, elders, and Pharisees conspired against Jesus all along (6:7, 11, and 9).355 the
enemies of Jesus are satanic (10:18–19). Contrary to Mark and Matthew, the people who arrest Jesus are
Jewish (22:52–53). Pilate declares Jesus innocent three times, and three times ‘the Jews’ insist on his
execution. [+pg 113]

108
Marcion and Luke/Acts
Both, the Paulines and the Marcionites, attempted to erode and discredit the legitimacy of the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the exclusive custodians of Jesus’s legacy. However, whereas the
Paulines supported appropriation-supersession, Marcionites supported rejection-separation. Marcion
understood himself to be ‘the’ true interpreter of Paul’s legacy. However, contrary to the Pauline reject-
but-appropriate approach, Marcion advocated a complete and radical rejection of any affiliation with the
legacy of the founding faction,356 and strived for a thorough de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus. It seems that
Marcion embodied a formidable challenge to those who opposed his theology and practices. His
opponents made extraordinary efforts to combat his influence and attack his theology.

While most scholars support a first-century date of authorship for Luke/Acts, a minority view by Knox-
Tyson-Townsend357 advocates a second-century date and sees Luke/Acts as reflective of an effort to
address the Marcionite threat. John Knox’s analysis suggests that the Acts rendition of Paul was aimed at
saving the Pauline legacy from Marcion’s appeal.358 Per Knox, Paul’s letters are supportive of Marcion’s
theology and they do suggest, as Marcion claimed, that Paul understood himself to be the only apostle, and
was completely autonomous from the group in Jerusalem. Knox also suggests that the Luke/Acts author
may have reached the conclusion that unless provided with a proper commentary (Acts), Paul’s letters
would lead readers to Marcion’s camp.

Knox maintained that to accept Paul and at the same time repudiate Marcion ‘meant to affirm with all
possible vigor that the apostle to the Gentiles, far from being independent of the twelve, had
acknowledged their authority, had been gladly accredited by them, and had worked obediently and loyally
under their direction.’ Furthermore, since Paul’s letters gave only negligible support to this view, ‘some
book which, without reducing or disparaging Paul, subordinated him to the twelve was obviously
required.’359 that, per Knox, is the intent of the Luke/Acts narrative.
While supportive of Knox, Tyson wrestled with the fact that there are no explicit references to Marcion in
Luke/Acts. Townsend provided further support to the Knox-Tyson-Townsend view by pointing out that
only after 170 CE we find definite citations and allusions to Luke/ Acts, that there is no conclusive
confirmation that Luke/Acts was written in the first century, and that citations and allusions to the gospel
of Luke do not require us to date the canonical text before 120–125 CE.360 If the Knox-Tyson-Townsend
view is correct, the author(s) of Luke/Acts may have reacted to Marcion’s growing success by fashioning a
narrative that does not seem to address the Marcionites opposition overtly. Instead, it showcases the Lukan
outlook as if authoritative and unchallenged—two hundred years before the actual Pauline triumph.

Tyson’s observation that Luke/Acts avoids attacking Marcion openly is supportive of my suggestions on
the modus operandi of the Pauline faction in its struggle with the founding fathers and their descendants.
In both fronts (against Marcion and against the Jewish faction) the Paulines seem to have fashioned
strategies that attempted to circumvent and avoid direct textual confrontation with their adversaries. It
would appear that as the Marcionites threat emerged, the Pauline faction employed the strategy they had
being deploying against the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. In both conflicts, they seem

109
to have created narratives where proxies are used, conflict is insinuated but not explicitly stated, and
adversaries are dealt with by disregarding them. It is noteworthy that the Lukan account is showcased as
the only legitimate and authoritative version of Jesus’ ministry, despite the fact that the decline of the
Marcionites, the Gnostics, and of the mission to the Jews were centuries away and unknown to the
participants.

Somewhat surprisingly, my suspicions about the modus operandi of the Pauline faction in its confrontation
with the descendants of the founding fathers, and the Knox-Tyson-Townsend perspective on Luke-Acts,
turn out to be mutually supportive. Furthermore, Knox’s analysis of Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem
leadership is compatible with ‘my Paul’ (see pg. 60).

The historical value of Acts has been the focus of intensive debates. The battle lines mirror, to a large
degree, the religious affiliations and inclinations of the scholars.361 In 2013, the Acts Seminar, a decade-
long collaborative project by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute, published its conclusions. They
concluded that The Acts of the Apostles dates from the second century, that it’s author constructed its
story to fit ideological goals, and that Acts must be considered non-historical - unless proven otherwise in
specific situations.362

Thus, Luke/Acts may emerge as an effort to address three concerns that may have dominated the socio-
theological context of its authorship:

1. The influence of the Jewish faction—the continuing Gentile struggle against the sway of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, the original guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s
legacy.
2. Marcion’s influence—the continuing struggle against Marcion’s theology363 and ecclesiastical
organization.
3. Respectability and legitimacy—increasing Roman persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus, and
theological chaos and dissent, required a foundational narrative that would bestow respectability
and legitimacy on Pauline communities.

Even though Luke/Acts looks inward, the author also has an eye on the broader Roman stage. He edifies
and informs the faithful but also aims at a larger horizon. Luke/Acts is an effort by a highly-educated
individual to present to his constituency, and to a wider Roman audience, Paul’s ministry at its Roman best.
Luke/Acts (in the footsteps of Mark) seems to hope that if Roman involvement in Jesus’s death is
deflated364 and Jesus’s death can be cast as due to a Jewish scheme, Gentile believers in Jesus would no
longer be seen as members of a seditious sect and could be seen as suitable members of Roman society.
Romans had to be convinced that the persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus was unjustified.

110
Respectability and legitimacy+
The Lukan texts are both; a Pauline account of the origins of the Jesus movement and the introduction of
‘Christianity’ (i.e., the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’s legacy) to the Roman world. In Luke/Acts tensions
between the needs of internal and external constituencies yield texts that seem to be both: more lenient
toward Judaism (catering to the Roman expectation for respect of religion, antiquity, authority, and
hierarchy) and more polemical (reflecting the growing militancy of the non-Jewish majority against the
descendants of the Jewish founders).

The author’s craft is notable; he walks a difficult line between continuity and discontinuity, and between
reverence and rejection of authority. In the Lukan narrative, we can detect mismatched needs and
expectations. On the one hand, some among Luke’s constituency seem to yearn for recognition from the
Jerusalem leadership as rightful believers in Jesus, while on a collision course with them. Other elements in
his constituency seem to be critical of any affront to tradition, authority, or hierarchy and therefore of any
affront to the Jewish leadership. Whereas some believers expected continuity, discipline, and respect
toward the Jewish leadership of the movement, others anguished for the opposite message: the validity of
discontinuity and rejection. The resulting inconsistency has been observed and noted by scholars,365 but
not clarified or set in a socio-theological context.

Luke seems to be re-positioning the Jesus movement to meet the Roman ‘checklist.’ he may be addressing
the needs of conservative elements within his audience by complying with entry requirements to the
Roman religious marketplace. In the Roman mind novelty was suspect. Continuity, antiquity, and
legitimacy were the gateway, a precondition, to social acceptance.

Acts is concerned with the reputation of Paul.366 Submission to hierarchy being a Roman must, this
maverick individualist is cast as a compliant team player. The author fashioned a submissive and disciplined
Paul to fit the expectations of a Roman audience that venerated tradition and ancestry, valued discipline
and submission to authority. Thus, despite difficulties in the relationship between Paul and the pillars, the
Lukan Paul emerges as a ‘team player,’ a controversial visionary that is, nonetheless, embraced by the
leaders of the movement.
We do not know whether any Romans in positions of authority ever read the Lukan apologia. Luke’s
efforts to cast a Roman-friendly image fail, and persecution persists for another four–five generations.

My Luke/Acts+
The Jesus movement started off as a messianic, apocalyptic, and socially subversive movement of Jews.367
Claiming messianic status was an affront to Roman authority. The response to messianic claims of any sort
was execution. Luke does not hide the fact that the charges are sedition (19:38; 23:2, 11, and 38). To the
Romans authorities of the first century, Gentile believers were an unusual and mistrusted lot: non-Jews that
claimed to be the followers of a Jew crucified on accusations of sedition.

Luke/Acts attempts to strike a balance between the internal need to explain (and to justify) the
estrangement from the founding fathers, and the Roman veneration for antiquity, legitimacy, hierarchy, and
authority. The Pauline dilemma was how to explain to internal and external constituencies the

111
circumstances of Jesus’s death and the double discontinuity (from Judaism and from the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers). It would appear that the author of Luke/Acts crafted a new telling of
the short history of belief in Jesus to address a complex reality that included theological and factional strife
within the Jesus movement, and growing Roman persecution. Casting Paul as a law-abiding Jew368 and as a
submissive member of the hierarchy presided by James is a tactical masterstroke in a narrative that
navigates the tricky transition from a sect within Judaism to a non-Jewish religious movement.

Luke/Acts implies Pauline pre-eminence, an outcome that did come about only generations later. At the
time of authorship, the Lukan apologia was a claim - not a reality (the protracted struggle among
contending interpretations of belief in Jesus did not run its course until the fourth or fifth centuries).
Luke/Acts, experiencing a reality of theological conflict, chaos, and flux, anoints Paulines as the new
guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy, without addressing the growing tensions within the movement.
Luke is casting a shift that has not yet taken place, as if it already did.

We do not know the demographics of the Jesus movement at the turn of the first century, but Luke/Acts
are dominated by a Pauline agenda, at a time when the descendants of the Jewish founders were still
recognized by many as the true keepers and inheritors of Jesus’s legacy. Luke/Acts hints that Paulines are
the legitimate inheritors and custodians of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, at the time that their campaign
against the descendants of the founding fathers is bursting to the surface.
The author’s transfer of legitimacy from the descendants of the Jewish founders to the Paulines signals, to
Luke’s audience, that those embracing his interpretation of Paul’s legacy are the legitimate inheritors of
Jesus’s ministry. Luke/Acts provided a curtain of legitimacy behind which the proto-orthodox push for
compromise, unity, and ascendancy took place. These texts attempt a compromise between continuity and
discontinuity vis- à -vis the founding faction, while explaining and justifying the estrangement from them.

At a time when belief in Jesus is chaotic and diverse, the author of Luke/Acts states a premature claim to
Pauline ascendancy and pre-eminence that does not seem to correspond to the facts on the ground.
Luke/Acts leaves the reader ignorant of the reality confronting the Jesus movement at the time of
authorship: internal dissent among Gentile believers, growing estrangement from the founding fathers, and
increasing Roman persecution. It anticipates and hopes for a reality that did materialize only generations
later. Luke/Acts insinuates a consensual, and almost idyllic transfer of legitimacy, authority, and
guardianship from the descendants of the Jewish founders to the Gentile followers of Paul.369 Indeed, a
literal-traditional reading of the Lukan narrative does not make the reader aware of the existential crisis
between Jewish and Gentile factions, nor of the existence of conflicting and incompatible Gentile
interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy.

Furthermore, a critical reading exposes an apparent contradiction: while the Pauline faction is engaged in
an ‘all-out’ assault on Jesus’s disciples and first followers and while conducting a smear campaign against
their doctrinal children and grandchildren, Luke/Acts embraces the tribulations of the early Jewish
followers of Jesus with no apparent discomfort at the obvious dissonance and contradiction.

112
113
 John

Introduction
Who were the ‘ioudaioi’?
Evolution of the text
Estrangement
A strong undertow
Current dilemmas
My John
Conclusions

Introduction+
In John, we find the most explicit declarations on the divinity of Jesus in the canonical gospels; the closest
intimations of Jesus’s divinity (John has the ‘highest’ Christology). In John’s gospel, we encounter the
loftiest, most elaborate, and most inspirational exaltations of Jesus in the New Testament: ‘if Jesus is
painfully human for Mark, he is serenely transcendental for John.’370 When read literally, John’s gospel is
also the most anti-Jewish gospel.371 This tragic co-occurrence has amplified the impact of John’s polemical
bent:

8:42 Jesus said to them, ‘if god were your father, you would love me, for I proceeded
and came forth from god; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 why do
you do not understand what I say? it is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44
you are of your father the devil, and your
will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has
nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks
according to his own nature for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 but, because I tell
the truth, you do not believe me. 46 which of you convicts me of sin? if I tell the truth,
why do you not believe me? 47 he who is of god hears the words of god; the reason
why you do not hear them is that you are not of god.’ 48

Standing on Martyn,372 there is a consensus that identifies two dramas that were fused into one by the
author(s)/editor(s): Jesus’s conflict with the ‘Jewish authorities’ and the conflict of the Johannines with
differing believers in Jesus, decades later. In John, we find traces of several debates. Disputes among Jews
(about who Jesus was; whether messiah or not),373 disputes within the Jesus movement (was Jesus human,
divine or both), and disputes about what theological worldview should be adopted lay fused and

114
intertwined in the text. There exists somewhat of a consensus that John’s gospel was written in the last
decade of the first century, and that the gospel and the Johannine epistles were part of the literary corpus
of one community. Most date the epistles later, to a period of schism within the community.

Who were the ‘ioudaioi’? +

Whereas the lore of the Jewish followers of Jesus, on which the synoptics stand, castigates Judean figures
of authority (the scribes, the chief priests, and the Pharisees), the ‘ioudaioi’ are the utmost opponents in
John, and reign supreme as the arch-enemies of the author(s) of the canonical text. Who were the
‘ioudaioi’?

The Latin term iudaeos, later translated as ‘Jews,’ originates in the Greek ‘ioudaioi’ and may have originally
applied only to Judeans, but gradually became the identifier for all post-biblical Israelites. The term ioudaioi
emerges out of a Greek and Roman adaptation of the Hebrew name ‘Judah’ (Hebrew: ‫יהודה‬, Greek:
ιουδαία, ioudaía; Latin: iudaea).374 Although the term appears prior in Jeremiah 36 and Zechariah 8, the first
individual to be called a Jew (Hebrew: ‫ יֵהוּדֹ י‬Yehudi, Greek: Ἰουδαῖοι, transliteration: ioudaioi) in the
scriptures was Mordechai ‘there was a man, a Yehudi, in Shushing the capital, whose name was Mordechai’
(Esther 2:5). It seems that the term ioudaioi was also used for Gentiles who observed Jewish practices. In
John, we encounter the term ioudaioi seventy times, most often in negative connotation. This compares
with five times in Matthew, six times in Mark, and five times in Luke. In addition, we encounter often the
implied denigration of the ‘ioudaioi.’

The emergence of the ioudaioi as a derogatory identifier for the adversaries of the Johannines may have
originated in internal labeling and ‘name calling.’ Per Wilson, Dio Cassius, writing at the turn of the second
and third centuries, says: ‘this title ‘ioudaioi’ is also borne by other persons who, although they are of other
ethnicity, live by their laws.’375 This is also the meaning implied by Epictetus.376 J. D. Cohen informs us
that by the second half of the second century BCE, the term ioudaioi was used to identify Judeans, Jews,
and people who were not ethnic or geographic Judeans, but who had political or religious affinities with
them. It appears that at the time of John’s authorship the term would mean ‘Judeans and their Gentile
sympathizers.’377 De Jounge and De Ruyter378 have concluded that in John, the ioudaioi are Christians of
non-Johannine persuasion. De Jounge claims that John uses the term ioudaioi to aim at a group of
Christians whom he perceives as under strong influence of ‘Judaism.’

I agree, but we can go further. Using the terminology advocated here, the intended adversaries behind
John’s deployment of the term ioudaioi could be the Jewish faction or their Gentile sympathizers. Thus,
and anticipating the journey ahead, it seems that early Pauline writers may have characterized opponents
within the Jesus movement as ‘ioudaioi,’379 pointing at the internal context of John’s ire.
Normally, we should be able to extract the meaning of the term from the text. However, and
unfortunately, John’s usage of the term is utterly confusing and contradictory:

John 11:54; 19:12—his enemies

115
John 12:9—Jesus’s own people
John 12:9, 11—these people
John 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45—their friends
John 18:31; 19:7—they
John 18:36—my enemies
John 18:38—Jesus’s accusers
John 4:9 and probably 4:22—Jesus
John 4:29—salvation is from the Jews
John 8:31; 11:45; 12:11—believers in Jesus
John 8:39–44—children of the devil

Furthermore, per some scholars, up to half of the incidences of ioudaioi in John are best translated as ‘the
Jewish authorities.’ Urban c. Von Wahlde380 studied ten previous studies on the subject and found that they
agreed unanimously in identifying 31 instances of hostile use of ioudaioi in John (1:19; 2:18, 20; 5:10, 15,
16, 18; 6:41, 52; 7:1, 11, 13, 15; 8:22, 48, 52, 57; 9:18, 22a, 22b; 10:24, 31, 33; 13:33; 18:14, 31, 36; 19:7, 31,
38; 20:19). Von Wahlde also argues that, except for John 6:41 and 52, all the hostile uses of ioudaioi refer
to Judean authorities, not to the common people. However, in John 6:41, 52; 7:1; 8:22, 31; 10:19; 11:19, 31,
33, 36, 45, 54; 12:9,11; 18:20; and 19:20–21 the term seems to mean ‘the people.’ On the other hand:
salvation is from the ioudaioi (John 4:22). Nonetheless, some ioudaioi, apart from his disciples, believe in
Jesus (John 8:30–31; 11:45; 12:9–11; cf. 7:31, 40–43; 9:16; 10:19–21).

This puzzling, complex, and inconsistent deployment of the term in John, stands in stark contrast to its
uniform, tendentious, and monolithic later translation as ‘the jews’5 in the authoritative English versions.
The inconsistent and disharmonic deployment of the term is puzzling and consequential: ‘this produced
the multiple meaning of the name Jew that is so confusing, and which, when read synchronically, is so
utterly contradictory.’381

A large number of attempts to explain this phenomenon382 has not yielded a consensus. Recognition of the
multivalent character of the term ioudaioi in John is now a majority view that is, unfortunately, not
properly reflected in the popular editions of the New Testament - nor fully internalized by lay believers.
Moreover, the various interpretations of ioudaioi (the Jews, some Jews, some Judeans, the people, some
people, the descendants of the Jewish founders, differing Johannines, differing Gentiles) in John may also
indicate that confusion regarding the historical ministry of Jesus was common, and that the second or third
generations after Jesus’s death already had fogged and imprecise views of who the ioudaioi were. Thus, the
use of the multivalent ioudaioi in a dissonant and incoherent manner agglomerates and blurs adversaries
across generations (Jesus’s life is used to stage later conflicts). According to Culpepper, John makes ‘a
connection between ‘the Jews’ who condemned Jesus and Jews known to the Christian community at a
later time. By means of this transfer of hostility, effected by the two levels of meaning Martyn found in the
Gospel, the Gospel creates a dangerous potential for anti-Semitism.’383 across religious and ethnic groups

116
(Jews, Jewish followers of Jesus and their Gentile sympathizers), and across social classes (the Jewish
authorities, the people, the crowd).

With John, we seem to be at the threshold of a shift in the intensity of the anti-Jewish rhetoric. John seems
to reflect a transition from the implied and tentative belittling of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and
first followers that we encountered in Paul and in the synoptics, to the more self-assured and vitriolic tone
against the ioudaioi in the generations to come. This acceleration in the polemical trajectory reflects an
underlying socio-theological reality that is not unique to John:384 at the dawn of the second century several
Gentile interpretations of Jesus’s legacy were entering a process of adversarial self-definition. Nonetheless,
John’s vitriolic rampage against the ioudaioi stands unique in the context of the New Testament corpus:
John contains the most emotional and visceral attacks on opponents that are Jewish and may have
contributed more than any other text to the saturation of the hearts and minds of later believers with
polemical sentiment.385

Indeed, it seems that at the dawn of the second century a tidal wave of anti- ‘ioudaioi’ sentiment and
incitement swept through many Gentile communities - a phenomenon that needs deciphering. However,
the escalation in anti-Jewish rhetoric during the second and third centuries cannot be credited to the
influence of John due to the fact that the gospel of John was favored by Gnostics, and was not embraced
by the Pauline leadership until the fourth century.386 Therefore, the explanation for the transition (from the
second century forward) to ‘the Jews’ as the ultimate adversaries requires a different perspective, a turning
point of wider scope.

As we move forward, we will try to answer the following questions: what triggered (and what was the
purpose of) the widespread and multivalent use of ‘ioudaioi’? what caused the crescendo of anti-ioudaioi
sentiment and incitement that we will witness during the second and third centuries? what was the socio-
theological context that led to the later misinterpretation and mistranslation of the multivalent ioudaioi into
‘the Jews’? [+pg 126]

Evolution of the text

As we turn our attention to the evolution of the Johannine text, we may start by pointing out that there
seems to be a tentative consensus among scholars that the canonical text took shape through stages or
phases,387 although the details and characteristics of the trajectory are debated.388 Brown identified seven
groups of protagonists,389 a significant departure from the traditional juxtaposition of ‘Jews’ versus
‘Christians.’ Standing on Carroll,390 Brown’s scenario for the Johannine saga, one of the foundational
analyses on which the current consensus stands, may be summarized as follows:391
Phase one — the pre-gospel community: the original group were Jewish followers of Jesus. They included
disciples of John the Baptist, a group with anti-temple persuasions, and some Samaritan converts (4:21,
23–24). These pre-gospel believers were affiliated to a synagogue of ‘mainstream Jews.’ Per Brown, the
newcomers may have inspired some among the founding faction to embrace a Christology unacceptable to
Judaism. This group ‘had been expelled from the synagogues (9:22; 16:2) because of what they were
claiming about Jesus.’392

117
Phase two—the writing of the gospel: the gospel was written following the expulsion of the pre-gospel
believers from a host synagogue. At the time the gospel was written (ca. Ad 90) ‘the expulsion from the
synagogues is now past, but persecution (16:2–3) continues, and there are deep scars in the Johannine
psyche regarding the ‘Jews.’ the insistence on a ‘high’ Christology (made all the more intense by the
struggles with the ‘Jews’) affects the community’s relations with the other Christian groups...’393

Phase three: the writing of the epistles occurs in now alienated Johannine communities, presumably ca. Ad
100 (i John 2:19) ... The struggle is between two groups of Johannines who are interpreting the gospel in
opposite ways in matters of Christology, ethics, and eschatology... The secessionists are having the greater
numerical success (i John 4:5) and the author is trying to bolster his adherents against further inroads by
false teachers (2:27; ii John 10–11). The author feels that it is ‘the last hour’ (i John 2:18).

The antagonists of I John seceded and moved rapidly toward Docetism394 and Gnosticism. This explains
why the fourth gospel, which they continued to revere, is cited earlier and more frequently by heterodox
believers than by proto-orthodox ones. During the next decades, adherents of the author of I John may
have gradually merged with what Ignatius of Antioch calls ‘the Church Catholic,’ as exhibited by the
eventual acceptance of Johannine Christology among the Paulines. The use of the epistles as a guide to
interpret the gospel eventually won for John a place in the canon of the church.

A weak link in Brown’s model is the contention that descendants of the founding fathers worshiped in
mainstream synagogues. It seems to me that, like other Judean sectarians, Jesus’s followers would have
worshiped in their own synagogues, where Jesus would be exalted, not in ordinary synagogues where
Jesus’s messiahship was rejected. Whereas Brown, and Martyn see Jewish followers of Jesus seceding from
a community of mainstream Jews accompanied by a group of Gentiles that had joined that community, I
see in the gospel two layers and two secessions.
I position the Gentile Johannines as joining, and later seceding from, a community of Jewish followers of
Jesus:395

1. First secession-estrangement: establishment of communities of Jewish followers of Jesus following

Jesus’s death, or very soon thereafter.
2. First layer — the proto-Johnnines: a community of followers of Jesus that understands itself to be part
of Judaism. The polemic is vis- à -vis mainstream Judaism. Whether Jesus was the messiah—a dispute
among Jews is the subject of contention (12.34; 7.41–42, 52, 12–13, 27, 15, 40–43, 5–18; 9.16; 5.41–47;
10.24). At some point, Gentile believers join this community. In this new milieu, a dispute about what kind
of messiah Jesus was would have surfaced. This debate would have taken place between members of the
founding faction and Gentile believers. Whether Jesus was an exalted human, a divine being (10:24, 30;
6.38, 60–66, 26–27; 8.17–18, 30–59),396 or both, would be the essence of the controversy.
3. Second secession-estrangement: Gentile believers in Jesus would be alienated by the Jewish milieu of the
proto-Johannines and would oppose the imposition of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers on
Gentiles. They secede and create a community that gravitates toward a Pauline Christology. In this second
secession-estrangement, a proto-Johannine text may have transited from the Jewish milieu of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, to a non-Jewish setting.397
4. Second layer — the Johannine: a community of Gentile believers authors the gospel of John and
incorporates traditions and/or texts that originated in the founding community they had seceded, or had

118
been expelled, from. This Gentile community, having endured a process of separation-individuation, and in
need to reduce the emotional and theological dissonance caused by the estrangement from the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, engenders the high emotional pitch of the anti-ioudaioi vitriol in
John (9:22; 12:42; 16:2).

For the Jewish proto-Johannines, the adversaries are the high priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees - the
Judean establishment from which they would have self-segregated-seceded. For the Gentile Johannines the
main intended antagonists targeted by the deployment of the ioudaioi curtain seem to be the Jewish faction
and its Gentile sympathizers; the establishment from which they found themselves estranged. Thus, despite
the deployment of the multivalent term ioudaioi we can say: first, the negative use of the term is
characteristic of the later and Gentile layer and should not be ascribed to the proto-Johannine (and Jewish)
first layer.398 Second, the term is never used in connection to a person that is a Johannine believer. An
intriguing exception is 4:9 where it seems to apply to Jesus.399

Using the template suggested by Brown as a benchmark, the alternative scenario outlined earlier may be
expanded as follows:

Layer one — first secession-expulsion and the traditions of proto-John: discussions about whether Jesus
was the messiah or not, not about whether he was divine or not, triggered the split between the proto-
Johannine Jewish followers of Jesus and establishment Judaism (1:35–49). Both parties were Jewish and
viewed Jesus as a human. This layer contains the strident rhetoric (1:11, 35–51; 17:14–16)400 characteristic
of Jewish sectarian posturing against establishment Judaism and is similar to the hyperbole of other Jewish
sectarians (Qumran, Enoch, jubilees etc.). The first secession-expulsion-estrangement may have taken place
sometime circa 80 CE. Similar to most Jewish sectarians, the proto-Johannines would have formed
communities and synagogues of their own. A dualistic juxtaposition of diametrically opposed sides was
characteristic of turn-of-the-era Jewish sectarian rhetoric against the Jewish establishment. Befitting Jewish
anti-establishment posturing, the most extreme rhetoric in John is characteristically dualist. In John,
whoever does not accept the Johannine interpretation of Jesus’s legacy (8:12–59) is a child of the devil.

When the ioudaioi are cast as untrue to their own beliefs and traditions and do not keep the Torah (7:19),
when they are cast as not understanding their own scriptures (5:39–41; 10:31–38), when their leaders are
accused of serving the Roman occupiers (19:15) and are children of the devil (8:39–44; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11;
17:15; 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 7) we seem to be encountering the fossilized remains of the sectarian anti-
Jewish-establishment rhetoric of the Jewish followers of Jesus, or its subversion-appropriation by Gentile
believers. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers may also be behind the ioudaioi that are
supportive of Jesus (7:15; 10:24; 12:9) and those that believe in Jesus (8:31; 11:45; 12:11). Significantly,
whereas in proto-Matthew we find several calls to Torah observance, in proto-John we have none.

Layer two—second secession-expulsion and the writing of John: the fellowship, the co-existence, of
Gentiles and Jews in the Jesus movement seems to have been unsuccessful throughout. First, the Jewish
milieu of the founding fathers would have been alien to Gentile newcomers. Second, Gentiles would have

119
opposed the imposition of Jewish traditions on them. Third, the various and conflicting Gentile
interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy would be considered inadequate and lacking by most of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers—most of whom seem to have conditioned fellowship
on strict Torah observance.
This second stratum seems to originate in seceding Gentile believers and targets the Jewish leadership of
the movement, and their Gentile sympathizers. Here Gentile secessionists deploy against the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers a variant of the sectarian invective originally deployed by the
founding fathers against fellow Jews.

It is clear that at the time of the gospel’s writing, estrangement or secession-expulsion had already taken
place (9:22; 16:2). When we add the belittling of the disciples (6:60–66) and the attitude of the canonical
text toward the Jewish faction (8:30–59), we are on relatively strong ground to argue that the community
that gave us the final version of John was demographically Gentile. I concur401 that when claims to the
divinity of Jesus appear, the estrangement from a synagogue has apparently occurred. However, contrary to
most interpretations, I posit that the estrangement-expulsion that incenses the author(s)/editor(s) of the
second layer is from a synagogue of Jewish followers of Jesus, not from a synagogue of mainstream Jews.

Further indications of Gentile authorship of Layer two: to the editor/compiler of the final text, the
ioudaioi and their traditions and institutions are not ‘us’ or ‘ours’ but ‘they’ and ‘theirs’ reflecting his
Gentile perspective. His alienation from the Jewish context is visible also in ‘the Passover of the Jews’
(2:13; 11:55) and ‘a feast of the Jews’ (5:1; 6:4; 7:2). This stratum centers on arguments about whether Jesus
was divine or not (5:18; 10:33; 16:2).402 The debates about the divinity/humanity of Jesus are omnipresent
in the second layer of the gospel and in the epistles. The main conflict in the second Johannine layer is
Christological. In 5:18, 10:33, and 19:7, the ioudaioi (in this case the descendants of the Jewish founders)
seem to oppose equating Jesus to god.

The antagonists of the Gentile Johannines were ioudaioi that considered Jesus a human, and Docetic
Gentiles403 that believed that Jesus was only divine - his human form being an illusion. Although there is
not a clear articulation of a proto-Nicaean stand in the gospel, we may infer the Johannine position as
standing in the mid-range between their adversaries. They seem to have gravitated toward a proto-
orthodox understanding of Jesus’s ministry and legacy: Jesus as both, human and divine. The fourth
gospel’s assertion that rejection of its claims about Jesus is sin404 (8:21–24; 31–34; 9:39–41; 15:22–24; 16:7–
11; 19:10–11) attempts to capture both: the human messiah of the Jewish followers of Jesus (made flesh),
and the divine savior of the Docetists (Jesus is the logos, the word).
This positioning of the Johannines is an early precursor of the upcoming ‘via media’; the compromise
creed forged by the Paulines during the second and third centuries.

There is also a proto-supersessionary405 element in the second layer. The Johannine supersessionary
attitude toward the ioudaioi is implicit in the claim that the Johannine understanding of Jesus’s life and
legacy replaced and made obsolete the traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.
The Gentile Johannines of the second layer affirm that their understanding of Jesus’s ministry and legacy

120
replaces all that was before, i.e., the beliefs of the Jewish founders (1:9; 2:1, 19–22; 4:10–14, 23, 21; 5:39;
7:28–29; 8:16,19, 58; 15:1, 21; 16:3; 17:25; 19:19–22).

By internalizing the aberration ioudaioi= the Jews, and by fusing and confusing the two layers of the
Johannine saga, readers see ‘the Jews’ as hostile and violent toward Jesus and his followers (5:16, 18; 7:1;
8:31, 37–38, 44, 47, 9:22, 16:2–3, 18:36, 19:38, 20:19). This is a peculiar claim. If understood literally, end-
of-the-first-century Gentile believers in Jesus would be chastising ‘the Jews’ for persecuting the Jewish
followers of Jesus, while they were engaged in a derogatory campaign against them—that is, mounting an
assault on their authority and legitimacy. Is it possible that two–three generations after Jesus lifetime
Gentile believers had already forgotten that the original followers of Jesus where the great-grandfathers of
their adversaries in the present? Were internal and external Jews already fused and confused in the minds
and hearts of Gentile believers?

Layer three— the Johannine epistles tell us of a third secession. This time the debate was about the nature
and the details of Jesus’s divinity, an argument that would take place among Gentiles. This third polemic,
against Gentile believers that ‘went too far’ and understood Jesus to be non-human and wholly divine, is
hinted at (1:14, 18 and 19:34–35).406 The Johannine epistles reflect the Johannine struggle with differing
Gentile believers in Jesus. Neither the ioudaioi nor Israel are mentioned specifically in the Johannine
epistles.407

Contrary to the central role they play in the gospel, written one or two generations prior, the ioudaioi are
not the main adversaries in the epistles. A group of differing Gentiles seems to be the target of the wrath
of the author(s). I follow Brown’s analysis of the epistles as reflecting the other facet of the Johannine
struggle, this time against those that rejected Jesus’s humanity and claimed his unequivocal divinity. The
struggle of the Pauline faction against the refusal of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers
to embrace Jesus’s divinity and against the refusal of Docetists, and Gnostics of all kinds to embrace
Jesus’s humanity - anticipates the remainder of our journey. Even though 1 John 2:22–23; 3:10; 4:3; 5:10–
12; and 2 John 7 can be considered offensive to Jews, the polemic in the epistles seems to target differing
Gentiles, not ‘the Jews.’408

Estrangement
When the author(s)/editors(s) of the canonical John criticize or downplay the disciples, they seem to be
attempting to explain, and justify, to their audience the estrangement from the heritage of the Jewish
founders (not their estrangement from mainstream Judaism). By John’s time, the theological dissonance
and the emotional distress caused by the estrangement from the leaders of the movement were existential
matters for Gentile believers. The tensions between the parties seem to have become an open and resentful
confrontation. The implied denigration and criticism of the disciples that characterized the synoptics was
no longer sufficient. In John, the gentile challenge to the authority of the Jewish followers of Jesus,
reflected in the denigration and the delegitimizing of the disciples, intensifies.

For most scholars, the religious institution being attacked by the Johaninnes is Judaism.409 My contention is
that the Johaninnes had no fellowship or relationship with mainstream-establishment Judaism, nor was it

121
the theological adversary. Moreover, the ioudaioi against which Johannines are lashing-out are the ioudaioi
that infuriate them: The Jewish followers of Jesus. They seem to be the establishment in the community
from which the Gentile Johannines have seceded, and in the movement as a whole. They are the ones that
considered the Johannine’ beliefs inadequate and lacking. They were, and will remain thereafter, a threat
against which Gentile believers will struggle with - for the next two hundred years.

I suspect that the Johannines underwent a process of secession-estrangement vis-a-vis the descendants of
Jesus’s disciples and first followers (not from ‘Judaism’). Multiple clues, themes, and motifs (some already
embryonic in the synoptics) seem to corroborate this suspicion and anticipate much of our journey ahead:

1- John used the life-story of Jesus to explain and to justify to his community the estrangement
from the Jewish leadership of the movement, not from Judaism.
2- Synagogues of descendants of the Jewish faction, where Jesus would be exalted and venerated
(instead of rejected) would be a more obvious and emphatic place of worship for Gentile
Johannines prior to the secession-expulsion.
3- Being the establishment in the community from which the Johannines were expelled or seceded,
the descendants of the founding fathers would draw their dissenting fire.410
4- The denigration and the vilification of the disciples that did ‘not understand,’ that ‘abandoned’
and ‘denied’ Jesus, and ‘drew back and no longer went about with him’ is the creation of Gentile
believers stating a claim against the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, not
against Judaism.
5- Mainstream Jews would not be interested in the views of Gentiles on the divinity of a Jew
whose messianic claims they had rejected. Therefore, an argument between Gentiles advocating
the divinity of Jesus and ‘Jews’ opposing them may be deemed to have occurred only if these
Jews were the descendants of the founding fathers.
6- Some Gentiles were attracted to the Jewish faction because they were, at the time, the
acknowledged guardians of his legacy. They were influential despite their Judaism, not on
account of it.
7- There was no fellowship, and consequently no estrangement between Gentile Johannines and
‘mainstream Judaism.’
8- Fellowship between orthodox Jews and Gentile followers of Jesus is too complex and unlikely,
to be assumed. Assuming an attempted (but failed) fellowship with a community of Jewish
followers of Jesus seems to better fit the text and the circumstances.
9- The debate about Judaism (not a debate with Judaism) became a ‘wedge issue’ that was used to
sever the attraction that the Jewish founders had over some among the rank and file.
10- Whereas there was no theological incompatibility between followers of Jesus of Jewish origin
and fellow Jews, there was an unbridgeable incompatibility between them and Gentile believers
in Jesus—who rejected Judaism and gravitated toward the divinity of Jesus.
Further support for the contention that Jewish followers of Jesus were the targets of the later layer of
abuse dispensed against the ioudaioi in the gospel:

122
1. In most current scholarship the attacks on Peter (13:23–26; 18:15–16; 20:2–10; 21:7, 20–23).411 are
understood as targeting the Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Church, the Pauline term used to describe
the Apostolic Synagogue (the Jewish followers of Jesus), may have surfaced to bypass and obscure the
Jewish grounding of the founders of the Jesus movement.412
2. The upstaging of the Jewish followers of Jesus by the Johannines, one of the most explicit and direct
corroborations we have for the argument that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers were
an imminent threat underwriting the gospel:413
a) The community of the beloved disciple,’ rather than Jesus’s disciples and first followers were in
intimate contact with Jesus (13:23–26). It is the Johannine community that accompanied Jesus into
the dangers of the court of the high priest. The Jewish followers of Jesus enter the court with the
help of the Johannine community (18:15–16).
b) The Johannine community claimed that it had been present at the cross and was given privileges
and responsibilities upstaging Jesus’s disciples and first followers who, according to John and the
synoptics, denied Jesus and fled (19:26–27).
c) The Johannine community outruns the Jewish followers of Jesus in a theological race to the empty
tomb and they ‘believe.’ By implication, their Jewish opponents do not (20:2–10).
d) The Johannine community recognizes the risen Jesus standing on the shore of the lake, and tells the
Jewish followers of Jesus who Jesus is (21:7).
e) Finally, the risen Jesus wishes the Johannine community to remain where it is theologically, until he
returns (21:20–23).

This upstaging and subordination, of Jesus’s disciples and first followers by the Johannines, is not a
peculiar oddity; it is reflective of a Johannine challenge to the descendants of the Jewish founders. The
segments cited here are unique in the canon in that the estrangement between the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers and Gentile believers is rather explicit. Furthermore:

In John 6:41–71 we have an intriguing story where the Johannines seem to acknowledge the fact that their
claims about Jesus would be unacceptable to ‘the twelve.’ The Johannines were aware that their beliefs, as
reflected in 6:41–60, were unacceptable to the Jewish leadership, and they enlist Peter to defend their
position. The casting of ‘after this many of his (Jesus) disciples drew back and no longer went about with
him’ is designed to enhance the claim that the disciples ‘abandoned’ Jesus. By casting those that did not
agree with their theology as ‘not understanding,’ ‘denying’ or ‘abandoning’ Jesus, the Johannines (and
Gentiles elsewhere in the canon) successfully obscured their opposition to the legacy of those chosen by
Jesus to be his successors.

If we divest the adversarial casting of the text, we find that the debate at the core of the Gentile layer of the
gospel is about Jesus’s divinity. When the author of the canonical John states: ‘making himself equal with
god’ (5:18), and makes him god ‘you, being a man, make yourself god’ (10:33), he may be presenting to his
audience, in narrative form, the ‘higher’ Christology of the Johannines as against the ‘low’ Christology of
the Jerusalem faction.

123
The divinity of Jesus was an argument between the Johannines and the Jewish sectarians from which they
had seceded, or by whom they had been rejected—not with ‘establishment Judaism.’’ debates about
whether Jesus was closer to the divine savior of the Pagan and Zoroastrian heritage or to the human
messiah of the Jewish tradition—would have taken place between followers of Jesus of Jewish and Pagan
origin. ‘After chapter 4 the reader encounters a ‘high’ Christology and a sharp conflict with the ‘ioudaioi’
(i.e., followers of Jesus of Jewish origin) who, per their Jewish heritage, object vigorously to the deification
of the Johannine Jesus.’414

References to ‘people who believe but fear to confess’ (John 7:12–13; 9:22; 12:42; 16:2; 19:3) seem to
castigate Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus. From a Johannine perspective, they are
seen as hypocrites that know in their hearts that they are wrong about Jesus’s divinity, but remain attached
to the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders. This Johannine perspective attempts to negate that
some Gentiles were genuine sympathizers with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.

A strong undertow+
In the next chapters, we will encounter a steep escalation in polemical rhetoric. We may ask: why, and as a
consequence of what socio-theological context, did an anti-Jewish flood burst at the threshold of the
second century and became an polemical deluge? It seems that at the dawn of the second century a strong
undertow was sweeping many Gentile believers in an anti-Jewish direction. As we transit into the second
century, we will encounter this phenomenon throughout the literature of that period. We have already
noted that this peculiar shift is too sweeping, and too broad, to be assigned to John’s influence due to the
fact that John’s gospel was at first popular among Gnostics, and shunned by the Paulines.

Anticipating later conclusions, I will suggest that the end of the first century was the threshold into the
central and pivotal crisis of the second and third centuries: the eruption onto the surface of a multilateral
struggle about identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy that was brewing in the hearts and minds of believers
and followers of Jesus since the emergence of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. This
protracted and inconclusive conflict will dominate the second and third centuries, and will fade away
gradually during the fourth and fifth. In John, we encounter in embryonic form some of the protagonists
that will take part in the debates of the next three centuries: the descendants of the Jewish founders and
their Gentile sympathizers, and Pauline and non-Pauline Gentiles.

Rensberger and others have noted the sectarian origins of proto-John,415 but lacking an alternative socio-
theological narrative, the yield of these insights has not been fully harvested: ‘It has simply not seemed
apparent that the group conflicts and social patterns that were formative for the Johannine writings might
have theological meaning not only for the Johannine community itself but also for modern readers.’416
from my perspective,

Rensberger is headed in the right direction, but he does not harvest the full bounty of his insight due to the
Pauline narrative that dominates the field. Thus, when he states that ‘the fourth gospel represents a

124
heretical offensive against orthodoxy, i.e., the orthodoxy of the synagogue authorities.’417 I would rephrase:
although in both cases the targets are Jews, the first layer of the fourth gospel reflects anti-Jewish-
establishment sentiment among Jewish followers of Jesus. The second layer of the fourth gospel represents
a later sectarian offensive by Gentile Johannines against orthodoxy—this time the orthodoxy of the Jewish
founders of the movement, from which they have found themselves estranged.

De Jonge’s analysis of John seems to be remarkably close to the views advocated here. Namely, that John’s
polemic does not seem to reflect a dispute with traditional Jews. Rather, it seems to reflect a controversy
with followers of Jesus of Jewish origin or with their Gentile sympathizers, who maintain a different
Christological understanding from John’s own group.418

Current dilemmas+
Many attempts have been made to understand John’s anti-ioudaioi invective. However, most scholars have
not fully freed themselves from the Pauline narrative and the conflict between the Johannines and Judaism
remains the consensus background for the fourth gospel.419 The Roman context of the Gospel has also
come center stage.420 During the last decades, scholars have attempted a variety of strategies to deflate the
theological implications of the Johannine anti-Jewish rhetoric:421

Explicitly or implicitly, all the authors who discuss the alleged anti-Judaism of the
fourth gospel use certain reading strategies that allow them to safeguard the authority
of the sacred text despite the presence of ethically problematic
content.422

The critical theological issues, therefore, revolve around the question of whether
supersessionism, with its attendant rejection of Judaism, is essential to Christianity.423

The first results about the anti-Judaism [the gospel] contains were produced by a
comparison of his account of the passion with the accounts in the synoptic gospels.
The result was: (a) the gospel of John emphasizes the innocence of
Pilate more than any of the other New Testament gospels; (b) hand in hand with this it
incriminates the Jews most over their responsibility for the death of Jesus.424

Many scholars argue that the gospel’s negative comments about the ioudaioi are not a reflection of anti-
Judaism but rather an expression of a prolonged and violent controversy between the Johannine
community and ‘the Jews’ in the wake of the ‘expulsion from the synagogue.’425 J. L. Martyn argued that
the expulsion from the synagogue of those who confess Jesus to be the Christ is related to the insertion of
a curse against heretics into the twelfth benediction of the Amidah, a central daily prayer.426 The argument
was that the inclusion of this curse, known as Birkat Haminim,427 was intended to expose Jewish followers
of Jesus and to force a decision on their part – triggering secession. Reinhardt428 surveyed the proponents
of this view429 as well as the growing number that oppose the basic premises of this position (that is, the
connection between the Johannine expulsion-secession and the Birkat Haminim). The benediction seems
to be a later collective and generic repudiation of heretics that was expanded to include the Jewish

125
followers of Jesus. The benediction is not concerned with Gentile believers in Jesus. It was (apparently)
designed to dissuade Jewish followers of Jesus from leading Jewish religious services.

The conundrum that John forces upon scholars reverberates throughout the discourse:
‘It would be incredible for a twentieth-century Christian to share or justify the
Johannine contention that ‘the Jews’ are the children of the devil, an affirmation which
is placed on the lips of Jesus; but I cannot see how it helps contemporary Jewish-
Christian relationships to disguise the fact that such an attitude once existed.’430

The dilemma is showcased by the conclusions reached by the editors of Anti-Judaism and the fourth gospel:431

1. There are some dimensions in the way in which the fourth gospel treats Judaism and
the Jews that we consider to be expressions of anti-Judaism (against those who
propose escape routes). We find it impossible to relegate anti-Judaism to the marginal
aspects of the text and to deny that, in one way or another, it reaches to the core of the
Christian message.

We find it hard to escape the conclusion that the

anti-Judaism in the text of John is intrinsically oppressive, that is, we are convinced
that in these cases human sinfulness has in some way touched the core of biblical texts.
The expression intrinsically oppressive is not intended to mean that the scriptures
contain nothing but oppressive aspects. Rather, as we shall see, despite the all-
pervasiveness
of the consequences of human sin, we are convinced that the scriptures transcend their
own intrinsically oppressive aspects.

2. We count the anti-Judaism that we find in the scriptures among the intrinsically
oppressive dimensions and not among the revelatory dimensions, invested with divine
authority. They are therefore totally unacceptable from a Christian point of view
(against neo-Nazis).

3. Because of the all-pervasiveness of human sin, we do not find convincing any

solutions that try to eliminate the anti-Jewish statements from scripture by ascribing
them to later redactions (against literary-critical solutions). We reject attempts to create
a canon within the canon by ascribing revelatory authority only to the words of Jesus
or to the texts of the original writers (as eyewitnesses?) and none to the later redactors.

We thus affirm three convictions: (i) the fourth gospel contains anti-Jewish elements;
(ii) the anti-Jewish elements are unacceptable from a Christian point of view; and (iii)
there is no convincing way simply to neutralize or to remove the anti-Jewish
dimensions of these passages in order to save the healthy core of the message itself.

126
 Thus, despite the impressive progress in deconstructing the anti-Jewish strand in John,
the fundamental dilemma still stands. The hermeneutical challenge for Christian
interpreters is to find a way to interpret the gospel as a document of faith for
contemporary Christian communities that recognizes its indebtedness to Judaism and
responds to its anti-Jewish polemic.’432

My John+
It is widely acknowledged that the writers of the canonical gospels used the setting of Jesus’s ministry to
convey to their audiences’ socio-theological messages about their own circumstances and tribulations.433
Like the other canonical gospels, the setting in John is Jesus’s lifetime, but issues and arguments relevant
and contemporary to the author(s)/editor(s) and to their audiences permeate the text. Thus, not altogether
dissimilar from the situation in the synoptics, there is a growing consensus that the experiences of the
Johannine Jesus, and the expulsion from ‘the synagogue,’ reflect the tribulations of the Johannine
community, rather than those of the historical Jesus.

Despite its multivalent meaning, ‘The evangelist uses the category of ‘the Jews’ (ioudaioi) as a watershed
term to characterize followers and believers in Jesus who are anti-Johannine.’434 In John, the term ‘ioudaioi’
seems to target Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement - a rhetorical and metaphorical mirror against
which the (Gentile) Johannines defined themselves. Our overriding concern is to understand why, and due
to what circumstances, they did come to stand in front of a mirror, why was it a ‘Jewish’ mirror, and why
they saw the reflections that they did. The multivalent ioudaioi phantom may have allowed the Gentile
leadership to drive a wedge between followers of Jesus of Jewish origin and the rank and file of the Jesus
movement, without appearing irreverent toward the founding fathers.

Moreover, older traditions that originated among the founding faction were claimed and incorporated by
Gentiles that may have been affiliated with their synagogues at first, but at a later stage established
communities of their own. Such spin-offs would display the double-layered ‘anti-Jewish’ anger that we
encounter in John: rhetoric by Jewish sectarians against the Jewish establishment intertwined with rhetoric
by Gentiles against the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement. Furthermore, the later translation of
ioudaioi to ‘Jews,’ exacerbated the consequences of the deployment of the term in John by erasing the
multiple meanings of the original term. Whether intentional or unintended, this ‘bundling’ by the Gentile
literati and ideologues (of orthodox Jews, Jewish followers of Jesus, Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish
faction, Gentile sympathizers with orthodox Judaism, and differing Gentile believers)435 into the
multivalent ioudaioi, and its univalent translation in ‘the Jews’ eventually fostered a militant, intense, and
undifferentiated antagonism against all Jews.

In John, we witness a variant of a phenomenon we already encountered in Matthew: the migration of

Judean anti-Jewish-establishment hyperbole to the hearts and minds of Gentiles where, unrestrained by the
mitigating and restraining effect of kinship, it metastases and becomes virulent. The theologian Peter
Tomson reached similar conclusions when he stated that in John, an internal polemic against fellow-Jews is
transposed to an explicit non-Jewish framework and acquires a strong polemical effect.436

127
The suggested trajectory of the Johannine community and their literary corpus clarifies the odd coexistence
of pro-Jewish segments as ‘salvation is from the ioudaioi’ (4:22) that may have originated in the Jewish
proto-John, with the polemical intensity of the second layer. Beck, Tomson, and Townsend reached similar
conclusions on this subject. In their view, the gospel’s relatively pro-Jewish elements seem to belong to the
earlier stages of its development, while the more polemical aspects would have entered the text with later
editing,437 a conclusion not dissimilar from my observations.

However, contrary to James’s and Matthew’s call for Torah observance, the theology of the second layer of
John reflects a shift toward the divinity of Jesus, a development that would be anathema to the Jewish
followers of Jesus. This may be an indication that whereas the canonical Matthew may reflect yearnings for
continuity vis- à -vis the legacy of the Jewish founders, the Gentile Johannines seem to have rejected such
continuity—propelling them toward the threshold of appropriation and supersession.438

Our ability to recapture the original context, the intended audience, and the identity of the adversaries is
compromised by the fact that the two layers (proto-Johannine and Johannine) are now inexorably
intertwined in the canonical text. I suggest that the Johaninnes are Gentiles that seceded from a community
of Jewish followers of Jesus, laid claim to their lore, and made them into the targets of their ire. This
phenomenon will shadow not only our discussion of John, but of the next two centuries. In my view, the
wide consensus about the secession of the Johaninnes from ‘the synagogue’ is reflective of a wide
misconception of great consequence, obscures a complex trajectory, and distorts our understanding of the
first three centuries of the Jesus tradition.

The anti-Judaism of the fourth gospel has also been associated with processes of self-definition by some.
Religious self-definition is a socio-theological process underpinned by factional struggles for identity,
legitimacy, and ascendancy that are grounded in a specific experience. Therefore, as anticipated,
secessionist communities like proto-Matthew and proto-John, that may have experienced estrangement
from the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would be expected to fashion an intense,
militant, and double-layered text.

Before we take leave of John, we may want to recapitulate:

a. Wherever the adversaries are ‘Judean authorities’ (high priests, Pharisees, scribes etc.) the internal
setting may suggest that proto-Johannine Jewish followers of Jesus might be the protagonists.
b. Since the proto-Johaninnes were descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, denigration of
the disciples, of Judaism, and of Torah observance should not be said to originate with them –
unless corroborated.
c. The leaders and literati of the growing Gentile majority strived to create a wedge between the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and the rank and file, to whom Judaism was
alien.
d. As claims about the divinity of Jesus grow increasingly explicit and unequivocal, we are moving
farther away from the proto-Johannine Jewish followers of Jesus.

128
 e. The univalent interpretation and translation of the multivalent ioudaioi as ‘the Jews’ anticipated, and
later facilitated, the emergence of the mythical ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’
f. John was authored at a time when the Johannine position was a minority view. The fact that later
Pauline believers embraced John obscures that fact.

Throughout the centuries, believers have developed a deep bond with the gospel of John and have counted
on it to nurture their faith. Unfortunately, the entanglement of sublime and polemical motifs, and the anti-
Jewish message that emanates from literal readings of John is of great concern due to its impact on the
souls of believers.439 Throughout history John has been used to legitimate, nurture, enable, and facilitate
anti-Semitism. Beck, and others, have noted that because the members of the Johannine community
expressed their strong anti-Jewish feelings not in their own name but in words-of-Jesus and ministry-of-
Jesus vehicles, it is difficult for us as late-twentieth-century believers to make this distinction, especially
because the distinction has not been made during the past nineteen centuries.440

Given the content, it is no surprise that so many acts of violence and discrimination were inspired by the
perceived anti-Jewish message of John.441 With the probable exception of Matthew 27:24–25, no other text
has incited more polemical hatred and violence than this sublime, but disturbing, rendition of Jesus’s life
and death. The anti-Jewish motif in John epitomizes the dilemma of modern believers: should sacred lore
contain and legitimate denigration, vilification, and hatred of Jews and of Judaism - even if these attitudes
originate in misreading, mistranslation, misperception, and misinterpretation of the original intent and
context?

129
 Revelation

Introduction
The adversaries
Conclusions

Introduction+
From the reformation to modernity, the book of Revelation has captured the imagination and the
emotional allegiance of countless believers. Favored by enthusiasts, the text’s fascination with violence and
suffering has been viewed with suspicion by those concerned with the impact of fiery and extreme imagery
on believers. James and the book of Revelation are considered by many to be the most ‘Jewish-Christian’
texts in the New Testament. Revelation uses Gematria (Hebrew numerology), stands on Jewish apocalyptic
traditions, and the Greek in this document contains more Hebraisms than any other New Testament
writing442 - hinting that John and Revelation had been influenced by Judaism, whether directly or through
the agency of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those
who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what
you are about to suffer. behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison,
that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. be faithful unto
death, and I will give you the crown of life. (rev. 2:9–10)

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are
not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn
that I have loved you. (rev. 3:9)
[+pg 134]

The adversaries
‘Revelation is the New Testament example par excellence of anti-imperial resistance literature,’443 and its
main intended adversary is Rome. However, it’s characterization of ‘the Jews’ (mainstream Jews, the Jewish

130
followers of Jesus, and the Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction) – a secondary theme in the text,
requires our attention. The enigmatic accusations in Revelation 2:9–10 and 3:9 (above), part of two letters
to believers in Jesus in Smyrna and Philadelphia, have bewildered scholars for centuries. Traditional
scholarship has read Revelation 2:9–10 and 3:9 as targeting local Jews, instructing us that the community
reflected in the apocalypse of John struggled with ‘Jews’ ca. 80–100 CE. These verses target those ‘who say
that they are Jews and are not’ during the last decades of the first century. As it pertains to our survey, our
main question is whether these segments originated among early Jewish followers of Jesus (where audience
and adversaries are Jews), in an internal debate within the Jesus movement (where both parties are
followers of Jesus),444 or in Jewish-Christian inter-religious tensions.445

Thus, whether Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 represent a Jewish sectarian view of mainstream Judaism, a Gentile
view of Judaism or an internal struggle within the Jesus movement is the question before us. There are four
theoretical possibilities as to the identity of the intended adversaries:

1. Mainstream Jews (Jewish non-believers in Jesus).

2. Gentile sympathizers with Judaism (Gentile Judaizes)
3. Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus.
4. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.

Mainstream Jews - The view that the adversaries of the author of Revelation were Jewish non-believers in
Jesus is compatible with the current meta-narrative about the ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’
this view sees the Jewish Christian saga as resulting from tensions between the two faiths. The arguments
put forward by supporters of this traditional reading are: first, they are called a ‘synagogue of Satan’ (2:9–
10),446 a curious nomenclature for any other than Jews. Second, there seems to be an attempt to associate
the adversaries with persecution and imprisonment447 of Gentile believers, an accusation later voiced
against ‘the Jews.’

Gentile sympathizers with Judaism - per current scholarship, Paul provides evidence for the existence of
Gentile sympathizers with Judaism in the same geographical area, a few decades prior to Revelation’s
authorship.448 This evidence would be supportive of the identification of Revelation’s immediate
adversaries as Gentile Judaizes. Indeed, the author of Revelation seems to deploy the term ‘Jew’ in the
same way that the gospel of John and Epictetus do; to refer to Jewish ethnicity and to affinity to Judaism.
The opponents referred to in 2:9–10 and 3:9—identified as part of the ‘synagogue of Satan’ in Smyrna and
Philadelphia—are claiming to be Jewish but are not. Therefore, John’s vitriol may be aimed at Gentiles
who falsely claimed to be Jews and followed a Jewish lifestyle.449

It has also been suggested that some Gentile believers in Asia Minor were identifying themselves as Jews to
escape Roman harassment, given that the Jews had a unique and prestigious position in the Roman world

131
and were not required to sacrifice to the Roman gods. By claiming to be Jews, Gentile believers in Jesus
would avoid the fate that some were experiencing at the hands of the Romans. Therefore, if Gentile
sympathizers with Judaism are in view in Revelation, a further motive for Judaizing may be operative here:
fear of persecution by the Romans.450

Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus - those who (in the author’s eyes) falsely claimed to
be Jews could, of course, have been Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction, some of which may have
converted to Judaism.451 As noted in our discussion of the gospel of John, this argument is strengthened by
the observation that the leap from Gentile belief in Jesus to establishment Judaism452 is too great to be
assumed, especially when synagogues of descendants of the Jewish founders (where Jesus would be exalted
and venerated instead of rejected) would be a more obvious and more emphatic place of worship for
Gentile believers.
Therefore, contrary to the current consensus, Gentile believers would be attracted to the synagogues of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers because they were perceived by many to be the true
guardians of his legacy, not on account of Gentile attraction to Judaism. That Gentile sympathizers with
the Jewish faction are involved may be supported by Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians, at
approximately the same time of Revelation’s authorship.

Thus, if Revelation 2:9–10 and 3:9 aim at Gentile sympathizers with the descendants of the founding
fathers, these accusations would not reflect a struggle between Jews and Christians. Rather, they point to a
conflict among Gentile followers of Jesus, one side favoring a strong Jewish affiliation, the other calling for
rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. In this case, the main motivating factor
behind worship at the synagogue would be fellowship with the descendants of the founding fathers, not
attraction to Judaism. Attraction to Judaism would be a consequence, not the cause, of this behavior.

The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers - in Revelation the immediate targets seem to be
those whose attendance of Jewish synagogues is suspect, not those who would normally worship there.
However, Revelation’s author may be targeting the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers
among his congregants. A neo-traditionalist reading of Revelation may be plausible if we assume that the
anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric that characterized the posturing of Jewish sectarians toward the Jewish
mainstream could be operative here. If we assume that an earlier version of Revelation originated in a
community of Jewish followers of Jesus, 2:9–10 and 3:9 may be read as ‘Qumran-like’ classical Jewish
sectarian posturing toward mainstream Jews, who may be seen by the pro-Johannine author as unworthy
and false Jews.453

Conclusions+
Although ‘… no critical interpreter of Revelation … doubts that it was intended as an all-out attack on
imperial Rome,’454 Revelation is cryptic and enigmatic and does not yield the identity of its secondary
adversaries. My inclination for setting Revelation’s authorship within the Jesus movement stems from the
fact that no intrinsic Jewish issues (Torah observance, dietary law, Sabbath observance, the covenant, etc.)

132
are addressed by the text. Revelation not only rallies against ‘those that say they are Jews and are not,’ it
also rallies against believers in Jesus with Pagan inclinations and affiliations in the letter to believers in
Pergamum (rev. 2:14) and in the letter to believers in Thyatira (rev. 2:20). Thus, as it pertains to its Jewish-
Christian facet, the final text of Revelation seems concerned with both; believers attracted to the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and those with Pagan inclinations and affiliations—
strengthening the internal setting option.

Revelation showcases a conflict between the author/editor of the canonical text and followers of Jesus
with varying degrees of Jewish and Pagan affinities, affiliations, and inclinations—pointing to a debate
within the Jesus movement. Therefore, the debate would not be with Paganism or Judaism. Rather, the
debate seems to be about Paganism and Judaism. It seems to me that we can detect an external enemy (the
Romans)455 and internal foes (the descendants if the Jewish founders and differing Gentiles). I am inclined
to think that at this early stage, and for most of the texts presented in this section, the underlying and
defining socio-theological process is a struggle about identity, authority, and legitimacy between the
Jerusalem faction and the Gentile forms of belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic
missions to the Gentiles.

Revelation may reflect a setting not dissimilar to Matthew and John, where a tradition of anti-Jewish-
establishment rhetoric that originated with the founding faction may have been appropriated-subverted
and turned against them, as the establishment group within the Jesus movement. The text reflects a period
of significant flux and lack of theological consolidation. As it pertains to our goal of tracking the evolution
of Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, whether the religious opponents are ‘Jews,’ Jewish
believers in Jesus, or Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - the historical context does not favor a
conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’

Similar to the situation we encountered in John, Revelation seems to reflect the emotional, theological, and
social consequences of the estrangement of Gentiles from the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers. I suggest a de-externalization of the conflict and its re-placement within the Jesus movement.
Revelation contributes to our quest to decipher Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement by further
corroborating the hold that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers had over new converts -
not the attraction that mainstream Judaism exerted over them.

133
 Crisis in the Jesus movement - Summary+

In this section we did attempt to engage some of the questions that emerge out of the early years of
Jewish-Christian relations: why some recent converts (from Paganism to Gentile forms of belief in Jesus)
yearned for the legitimacy inherent in the Hebrew scriptures? why and how they did emulate-appropriate
the anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of Jewish sectarians? why and how did anti-Judaism emerge as a
cornerstone of Pauline belief in Jesus? why did Gentile believers in Jesus embrace the fate of the Jewish
followers of Jesus as their own, while engaged in a campaign to erode their status as the custodians of
Jesus’ legacy?

Furthermore, why does the anti-Judaic ire increase as the distance (in time, geography and cultural
background) between the author and the events grow? why is it that as we transit from Mark to later
authors, the claims about the responsibility regarding Jesus’ death widen and ultimately include all ‘the
Jewish people’? why does the canonical anti-Judaic bent pale in comparison to what is to come in the
second century? if the Jewish responsibility for Jesus death’ was a known fact - why this crescendo? why
the intensification in the defamation of ‘Jews’ and of ‘Judaism’ as we travel further away from Jesus’
lifetime?

Throughout the trajectory from Paul forward, ‘anti-Jewish’ sentiment in the texts is symptomatic of an
underlying crisis; it is a barometer by which we can gauge the intensity of the emotions associated with the
estrangement between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. At the dawn of the second century
tensions in the Jesus movement between the ‘founding fathers’ and most Gentile believers had been
brewing for decades, did reach a boiling point, and did erupt in a burst of unrestrained anti-Jewish
sentiment.

I have come to suspect that there might be a symbiotic relationship between several phenomena that
dominate the later decades of the first century (the Jewish war, the destruction of the temple, the
decimation of the communities of the Jewish faction in Judea during that war, and the gradual transition
from the initial tensions between Jews and non-Jews within the Jesus movement - to a more overt and
intense struggle). These events seem to be correlated. It seems to me, that the vacuum of leadership, and of
authority, created by the decimation (during the Jewish War) of the communities of the Jewish followers of
Jesus may have opened a window of opportunity for the non-Jewish majority. As the strongholds of the
Jewish faction faded away, and the center of gravity of the Jesus movement gradually shifted from Torah-
observant Jewish followers of Jesus to Gentile believers in Jesus, several Gentile strands with competing
proto-theologies, gospels, and embryonic organizational structures, gained ground – and put forward
increasingly assertive claims.

134
Gentile believers, facing a crisis of identity and legitimacy vis-à-vis the Jewish faction, needed a legitimizing
narrative that would acknowledge them as rightful believers in Jesus. The authorship of Gentile
interpretations of Jesus’ ministry and legacy seems to address this yearning and seem to parallel the
eruption onto the surface of the tensions that had been brewing up between the Jewish faction and the
Gentile followers of Paul since the 50s of the first century. As time passes, attitudes become increasingly
strident and differentiated. Trends and themes that were tentative in the first century become explicit and
dominant as the confrontation among the feuding interpretations of belief in Jesus unfolds. Furthermore, it
is noteworthy that, due to the Pauline control over final editing and canonization, the authoritative texts do
not offer us a neutral and balanced presentation of the issues and arguments. Rather, for the most part,
they reflect a Pauline perspective on the events.

Furthermore, it seems that Gentiles who were attracted to the descendants of the founders provoked
strong polemical reactions from ecclesiastical leaders who, through their criticism of Jews and Jewish
customs, sought to dissuade members of their congregations from such behavior.456 It seems that Pauline
leaders concluded that if the addressees are to be motivated to remain faithful to their interpretation of
Jesus’s legacy, they must be persuaded that their views are true and superior vis- à -vis those of the
descendants of the founding fathers, which stood on Judaism. As texts containing the rhetoric and the
polemic accompanying these conflicts became increasingly authoritative, anti-Jewish attitudes were
exacerbated, legitimized, and sanctified.

The debate, as reflected in the Pauline textual tradition that has survived, is framed around the ‘wedge’
issues that brought about the victory of the Pauline faction. The ambivalence, if not outright rejection, that
most Gentile believers felt toward the traditions and customs of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Torah
observance, the covenant, the law, circumcision and dietary customs) emerged as the centerpiece of the
Pauline drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and to demote the descendants of the founding fathers of the
Jesus movement. The intense focus on these idiosyncrasies seems to indicate that they were considered (by
the Pauline leadership) the weaknesses, the ‘soft belly,’ of the Jewish faction. It is not surprising, therefore,
that the challenge to the authority and to the legitimacy of the descendants of the founding fathers seems
to have morphed into a visceral attack on these beliefs and traditions.

This strategy was not, as far as we know, articulated explicitly. Rather, facing opponents whose legitimacy
as the authoritative guardians and custodians of Jesus’ legacy could not be challenged, the Pauline leaders
and literati gravitated toward the deployment of those wedge issues that seemed most promising and
effective in severing the attraction that their adversaries exerted over the rank and file. This attack by proxy
became an ingrained tradition and was eventually successful.

Furthermore, we do know that sometime during the second half of the first century some Gentile believers
in Jesus started to think, perceive, and express themselves as Jewish anti-establishment sectarians. Around
this time, Pauline believers began emulating-appropriating the anti-establishment rhetoric of Judean
sectarians, Qumran’s Pesher exegesis, and a number of messianic and eschatological references in the

135
Hebrew Scriptures.457 How this migration of lore and self-perception did take place is one of the open
questions that accompany the emergence of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.

Typology, the Pesher method of exegesis pioneered by Qumran used forward looking verses in the
Hebrew Scriptures to validate Qumran’s narrative, ideology, and theology. From Qumran forward, this
method of harnessing the Hebrew Scriptures to justify sectarian, messianic, and eschatological claims was
available to sectarian and apocalyptic Jews - who used it to delegitimize their Jewish adversaries, and to
claim being the New Israel and the new People of God.

We have noted that it is extremely unlikely that early Pauline believers in Jesus, mostly recent converts
from Paganism, developed on their own, a typological interpretation of a religious tradition alien to them.
Therefore, we must assume that the Pesher method and the harvesting of messianic and eschatological
references in the Hebrew Scriptures did gravitate to the Pauline repertoire through the agency of the
Jewish followers of Jesus, or through other Jewish sectarians, possibly Qumran. Indeed, like other Judean
sectarians, typology may have been used by the Jewish followers of Jesus to support their claim to Jesus’
messianic status, to cement their claim to being the New Israel, and to chastise their Jewish adversaries.

It seems plausible therefore, that as Pauline believers found themselves estranged from, and in conflict
with, the Jewish followers of Jesus (the authoritative guardians of Jesus’ legacy) they begun to copy-
incorporate-appropriate their posturing toward the Jewish mainstream, and their use of typology – and
turned them against them. Thus, they used typology to ground the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus on the
authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and they emulated the posturing of Judean sectarians toward the
Jewish mainstream in their anti-establishment drive within the Jesus movement. This suggested trajectory
became central to Pauline identity, and gradually gave birth to supersession theology (the subject of the
next chapter).

Furthermore, we seem to stand on solid ground if we assume that the appropriation-incorporation of texts
in the Hebrew Bible that say that YHWH will come in judgment and salvation (e.g., Isa. 40:10 in Rev.
22:12; Isa. 59:20-21 in Rom. 11:26-27; Isa. 66:15-16 in 2 Thess. 1:7-8, 12; Zech. l4:5b in 1 Tess. 3:13; 2
Thess. 1:7; 4:14; cf. 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-1 5)458 may have originated among the Jewish followers of
Jesus. A similar phenomenon seems to have occurred with other messianic and eschatological references in
the Hebrew scriptures: the main Pesher texts in Qumran are of the prophetic and messianic segments in
Habakkuk, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, and the book of Psalms, which are also popular typological texts
in the New Testament.

Facing an uphill, vitriolic, and rancorous struggle for legitimacy against Jewish opponents within the Jesus
movement, and standing on a still-evolving theology and a chaotic constituency - Pauline leaders and
intellectuals seem to have gravitated toward a strategy built on the belittling of the disciples and on the

136
denigration of their beliefs and traditions. They also opted for the subversion and the appropriation of
elements, themes, and motifs quarried from their adversaries’ traditions and texts. Pauline leaders and
intellectuals crafted their narratives from within this context of estrangement and vitriol vis-à-vis the Jewish
followers of Jesus, a reality that shaped and deeply influenced their accounts of the birth of belief in Jesus.

The polemical lore of the Jewish founders of the Jesus movement turned out to be a trove of anti-
establishment polemical arrows that Gentile believers could use to denigrate the Jewish establishment of
the movement. In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and other
Judean sectarians, Pauline leaders found a ‘ready to deploy’ arsenal that could be used to demote the Jewish
establishment of the Jesus movement. By interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish traditions of
prophetic exhortation and self-criticism out of their historical context, and by appropriating the founders’
identity (The New Israel, The People of God) and their anti-Jewish-establishment lore - Pauline leaders
and intellectuals eventually crafted a strategy that was, in the long run, successful in de-Judaizing belief in
Jesus.

This rhetorical arsenal, would have been deployed by the Jewish founders against mainstream Judaism, and
migrated to the texts, lips, and souls of Pauline believers. This migration would have occurred as Paulines
escalated their posturing vis-à-vis the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement, and moved from the initial
demand to be acknowledged as rightful believers in Jesus, to the destitution and substitution (the
supersession-replacement) of the Jewish founders as the keepers of Jesus’ legacy. However, contrary to
Judean sectarians who used this rhetoric to reform Judaism, Paulines wanted to eradicate Judaism from the
Jesus movement. This more militant outlook, inclined them to de-contextualize, expand, and intensify the
appropriated polemic – propelling them towards extreme supersessionary claims. As Pauline theologians
incorporated Jewish sectarian, messianic, eschatological, salvation, and judgement passages in the Hebrew
Scriptures to claim the legitimacy and authenticity of the Pauline narrative - a cyclical and self-fulfilling
sequence was created. The Pauline worldview, mindset, and predispositions were reinforced when believers
encountered them in the sacred Jewish literature— the source from which they were appropriated in the
first place.

A growing number of scholars support the view that the reaction of ecclesiastical leaders to this situation
was a major cause for the proliferation of anti-Jewish sentiment in the early church. Per these scholars,
Judaizing was not (as had often been assumed) restricted to the first generation of gentile believers in Jesus,
but remained an urgent and troublesome issue. The influence and the sympathy that the founding fathers
enjoyed was the existential threat that incensed the Pauline leadership and fueled resentful and vicious
attacks on them, and on their beliefs and traditions.

I suggest that, rather than active ‘Jewish’ proselytizing, affinity to Judaism within the Jesus movement
originates in the influence that the Jewish faction and its Gentile sympathizers exerted over the Gentile
rank and file. This influence originates in the status of the founding faction as the acknowledged
descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers, and the original custodians and interpreters of his
heritage and legacy. This affinity persisted even though their customs and traditions were major stumbling
blocks for most Gentiles.

137
The growing tensions between the Jewish minority and its sympathizers on one side and the non-Jewish
majority on the other - were the gateway to the multilateral confrontation of the second and third
centuries. The Jewish facet of this multilateral confrontation is the focus of this monograph and may have
been the central arena of the struggle. However, to maintain a proper perspective on the events unfolding
before us, we need to remember that the strife among the various strands of Gentile belief in Jesus was no
less intense, nor less visceral.

Eventually, the struggle against the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers had to be erased
from the collective memory of the movement. Misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and loss of context
also contributed to transforming this conflict against internal opponents that were Jews, into a struggle
against external Judaism—thereby shielding the emerging orthodoxy from the embarrassing implications of
the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus and of the demotion and delegitimizing of the descendants of those
chosen by Jesus to be the custodians of his legacy.

By shifting the debate away from the weak flank of the Pauline argument (the fact that their adversaries
were the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and therefore the presumptive custodians of
his legacy) and framing the debate around beliefs and traditions that most Gentiles found strange and
idiosyncratic, early Pauline intellectuals crafted a strategy that eventually led to a growing alienation of
Gentile believers from the founding faction. This tactical positioning helps us understand the Pauline
choice of emphases, themes, motifs, and rhetorical ploys.

Later writers will expand on this foundation by attacking a wide range of institutions, beliefs, and traditions
associated with the founding fathers (Torah observance, the temple, the covenant, circumcision, and
dietary laws being the ‘wedge issues’ of preference). However, one peculiar tactic will remain constant
throughout the efforts to demote the founding faction; they are seldom acknowledged as the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and they are seldom attacked explicitly and frontally—although, from
nuance and context, the addresses would know the identity of the intended adversaries.

This demotion by proxy will become an ingrained tradition that, with the passage of time and loss of
context, will be projected, misinterpreted, and misrepresented as a conflict with Judaism—obscuring the
theologically awkward demotion and marginalizing of the descendants of those chosen by Jesus to be the
custodians of his legacy.

Written from the perspective of the de-Judaizing camp, the literature of the next centuries is often highly
abusive to Jewish sensibilities. Despite the slowly growing realization that the descendants of the founding
fathers persisted in their embrace of Judaism, and despite the growing awareness about the existence and
importance of Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction, adherence to the beliefs of the founding
fathers is still cast by some scholars as Judaizing, weakness, defection, apostasy or return. Given that,
throughout the centuries that concern us, we witness a persistent drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus (not a
drive to Judaize it) this casting of the issues is intriguing.

138
Indeed, the self-referential and recurring inference that continuity with the beliefs and traditions of the
founding fathers is tantamount to apostasy from belief in Jesus is dominant throughout the tradition. This
is a peculiar argument given that, at the time, the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’s legacy championed
discontinuity (apostasy) from the beliefs and traditions embraced by Jesus and by those chosen by him to
be the guardians of his legacy. Therefore, and contrary to most presentations, attraction to the beliefs and
traditions of the founding fathers among Gentiles should be seen as affinity to things ‘as they were,’ as
opposition to change—rather than a relapse or apostasy. Furthermore, reading traditional scholarship one
gets the impression that the choice was between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ However, at the time, the
choice for recent converts was between nascent Gentile forms of belief in Jesus and the beliefs and
traditions of the founding fathers of the Jesus movement.

A Personal Note+
The first draft of this monograph was entitled ‘re-reading the New Testament’ and was intended as a
report on my encounter with the unsettling anti-Judaic polemic in Paul and in the synoptic gospels.
However, as my excursion progressed, I became aware of more extreme polemical incitement at the
historical downstream (John, Hebrews, the church fathers, and other second- and third-century
authoritative texts). I soon realized that Paul and the synoptics were only the preamble, the foundation, of
what was to come.

As I reached the periphery of the original range, I realized that the project was incomplete, that the issues
had not been fully engaged and had not been brought to proper closure. Gradually, I came to the
realization that I had surveyed the first floor of a towering edifice. Without yet having an understanding or
a conceptual map of where I was going, I crossed the gateway into the second century, and the second
phase of this work.

My encounter with the polemical intensity of the texts ahead of us was disconcerting and gut-wrenching.
Compared to the texts ahead of us, the original causes of my outrage felt tame, almost harmless. However,
as I attempted to engage these new texts, paralysis took hold of me. I could not digest the new material; I
could neither process it, nor write about it. Somehow, my verbal skills were inadequate to cope with the
ever-increasing escalation.

After many months of stalemate, I gradually realized what had happened: I had exhausted my emotional
and expressive range. I had no conceptual space, no cognitive range, to accommodate the next phase of
virulence. I had exhausted my ability to describe and grade the ever-growing abuse.

When the reality you encounter has already overwhelmed your cognitive and verbal range, what terms do
you use to describe further denigration? Eventually, I had to recalibrate and tone down my descriptions of
the invective of the previous phase, to create cognitive space for the more intense and virulent literature of
the second and third centuries. In other words, I had to scale down the terminology used to describe the

139
Pauline and the Synoptic challenge to the beliefs, authority, and traditions of the founding fathers, to free
‘derogatory range’ to accommodate the upcoming and more strident polemical phase.

For our purposes, it is important to point out that the phase we are about to enter is the continuation, not
the beginning, of a process. This next phase would not have come about without the foundation provided
by the texts we have already surveyed. Strangely, we are both—fortunate and unfortunate. We are
fortunate that most of the texts that were eventually canonized belong to the earlier phase, and that most
of the texts that were authored during the second century did not become part of the New Testament. We
are also unfortunate: the texts that were eventually canonized were written during the embryonic stages of
belief in Jesus, a period of tensions between believers with pro- and anti-Jewish inclinations and affiliations.
This tragic coincidence embedded a footprint of anti-Jewish sentiment in the canonical lore of the
victorious faction and in the hearts and minds of believers.

The fact that the crisis in the Jesus movement lasted at least four centuries, and that the Judeo-Gentile
dimension is only one dimension of this crucible is obscured since most of the texts reflecting the anti-
Pagan, and anti-Gnostic biases of the Pauline faction were authored after the canonical era, and are not
included in the New Testament – creating an artificial focus on the Judeo-Gentile dimension of the crisis.

140
Chapter 4

*Supersession Theology

Introduction
Hebrews
Barnabas
Summary
Afterthoughts

Introduction+
The crisis in the Jesus movement arose due to the rejection, by most Gentiles, of the beliefs and traditions
espoused by Jesus, and his first followers. This rejection gave rise to counter claims (among Jewish
followers of Jesus and their Gentile sympathizers) that Gentile forms of belief in Jesus were, therefore,
inadequate and lacking.

Supersession theology originates in the Pauline claim to the exclusive custody of Jesus’s legacy.459 Pauline
believers gradually gravitated to the view that their interpretation of belief in Jesus replaced and superseded
the beliefs and traditions embraced by Jesus and by his first followers. The appropriation, by Pauline
believers, of the identity and lore of the Jewish founders, and the Pauline rejection of their beliefs and
traditions (both embryonic in the Gospels and expanded upon by the authors of Hebrews, Barnabas, and
Justin) reach their most extreme articulation in supersession theology.460

Supersession theology seems to have emerged to address, and counter, doubts about the legitimacy of
Gentiles as rightful believers in Jesus. Although the original concerns, horizon, and adversaries of the
Pauline authors were within the Jesus movement, once this original context was forgotten and obscured -
the resulting projection onto Judaism transformed Hebrews and Barnabas into the cornerstones of the
supersession-replacement of Judaism.

141
Arguments, originally deployed by Jewish sectarians against the Judean establishment (you have lost God’s
favor, we are God’s new chosen, we are the New Israel, we embody a new covenant, the Temple and the
priesthood are defiled and no longer authoritative, etc.…) were appropriated by Paulines intent on de-
Judaizing belief in Jesus. Supersession theology emerges out of this appropriation and did claim that
Pauline believers in Jesus are the New People of God, the New Israel, and the sole inheritors of YHWH’s
covenant with Israel. Supersession was couched in extreme and unequivocal terms that included the
replacement of Judaism, by ‘Christianity’ (Pauline belief in Jesus) in all things religious and ethical - a
theological claim of grave and tragic consequences.461

Furthermore, in the ancient world, a ‘new religion’ was an oxymoron; a combination of contradictory
words. To the ancients, religions had to be archaic. Veneration and respect required antiquity. Thus, the
primary supersessionary impetus, that originated in the challenge to the Jewish leadership of the Jesus
movement, was reinforced by the need to provide the respectability associated with antiquity. A
legitimizing lore, an account of the origins of the universe, and an account of the origins of humankind -
were also needed. The Pauline faction, lacking a past and an historical narrative to stand on, needed to fill
that void. However, for the Paulines, incorporation-participation in the heritage of their adversaries was
not deemed appropriate. Their militant and exclusivist mindset drove them to claim the appropriation of
the identity of their opponents, and the supersession of their beliefs and traditions. Gradually, this mindset
drove them further; to claim the dispossession of the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel, and the
People of God.

As we are about to engage Hebrews and Barnabas, the standard bearers and explicit articulators of
supersession theology,462 it is important to reiterate that a supersessionary impetus has accompanied us
from Mark forward. However, whereas Hebrews’ and Barnabas’ aims and agendas are easier to decipher,
Mark’s underwrite the narrative and must be speculated about. My placing of Hebrews and Barnabas in a
separate chapter that engages supersession theology should not imply that the texts we have reviewed so
far are free from supersessionist echoes: some of Paul’s immediate successors read his letters as supportive
of supersession, and the supersessionist drumbeat is embryonic in Mark’s Disciples that ‘did not
understand,’ and abandoned Jesus in his moment of need.

142
 Hebrews

Introduction
Addressees and Context
Theology
Priesthood
Covenant
Sacrifice
Hebrews and the Jewish Scriptures
My Hebrews

Introduction+
The author of Hebrews is viewed by many scholars as the foremost theologian of the New Testament,463
second only to Paul – requiring a central place in this monograph. The author’s Greek is widely praised as
the most elegant in the NT. Among the canonical texts the author’s language skills are unsurpassed
indicating that he was a highly educated and accomplished individual.

Contemporary scholarship on Hebrews, and its stand on Judaism, is highly nuanced and differentiated.
Some scholars consider that the primary aim of Hebrews was to prevent a relapse to ‘Judaism.’ Others,
emphasize a general fatigue caused by the delay of the second coming, persecution, and waning
enthusiasm.464 Although admittedly simplistic and introductory, scholars may be divided into those that are
critical of the Epistle’s supersessionary message (including N. Beck, L. Freudman, J. Gager, and S.
Sandmel), those supportive-sympathetic to his theological message (including D. DeSilva, D. Hagner, L. T.
Johnson, W. Lane, B. Lindars, R. W. Wall), and those attempting a middle ground (including H. W.
Attridge, S. Lehne, S. G. Wilson, C. Williamson).465

Among contemporary approaches, socio-rhetorical models seem to have great promise for they emphasize
the importance of approaching the text from multiple angles (analysis of narrator, plot, characters, setting,
inner texture, and other aspects of the narrative or discourse).466 When Turner’s model467 is applied to
Hebrews, the rhetoric of the author is seen as aimed at subverting the parent group and strengthening the
norms and values of the new belief structure. In Hebrews, and throughout the tradition, the framework
being subverted is the belief system of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and the
countercultural alternative is the author’s interpretation of belief in Jesus.

143
As it pertains to our effort to understand Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, Hebrews is a
unique window into events ‘on the ground’ a couple of decades after Paul. The author of Hebrews, roughly
contemporary with the Gospels’ authors, offers us a distinct view of the Jesus movement during the
second half of the first century. Whereas the Gospels were authored as foundational narratives of Jesus’s
ministry and therefore tend to insinuate and veil their agendas, Hebrews offers us a more explicit reflection
of the tensions that accompanied the ‘push-and shove’ of theology in the making. Hebrews is viewed by
many as the standard bearer and theologian of supersession theology. Supersession, the view that Pauline
believers replaced the founding fathers of the Jesus movement as the New Israel and were God´s new
chosen, is present in many canonical and authoritative texts.

Furthermore, Supersession theology asserted that the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders were
superseded, replaced, and declared irrelevant by Paul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus. However, in most
of the New Testament this unique phenomenon, which will occupy our attention from here onward,
manifests itself in implied and subtle forms. Whereas the Synoptics restrained, veiled, and subdued their
attacks on the descendants of the founding fathers, the authors of Hebrews and Barnabas offer us
unfiltered views of the friction ‘in the trenches’ between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. The
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, following in the footsteps of Paul, argued that Jewish Law, the
cornerstone of the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of the founding fathers, had played a legitimate
role in the past but was superseded by a new covenant (cf. Rom. 7:1–6; Gal. 3:23–25; Heb. 8, 10).468
However, Hebrews also goes beyond Paul and seems to attempt a more complex, nuanced, and openly
adversarial definition of the Jewish-Gentile relationship.

Hebrews is the earliest canonical text to engage openly and explicitly the battle against those that advocated
continuity with the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. Thus, contrary to ingrained perceptions,
the author of Hebrews is opposing continuity. Anticipating a later and more detailed engagement of the
subject, it is important to note that at the time of authorship there was no consensus among Gentiles as to
what belief in Jesus was, or should be.

Different in style and theological emphases, Hebrews and Barnabas allow us seemingly independent
attestations on this struggle and on the birth of supersession theology.469 However, whereas Hebrews
originates in an educated mind and his theology and arguments are cerebral and clever, Barnabas originates
in a hyper-militant, idiosyncratic, and bizarre mind. Future believers, guided by the guardians of dogma and
orthodoxy, and influenced by the polemical strand in their lore, will tend to read the text in anti-Jewish
ways. Due to the importance of Hebrews for the formation of future attitudes toward Jews and Judaism,
we must distinguish the author’s intent from the way in which the text was interpreted by future
generations. The gap between intent and consequences is especially disheartening in Hebrews.

Somewhat simplifying a rather complex reality, we may say that during the second half of the first century
we can see the nascent stages of five groups that will vie for Jesus legacy, two of which (the Jewish
followers of Jesus and their Gentile sympathizers)470 advocated continuity with Judaism. Other believers,
Marcionite and Gnostics, advocated severing all ties with the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.
The Pauline faction advocated an appropriate-supersede approach. [+pg 156]

144
Addressees and Context
Hebrews has been traditionally seen as reflective of a breach with Judaism, even though there is nothing in
the epistle that necessitates the assertion that the author’s concerns, adversaries, audience, or horizon are
outside the Jesus movement.
The vast majority of scholars, both traditional and current, adhere to the view that the author of Hebrews
juxtaposes ‘Christianity’ to ‘Judaism’ even though the author does not use the terms ‘Christian,’
‘Christianity,’ ‘Jews,’ or ‘Judaism.’ Rather, he juxtaposes ‘us/ours’ to ‘them/their.’

The socio-theological circumstances of the Jesus movement at the time of authorship and a variety of clues
and hints (which we will discuss in some detail) seem to point to an internal debate about Judaism—not to
a confrontation with it. I agree with Salevao’s deployment of a conflict model.471 However, whereas
Salevao (in line with the consensus) sees a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity,’ I see the author’s
universe and horizon as limited to the Jesus movement.

Most scholars have concluded that Hebrews was written during the second half of the first century (60–90
ce).472 The author writes with authority and seems to be a leader, probably one of the founders of the
community to which the Epistle is addressed. The text contains hints about the author and his audience,
but scholars have not reached a consensus on authorship, context, or intended audience. Obviously, the
author and his audience knew who the protagonists were, but their identity is implicit—not explicit.

Most scholars agree that the author is an early Pauline believer and, consequently, the author’s views are
commonly identified as ‘Christian.’ However, it is noteworthy that at the time of authorship, the author’s
adversaries considered themselves Christian too. Therefore, the use of this term to discuss this period is
inappropriate and anachronistic. A minority of scholars acknowledges that the descendants of the founding
generation might be among the author’s antagonists.473 Speaking of the addressees, Lehne’s observation is
among the closest to my reading: ‘[T]heir faith is being threatened by a group (or groups) of conservative
Jewish-Christians from within (or from without) their number.’474

Scholars are also split on the core impulses driving Hebrews. The author seems concerned with a variety of
issues: low participation in community life (10:25), ‘strange teachings’ and ‘unprofitable foods’ (9:10; 13:9),
consciousness of sin (9:14; 10:2, 22; 13:18), covenant issues (8:1–13), priesthood (7:1–19), sacrifice (10:1–
18), the tarrying of the Parousia (10:25, 37), and danger of apostasy (2:1; 3:12; 6:6; 10:29). The combined
weight of several factors, perhaps coupled with a disappointment over the delay of the Parousia475 may be
the best description of the concerns behind the author’s writing.

For our purposes and as it pertains to our subject (Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement)476 the
socio-theological impetus behind the polemical escalation seems to be the need to articulate a theological
grounding to justify to the rank and file the estrangement vis- à -vis the descendants of the founding
generation. This need took center stage as the communities founded by Pauline missionaries encountered
differing believers in Jesus and questions about legitimacy surfaced. As corroborated by the obsession with

145
‘all things Jewish,’ and the intense resentment that permeates the texts authored during this era, the ‘Jewish
question’ seems to have become a contentious and painful concern for second- and third-generation
Gentile believers in Jesus.

Unfortunately, the author does not inform us as to the cultural-ethnic origin of the addressees. Nor do we
know if they were the majority or a minority in the community.477 Nonetheless, our identification of the
addressees and of the implied adversaries may be assisted by the author’s choices of language:

‘Do not be carried away by diverse and strange teachings. For it is good for the heart
to be made firm with grace, not foods, whose observers were not benefited. We have
an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat’ (13:9–10).

The author also alludes to ‘strange teachings’ and ‘unprofitable foods’ (9:10; 13:9), a peculiar choice of
words if the addressees were present or past Jewish followers of Jesus. This language and the view that
adherence to the beliefs of the founding fathers is apostasy (6:6) would be counterproductive if addressing
Jewish followers of Jesus or their Gentile sympathizers, but might have been useful in shoring up
vacillating Gentiles that were in danger of ‘succumbing’ to the influence of the Jewish faction.

According to most commentators, the community was in danger of apostasy to Judaism.478 Per my reading,
the ‘apostasy’ in question is not apostacy at all. Attraction to the beliefs and traditions of the founding
fathers of the Jesus movement reflects a yearning for continuity that stands on the natural attraction that
some Gentile believers felt toward the beliefs and traditions associated with Jesus and his disciples. The
setting seems to be a debate among Gentile believers in Jesus about continuity-discontinuity vis- à -vis the
founding fathers of their movement (9:11–14; 10:1–2; 13:9–10). The imminent danger seems to originate
from believers who may have advocated a stronger continuity with the founding fathers (7:11; 9:8–10, 13–
14; 10:1–2; 13:9–13). Unfortunately, we are unable to ascertain whether the immediate adversaries are the
descendants of the founding fathers or Gentiles attracted to them.479

Somewhat similar to the situation in Paul’s Galatians and I Corinthians,480 the community addressed by the
author seems to be on the brink of apostasy from the author’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. In both
cases the danger seems to be the sway of the founding fathers. In both cases, the author uses a variety of
rhetorical tools and techniques to persuade recently evangelized believers to hold firm to the authors’
strand of belief in Jesus. Overall, it seems to me that we are on strong ground when arguing that this
situation seems to have emerged as Pauline evangelists organized new communities and moved on. Sooner
or later these new converts would have encountered believers that embraced differing interpretations of
Jesus’s legacy and would have realized that they had been evangelized into a version of belief in Jesus at
odds with the beliefs of Jesus’s disciples and first followers—a volatile situation that could ignite a variety
of outcomes.

Most scholars advocate a recent separation from ‘the Synagogue.’481 However, I have argued elsewhere that
affiliation of Gentile believers in Jesus with mainstream synagogues should not be assumed. Rather, if

146
estrangement from a synagogue is suspected, a synagogue of the founding faction should be the assumed
option.

Theology
Hebrews clearly belongs to the earliest phase of the evolution of Pauline theology. It seems that prior to
Hebrews, the theology instilled to the community (2:3–4; 13:7–8) would have included the basic Pauline
kerygma (1 Cor. 15.3) but probably not much more. Overall, Hebrews is an expansion of Paul, and nothing
in Hebrews is at odds with Paul. Indeed, there are many things in common between Paul and our author,
suggesting that the author was associated with the Pauline circle.482 The need to decide whether Paul was
the originator of the supersession of Judaism (the traditionalists) or was only defending the right of Gentile
believers to reject the beliefs and the traditions of the founding fathers (the revised Paul)483 resurfaces
when trying to interpret Hebrews.

If we embrace the ‘traditional Paul,’ and read Hebrews as derivative of it, the anti-Jewish strand in Hebrews
would target Judaism. However, if we embrace the ‘revised Paul,’ and read Hebrews as derivative of it, the
polemical strand in Hebrews would target the descendants of the founding fathers and their Gentile
sympathizers. Hebrews, following Paul’s Colossians, sees Jesus as God’s adopted son and does not claim
incarnation. The Christology of Hebrews is eclectic. The multiplicity and seemingly indiscriminate
accumulation of titles and attributes bestowed on Jesus cannot but reflect anxiety about legitimacy. Such
anxiety is often visible in groups challenging established authority484 - in this case the authority of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The author’s claim that his form of belief in Jesus
originated from Jesus himself (2:3), would be opposed by the Pillars and by their descendants (the author’s
opponents).

By the time of authorship, the critique (by Judean sectarians) of the Temple, the priesthood, and the
covenant was not a novelty, and stood on established anti-Jewish-establishment traditions. The polemic in
Hebrews may be best seen as the subversion, emulation and appropriation by Gentile believers, of the anti-
establishment rhetoric and lore of the descendants of the founding generation, deployed to demote them
from their position as the authoritative custodians of Jesus’s legacy. The main argument of Hebrews stands
on his elaboration and expansion of three principal topics: Jesus’s priesthood in the order of Melchizedek,
the advent of the new covenant, and the sacrificial-atonement theme.

These three themes are deemed, by the author, to provide a compelling argument for the superiority of the
author’s strand of belief in Jesus; that justify the rejection (by Gentiles) of the beliefs and traditions of the
founding fathers, and the replacement of the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel, as the People of
God.

Priesthood485
The Hebrew Scriptures, last edited by the priestly class following the return from the Babylonian exile, give
us the establishment’s description of the Israelite priesthood as ordained by God486 and assigned to the

147
tribe of Levi.487 The role of the priesthood evolved over time, was part of ongoing debates within Judaism,
and was not exempt from sharp critique.

Following the Persian conquests (first half of the sixth century) and throughout the Near East, the scions
of venerable and legitimate priestly families either assume the position of High Priests, were coerced into
cooperating with the conquerors, or were silenced by other means. I have already noted that high priests
were, for the most part, appointed by the conquerors and lost standing in the eyes the local populations.
Most of these traitors and collaborators with Persian, Greek, and Roman conquerors were hated
opportunists that collected taxes and ruled the provinces on behalf of foreign oppressors.488 By Jesus’s
lifetime, the decline in the legitimacy of the priesthood was widely acknowledged and a staple of Jewish
anti-establishment rhetoric.489 Although the institution of the priesthood was seldom openly criticized,
abuse or disgrace of the office and illegitimate ancestry were the subject of intense polemic.

To anchor his challenge to the Jewish elite of the Jesus movement (7:1–9), the author of Hebrews builds
on a short, enigmatic, and obscure biblical story about Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (Gen. 14:18–
20). The Israelite Scriptures do not know of any predecessors to Melchizedek, and are silent concerning
any successors. The biblical story is somewhat of a dead end and (consequently) there were no limitations
on where Melchizedek speculation could go - an opening used by Qumran and, later, by the author of
Hebrews.490

Per the author of Hebrews, Melchizedek (a marginal biblical character)491 founded an unprecedented, and
otherwise unknown, non-Levitical priestly line - and placed Jesus as its inheritor and its culmination. The
author used Genesis 14:18–20 to claim that Melchizedek antecedes Abraham, making him into a
superseding figure ‘Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days
nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God’ (7:2–3).

Although Melchizedek’s priesthood seems to emerge ex nihilo from the author’s expansion of Genesis
14:18–20, there are some interesting antecedents. The most probable influence on Hebrews might be
Qumran’s IQMelchizedek, although Attridge instructs us on other instances of Melchizedek speculation
(Philo, the fragmentary Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek [NHC 9, 1], 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch).492
IQMelchizedek, discovered at Qumran Cave 11,493 asserts that the coming judgment is to be performed by
a representative of God who is called Melchizedek.494

Some scholars argue that there is no direct link between IQMelchizedek and Hebrews, despite that in both
writings the Melchizedek figure has comparable eschatological functions and despite Hebrews’ other
echoes and resonances with Qumran, which will be discussed in each segment of this chapter. Attridge
concludes that ‘[t]he inspiration for Hebrews’ treatment of Melchizedek probably derives from one or
another of these speculative trends.’495 Wilson is more definitive: ‘We can conclude without doubt that
Jewish speculation provides the immediate context for these chapters, and yet there is no precise parallel to
the particular analogies or the overall scheme that the author develops.’496

148
The author’s deployment of the Melchizedek figure, whether built on the Qumran model or the author’s
independent invention, seems to be aimed at achieving a specific goal. According to the author (a)
Melchizedek blesses Abraham (7:1), (b) Abraham offers Melchizedek a tithe (7:2), (c) Melchizedek is linked
to the ‘Son of God’ motif and his priesthood is eternal (7:3). On this foundation, the author develops his
argument in tight progression: since Melchizedek receives the tithe, blesses Abraham, and lives eternally, he
is superior to Abraham (7:4–5, 6, and 8). This opening of chapter 7 points to the author’s purpose: he is
creating a pathway, a bypass, to argue the supremacy of his brand of belief in Jesus over that of his Jewish
opponents within the Jesus movement (That stands on Abraham).

The Melchizedek move allows the author to claim that his newly created priesthood is superior to the
Levitical priesthood that stands on the Abrahamic tradition. If Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, and
the Melchizedek newly created priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood - the tradition that
emanates from him is superior to the traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus. The author proceeds with
his reconfiguration-supersession: ‘The Levitical line is useless (10:2–10), and annulled. The hereditary
principle is no longer relevant, the law abrogated (7:16–19), the Levitical priesthood was defective (7.20–1).
There is no longer a need for a succession of priests (7.23–4).’497

Some two thousand years after the establishment of the Israelite priesthood, the author argues for the
existence of a previously unknown ‘legitimacy bypass’ that supersedes a venerated religious tradition
spanning many generations. The author attempts to undermine allegiance to the descendants of the
founding fathers by belittling the priesthood associated with them and by replacing it with a new, and
superior, one.

The rationale for the battering of the Levitical priesthood seems to have been that if the Levitical
priesthood is superseded, those that the priesthood serves are diminished. The argument seems to be that
if the beliefs of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers stand on the legitimacy and sanctity
of the (now) superseded Levitical priesthood, the author’s beliefs (that stand on the priesthood of
Melchizedek) are superior.498

The author also seems to have believed that priestly status was required to designate Jesus’s death as an
atoning sacrifice for all sins and for all times. ‘Hebrews has to argue that Jesus is a priest, because according
to the Law only a priest may offer sacrifice.’499 To that effect the author bypasses the traditional priesthood
and makes Jesus a priest per his enhanced order of Melchizedek (7:17). The author questions the priestly
institutions of the dominant group (the descendants of the disciples and their followers) and argues for the
superiority of a previously unknown priesthood that has two high priests over a span of some two
thousand years - Melchizedek and Jesus.

Lastly, the author seems unaware of a fundamental contradiction between his theological construct and
belief in Jesus as the messiah. According to biblical tradition, the messiah must be a descendant of King
David, necessitating the New Testament’s casting of Jesus as Judah’s descendant (7:4) and his birth in
Bethlehem.500 However, a member of the tribe of Judah would be disqualified from the priesthood, which

149
was hereditary and was the privilege of the tribe of Levi. Thus, per the traditions whose legitimacy the
author seeks, Jesus may be either the messiah or a priest in the order of Melchizedek – but not both.

Covenant
New covenant rhetoric and a decontextualized interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 are used by the author
to dissuade congregants from fellowship with the Jewish opponents and to infuse greater commitment to
his interpretation of belief in Jesus. The understanding that the community is living in the last days may be
driving and exacerbating the author’s pitch and choice of words. The eschatological context is central, and
seems to inspire and intensify the boldness of his claims.501 Whereas the author’s attack on the Levitical
priesthood targets the institutions and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus, the author’s negation of
the validity of the covenant aims at eroding their standing as God’s chosen altogether. Furthermore,
whereas the author’s critique of the Levitical priesthood and of the sacrifices associated with them had
antecedents among Judean sectarians, the assault on the Israelite covenant is a radical and sweeping
claim—a far-reaching move to supersede-appropriate the identity of his opponents and to delegitimize
them.502

The author ‘demonstrates’ to its readers that the new covenant is better than the ‘old.’503 The first covenant
is declared ‘imperfect’ (8:7–8a) and the imperfection is ‘proven’ (8:8b-12). The argument is framed by a
self-referential argument: ‘For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion
for a second’ (8:7). Throughout the text we encounter a pattern of ‘correspondence, contrast and
superiority.’504 Despite the fact that the author focuses his rhetorical fire on institutions and traditions, he
also aims at the people: ‘For he (God) finds fault with them when he says...’ (8:8). Hebrews 8:1–13 is part
of the author’s argument against the exclusivity of the beliefs and traditions of the founding group as the
means to be a rightful believer in Jesus.

Hebrews’ development of this theme (Heb. 8:1–15, 8:6–13, 10), unique among the NT texts,505 is the first
attempt at a comprehensive and methodical deployment of this argument from without the Jewish camp.
The author’s argument that the ‘old’ covenant was replaced-fulfilled by the ‘new’ is a platform to argue the
superiority of his understanding of Jesus’s legacy against ‘their’ interpretation of it. With this foray into the
core of Jewish identity, the author’s theological rhetoric became a transgression of the most sacred identity
markers of Judaism. With this theological move, the author articulates the foundation of identity
annihilation theology, the gravest derivative of supersession-replacement theology.

The Hebrew scriptures use ‘new covenant’ rhetoric506 to inspire and edify the nation following the people’s
failings. Judean sectarians often argued for the need to renew the people’s commitment to its covenant
with YHWH. However, the possible attestations of ‘new covenant’ language in the Hebrew lore (Jer.
31:31–34, Jub. 1.16–25, Ezra 6.26b–28, and Qumran CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12; IQpHab 2:3f.)507 are best
understood as calls for the reinvigoration of the people’s commitment to the covenant, not as the negation
of the validity of the covenant between the Israelites and YHWH (as claimed by the author of Hebrews
and later Paulines). These were inclusive exhortations within the Jewish journey, far removed from calls by
non-Jews to deny or replace Judaism.

150
The ‘new covenant’ argument is a central theme in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 7:1–6; Gal. 3:23–25; Heb.
8:1–15, 8:6–13, 10). However, Judaism reads new covenant exhortation as emphasizing renewal, Hebrews
as emphasizing replacement. The author’s quotation of Jeremiah 31:31 begins with an understanding that
the new covenant will be completed in the coming days.508 For the author of Hebrews, the ‘coming days’
have arrived. He refers to his own time as the ‘last days’ (1:2; 9:26).509 And yet, there is a sense that the final
consummation of all things is still in the future (4:9; 6:11; 10:26–30; 13:14).510

The practice, by Pauline believers, of subverting biblical traditions to legitimate their interpretation of belief
in Jesus seems to originate in an emulation of Qumran’s Pesher exegetical method (using biblical citations
out of their historical context - a procedure that was rejected by establishment Judaism). Emulating
Qumran’s practice of applying biblical prophecies to current events, Jeremiah’s prophetic exhortation to
revitalize the Israelite commitment to the covenant is subverted to support the advent of a new covenant
with non-Israelites (8:8), the collapse of the ‘old’ (8:9), and the superiority of the new (8:10–11).

Hebrews is the first Pauline text to appropriate Jeremiah’s call, to support an anti-Israelite agenda. By
decontextualizing Jeremiah 31:31–34,511 the author suggests that God himself had called for the
replacement of the ‘old’ covenant and the advent of a new covenant with Pauline believers in Jesus - six
hundred years before the author’s lifetime. However, the author does not offer any support for this claim
(that Jeremiah’s call was intended to anticipate, and support, his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy). By
deploying Jeremiah out of his historical and ethnic context, the author makes one of the most radical
polemical statements in the New Testament:

‘When He said, ‘a new covenant,’ In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as
obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’
(8:13).

‘What is implied is that the very purpose of the second covenant was to fulfill what the
first covenant could not. There is no room or reason for the first covenant to continue,
once the second has been established. The emergence of the second or new covenant
renders the first old, null, and void.’

Hebrew’s negation of the covenant between the Jews and God seems to be a means to delegitimize the
elite of the Jesus movement. By faulting the Israelite covenant, the author attempts to convince his readers
to reject any affiliation with the Jewish faction. By his ‘voiding’ of the ‘old’ covenant, the author is
attempting to undermine his opponents’ legitimacy as the guardians of Jesus’s legacy, in the eyes of the
Gentile rank and file: if ‘their’ covenant with God is seen as superseded, ‘their’ beliefs and traditions cannot
be the vehicle to belief in Jesus either.

Whereas earlier proto-orthodox authors cast the founding fathers as ‘misunderstanding’ and ‘abandoning’
Jesus, Hebrews intensifies the challenge and lays the theological foundation for the replacement of their
beliefs and traditions as the driving force of the Jesus movement. Hebrews seems to have been the first to
articulate in detail the strategy and the arguments for the demotion of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples

151
and first followers as the custodians of his legacy. The annulment of the Israelite covenant became a
necessary move for Gentiles that aimed at replacing the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel and the
People of God, but did not want follow Marcion in severing all links with the Jewish grounding of the
Jesus movement, and in building their theological edifice fully outside the Jewish religious narrative.

Sacrifice
The view that Jewish sacrificial traditions were ceremonial and lacked spiritual meaning is deeply embedded
in the Pauline lore and in the minds of Gentile believers since.512 However, contrary to these simplistic
juxtapositions, from early on, Israelites emphasized the need for devotion, pure intent, and atonement
when giving offerings. Israelites were the first to develop a nuanced appreciation and critique of their
sacrificial traditions.

The Israelite religion took shape in an era when sacrifices were seen as a necessary for proper cosmic
maintenance and for the servicing of the Gods. Per this view of the universe, the divine realm requires
sacrificial offerings in exchange for victory, abundance, and fertility. Although standing on the archaic
understanding that proper cosmic maintenance required sacrifices to the Gods, First and Second Temple
Israelites developed a complex awareness of the spirituality of the Levitical sacrifices.513 The understanding
that sacrifices were not believed to act ‘ex open operate,’ and were not a ceremonial act devoid of spiritual
meaning, has deep roots in biblical Judaism. Discomfort among Israelites with a mechanical view of the
sacrificial system antedates Paul, Hebrews, and belief in Jesus.

Opposition to a mechanistic view of sacrifice can be tracked to the biblical tradition.514 ‘There was an old
Palestinian tradition extending to the psalms and prophets which had condemned any belief in the
automatic efficacy of sacrifices, demanding in its place a ‘sacrifice of thanksgiving’ or deeds of mercy.’515
The sacrificial traditions attracted considerable interest at Qumran too.516 However, the community did not
believe the sacrificial cult was null and void. Rather, they believed that it would eventually be practiced
properly. The Qumranites claimed that the contemporaneous priesthood was illegitimate but hoped for a
legitimate one.

The Israelite sacrificial traditions and Jesus’s sacrifice occupy a large portion of this letter (7:1–10:8)
indicating their centrality for the author.517 The theological effort regarding Jesus’s sacrifice seems to
originate in the author’s wish to reinforce Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s death as an atoning sacrifice.
Therefore, the author invests great effort to ‘prove’ the inadequacy of ‘the Law’ and the Levitical offerings
(10:1–10) and the superiority of Jesus’s sacrifice (10:11–18). In his discussion of the Israelite sacrificial
rituals, as elsewhere, the author of Hebrews seems to feed on Judean sectarian anti-establishment traditions
and rhetoric.

The use of Psalm 39:7–9 (LXX, MT 40:6–8) in verses 10:5–7 to argue that the Levitical sacrifices have
been invalidated and to ‘demonstrate’ that God himself acknowledged the shortcomings of the Levitical
sacrifices (10:8–10), despite the dissonance of such interpretation with Jewish exegesis, is seen by many

152
scholars as grounding the authors’ claims in the authority of Hebrew Scripture. However, the sacrifice of
Jesus as substitution and annulment of the Levitical sacrificial tradition that atoned for sins would be
unacceptable to Jews, to the inclusion of the Jewish followers of Jesus, who rejected human sacrifices,518
but would resonate with believers with Pagan affiliations and inclinations.

Hebrews and the Jewish Scriptures

We have seen that the use of the Hebrew Scriptures is prominent throughout the text (although the author
follows the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text).519 The author of Hebrews attempts to confer
on his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy the authority of the ‘Old’ Testament (about 30 actual citations and
over 70 allusions have been counted). The author of Hebrews attempts to legitimize his interpretation of
belief in Jesus by using a variety of forward-looking passages in the scriptures of his opponents. Although
Hebrews seems to appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures at every stage of his argument, his interpretations of
the Torah, the Prophets, and Psalms are often alien to their historical and ethnic context.

The author’s appropriation of significant traditions within Judaism, and their deployment in the clash
between his interpretation of belief in Jesus and his opponents’, showcases the recurring phenomenon of
the quarrying of Judean sectarian lore to argue anti-establishment claims within the Jesus movement. The
author appropriates-subverts the lore of his adversaries to ‘prove’ his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy (Psalm
8:4–6, in 3:12–4:1–Psalm 95:7–11, in 5:11–6:12 and 7:1; Jer. 31:31–34 in Chapter 8; Psalm 40:6–8 in
Chapter 10; Jer. 31:33–34 and Habakkuk 2:3–4 in Chapter 12.

The author also uses a superior/inferior dialectic and a decontextualized reading of Psalm 110:4 and Psalm
39:7–9 (LXX) to delegitimize the priestly institutions and traditions associated with his opponents within
the Jesus movement. The author’s argument that God himself acknowledged the inadequacies of the
Levitical sacrifices (10:8–10) and his use of Psalm 110:4 to argue that God called for the replacement of the
‘old’ priesthood by the ‘new’ priesthood is far reaching.

The New Testament’s authors, and Christian scholars throughout the ages, have anchored their theology
and their self-perception in the Scriptures of Israel. Both have mined the Hebrew Scriptures to legitimate,
justify, and cement the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus as the only legitimate and authoritative strand of
belief in Jesus.520 Throughout the ages, theologians, scholars and believers have seen themselves as the
replacement of the Israelites as the New Israel, as the New People of God. For the most part, this
incorporation-appropriation of identity and lore has been adversarial toward, and derogatory of, the Jewish
people.

As Christianity is attempting to move toward a more introspective, and self-critical phase, the triumphalist
and supersessionary impulses in Hebrews, and in the heart of the tradition and its lore, are increasingly re-
cognized and are under growing scrutiny.521 Within the current hermeneutic that stands on a Jewish-
Christian dialectic, the effort to recast the triumphalist-supersessionary impulses of Christian theology into
a benevolent incorporation of the Jewish ethos and lore - requires either the rejection of Hebrews’

153
theological edifice, or the embrace of an originating trajectory divorced from its original context, intent,
and message. Although most scholars active in the 21st century acknowledge Hebrew’s use-appropriation
of Hebrew scripture and reject supersession theology, few acknowledge the derivative theological
implications of this rejection.

Overall, the author’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures outside their historical and ethnic context to support his
drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus may have been favorably received by Gentiles who were superficially
acquainted with these texts, but would not convince believers better versed in them—to the inclusion of
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.

My Hebrews+
Why would some gentiles of pagan origin, recently converted to a non-Jewish form of belief in Jesus, be
obsessed with the need to justify their rejection of beliefs and traditions alien to them, and to prove the
superiority of their still-evolving belief structures over an established religious tradition of great antiquity
and great prestige? What is the socio-theological context behind the author’s assault on the Levitical
priesthood, on the covenant between the Israelites and their God, and on their sacrificial traditions? What
circumstances would explain, or necessitate, the emergence of a discourse in which Jews, their character,
and their ethical integrity are relentlessly vilified and denigrated?

In Hebrews, the author seems to articulate, for the first time, the theological arguments that will support
the shift from the Torah-observant Jewish followers of Jesus, to the Gentile followers of Paul. The Epistle
to the Hebrews, roughly contemporaneous with the canonical Gospels, signals the forthcoming eruption
onto the surface of the overt phase of a centuries-long struggle within the Jesus movement. The defensive
language deployed in Hebrews indicates that a significant threat loomed over the legitimacy of the author’s
belief system. It seems that some members of the author’s community were attracted to the beliefs and
traditions of the founding faction. That attraction posed an existential threat to believers that advocated
Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s ministry and the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus.

In previous texts we identified themes, motifs, segments, or fragments that seem to echo the transition
from the anti-Jewish-establishment polemic of the Jewish founders, to Pauline rhetoric against them. By
the time Hebrews was written, the estrangement between Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus seems to
have intensified. Whereas in the canonical Gospels the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus is understated,
obscured, and implied, in Hebrews and Barnabas it is explicit and overt.

The author of Hebrews attempts to provide, to a community evangelized by Pauline missionaries, the
arguments to ward off criticism due to lack of continuity with the religious worldview and traditions
embraced by Jesus and by those chosen by him as custodians of his legacy. The author and fellow Pauline
leaders and intellectuals were anxious to provide Gentile believers a theological grounding that would
reassure them that they were rightful believers in Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions
of the founding fathers, and would solidify their growing self-perception as the New Israel.

154
The Addressees - Some modern scholars identify the intended addressees as Jewish followers of Jesus or as
a community with a mixed composition. The current consensus seems to be that the author of Hebrews
had several concerns that included the danger of a relapse to Judaism among a group of converts to the
author’s strand of belief in Jesus. However, there is little that points to the ethnic background of the
readers and some sayings fit a Gentile audience better than a Jewish one (e.g., 6:1; 9:14). Furthermore, the
view that disrespectful and derogatory comments on Judaism would be used, or would be effective, to
persuade the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers to sever their affiliation to their ancestral
traditions is beyond comprehension, and seems to stand on the continuing bondage to the Pauline
hegemony over the discourse.

Furthermore, even though the author’s arguments and knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures has impressed
scholars, I suspect that he would fall short of convincing committed Jews—to the inclusion of the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. Gentile believers, ‘caught in the crossfire’ between
those advocating continuity with the beliefs and traditions of Jesus’s companions and those advocating a
selective appropriation-supersession, could be the intended audience of this text. Although the text would
underwhelm readers with deep and intimate knowledge of the Jewish tradition, it may have impressed
Gentiles with little or no grounding in the Hebrew Scriptures. Hebrews’ polemical rhetoric would have
been most effective on Gentiles that belonged to Pauline congregations, had limited knowledge about
Judaism, and had concerns and anxieties about their estrangement from the descendants of the founding
fathers.

The author argues implicitly and explicitly that Gentile converts need not embrace the beliefs and
traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, apparently against a strong pressure
from Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - that were inclined to do so. These Gentiles apparently
felt a natural attraction to those that, at the time of authorship, were known to be the custodians of Jesus’s
legacy and would be considered by many to be the legitimate heirs of his ministry.

The author’s credentials -The author does not disclose the source of the authority by which he ‘annuls’ and
‘abrogates’ the vast religious heritage of his adversaries. Nor does the author inform us whether his insight
originates in direct revelation or in authoritative precursors, although he does make ample use of de-
contextualized quotes from the ‘old’ testament that, according to the author, anticipate and legitimize his
interpretation of Jesus’s ministry. An intriguing but weak claim to authority and indirect access to the
historical Jesus is made by the author when he states, ‘[H]ow shall we escape if we neglect such a great
salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him’ (2:3).
These claims are put forward despite the fact that most scholars concur that none of the theological
predecessors of the author of Hebrews was an eye witness to Jesus’s ministry, and that the descendants of
those who were, rejected the authors interpretation of Jesus’s legacy.

Unfortunately, we do not know whether the author was part of a minority or a majority in his geographical
area, among Gentiles, or in the Jesus movement as a whole. At the time of authorship, Gentile believers
espousing a variety of embryonic and non-Jewish forms of belief in Jesus were attempting to assert

155
themselves as valid substitutes for the descendants of the founding fathers of the movement, who stood
on the vast heritage of Judaism. The author exalts belief in Jesus but he does not deploy or elaborate a
comprehensive theology about those beliefs. Rather, the author’s form of belief in Jesus seems to stand on
the Pauline Kerygma (1 Cor. 15.3) and on the negation, denigration, replacement, and appropriation-
supersession of the beliefs of the founders.

Hebrews seems to have been authored at the pivotal moment when proto-orthodox believers embark in an
appropriation-supersession journey. This trajectory will last a couple of hundred years and will transform
them from an ill-defined group lacking a coherent and comprehensive definition of what belief in Jesus
was or should be - into militant, self-assured, and exclusivist believers.

The author’s arguments - We should note that the author uses the ‘Old’ Testament’s authority to legitimate
his interpretation of Jesus’s ministry, while at the same time he claims the supersession and invalidation of
beliefs and traditions based on it. This peculiar midway positioning will emerge during the second century
as the proto-orthodox ‘Via Media’ and will require our attention and scrutiny. The tensions inherent in the
continuity-discontinuity conundrum engendered by this positioning, and the appropriation-supersession
choice, will embed in the tradition an ambivalent and resentful attitude toward the beliefs and traditions of
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.

Whereas Gnostics and Marcionites will reject the lore of the founding generation, and will build new
theological edifices disconnected from the founders’ beliefs and traditions, the author of Hebrews stands at
the threshold of a journey into the maze of appropriation-supersession. The author’s views and arguments
on these subjects are best seen as the deployment of Judean sectarian rhetorical staples against the
establishment he opposes, the Jewish elite within the Jesus movement. Hebrews harnesses and develops
pre-existing rhetorical themes and traditions originating in the Jewish sectarian milieu to claim the
superiority of his strand of belief in Jesus over the traditions of the founding fathers.

‘There is, finally, a constant thread in the Christological argument that needs to be
singled out: the radical contrast between old and new, good and better, sketch and
reality, earthly and heavenly, spiritual and physical, outer and
inner, repeated and unique.’522

The terms of contrast vary considerably, but they all serve the same purpose: to assert the superiority of
the author’s form of belief in Jesus over that of his opponents. In conclusion, little of Hebrews’ hyperbole
about the beliefs and traditions of his opponents is original. The most that can be said about the author’s
anti-Jewish creativity is that he was the first to apply pre-existing themes and motifs to the circumstances
of the Jesus movement. One theme, however, is elaborated well beyond its Judean roots; the priesthood of
Jesus after the order of–10).523

The author and supersession - Since the theological strand to which the author seems to have belonged
chose to advocate the substitution-replacement of the beliefs and traditions of the founding generation, it

156
had to weave intricate arguments that would support a continuity-discontinuity strategy. These theological
choices led to the de-contextualization of the Hebrew Scriptures and their use as a platform to legitimize
the author’s understanding of Jesus’s legacy. The author of Hebrews, the main architect of the Pauline
appropriation-supersession edifice, set the markers of the theological construct that was later to be the
central anchor of ‘orthodoxy.’524

The author’s strategy seems to have included three elements: (a) to accept the Jewish meta-narrative; (b) to
gut out most of its institutions, beliefs, and traditions; and (c) to appropriate the remaining shell to vest a
non-Jewish edifice with legitimacy and antiquity.525 I have argued that the obsessive and systematic
denigration of the character, traditions and beliefs of the Jewish founding fathers seems to emerge out of
intense debates among Gentile believers in Jesus about the movements’ affiliation with Judaism. It is
important to emphasize that this was one dimension of a multilateral confrontation among Gentile
believers with varying degrees of affiliations with, and inclinations toward Judaism, Paganism, Platonism,
and Gnosticism.

Vicious attacks against the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers
are best seen as indicative of a rising tide of confusion, tension, and anxiety about identity and legitimacy
among Gentile believers. Hebrews and Barnabas reflect in their tone and pitch a transition to an overt
confrontation about the movements’ identity that burst into the surface, first against the beliefs of the
founding generation and later against differing Gentile interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy. The
Jewish facet of this struggle looms large in the tradition due to the unfortunate fact that the founding
fathers were Jewish and that the failed fellowship with them occurred during the canonical era,
exacerbating the impact that the estrangement that ensued has had on the attitudes of Gentile believers
toward Judaism throughout the ages.

Hebrew’s strategy - Hebrews’ author may have been the earliest systematic articulator of the strategy that
did eventually bring about the demotion of the founding faction and the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus.
The author’s strategy of demotion by proxy, nascent in Paul and Mark, will be developed further during the
next two centuries as Pauline authors will target a number of Jewish symbols, traditions and institutions in
their quest to de-Judaize belief in Jesus.

The author of Hebrews was among those Gentile believers that did not want to reinvent belief in Jesus in
full discontinuity from the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. Thus, paradoxically, although the
author wished to sever the influence that his Jewish opponents had on his congregants, he also wanted to
bestow on his interpretation of Jesus’s ministry the authority of their ancient and venerated traditions, and
the legitimacy intrinsic to their being the descendants of the founding fathers. Therefore, despite the
wholesale battering of the character, traditions and beliefs of his adversaries, the author does not place
himself outside the Jewish universe altogether and attempts to remain within the umbrella of the Jewish
narrative.

157
It is important to note that the author quarries his opponents’ sacred scriptures to supply all the necessary
definitions and templates to which Jesus’s high priesthood and sacrifice must conform (Jesus as a Davidic
descendant, Jesus as a rightful priest, Jesus’s sacrifice as a rightful sacrifice, the author’s interpretation of
Jesus ministry as emanating from the ‘Old’ Testament, the ‘Old’ Testament as anticipating the author’s
interpretation of Jesus ministry, etc.).

Hebrew’s continuity-discontinuity conundrum, the positioning and argumentation of the author in relation
to Jesus’ Jewish followers (how to sever the appeal of the founding fathers while at the same time claim to
be their theological heirs) required great linguistic, polemical, and rhetorical ability. To delegitimize the
founding fathers and at the same time claim to be their theological heirs, creates logical and theological
difficulties that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews tries to wrestle with. Since the author’s
interpretation of Jesus' ministry is not in harmony with the traditions on which he wants to base his
legitimacy, the author finds himself investing great effort in delegitimizing the theological narrative from
which he longs to derive his legitimacy.

The impact of Hebrews - With Hebrews we are only midway in the ever-escalating polemical trajectory of
the Pauline authoritative texts. Within a narrative of sanctified and authoritative anti-Jewish invective, the
author of Hebrews is one of the central contributors for he provided a cerebral and elaborate theological
platform on which a forthcoming torrent of abuse fed. The author of Hebrews, in line with the emerging
proto-orthodox modus operandi, opted for strengthening the case for the validity of his strand of belief in
Jesus by disparaging and abusing the beliefs and traditions of his opponents. It seems that the author
concluded that if believers are to be motivated to remain faithful to his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy, they
must be persuaded that his views are true and superior vis- à -vis those of the descendants of the founding
fathers, which stood on Judaism.

The tension between the wish to reject and the wish to appropriate-inherit, and the inherent inconsistency
and dissonance in building a new edifice on the denigration of Jewish beliefs and traditions, could not but
embed in the lore ambivalent attitudes toward Jews and toward Judaism. For almost two thousand years,
believers have bonded with the arguments put forward by the author as to the inferiority of the ‘old’ and
the superiority of the ‘new,’ embedding and ingraining ambivalent attitudes toward Judaism in the hearts
and souls of believers.

Hebrews deploys with significant skill several themes, arguments, and motifs that provided the theological
platform that has been used since to denigrate, marginalize, and persecute Judaism—even though this
outcome seems to have been unintended by the author. Given this background and the future trajectory of
Jewish-Gentile relations, it is imperative to differentiate the author’s intent and circumstances from later
interpretations of the text. However, and unfortunately, our re-placing of Hebrews’ horizon within the
Jesus movement does not alleviate its impact, nor does it change the fact that traditional readings of the
text have enabled, facilitated, and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes among Gentile believers in Jesus
throughout the centuries.526

158
Hebrews has been embraced and acclaimed for almost two millennia as one of the theological anchors of
the New Testament. The author of Hebrews was indeed clever and learned. His arguments, however, stand
on the de-contextualization and degradation of a tradition that at the time of authorship was already a
widely appreciated and venerated religion.

At this stage in our journey it is important to note that Hebrews is among the earliest proto-orthodox texts
where these phenomena are visible, and that we will encounter in the texts ahead of us a large variety of
elaborations of his theological platform and rhetorical tactics. We will also encounter the footprints of
differing Gentile interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, and differing Gentile approaches to the
beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.

At the turn of the first century we encounter within the Jesus camp a full spectrum of attitudes toward the
beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers—from continuity to rejection. As we move forward in time,
and as more components and layers are added to the anti-Jewish strand, the tragic implications of the
author’s choices will become increasingly clear. As we move into the second century and to our next
section, we will see the internal conflict among differing interpretations of Jesus’s legacy explode and
become an all-out confrontation. By the first decades of the second century, the subtle and seemingly
inconsequential denigration of the disciples in the canonical Gospels will have morphed into an overt and
vicious attack on all things Jewish. Within that trajectory, Hebrews represents a halfway point between the
implied and developing tensions hinted at in the Gospels, and the extreme viciousness ahead - as
represented by the texts of Melito, Chrysostom, and the Adversus Judaeos literature of the next
centuries.527

Pauline leaders and intellectuals will follow the pathway created by the author of Hebrews. The future
impact of the deployment of supersession theology by later orthodoxy is hard to grasp. The horrible
consequences of a clever theological move by this first-century religious enthusiast eventually led to the
negation and disenfranchisement, first, of the descendants of the founding fathers, and, later, of all Jews—
paving the way for later anti-Semitism.

Seemingly oblivious to the impact that appropriation-supersession theology has had on the soul of
believers, on their attitudes toward Jews and Judaism and on Jewish lives—some scholars emphasize
Hebrews’ ‘continuity with Judaism.’ However, continuity with the caveats of appropriation-supersession
and identity annihilation is no continuity at all. Nonetheless, despite being deeply entrenched in the lore
and in the hearts and minds of some believers, the denigration of cultural and theological ancestors is by
no means essential, in theory or in the experience of other cultures. Communities can, and have, emerged
from preceding cultures without carving their path with derogatory polemic and making it sacrosanct (The
Roman positive view of Greek culture, and the Buddhist positive relationship vis- à -vis Hinduism are the
most notable).

Modern Dilemmas - Post–World War II scholars have attempted to reduce the dissonance between the
anti-Jewish sentiment that emanates from traditional and literal readings of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and

159
modern ethics and values. A variety of approaches have been suggested to tame the text’s polemical
impact, rehabilitate its image, and accommodate modern sensibilities.528 The challenge is daunting. Some
modern interpreters have attempted to minimize the supersessionist and derogatory implications of the
author’s statements by arguing that Hebrews’ negative theology functions as a foil for the writer’s
theological edifice. Others advocate the replacement of the term ‘supersession’ with the term
‘fulfillment,’529 despite the fact that the theological implications of both terms are similar and despite
Hebrews 8:7 and 8:13, which seem to impede such efforts. Other scholars absolve the author of
supersessionary intent vis- à -vis the Jewish people,530 while acknowledging his claim to the supersession of
Jewish institutions and beliefs. This strategy seems to emerge out of a wish to neutralize the polemical
strand embedded in the text, while salvaging its canonical status. The strategies vary but the aim is
similar—to rescue Hebrews from its association with supersession and anti-Judaism.531

However, Hebrew’s derogatory parade is too wide ranging: Jewish atonement traditions are deemed
superseded, sacrifices under the Law ‘cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper’ (9:9) since ‘the law
has but a shadow of the good things to come’ (10:1), sacrifices that are repeated cannot have permanent
effect (10:2), the ceremonies of the Law are only ‘regulations for the body’ (9:10) and for ‘the purification
of the flesh’ (9.13), just to point out a few of the author’s ‘contributions.’ The author’s contrasts and
derogatory juxtapositions (old/new, sketch/reality, earthly/heavenly, spiritual/physical, outer/inner,
repeated/ unique) are applied to many arguments and polemical themes.

Moreover, the candor of the author is hard to reconcile with any attempt to deflate the impact of the text:
terrible consequences will follow the rejection of the author’s views (4:11–13), and mercy will be available
only to those that persevere in the path advocated by him (4:14–16). The repertoire and the terms of
contrast vary, but they serve the same purpose: to assert the superiority of the author’s strand of belief in
Jesus and the inferiority of those advocating a close affiliation with the beliefs and traditions of the
founding faction. In Hebrews, ‘[t]he contrast between first/second and old/new could in principle be
neutral, an expression of temporal order that allows that both elements have intrinsic value. But in this case
it is not; their purpose is to elevate the new and denigrate the old.’532

Afterthoughts - At a time when a cacophony of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus vied for the allegiance of
Gentile believers, the addressees are being asked to choose between two forms of belief in Jesus—one
Jewish and one Pauline. Overall, the combative demeanor of the epistle to the Hebrews does not reflect
the serene and thoughtful theology of a self-assured thinker. His defensive and resentful tone is
characteristic of sectarian challenges to established authority. Hebrews reflects intense emotions originating
in a community leader anxious to preserve and protect the gains of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles.
Written from the perspective of the de-Judaizing camp, the epistle is highly abusive to Jewish sensibilities.
Although the author does not aim at Judaism per se, its relentless abuse of adversaries that are Jews created
a potent polemical legacy. Hebrews deploys a mostly self-referential argument about the inferiority of the
beliefs and traditions of the descendants of the founding fathers that encompasses all aspects of Jewish life.

Furthermore, the possibility that some believers had a genuine interest and affection for the descendants of
the founding fathers, and for their traditions and beliefs, seems to challenge ingrained intellectual and

160
emotional predispositions - engendering among many scholars a tendency to explain this rather plausible
reality in loaded and negative terms (fear of persecution, failure of resolve, political pressure,
marginalization, etc.). This is a peculiar argument given that, at the time of authorship, the author’s
interpretation of Jesus’s legacy championed discontinuity (apostasy) from the beliefs and traditions
embraced by Jesus and by those chosen by him to be the guardians of his legacy.

In conclusion, if Hebrews and the supersessionary undertow in the tradition, reflect a theological debate-
confrontation with Judaism, no amount of theological maneuvering will defuse the supersessionist ghost.
However, if the debate-confrontation was about Judaism, and Hebrews reflects a hyper enthusiastic debate
between believers in Jesus with pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish affiliations and inclinations – the supersessionist
phenomenon can be re-placed within the Jesus movement, is the consequence of militancy gone awry, and
could gradually loose its malevolency.

161
 Barnabas

Introduction
Barnabas’ adversaries
The Covenant
The Temple
Wedge Issues
Barnabas and Qumran
My Barnabas

Introduction+
The Pauline and Gnostic success among non-Jews laid the ground for the downfall of the Jewish
leadership of the Jesus movement. The weakening of the Jewish and Torah-observant leadership that
followed the devastation and the loss of life inflicted upon the communities of the Jewish followers of
Jesus in Judea, during the failed uprisings of 70 and 135 CE further exacerbated this process. Barnabas
lives and writes in the preamble to the forthcoming confrontation among competing forms of belief in
Jesus that will dominate the next two centuries, and whose Jewish-Gentile facet had been brewing since
Paul’s days and permeates the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and others saw Barnabas
as an important early text; it was considered authoritative by many, and was revered accordingly.533

Barnabas and Hebrews are early variants in the transition to undifferentiated anti-Jewish polemic. They are
the earliest texts to embark on the transition from implied challenge to the Jewish elite, to its theological
articulation. They are considered by many to be the foundations of supersession theology.534 New
Testament writings are not used in Barnabas, neither explicitly nor tacitly, which would argue for an early
date. The consensus is that the letter was written sometime between 70 and 170 CE535 with a majority
supporting a date prior to the end of the first century. Whether the writer was Jewish or Gentile is still
debated. Many scholars consider 16:5 an allusion to the destruction of the Temple, and date Barnabas to
the last decades of the first century. A minority advocates the post–Bar Kochba era (post 135 CE). The
historical evidence points to Nerva as the most likely to have supported this project (96–98 ce).536 We have
noted that Nerva’s reign may have ignited hopes for a Judean reconstruction and revival. Jewish hopes for
the rebuilding of the Temple did not materialize.

Barnabas’s militant and confrontational style and content (2:10; 3:6; 4:6b; 14:1–4; 8:1; 7; 9:4; 10:2, 9, 12;
12:10f; 15:8; 16:2f) has spawned countless anti-Jewish sermons and exhortations throughout the centuries.
Read by later Gentile believers standing within an anti-Jewish hermeneutic, Barnabas’s stereotypical views

162
of his adversaries became embedded in the hearts and minds of many among the faithful. Although his
exegesis is rudimentary, many of his inflammatory ‘creations’ did resonate with believers whose exposure
to, and knowledge of, Judaism was limited to the Pauline prism.

Couched in crude Greek, Barnabas’s arguments are often clumsy, disconnected, and contradictory. Reading
Barnabas is a journey to a chaotic time through the eyes of a most peculiar mind. Barnabas’s idiosyncratic
and occasionally bizarre views could be dismissed as inconsequential, if we could dismiss the fact that his
views and arguments are foundational for future supersession theology, and if we could overlook the wide
use of his arguments by later apologists, theologians, and clergy.537

Barnabas’s caricature of Judaism did become integral to the lore. Many of Barnabas’s arguments did
become staples despite the fact that ‘the extent of his obsession, the radicalness of his claims, and the
general defensiveness and rancor of his tone would normally be thought to position the author of Barnabas
on the margins of Christian opinion.’538 Barnabas has a proto-Orthodox outlook, although somewhat of an
idiosyncratic one. Barnabas places the ‘old’ Covenant, the Temple, and Jewish beliefs and customs (Torah
observance, dietary law, and circumcision) center stage. In Barnabas, Jewish ‘literal’ misunderstandings are
superseded by new proto-orthodox ‘spiritual’ interpretations.

Barnabas is viciously anti-Jewish and derogatory— an ‘honor’ it shares with Melito and Chrysostom. Some
of Barnabas’s polemical rhetoric is widely acknowledged as fantastic, peculiar, bizarre, and internally
incoherent.539 In the most detailed analysis by a Jewish scholar, Alon540 suggests that Barnabas’s knowledge
of what he quoted was rather shallow, in sharp contrast to those that advocate a Jewish author on the -
basis of the author’s use of the ‘two ways’ motif, familiarity with a variety of Jewish traditions and with
Gematria.541

Barnabas’s Adversaries+
Barnabas does not show any empathy for, or affinity to, the Jewish people. Historical Israel is not ‘us’ or
‘we’ but ‘them’ or ‘they’ (Bar. 3:6; 4:6; 8:7; 10:12; 13:1,3; 14:5). The author does not use the term ‘Jews.’
Most of the references to Israel are to the distant past (5:2; 6:7; 9:2; 11:1; 12:2), or to the time when Jesus
and his disciples worked among the Jews (5:8; 8:3). In Barnabas, the adversaries are not some Jews (elders,
scribes, Pharisees, high priests, etc.) or ‘the Jews’ but rather ‘they.’ It is unclear whether ‘they’ are all the
Jews, establishment-Judaism, the Jewish faction, or their Gentile sympathizers. Later Pauline polemical
core themes are expressed here with utter simplicity.542 The extensive usage of we/they, them/us,
ours/theirs in negative and hostile contexts (2:9–10; 3:1–3, 6; 4:6–8, 14; 5:1; 8:7; 10:12; 13:1–6; 14:1, 4–8)
exacerbates the polemical impact of the text.

The author and his immediate audience knew the identity of the intended adversaries. However, to us, their
identity is obscured by loss of context, the orthodox narrative, and the fog of history. Who are ‘us’ and
who are ‘they’ is implied, not explicitly stated or clarified.543 ‘Us’ seems to apply to converts to the author’s
form of belief in Jesus—apparently, a Pauline strand. ‘They,’ on the other hand, are deceived (2:9),
conversion to ‘their law’ is equivalent to shipwreck (3:6), ‘they’ are perfect in sin (8:1), things are clear to
‘us’ but obscure to ‘them’ (at 8:7), ‘their’ failure to understand the food laws is a consequence of their ‘lust

163
of the flesh’ (at 10:9), ‘they’ are wretched men who erred in putting their trust in the temple (16:1–2).
Barnabas’s use of the term ‘they’ resonates with John’s confusing and inconsistent deployment of the term
‘Ioudaioi’ and may have targeted the same internal adversaries.

Deciphering who are the immediate and the ultimate adversaries at the epicenter of Barnabas, and of the
other texts of the period, is crucial for our understanding of the underlying crucible that brought about the
emergence of the polemical strand. It may be that for some, or most, Gentile believers in Jesus the
boundaries between the adversaries were blurred to start with.544 Furthermore, it is increasingly apparent
that it was not uncommon for early proto-orthodox writers to identify and characterize Jewish opponents
within the Jesus movement as ‘Ioudaioi.’545 It is quite clear that Barnabas addresses behavior occurring
among Gentile believers within his own community. Furthermore, if we divest the Pauline-orthodox
hegemony over the discourse, there is nothing in the text that would indicate that the immediate targets are
outside Jews or that the author’s horizon is beyond the Jesus movement.

Barnabas is among the first to imply that his opponents’ understanding of Jesus’s life and ministry, that
stands on Judaism, must be erroneous. For Barnabas, the true meaning of Israelite history is to be
understood and deciphered by non-Jews. The exasperation of Barnabas, and of later proto-orthodox
believers, seems to reflect the influence that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers exerted
among Gentile believers (not of the influence of, or attraction to, Judaism). According to Murray, Barnabas
is also concerned with the possible recognition, by members of his congregation, of the validity of a joint
covenant (Bar. 3:6 and 4:6).546 Concern about the possible conversion of some of the members to Torah
observance (Bar. 3.6) is also present.547

The stress inherent in Hebrews’ and Barnabas’s appropriate-but-reject answer to the continuity-
discontinuity dilemma vis- à -vis the founding fathers required, and triggered, the emergence of the
appropriation-supersession phenomenon - with horrific consequences. [+pg 170]

The Covenant
A major theme, found in several chapters, is possession of the covenant. The opening salvo is:

[B]e on your guard now and do not be like certain people; that is, do not continue to
pile up your sins while claiming that your covenant is irrevocably yours, due to the fact
in fact the covenant is both theirs and ours. (4:7) It is ours, but those people lost it
completely in the following way, when Moses had just received it. For the Scripture
says: ‘And Moses was in the mountain fasting for forty days and forty nights, and he
received the covenant from the Lord, stone tablet’s inscribed by the fingers of the
hand of the Lord’ (4:8).
But by turning to idols they lost it. For thus says the Lord: ‘Moses, Moses, go down
quickly, due to the fact your people, whom you led out of Egypt, have broken the
Law.’ And Moses understood and hurled the two tablets from his hands, and their
covenant was broken in pieces, in order that the covenant of the 46beloved Jesus
might be sealed in our heart, in hope inspired by faith in him.548

164
Barnabas addresses, what he considers to be, a disturbing attitude held by some members of the
community he addresses (Bar. 4:6; 13:1; and 14:1). Barnabas’s adversaries seem to favor a closer affiliation
with the traditions and beliefs of Jewish founding fathers. It is also possible that some members of
Barnabas’s community may have thought that the covenant belongs to both: the descendants of the Jewish
founders and to Gentile believers in Jesus, and therefore were not differentiating sufficiently between the
two. Barnabas warns the addressees against being influenced by these individuals.549

Barnabas argues that ‘they’ never ‘truly’ did possess the covenant (chp. 13 and 14). It was given, Barnabas
declares, ‘but they were not worthy to receive it due to the fact of their sins’ (14.1). Barnabas’s unique
doctrine is that the Jewish Law never did have any validity; it was nothing but a misunderstanding on ‘their’
part. Pauline believers in Jesus must make sure, by being accurate, that they do not make a similar mistake
(2.10).550 Per Barnabas only ‘we’ are blessed and ‘they’ never were the chosen people.551 The author rejects
the notion that the covenant could be shared. He argues that it never was ‘theirs’ and was always (in God’s
intention) ‘ours.’ The Gentile followers of Paul became the ‘people of inheritance’ (14:4) and received the
covenant (14:5) and that was what God always intended.

The Temple
It has been argued that the threat that the Temple might be rebuilt profoundly disturbs Barnabas’s
convictions about the meaning of recent historical events and is one reason for his particularly negative
account of the character, traditions and beliefs of his Jewish opponents.552 The growing emphasis on the
destruction of the Temple as signaling ‘their’ demise would be proven void by the rebuilding of the
Temple, which is perceived as a major threat.

From Hebrews and Barnabas on, an explicitly apologetic use of the Jewish War and the loss of the Temple
became integral to the discourse.553 Most scholars seem to agree that Barnabas reflects fear among Gentile
believers in Jesus about the impact of the rebuilding of the Temple. The prophecy in 16.3–4 should be
taken in conjunction with that in 4.3–5, as indicating a peril that is about to break upon the church.554
However, they disagree on the importance of this hope in fueling Barnabas’s furor against ‘them.’555
Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE is deployed by Barnabas as testimony to ‘their’ loss of God’s favor.
For Barnabas, ‘they’ are like Pagans in their attitudes toward the Temple. ‘Their’ relationship to the Temple
is paganized in the service of Pauline apologetic: ‘Moreover I will tell you likewise concerning the temple,
how these wretched men being led astray set their hope on the building, and not on their God that made
them, as being a house of God’ (16.1).556

Wedge Issues, Stumbling Blocks

The dietary traditions —According to Barnabas, the food laws were not intended for literal use, but for
allegorical instruction regarding correct ethical behavior (Chapter 10).557 In the last verse of Chapter 10 he
states: ‘But how was it possible for them to understand or comprehend these things? But we having a

165
righteous understanding of them announce the commandments as the Lord wished’ (10:12). What is
forbidden refers to forms of sinful behavior. What is permitted supports the superior spiritual focus of the
author’s form of belief in Jesus. It is only ‘them’ who cannot grasp or understand this, who insist that these
prohibitions refer to actual foods.558

Barnabas disparages ‘them’ by suggesting that their incorrect understanding of the law originates in moral
deficiency559 ‘Moses received three doctrines concerning food and thus spoke of them in the Spirit; but
they received them as really referring to food, owing to the lust of their flesh’ (10:9). Some of the author’s
contentions on Jewish dietary law are particularly bizarre. The segments on his opponents’ dietary
traditions are worth reading as a gateway to the peculiar mind of this first-century enthusiast.

Sabbath observance —Barnabas encourages Gentiles to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. The
Sabbath is understood as an eschatological parable (Chapter 15). The eschatological Sabbath replaces the
weekly Sabbaths. This will occur after six thousand years (15:3–6) for in these present evil times the
Sabbath cannot be sanctified (15:6–7).560 Gentile believers at any rate have their own day of celebration,
Sunday (15:9).

Circumcision —Some Gentile believers in Jesus, under the sway of the Jewish faction, would understand
circumcision to indicate participation in the covenant with God and, hence, an integral part of being
followers of Jesus.561 However, for the author ‘they’ misinterpreted the commandment to circumcise by
interpreting it literally (Chapter 9) and ‘[h]e circumcised our hearing, so that we might hear the word and
believe’ (9:4).

The circumcision in which ‘they’ have placed their confidence has brought them nothing. What God
commanded was not circumcision of the flesh: ‘They transgressed, due to the fact a wicked angel
instructed them’ (9:4).562 Barnabas’s metaphorical view of circumcision originates within Judaism (Lev.
26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:26). Jewish exhortations of the faithful to see beyond the literal
observance of the Torah, a staple of Jewish spirituality and of Jewish mysticism, are harnessed by Barnabas
as arguments against ‘them.’

Torah observance —Barnabas alerts his audience not to imitate those who stray from proper behavior
(Bar. 4:6). He aims to negate the authority of the traditions and rituals of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Bar.
5:4)563 by using an adversarial interpretation of the Jewish law and arguing that the Mosaic Law was never
supposed to be interpreted literally. Therefore, those who lived according to the literal understanding of
the law (i.e., the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers) were wrong. Per the author, Gentile
believers in Jesus, who found the customs and traditions of the founding fathers attractive and practiced
them, were misguided and were being misled.564 He warns Gentile believers against becoming ‘shipwrecked
by conversion’ (3:6).

565The author’s thinking is shot through with powerful end-of-times convictions. The present age is an evil
age, controlled by the evil one (2:1, 10; 4:1, 13), but time is running out and the last days are here (4:3, 9;

166
16:5; 21:3) preceded by certain judgment (15:1–3; 21:6). The writer’s sense of urgency is unambiguous and
it was presumably either shared by his readers, or something he wished to inculcate in them. And, in
striking similarity with Hebrews and John, it is suggested that some were dropping out of communal
gatherings (4:10), while others might even have abandoned the faith:

Now to us indeed it is manifest that these things so befell for this reason, but to them
they were dark, because they heard not the voice of the Lord. (8.7)
But whence should they perceive or understand these things? Howbeit we having justly
perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed. To this end He circumcised
our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things. (10:12)566

Barnabas and Qumran

Barnabas seems to emulate-incorporate-appropriate a pattern of religion we find in Qumran:567

1. God has given a covenant at Sinai.

2. That covenant, through the agency of an extraordinary individual, is the possession of the
community. Those outside the community have forfeited their right to it through their sins.
3. The correct interpretation of the commandments, of the covenant, of the scriptures, and of the
prophets lies with the community.

However, and significantly, Qumran aims its anti-establishment arrows at the Judean religious
establishment and calls for the return of the Jewish people to righteousness. Barnabas, on the other hand,
attempts to negate the validity of the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement by appropriating Qumran-
like sectarian rhetorical idiosyncrasies – and using them as anti-establishment polemic within the Jesus
movement. In Barnabas, we find echoes of the anti-Jewish-establishment posturing and of the Two
Ways’568 material that we encounter in the texts of Judean sectarian communities (Qumran, I Enoch,
Jubilees). We have already noted that the “Two Ways” theme569 is the label given by scholars to a Judean
sectarian worldview
that sees this world as the battleground between the forces of good and evil.
This is contrary to the traditional Israelite view that creation was good and
benign. The resentful, righteous, and militant posturing of Jewish sectarians
is oftentimes intertwined and undistinguishable from the “Two Ways” material. Nonetheless, the
distinction is useful to separate the polemical from the theological aspects of this separatist subculture.
These themes and attitudes characterized Jewish sectarians and may have migrated to Gentile settings
through the agency of the descendants of the founding fathers—most probably through a group (or
individual) that joined, and later seceded, from a community of Jewish followers of Jesus.570 Barnabas’s
‘two ways’ motif has angelic powers, and ‘the ruler of this present lawlessness’ (18.2). The times are evil,
and there is evil lurking to ‘sling us out from our life’ (2.10).571

Barnabas seems to imitate Qumran and other Judean sectarians where the official Jewish cult is seen as
displeasing to God, idolatrous, and evil. Another area of similarity and difference between Barnabas and

167
Qumran is the covenant. We have already noted that Barnabas: (1) holds to the view that there is one
covenant; (2) regards the covenant as containing the right laws if only interpreted correctly; and (3) is
strongly opposed to the idea that the covenant is anything other than the possession of those espousing
the author’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. However, although the Qumran texts regularly speak of a ‘new
covenant’ (CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12; IQpHab 2:3f.), there does not seem to be a great disjunction between this
new covenant and the covenant that it seems to replace. In Qumran, what is new in the ‘new covenant’ are
secret teachings, present in the law from eternity, but only revealed to the community through the teacher
of righteousness (IQpHab 7:4f.), or in another formulation the Zadokite priests (see IQSb 3:24; IQS
5:21f.).572

My Barnabas+
Some have argued that Barnabas is fighting Judaistic inclinations among his addressees. Others have drawn
the conclusion that Barnabas perceives Judaism itself as an actual threat. For many modern scholars, the
author is reacting to the attractiveness of Judaism and answers are to be found in the conflict between the
synagogue and the Church.573 Traditionally, scholars have seen the purpose of Barnabas as bound up with
Judaism, either directly or indirectly. That Jewish observances, the Temple, the covenant, and the Land are
the central themes of Barnabas’s polemical exegesis is widely recognized.574 During the last decades some
scholars have begun to differentiate intended adversaries from literary or metaphorical ones and advocate
an internal setting for these debates. Gentile Judaizers, Gentile sympathizers with Judaism, are increasingly
seen as the intended targets. Murray, in the footsteps of Wilson and others, suggests that the targets are
Christian Judaizers.575

However, Barnabas’ abusive treatment of Judaism reflects a struggle about identity, ascendancy, and
legitimacy within the Jesus movement. Judaism got dragged into the whirlwind as consequence of the fact
that the movement was originally Jewish and that the shift to a Gentile majority led to a de-Judaizing
thrust. Barnabas ‘turned the tables’ against the establishment of the Jesus movement and claimed that
Gentiles that embraced his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy were the new holders of the covenant with
YHWH; the New Israel. Judean sectarian traditions, prophetic chastisement, self-criticism, allegory, and
metaphor (most probably originating with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers) are
turned against them. In Barnabas, and throughout the texts of early Gentile believers, attacks on Judaism
by some and attraction to it by others, should be understood as symptoms of an identity crisis within the
Jesus movement.

The scenario advocated here posits that Barnabas’ intended adversaries are Gentile sympathizers with the
founding faction. The author of the Epistle seems to be a Gentile that joined, and later seceded from, a
community of Jewish followers of Jesus (and therefore had some exposure to Judaism). This profile could
fit this peculiar text and its many idiosyncrasies. Barnabas’s superficial acquaintance with Judaism and his
crude argumentation signals that his intended audience was Gentile. In this setting, Judaism could be made
into whatever the author’s rich imagination concocted it to be.

168
‘We’ (Pauline believers) are the only truly ethical people, the only true inheritors of the covenant and the
only rightful interpreters of the Jewish sacred scriptures. ‘Their’ (the Jewish followers of Jesus)
understanding of their own traditions is wrong and ‘their’ covenant is an illusion. God did give the
covenant to the Israelites, but their transgressions made them unworthy to receive it: ‘Moses received it,
but they were not worthy’ (14:1–3).576 The author claims that the covenant was always ‘our’ possession,
that it had never belonged to ‘them’ in the first place.577 The implied message seems to be: Judaism
misinterpreted and misunderstood its heritage. Therefore, the Jewish faction cannot have it right either.

Barnabas seems to be part of a chain of sectarian affront to a group in position of authority. The author of
the Epistle of Barnabas criticizes Jewish interpretations of scripture and Jewish religious practices in order
to dissuade members of his community from attraction to the descendants of the founding fathers and
from observing their customs. In Barnabas, the adversaries are not the Synoptic High Priests, Jewish
authorities, Elders, Pharisees, scribes, nor John’s Ioudaioi, but ‘they’/ ‘them.’ The deployment of ‘they’/
‘them’ is essentially similar in intent to John’s deployment of the term ‘Ioudaioi’ and aims at the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or their Gentile sympathizers—directly or through ‘the
Jews’ as a proxy, or as a derogative identifier. Barnabas’s outlook must be intimately linked to the
background against which it was written: context-shaped theology.578

Barnabas’s peculiar theological position, that the Jewish followers of Jesus misunderstood their own sacred
texts and that God’s covenant with ‘them’ was a temporary measure (9:4), seems to be reasonably fitted to
the erupting struggle within the Jesus movement and is an expansion of Mark’s disciples that did not
understand. This position shadows the claim of the Pauline-Markan-Lukan faction that the legitimacy and
the leadership of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers was temporary and that their
understanding of Jesus’s ministry was mistaken. In reaction to what he perceived to be the excessive
influence that they exerted over members of his community, Barnabas targets the Jewish faction—who
were, at the time and to many, the acknowledged inheritors, guardians, and interpreters of Jesus’s ministry.
Barnabas argues that the Mosaic Law was never supposed to be interpreted literally. Therefore, the
descendants of the Jewish founders, who lived according to the traditional Jewish understanding of the
Torah, were wrong, and Gentile believers who found Jewish customs attractive and practiced them were
being deceived.

Barnabas’s anti-Judaism is proto-orthodox; it is the anti-Judaism inherent in appropriation-substitution, as

distinct from the anti-Judaism of rejection (Marcionites and Gnostics). The full measure of Barnabas’s
vitriol is difficult to convey. Barnabas is relentless: ‘They’ are Pagan-like (16.1–3), demonized (7. 10),
Jesus’s sacrifice completed the full measure of the sins of those who persecuted the prophets and put him
to death (5:11–12). In addition, misreading of God’s will, diabolical inspiration, and an endless array of
derogatory rhetoric are dispensed without the slightest restraint.

Barnabas and Hebrew’s attempted to provide to Gentile followers of Paul a theological foundation to
address the continuity-discontinuity conundrum vis-à-vis the founding faction: how to defend the yearning
of Gentiles to be acknowledged as rightful believers in Jesus, while rejecting the beliefs and traditions
espoused by Jesus and by those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy. Barnabas’s extreme

169
disparagement of the character, traditions and beliefs of his opponents and his often-bizarre arguments did
eventually relegate it to the margins of canonicity. However, regardless of the identity of the immediate or
intended adversaries, many elements of the author’s response to the attraction to Jewish beliefs and
traditions among his flock are offensive to Jews and, read literally, are anti-Jewish.579

Overall, Barnabas’s tactic of choice is the erosion, through vilification and disparagement, of the high
esteem that the beliefs, traditions, and institutions of the Jewish leadership had among some Gentile
believers. Barnabas’s incorporation-appropriation of the identity and lore of the Jewish founders into a
Gentile narrative is one of the earliest and clearest instances of the supersessionary trajectory. Barnabas is
also one of the earliest, explicit, and crude attempts to Gentilize belief in Jesus by delegitimizing the
character, traditions and beliefs of the founders. This ambivalent and seemingly contradictory approach
(incorporation-appropriation while superseding-gentilizing) to ‘the Jewish question,’ found in embryonic
form in Paul and in the Synoptics, will be deployed during the next three hundred years against the
descendants of the Jewish founders and their Gentile sympathizers in a variety of configurations.

170
 Supersession Theology – Summary+

Introduction - By the dawn of the second century, the antagonism between followers of Jesus of Jewish
ancestry and believers in Jesus of Pagan ancestry was a few generations old, and building up. Within a
couple of generations after Jesus’s short ministry, the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles and the
descendants of the Jewish founders created a tripolar reality that made a confrontation about identity,
legitimacy, and authority unavoidable. Christianity-as-we-know-it emerges from the melting pot of the
religious ‘civil war’ that followed. The texts before us were authored during this period and reflect the
factionalism, confusion, anxiety, and heightened emotions that characterized the early phases of this
struggle.

Flanked on all sides of the theological spectrum, the Pauline faction opted for the midway between the
rejection of, and continuity with, the Jewish faction. Thus, given the proto-orthodox inclination to
appropriate the identity and the lore of the Jewish founding fathers, the choice of the Israelites as YHWH’s
beloved had to be annulled, to undercut the claim of the descendants of the Jewish founders to being
‘God’s chosen,’ the ‘New Israel,’ and the legitimate custodians of Jesus ministry.580 Thus, to vest the
Pauline faction as God’s new favorites, YHWH had to be ‘freed’ from his particularistic commitment to
the Jewish people.

It is probable that we will never know with certainty what Paul’s true attitude toward Judaism was. We
know, however, that when Gentile believers needed a foundation for their rejection of the beliefs and
traditions of the Jewish founders of the Jesus movement, they found in Paul the theological and polemical
support they needed. Whether their interpretation was based on a true and correct understanding of Paul’s
intent (the traditionalists) or on its distortion (the revisionists) is an open debate.

Supersession theology has two main components: appropriation and replacement. Appropriation refers to
the attempts by Pauline believers to vest themselves as the inheritors of the authority, identity, legitimacy,
and lore of the Jewish founding fathers of the Jesus movement. Replacement refers to the view that the
Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ legacy replaced, annulled, and superseded the beliefs and traditions of Jesus’
disciples and first followers. Supersession theology is couched in extreme and unequivocal terms and has
two derivatives of special interest to us: The Jewish loss of God’s favor and the supersession of Judaism in
all things religious and ethical.

Supersession theology is the theological articulation of the Pauline claim to the exclusive custody of Jesus’s
legacy. The anchors of appropriation supersession theology (Hebrews, Barnabas, and Justin) built on the
selective and early appropriation-incorporation of elements of the lore, traditions, and beliefs of the Jewish
founders, by previous Gentile believers. To claim continuity with Jesus’s ministry, and to keep the

171
members of the contending factions in the fold, the emerging ‘orthodoxy’ retained some elements of the
beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers but rejected the core customs and traditions of Torah
observance, circumcision, and dietary law.

The arguments and the language deployed by the Pauline faction against the establishment of the Jesus
movement emulate the language, the arguments, and the imagery that we encounter among Jewish
sectarians and, we assume, would encounter among the Jewish followers of Jesus. From the second century
forward, the Paulines will ‘turn the tables’ and will confront the descendants of the founding fathers with
Jewish-sectarian-like claims they harvested from the founders’ texts and traditions. This identity emulation-
transformation is unique in world history, is fascinating in its dynamics, tragic in its consequences.

By internalizing elements of the identity and lore of the descendants of the Jewish founders, the Pauline
faction emerged from this process thinking and feeling as a persecuted Jewish sect. Thus, the descendants
of Jesus’s disciples and first followers became the involuntary agents and facilitators in the transformation
of non-Jewish believers into militant enthusiasts displaying a variety of Qumran-like sectarian rhetoric and
characteristics. Although this theological ploy was originally aimed at the descendants of the founding
fathers, it eventually led to the disenfranchisement of Judaism. The tension between the rejection of core
beliefs and customs of the founding fathers and the wish to claim continuity with them, embedded a deep
ambivalence toward Judaism at the core of the emerging theology and teachings.

Forfeiture of God’s Favor - All civilizations have attempted to grapple with the mysteries of divine favor
and divine wrath. The loss of God’s favor, God’s wrath, and God’s chastisement are recurring motifs in
most ancient Near Eastern cultures. Since time immemorial humans have attempted to decipher the ever-
present and turbulent oscillations of life and fate. The efforts to understand the vicissitudes of health,
fortune, fertility, wealth, and survival pervade the lore of human civilizations since the dawn of history.

Throughout the Near East the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hittite, Canaanite, and Israelite cultures pondered
the divine in search for answers to these existential questions. In many ancient civilizations, divine wrath
and misfortune were understood as originating in non-compliance with the sacrifices and ceremonies
instituted to court the favor of the divine realm. The Mesopotamian ‘Gilgamesh Epic’ and ‘Enuma Elish,’
the Egyptian ‘Deliverance of Mankind from Destruction,’ the Israelite flood story, the Canaanite ‘Epic of
the Gods,’ and the Hittite ‘Myth of Telepinu’ all attempt to grapple with these fundamental questions.

With this background in mind and as the crisis in the Jesus camp intensified, a theological narrative was
necessary to underpin the claim to the transfer of the Jewish God’s favor to its new, non-Jewish and self-
appointed, beneficiaries. Thus, supersession theology seems to have emerged to explain to Gentile
believers in Jesus the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus via the ‘loss of God’s favor’ by all Jews, to the
inclusion of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The alleged Jewish ‘loss of God’s
favor,’ which sustains supersession theology, is an elaboration (by non-Jews) of a traditional Jewish
sectarian attitude toward establishment Judaism. The Pauline invectives ‘you have forfeited God’s favor,’

172
and ‘you are irredeemable’ echo similar claims by the Enochic, Jubelean, and Qumranic Judean sectarians,
and may have been part of the lore of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

Judean Self-Criticism - It is noteworthy that Israelites developed a remarkable and unparalleled inclination
and predisposition for self-criticism and introspection that may have originated in the dialectic between the
monarchy, the tribal structure, and the religious establishment. Prophets were an integral part of the
Israelite nation during the Davidic era and often served as an ethical, political, and religious counterbalance
to the monarchy and the religious establishment. Some prophets were political insiders; others were from
the political fringes. Some prophets were part of the cultural elite; others were uneducated. Not all biblical
prophets were alike; some were subservient to the crown,581 while others confronted the monarchy and the
people. Most demanded ethical conduct from both. The anti-establishment stance of the canonical
prophets, and the recurrent chastisement of the nation, became central to the nation’s psyche and culture.
Cycles of favor and disfavor and of grace and sin, engendered by this tradition and probably inserted by
priestly editors, were seized upon by later Jewish sectarians to chastise the nation and its rulers.

Most biblical prophets exhorted the flock to repent and return to the ways of the Lord. The often-
adversarial prophet-king relationship that we encounter throughout much of the Israelite texts reflects not
only the tensions between secular and religious elites, but also a tradition of opposition to power and
despotism that originates in the pre-monarchical tribal setting.582 However, in ‘real-time’ it was impossible
to distinguish true prophecy from the many seers, fortune-tellers, political doomsayers, and false prophets
that crowded the biblical marketplace of divination.583 At any given time, there were many ‘prophets,’ some
supporting one side of a controversy, others supporting the opposing view.

The biblical standard for true prophesy is Deut. 18:22: ‘[W]hen a prophet speaks in the name of the
LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken;
the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him.’ Canonization of prophets came
during the second Temple period and was a retroactive exercise by scribes and religious functionaries
aimed at furthering religious interests and agendas. It is no surprise that among the many prophets and
seers active in the Israelite marketplace of divination, the Jewish canon favors prophets that challenged the
monarchy and therefore laid the ground to legitimate the transition from the Davidic dynasty to priestly
rule.

Ruether is correct when she claims that prophetic exhortation is significantly different from Christian
claims about Israel’s apostasy and forfeiture of God’s favor due to the emotional and national loyalties of
the critics. The former are members of a group articulating an edifying call to the flock, the latter is an
attempt to divest a nation of its identity and heritage.584 Evans probes further and concludes that in-house
prophetic criticism, no longer understood as a challenge from within the community of faith, was
understood as condemnation of a particular people outside of the faith—the people who had rejected
Jesus, his apostles, and the church.585 Beck adds that the self-criticism that Judaism did permit made it
vulnerable to the polemical attacks of its offspring and later competitors.586

173
Judean self-criticism and Judean anti-establishment rhetoric, the quarry where many Pauline polemical
stones originate, do reflect Jewish humility and the traditional Judean inclination to chastise and humble
the people and its leaders. The Israelite tradition of self-criticism was harnessed by Pauline thinkers to
‘justify’ the Jewish ‘forfeiture of God’s favor’ (i.e., the transfer of God’s favor from the founding faction to
the Gentile followers of Paul). This takeover of the Jewish scriptures became one of the most formidable
tools in the proto-orthodox quest for ascendancy.

When the nation’s prophets chastise the people and add the burden of guilt and sin, to the consequences
of a national calamity or defeat, it may be considered a benign effort to edify the nation, a call for renewed
commitment to Torah observance. Harnessing the nation’s suffering may be acceptable (although ethically
questionable) in the context of internal self-criticism. We have witnessed how these assertions gradually
morphed into claims to the supersession of ‘Judaism’ by ‘Christianity.’ Centuries later, the projection onto
Judaism of this rhetoric (originally aimed at the Jewish founders) did create an untenable situation for a
militant and exclusivist church aiming for worldwide ascendancy and claiming to exclusive status as
YHWH’s chosen. The continuing existence of Judaism eventually became a threat to the church’s
legitimacy and hegemony, ushering-in increasingly extreme polemical measures.

Sin and Guilt - The unjustifiable suffering of the innocent and the recurrence of ‘righteous but vanquished’
and of ‘evil but victorious’ should have challenged ethical monotheists since law, religion, and ethics first
merged, apparently in King Hammurabi’s law code (Babylonia 1795–1750 BCE). Under the construct of
ethical monotheism, suffering and defeat are signs of God’s displeasure or the consequence of sinful
behavior. National defeats or disasters are seen as retribution for sinfulness. Thus, unjustifiable evil and
suffering, in a world created by a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity, posit a daunting challenge
to ethical monotheists.

In the ancient world, victory in war or a long and peaceful reign were considered signs of divine favor.
Defeat was a sign of divine disapproval.587 The perception that misfortune is a sign of God’s displeasure
comes from an equation common to most ancient cultures and religions: divine favor brings good fortune.
This axiom has been the legitimating creed of the victors, the powerful, and the mighty since times
immemorial. Moreover, ethical monotheists tend to see victory as a sign of righteousness and
predestination, making critical and rational historical analysis difficult and uncommon.

This axiom transforms victims into accomplices in their own suffering and inculcates in them inner doubt,
self-loathing, and a sense of ‘deserving’ their tragic circumstances. The mechanism at play is a double
jeopardy of the victim. The victim, individual or nation, not only suffer the calamity and its consequences;
it is also driven to accept the burden of guilt and sin. Furthermore, when the poor, the meek, and the
victim are made responsible for their predicament, they are also made guilty of their circumstances, thereby
‘freeing’ society from responsibility.

Contrary to popular misperceptions, the Judean journey from the henotheistic588 outlook of its tribal
origins to monotheism was hard fought, protracted and complex. Per Jewish scripture, YHWH is a just and

174
severe God who is also inscrutable, wrathful, vengeful, zealous, capricious, and temperamental.
Furthermore, the Jewish God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient but not necessarily benevolent.
This complex and seemingly contradictory persona may facilitate the believer’s coping with the reality of
evil. In Judaism, evil, suffering, and injustice are part of the complexity of reality. Thus, Jews can
accommodate evil without processing it into personal sin and guilt, avoiding the devastating effects that
this internalization has on other ethical monotheists.

When the Jewish God entered the Pauline pantheon he had been the traveling companion of the Judean
nation for many generations (3,500 years according to Jewish scripture, some 1,500–2,000 years according
to historical research). By the turn of the era, the Judean engagement of the divine realm already embodied
a long mythical and historical journey whose origins can be traced back to Canaanite deities.

Gentile believers in Jesus, free from the ethnic and historical burdens of the Jewish faction, did gravitate
toward a fully benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. However, since an omnipotent
and benevolent God is incompatible with the recurring suffering of the righteous and the fortune of
sinners, and evil cannot be attributed to God, Gentile believers must internalize evil by processing it into
individual sin and guilt—theirs or their enemies’.

Destruction of the Temple - The destruction of the Temple looms large in the canonical and in the
authoritative lore.589 The failed revolution of 70 CE and the destruction of the Temple became a central
polemical tool in the demotion of the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement. We have seen that, in
accordance with the ancient understanding of the divine impact on military affairs, opponents would
interpret the destruction of the Temple as a theological omen. It is no surprise, therefore, that the non-
Jewish factions understood the loss of the Jewish cultic epicenter as supportive of their campaign to
delegitimize the character, traditions and beliefs of their opponents.

The defeat of the Jews was seen as synonymous to the defeat of the Jewish faction, and it was embraced as
a trove in the propaganda war against them. In other words, the attempts to discredit, and disenfranchise
the Jewish followers of Jesus were ‘corroborated’ by God’s unequivocal rejection of the Jews - as illustrated
by the destruction of the Temple. However, it seems that the impact and the implications of the
destruction of the Temple were not as dramatic, nor as definitive, as implied by the authoritative texts of
the Pauline faction or by Christian theology since. The destruction of the Temple as the pivot of Jewish
decline, and as the turning point in Jewish-Christian relations, has been questioned by reevaluations that
downgrade the impact of the Jewish War of 70 CE 12 and emphasize the devastation inflicted upon Judea
during the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 CE.590

Furthermore, although loss and decimation were great during the Jewish War, the Judeans had a long
record of resiliency on which they could draw. The nation had rebounded from many reversals and the
Temple had been rebuilt before.591 At the time, the destruction of the Temple would not signal an
irreversible loss of God’s favor. Nor do Jewish sources support the Gentile claim that the loss of the
Temple invalidated the observance of the Law or signaled the end of the covenant.592 Furthermore, the

175
legitimacy of the Herodian Temple had long been controversial among Jews and its destruction was not
seen as a definitive blow to Judean national aspirations. Anti-Temple sentiment, and the belief that it was
sacrilegious or had been defiled and desecrated, were rather common in first-century Judea.593 Many
considered the priesthood in power and its liturgy blasphemous.594 The decline in the status and in the
prestige of the high priests (not rightful Zadokite priests but rather traitors, collaborators, and Roman
appointees) fueled anti-Temple sentiment. The Temple, the priesthood, and the cult were the focus of
intense debates. Not all Jews were satisfied with the conduct of the Jerusalem cult, and many boycotted
it.595

Furthermore, the Temple, built by King Herod whose questionable Jewish ancestry was problematic to
many traditionalists, was considered by many to be sacrilegious and impure. In addition, Herod was a
Roman vassal who had been imposed and sustained by the Roman conquerors. His pro-Roman orientation
made him and his actions suspect and controversial. He was hated by the populace. The murder, by Herod,
of the surviving members of the Hasmonean Dynasty (the ruling clan since the Maccabean revolt) further
alienated most Judeans. In addition, the Qumranites, whose sacred texts are available to us in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, were virulently ‘anti-establishment’ and considered the Temple priesthood ‘the sons of darkness,’
the Temple defiled. Craig Evans supports the thesis that Jesus’s actions, similar to the Qumran position on
this subject, were directed to the cleansing of the Temple596 not to its destruction.

A recapitulation of the arguments that point to a needed reevaluation of the overstatements concerning the
impact of the destruction of the Temple:

1. High priests were, for the most part, appointed by the conquerors and lost their religious legitimacy
in the eyes the local population. Most of these traitors and collaborators with the Roman
conquerors were opportunists that collected taxes and ruled the provinces on behalf of foreign
oppressors. The decline in their prestige contributed to the decline in the status of the Temple prior
to its destruction.
2. Many Judeans considered the edifice that was destroyed in 70 CE a sacrilege. It had been built by
Herod who had murdered all the legitimate descendants to the throne under the patronage of
foreign occupiers. Many, sectarian and mainstream alike, considered the Herodian Temple an
abomination and prayed for its destruction.
3. The destruction of the Herodian Temple was seen by most Jews as a temporary setback that called
for repentance and renewal, not a sign of a permanent rift between YHWH and his chosen.
4. By 70 ce, the transition from Temple-based to Synagogue-based Judaism was already underway.
Consequently, the destruction of the Temple did not end Jewish continuity. Rabbinical Judaism did
emerge following the failed Judean revolutions due to the fact that, by that time, synagogues and
prayer houses provided a foundation for Jewish life in Judea and in the Diasporas.597

5. In the ancient world, the military defeat of small nations often led to the eradication of the
vanquished party as a political, religious, and cultural entity. However, by the turn of the era,
Judaism had a collective history that extend over many generations and included many victories and

176
 many defeats. Military defeat or the destruction of the Temple, although great national tragedies,
were not understood by Jews as ‘the end of the road.’

In the aftermath of the Jewish War, and emboldened by the Jewish defeat and by the decimation of the
communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Judea, Pauline believers stepped up their de-Judaizing
effort. However, it was only after the Judean defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion (135 CE) that the Pauline
faction launched a more overt crusade against the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.
Wilson and others have concluded that the Bar Kochba rebellion may have spurred Gentile thinkers to
recognize that the outcome of the Jewish War was final and God’s judgment irrevocable.598

The Judean defeats (the Jewish War 66–74, the uprisings in Cyrene and Egypt in 115–117 ce, and the Bar
Kochba revolt 132–135) became rhetorical ramps that facilitated the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movement
and the assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish elite. With the Bar Kochba revolt, the slow decline of the
descendants of the Jewish founders accelerated, and the slow ascendancy of the Pauline faction was
enabled and facilitated. The emphasis is on ‘slow,’ for despite the decimation of their Judean strongholds,
the Jewish faction and their Gentile sympathizers remained a formidable opponent. Not until Theodosius I
(379–395 ce) did the demotion of the descendants of the founding fathers reach an irreversible turning
point.

In summary, Jewish defeats were seen by the Pauline faction as a reflection of God’s wrath and were
deemed to support and justify their claim to being the new guardians of Jesus’s legacy. The suffering of the
Jews, to the inclusion of the descendants of the founding fathers, was showcased as proof of their ‘loss of
God’s favor.’ The underlying rationale seems to have been that if the Jews were no longer God’s chosen,
the Jewish followers of Jesus could no longer claim to be the guardians of Jesus’s legacy either.

Supersession Theology – Afterthoughts+

As the Pauline mission absorbed ever increasing numbers of Pagan converts, its goals and objectives grew
ever larger: from yearnings for recognition as legitimate believers in Jesus, to claims to primacy within the
Jesus movement, to assertions about the supersession-replacement of the identity and lore of the Jewish
followers of Jesus. Hebrews and Barnabas, roughly contemporaneous with the canonical gospels,
articulated and put forward in overt and explicit format, the supersessionary impetus that seems to
underwrite the canonical gospels. Barnabas and Hebrews deploy non-gospel literary vehicles to articulate
theological messages that are implicit and veiled in the gospels. The claim that ‘their’ understanding of
Jesus’s ministry was mistaken is embryonic in Mark’s disciples that ‘did not understand.’

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the authors/editors of the canonical gospels framed Jesus’ ministry as ‘the
rejection of Jesus by the Jews’ at a time when the mission to the Jews was ongoing and followers of Jesus
of Jewish origin were active among fellow Jews. At the time, a definitive end of the mission to the Jews was
still in the future, an outcome unknown to the protagonists. It is noteworthy that, at the time of
authorship, the claims put forward by these authors were audacious and extraordinary - given that they

177
were made when the Pauline mission to the Gentiles was a few decades old, chaotic, in flux, and uncertain
of its theological footing. The claim that non-Jews had the correct understanding of a national and religious
tradition spanning, at the time, hundreds of generations—a religious tradition that enjoyed the respect and
admiration of the ancient world —was astonishing. These claims, put forward by recent converts still
uncertain of what their beliefs were, or should be—would be considered unfounded, extraordinary and
odd by contemporaneous intellectuals and thinkers.

The appropriation-supersession move by Pauline leaders and intellectuals seems to have emerged to
counter the arguments of their adversaries that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew and that his beliefs and
traditions should be at the core of belief in Jesus. Since the Paulines rejected Judaism but did not want to
reinvent themselves outside the Jewish narrative, they had to articulate a rationale for this continuity-
discontinuity dissonance. It seems that, to confront this dilemma, Pauline proto-orthodox intellectuals and
leaders gravitated to the deployment of a variety of means to erode the status of the descendants of the
founding fathers (use of Jesus’s life story to denigrate the disciples, the subversion-appropriation of the
anti-Jewish-establishment lore and rhetoric of the Jewish founders, the de-contextualizing of the Hebrew
Scriptures and of Judean self-criticism). These authors emulated long-standing traditions of sectarian
critique and rhetoric within Second Temple Judaism, by subverting-appropriating the lore of the founding
faction. By ‘borrowing a page’ from their opponents’ anti-Jewish-establishment lore (or from other Jewish
sectarians) the authors attack the Levitical priesthood, the Law, the validity of the Israelite covenant with
YHWH, and the Temple sacrifices—all traditional targets of Judean sectarians and the subject of heated
debates among Second Temple Jews.

By harvesting the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of Judean sectarians, these authors gathered an assortment
of ‘off-the-shelf’ rhetorical arrows that they could harness to argue for the demotion of the establishment
of the Jesus movement. This collection of polemical tools included arguments originally deployed by
Jewish sectarians against the Judean establishment (you have lost God’s favor, we are God’s new chosen,
we are the New Israel, we embody a new covenant, the Temple and the priesthood are defiled and no
longer authoritative, etc.…). However, contrary to Judean sectarians who used this rhetoric to reform
Judaism, proto-orthodox Gentiles wanted to eradicate Judaism from the Jesus movement. This inclined
them to de-contextualize, expand, and intensify the appropriated polemic.

The authors claim the identity, history, and legacy of the founding fathers by claiming that Gentile
believers, of their particular persuasion, are the true heirs and the righteous inheritors of YHWH’s
promises to the Israelites (a claim most probably put forward by their Jewish adversaries vis- à -vis
mainstream Judaism). The God of the Israelites is cast as declaring the end of the ‘old’ covenant and the
inauguration of the new. Raiding and de-contextualizing Jewish sacred scripture to ‘prove’ the superiority
of the Pauline worldview became a trademark of the Pauline strand. However, whereas the rhetoric of
Judean sectarians was aimed at remedying the behavior of fellow Jews and allowed for a benign future for
Judaism, Pauline rhetoric evolved to negate a future for their Jewish opponents. To them, eradicating the
beliefs and rituals of the Jewish faction became critical and existential. The selective appropriation of the
Jewish sacred scriptures, to champion their form of belief in Jesus, was one of the Pauline hallmarks and
became deeply ingrained in the tradition and in the hearts and minds of later believers.

178
In Paul, Barnabas, Revelation, John, Hebrews and in the authoritative texts of the second century we did
detect corroborating evidence to the eruption of a fierce and centuries long struggle over identity,
legitimacy and ascendancy within the Jesus movement. These texts were authored during the same era that
witnessed the emergence of the canonical Gospels and Acts. However, while the Gospels hint at a
somewhat consensual and quasi-idyllic transition of leadership from the Jewish followers of Jesus to the
Paulines, these texts point to a period of intense and virulent strife within the Jesus movement.

Therefore, we need to consider the implications of the fact that Hebrews and Barnabas, the earliest explicit
articulations of supersession theology, were roughly contemporaneous with the canonical Gospels. During
the same period that the Gospel authors crafted their texts and incorporated subdued hints599 against
Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their descendants, the authors of Hebrews and Barnabas crafted
more explicit and virulent challenges to their legitimacy and authority. Although this divergence in intensity
and in degree of explicitness could be due to regional, personal, or factional differences - I am inclined to
associate them to the delivery platform (the genre) chosen by each author. It seems plausible that the
differences in the intensity of the anti-Jewish invective between the canonical Gospels vis- à -vis Hebrews
and Barnabas reflect differences in genre and tactics, rather than in aims and ultimate purpose. Thus, the
implied criticism of the disciples and of their beliefs and traditions in the canonical Gospels may be due to
their being authored to function as foundational accounts of the Pauline strand, not as overt and explicit
polemical tools.

First-century Gentiles, still evolving toward a clear understanding, definition, and consensus about what
Jesus’s legacy was or should be, often authored texts characterized by overstatement and intense militancy.
If this type of disrespectful and inappropriate trespassing and disparagement would have remained an
internal hyper-enthusiastic debate about Judaism, its abusive tone and content would be inconsequential
and might be disregarded. Unfortunately, many of these arguments and rhetorical ploys became normative
among later believers. They did become staple supersessionary views that did permeate homilies and
sermons, and the hearts, minds, and souls of believers.

With Hebrews and Barnabas we arrive at the final stage of a supersessionary process within the Jesus
movement, whose embryonic beginnings we detect in Mark and whose intermediate stages we highlight in
the rest of the canonical texts that we investigate. This controversial chain advocates the gentilizing (the de-
Judaizing) of the belief in Jesus through the delegitimating of the Jewish followers of Jesus.

‘To teach that a people’s mission in God’s providence is finished, that they have been relegated to the
limbo of history, has implications which murderers will in time spell out.’600 The unintended consequences
of this unfortunate theological turn remain tragic beyond measure, but supersession theology no longer
needs be an insurmountable theological anchor. If supersession theology emerged to provide an ideological
grounding for the drive to demote the founding faction of the Jesus movement, its centrality to the Jewish-
Christian dialog collapses.

179
180
Chapter 5

*The Post-Canonical Era

Introduction
The Second-Century Protagonists
The emergence of the Via Media
Ignatius
Justin
Summary

Introduction+
Walter Bauer (1934) is credited with bringing to light the diversity and the complexity of the early Jesus
movement, a conclusion that emerged out of a survey of the texts and traditions found in the different
geographical areas of the Roman Empire. Although his methods and some of his conclusions have been
questioned, a growing group of modern scholars agree that the proto-orthodox were not the only strand of
belief in Jesus at the dawn of the second century, and that the Jesus movement evolved from diversity to
uniformity, contrary to traditional accounts. Recent work and recent insights on the diversity of the early
Jesus movement have triggered a qualified rehabilitation of the work of Bauer,601 setting the stage for a
conceptual revolution in New Testament studies.

Explicit support for the diversity of the early Jesus movement602 is found in 1 Corinthians 1–4, Q, James,
and in the pro-Torah segments of Matthew— where we encounter early Gentile believers in Jesus not
grounded on the Kerygma of the cross and resurrection (1 Cor. 15.3).603 Q, used by Matthew and Luke,
does not consider Jesus’s death part of the core message and does not report on the resurrection.
Furthermore, one of the most striking features of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and of James’s epistle is
their silence on the matter of Jesus’s death and resurrection —the keystone of Paul’s missionary
proclamation. These deviations from the Pauline dogma signal that, to some believers, Jesus’s significance
lay in his words and in his words alone.604 The existence of early non-Pauline Gentile understandings of
Jesus’s legacy is further corroborated by the non-Jewish opponents of the Johannine community.

181
In addition, thanks to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library (1959), scholars have gained direct access
to a variety of Gnostic forms of belief in Jesus, undistorted by the orthodox filter. The traditional
perception of the adversaries of Paul and of the later opponents of the Pauline faction as heresies has given
way to a growing acknowledgment of the great variety of early Gentile forms of belief in Jesus. Finally,
acknowledgement of the diversity of the early Jesus movement requires freeing Marcion and the Gnostics
from the label of heresy and their restoration as rightful believers in Jesus. All these findings challenge the
traditional dogma that early Gentile believers in Jesus were unanimous in making Jesus’s death and
resurrection the fulcrum of faith.

It seems that as the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles grew, Gentile believers harnessed cultural
currents that predominated in their environment (Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism) to articulate the
uniqueness of Jesus’s ministry and the purpose of his early death. Of the four factions or strands that
gradually emerged, three represented opposing and irreconcilable theological stands (the Jewish followers
of Jesus, the Marcionites, and the Gnostics). A fourth faction, the Paulines, strived for unity and struggled
to define and articulate a compromise that came to be known as the ‘Via Media.’ A multilateral struggle
between these factions engulfed the Jesus movement well into the fourth century.

Significantly, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were not participants in the second century religious
crisis within the Jesus movement— they were the themes, the subject matter, of the dispute. Therefore,
when the canonical tradition and the authoritative texts denigrate Torah observance and Judaism, they
reflect an internal conflict with followers of Jesus that advocated that belief in Jesus be Jewish, not a
conflict with Judaism. Similarly, when the canonical and authoritative texts denigrate Gnostics and Pagans,
they reflect an internal conflict with opponents advocating Gnostic or Pagan affinities, not a conflict with
Paganism or Gnosticism.
Overall, the road ahead is not linear, nor homogeneous. Change seems to have been gradual and subject to
local, regional, and factional variation. Transitions ‘on the ground’ are often unclear, tentative, ambiguous,
and complex. The shift to the upcoming overt, intense, and vicious anti-Jewish rhetoric is ‘fog-like.’
Although the rate of change along this trajectory is not always clear, the atmosphere at the two ends of the
spectrum is distinct. We may not know the exact timing of each shift, but we do know when we are
beyond each. The main strands that consolidate into factions during the second century had different
theological centers of gravity (Torah-observance, Jesus’s sayings, secret knowledge, and Jesus’s death and
resurrection) and varying degrees of affinity to the external forces without (Judaism, Paganism, mystery
religions, Platonism, and Gnosticism).

In the chapters, ahead we will survey the persistent, but declining, influence of the Jewish faction. The
period covered by the chapters ahead encompasses more than two hundred years and straddles the post-
canonical era at one end and the council of Nicaea (325 CE) at the other end. This period is characterized
by the intensification of the tensions between diverse, opposing, and incompatible interpretations of
Jesus’s ministry and legacy. [+Pg 189]

182
The Second-Century Protagonists
At the dawn of the second century, the Roman world was in civic, spiritual and religious turmoil. A variety
of cults and sects vied for the interest and affiliation of a large number of spiritual seekers. Somewhat
similar to the context behind the emergence of the twentieth-century eclectic ‘New Age,’ the advent of
Second Century Christianities605 reflected the theological disarray of the era and attracted large numbers of
converts dissatisfied with the official Roman cult. The era that we are about to enter, the second and third
centuries, was a period of great religious excitement, enthusiasm, militancy, and fervor. These
circumstances give the second and third centuries their special flavor—an extraordinary religious intensity
and militancy. This period, of great flux and vitality, winds down by the fourth century.

Survival of all the second-century Christianities would have created a landscape of much greater diversity.
It is noteworthy that the range and depth of the diversity that we will encounter during the second century
goes far beyond the diversity we encounter today. Today, a large number of Catholic, Protestant,
Orthodox, Coptic, and Mormon denominations and strands vie for Jesus’s legacy. However, this diversity
originates in one strand, the Pauline-orthodox.
The Jewish Followers of Jesus606 - After the devastation of their communities during the failed Judean
revolutions (70 CE and 135 ce) and following the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the
Gentiles, the descendants of the Jewish founders were under great pressure to renounce Judaism or
renounce Jesus.607 Caught between two worlds, they would be marginalized and coerced by their Jewish
brethren and by fellow followers of Jesus. They faced a two-front confrontation: against other Jews in
defense of the messiahship of Jesus, and against Gentiles in defense of Judaism and in opposition to the
deification of Jesus. We must assume a full spectrum of outcomes, ranging from those that may have
severed their links with mainstream Judaism, to those that renounced Jesus. Gradually, those that remained
in the Jesus camp became a marginalized, and disenfranchised minority within the Jesus movement.

Scholars have gained some knowledge about the early Jewish followers of Jesus from James, Jude, the
Didache, and from their footprints and traces in Matthew, John, and Revelation. Additional insights have
emerged from studies of Q and the pre-Synoptic era, and from the writings of the Greek and Latin
Fathers.608 Scholars have also gained important insights by studying the Qumran, Enochic, and Jubelean
texts.609 Communities with varying affinities to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers are
attested to in Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Origen, and in the Didache and the Pseudo-Clementine
literature. Often labeled Nazoraeans, Ebionites, or Ekliesates they surface in the literature as bizarre,
eccentric, and heretical oddities.610 In Acts, the Jewish followers of Jesus are the bridge between Jesus’s
ministry and the investiture of the Pauline faction as the legitimate heirs to Jesus’s ministry. Once the role
of the Jewish followers of Jesus as legitimating agents for the Pauline ascendancy and for the orthodox
myth of origins is accomplished, they disappear from the historical record to resurface as marginal and
disenfranchised ‘heretics.’

Overall, since most of our knowledge about the descendants of the Jewish founders stands on limited and
often tendentious sources (the writings of opponents, heresiologists and apologists) – our conclusions
must be tentative at best. Significantly, despite the fact that some New Testament texts seem to build on
the heritage of the descendants of the Jewish founders, and that their existence and influence are palpable
throughout, they are not accredited as the rightful successors of Jesus’s ministry and legacy. Throughout

183
our journey, they will remain the unacknowledged antagonists of the writers and editors of many of the
canonical and authoritative texts.

As to the ‘parting of the ways’ between the Jewish followers of Jesus and the Jewish mainstream, most
scholars have argued for 80–120 CE. I am inclined to suggest that there was no parting of the ways.
Rather, the communities of Jewish followers in Judea were decimated by the Jewish War (70 CE) and by
the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE) and thus ceased to have a presence in Judean life. Thereafter, small and
isolated communities may have survived, but the Jesus movement ceased to be a factor in Jewish life. The
second ‘parting of the ways,’ the second estrangement, between Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus is
the subject of this monograph, was gradual, and lasted four centuries.611

The Pauline Faction -The Paulines were one of two factions that claimed Paul’s legacy. Their theological
evolution is reflected in the doctrinal lineage that includes Paul, Mark, Luke/Acts, Hebrews, Ignatius,
Justin, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. The traditional interpretation of Paul’s theological
legacy was shaped by the views and mindsets of these leaders and thinkers. This is the theological chain
that carries and develops the Pauline-Lukan outlook to its maturity as the post-Constantine orthodoxy.

The Pauline faction placed itself in the middle of a theological triangle and confronted adversaries from all
sides. It attempted to hold the middle ground demarcated by the theological range created by the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and by Marcionite and Gnostic612 Gentile believers.
Christian-orthodox theology was born out of this process of self-definition,613 by steering a narrow path
through a maze of contending arguments. The effort at holding the middle ground had broad appeal but
was burdened with ambivalences and unresolved ‘mysteries’—the tensions and unresolved dissonances
resulting from incorporating opposing theologies. Some persistent themes emerge out of the proto-
orthodox drive to de-Judaize the Jesus movement. These themes and motifs surface, resurface, evolve, and
morph throughout our inquiry:

1. Denigration of the disciples, who ‘did not understand’ and who forsook Jesus.
2. Rejection and denigration of core beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.
3. Jesus as alienated from fellow Jews. Jesus, a stranger among his people.
4. Exoneration of the Romans and the culpability of the Jews.
5. Intensification and expansion of the polemical rhetoric as time passes.

The Paulines (proto-orthodox) were the main driving force in the eventual unification of the church’s
creed and organization, and in the Christianizing of the Roman Empire by the end of the fourth century—
requiring the main share of our interest and scrutiny. Eventually, the proto-orthodox faction became the
dominant group and is therefore often labeled Christian, Christian orthodox, or orthodox. Central to the
Pauline success was the Christian community of the city of Rome. This community, large, rich, and
influential, had a significant impact on the direction of belief in Jesus. Bauer (1934) first suggested the
centrality of the Christian community of Rome. Today, it seems appropriate to assign to this community a
significant impact, but not the overwhelming sway that Bauer implied.

184
The Marcionites – Marcion made the earliest and most radical attempt to sever the link between the
Gentile followers of Jesus and the Jewish faction. Contrary to the Pauline complex and often ambivalent
reject-but-appropriate approach to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers, Marcion advocated a
complete and radical rejection of any affiliation with their legacy614 and strived for a thorough de-Judaizing
of belief in Jesus. Marcion’s ecclesiastical organization lasted for several centuries and had an extensive
network of affiliated communities. His views were so successful, that several Church Fathers wrote
treatises against him including Tertullian who, in the early third century, wrote five volumes dedicated to
refuting him. Marcion was an enthusiastic and literalist champion of Paul. He understood himself to be
‘the’ true interpreter of Paul’s legacy. Most modern scholars acknowledge the contribution of Marcion to
orthodoxy (by creating one of the templates against which it defined itself). By creating the first canon,
centered on a revised version of Paul’s Epistles and Luke, Marcion prompted and necessitated the Pauline
move toward theological self-definition.

Marcion was born and raised in Sinope, a port on the Black Sea, in the province of Pontus in Asia Minor
(Epiphanius, Panarion 42.1.3). Although scholars differ on Marcion’s dates, we can place his ministry in the
first half of the second century.615 Marcion was a merchant who gained great influence through his wealth
and charismatic personality. He transferred his ministry to Asia Minor, where he became very popular,
after being expelled from Rome. By severing the link between Gentile believers and the Jewish faction,
Marcion rejected the Pauline wish to appropriate the legitimacy inherent in standing on Hebrew Scripture
and lore. Marcion’s rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers was complete and
unqualified616 and, per his opponents, was also derogatory.
To Marcion the Jewish god was unpredictable and prone to wrath (Marc. 2.16, 20, 23). His rejection of the
Jewish ‘baggage’ of the founding fathers, whether intrinsic to his worldview or directed at fending off the
proto-orthodox attacks against him,617 could have reduced the rancor, resentment, and ambivalence that
accompanied the reject-but-appropriate trajectory of the Paulines. A clean rejection of the beliefs and
traditions of the founding faction also liberated the Marcionites from frequent charges leveled against the
Paulines and their theological descendants. Most notably, that they claimed the Jewish heritage but failed to
follow through.618 Marcion’s outlook did not need the framework of the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’s
death’ either. That event was ultimately the responsibility of the creator and of the principalities and
powers working under him (Marc. 3.24; 5.6). Moreover, the Jewish rejection of Jesus was reasonable since
he was an alien and extraordinary figure who did not fit Jewish messianic expectations (Marc. 3, 6).619

Marcion the most prominent Docetic620 theologian, incorporated some Gnostic themes and motifs, but
seems to have stopped short of seeing creation as evil and corrupt.621 The Marcionite Jesus was a new and
unprecedented figure that made known a previously unknown deity of love and mercy—in sharp contrast
with the God of the ‘Old Testament’ that was viewed by Marcion as a lesser deity, lacking in wisdom and
justice. Marcion addressed the quandary of the relationship of the new faith to Judaism, and the question
of the origins of evil and suffering in one bold move: his belief in two deities. This Gnostic element
allowed Marcion to see YHWH as a renegade creator of this evil world, and to embrace Jesus as the son of
the supreme and benevolent God of the universe.622 By providing an alternative to the Jewish narrative of
the founders, Marcionite and Gnostic believers framed the arena within which the compromise creed, the
Pauline Via Media, was to emerge.

185
Unencumbered by the intricate and ambivalent theological fine threading characteristic of the Pauline drive
for compromise, Marcion’s radical solution was attractive to many Gentiles and became a formidable
obstacle to the proto-orthodox push for ascendancy.

Gnostic Believers in Jesus - Gnosticism, a controversial designation, is a later term that surfaced to
identify a variety of syncretic spiritual trends that flourished during the first centuries of the Common Era
(Hermetica, Valentians, Mandaeans, and Manichaeans). The merit and the relevancy of the term have been
criticized. However, an alternative term has not emerged.623 Gnostic believers posited a transcendental,
immutable, and unengaged deity. In most Gnostic systems, despair and hopelessness are pronounced and
permanent. The world is the creation of a lesser and evil God (the Jewish God). The world is permeated by
evil and there is no hope for change. Salvation from this world is through secret knowledge taught by a
divine savior (Jesus) and understood only by few, the elect. Various Gnostic schools evolved from the
‘Gnostic Fathers’ Ptolomey, Cerinthus, and Valentius.

Gnostic forms of belief in Jesus became one of the important second-century expressions of belief in
Jesus, competing with the founding faction and with the Paulines and the Marcionites for the future of the
Jesus movement.624 The origins of Gnosticism are shrouded in mystery and are hotly contested.625 ‘The
most influential current view is that Gnosticism arose among sectarian Jews on the outskirts of Judaism.’626
Gnostic cosmogony is an intriguing alternative to the Jewish mainstream view of creation as the work of a
benevolent deity. From Jewish sectarians that may have been its originators, Gnosticism may have derived
the world as a battleground between dualistic forces (good and evil, soul and flesh, sin and righteousness,
light and darkness). All humans have a divine spark within. The divine spark within is to be freed by the
redeemer-savior (Jesus) who provides secret knowledge that inculcates transcendental awareness, self-
knowledge, and provides a path to escape suffering (the return of the soul to its heavenly home).

According to Irenaeus, the Gnostic mission to the Gentiles originated with Simon Magnus (Acts 8) and
Menander, both from Samaria (north of Judea). Magnus was a charismatic figure with messianic
aspirations. The Gnostic view of Judaism is mostly negative but does not yield the resentment-ambivalence
inherent in the proto-orthodox appropriate-delegitimize pathway. Whereas outright rejection does not
create an emotional residue, the possessive impulse behind appropriation and supersession-replacement
does. Interestingly, Gnosticism seems to have fomented two radically opposing extremes: libertinism and
asceticism.

The Gnostic library found at Nag Hammadi (1945) has been credited with deepening the conceptual
revolution initiated by Bauer. Thanks to the findings at Nag Hammadi, the magnitude of the sectarian and
polemical bias of the Pauline apologists has been confirmed by direct sources.627 For the first time, non-
Pauline second-century Gentile forms of belief in Jesus emerged from the darkness and scholars were able
to study these early believers in Jesus unmediated by their opponents. Secret knowledge and self-
knowledge are main focuses of these texts, emphasizing the abyss between the proto-orthodox and the
Gnostic worldviews.

186
Gnostic theological speculation and metaphorical imagery had great influence among many early thinkers
and theologians with mystical inclinations, some of which attempted to harmonize the Pauline and the
Gnostic strands, in vain.628 Twelve- and thirteen-century Gnostics (Albigensians-Cathars, and Spanish
Kabbalists) as well as many modern esoteric strands resonate with Gnostic imagery, motifs, and themes.
Significantly, the Nag Hammadi findings included the Gospels of Mary, the Savior, Thomas, Truth, and
Phillip—none of which are devoted to Jesus’s life story. In the Apocryphon of John, probably the most
philosophical and edifying of all Gnostic treatises, Jesus is not mentioned at all.

Gentile Sympathizers with the Founding Fathers – In most of the canonical and authoritative texts,
the identity of the author’s antagonists is, more often than not, implicit rather than explicit. This peculiarity
may be due to the fact that most of these texts were written with specific audiences in mind, and the
audience knew the identity of the adversaries. Often, the enemy was within. The ‘enemy within’ would be
those members of Gentile communities that were drawn to the descendants of Jesus’s first followers or to
Gentile, but non-proto-orthodox, interpretations of Jesus’s ministry. Among Gentile Judaizers,
commitment, affinity, and affiliation with the Jewish faction varied greatly. Some among them may have
converted to Judaism. Most seem to have embraced some of the beliefs and traditions of the founding
fathers of the movement, but did not convert. These Judaizing Gentile believers in Jesus drew some of the
most bitter fire from Pauline leaders and literati, who were enraged by their attraction to the beliefs and
traditions of the Jewish founders.

Moreover, it is possible that most Gentile believers in Jesus did not distinguish between different types of
‘Jews’ (the Jewish followers of Jesus, Jewish sectarians, Gentiles attracted to Judaism, the Jewish rank and
file, the authentic Jewish religious leadership, and the Roman-appointed traitors that ruled Judea).
Furthermore, lack of clear identifiers for these various protagonists and the recurring use of the multivalent
terms ‘Ioudaioi,’ ‘Jew,’ and ‘Christian’ by the sources and by theologians, clergy, and scholars throughout
the centuries - have contributed to the difficulties in deciphering, and discussing, this period.629

The emergence of the Via Media+

In the canonical and authoritative texts, we have a unique window into the birth of a religion, including the
fascinating ‘push and shove’ of theology in the making. With the passage of time, the factions consolidated,
the debates sharpened, the arguments became clearer and better defined, and the demarcations among
these factions became more visible. As Gentile believers in Jesus elaborated on Jesus’s life and death, and
as they gradually transformed these accounts into a mature and non-Jewish religious outlook - the
protagonists of the second century started to emerge. These non-Jewish factions evolved through a process
of confrontational dialectic vis- à -vis the Jewish faction and among themselves. Whereas the original
followers of Jesus were (and seem to have remained) Jews, and therefore had an established religious
worldview and lifestyle, the newer (non-Jewish) strands of belief in Jesus had to create a theological and
creedal grounding to stand on.

187
It is important to internalize the fact that the ‘anti-Jewish’ universe that we have encountered emerged out
of one of three fronts that the Pauline faction did maintain throughout their crusade for ascendancy and
unity (against the Jewish faction and against Marcionite and Gnostic believers). Further corroboration
about the internal setting of the rhetoric against ‘the Jews’ is to be found in the existence of two sets of
‘apologies’ by Justin and by Tertullian (each having written two ‘apologies,’ one against ‘the Jews,’ the other
against Marcion) reflecting the fact that the Pauline confrontation with the descendants of the Jewish
founders paralleled and mirrored their confrontation with the Marcionites – and confirming the internal
nature of the crisis. Indeed, in Tertullian’s works the same charges are often laid against either antagonist,
with only minimal adaptation.630

Fighting on these three fronts engendered a highly nuanced, and somewhat inconsistent, orthodox position
regarding a number of issues. When debating Gnostics, Paulines claimed that the Jewish scriptures are to
be read literally. When debating the descendants of the founding fathers or their Gentile sympathizers, they
claimed that the Jewish scriptures are to be read figuratively-allegorically. When confronting Gnostics and
Marcionites, they insisted on the supremacy of the Jewish God and of the Jewish heritage. When
confronting the Jewish faction, they emphasized the divinity of Jesus and the rejection of Jewish beliefs
and traditions.631

A detailed analysis of the table below brings to the surface the fact that the ‘Via Media,’ the creed that
emerged from the struggle about identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy within the Jesus movement - was a
compromise, as highlighted in the table below:

188
The emergence of the Pauline compromise

Jewish Pauline Marcionite Gnostic

Followers compromise Believers in Believers
of Jesus Jesus in Jesus

Jewish God Severe/just Benevolent Renegade creator of evil

vengeful world

Jewish bible Sacred scripture Appropriate Reject/disregard Bad/disregard

Jewish law Keep Supersede Disregard Disregard

Number of gods One One/trinity Two Several

Attitude to Jewish Positive Ambivalent Negative Ambivalent

people negative

Purpose of belief Serve God Salvation Salvation Release from evil

by keeping the law world

Road to salvation By faithfulness By faith alone By faith alone By secret

to God’s law knowledge

The nature of Good Good ambivalent Ambivalent Bad

creation

The source of evil Not keeping the law Human sin Human sin Cosmic flaw

Human nature Ambivalent Sinful Sinful Divine spark

within

The chosen Jews Jews originally Christians All that receive

people Christians now secret
knowledge

Throughout several centuries the pendulum swung inconclusively. Despite the difficulty of bringing about,
and gaining the ascendancy with, a compromise creed - the Paulines were eventually successful in gaining
the upper hand. However, since a compromise required appropriating elements of the identity and of the
heritage of the Jewish faction into the compromise creed, the Pauline identity markers were drawn inside
Jewish territory. This claim to Jewish ground placed them on a collision course with the Jewish faction and
would have caused frictions and intense antagonism within the Jesus movement. The forging of orthodoxy
out of the matrix of the second century is also unique in that the emerging creed was not the original belief
system of the victorious party. Rather, the theology of the victorious party (the Pauline strand) was a
compromise between contending theologies and was crafted and promoted as reflecting a middle ground –
a ‘Via Media.’

189
As we move forward through this momentous and tumultuous period, we need to keep in mind that
although we can see crucial changes taking place, the participants were unaware of the nature, eventual
scope, impact, and direction of the processes they were living through. John Gager, comparing Paul’s time
to Jerome’s, concluded that in both periods, and in between, the issue was the same—the legitimacy of
orthodoxy. For whenever believers argued, in the name of the founding apostles, that Christianity could
not claim to be the New Israel without also being Torah observant, the self-understanding of those who
represented mainstream-orthodox Christianity must have seemed threatened.632

Although the assimilation of the textual heritage of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers
by Gentile believers may have started as early as Matthew, this process was gradual and was not uniform
(nor homogeneous) within the Pauline camp. The texts ahead of us represent variations and attestations of
this evolution. They provide us some insight into how the sequence appropriation-supersession633 may
have been ignited and enabled.

Militancy and exclusivism+

We have noted that the rise of the Pauline faction to ascendency lasted at least three hundred years. This
protracted struggle reflects the fact that, until the fourth century, they did not have the tools, nor the
legitimacy, to impose their theological outlook and eradicate the traditions of their opponents. Lacking
legitimacy to attain ascendancy within the Jesus movement, first and second century Paulines deployed a
peculiar mixture of militancy, exclusivism, ‘negative campaigning,’ coalition building, compromise, and
accommodation. This seemingly counterintuitive ‘militant compromise’ was successful in infusing the
grassroots with enthusiasm and fervor, while creating an accommodating theological narrative.

During this intermediate period, they had to limit themselves to the low efficiency and slow impact of
verbal abuse, marginalizing, and disenfranchisement. This limited arsenal, and the slow pace inherent in
consolidating a theological compromise, led to a protracted and inconclusive struggle where tempers often
flared and resentment often reached the point of explosion. [+pg 194]

The Mysteries
By crafting a compromise between contending interpretations of Jesus’ ministry and legacy, Pauline
theology emerged all inclusive, but ambivalent and burdened by the paradoxes inherent in holding the
middle ground between contrary theological positions 37: Jesus thus became fully human (the Jewish
followers of Jesus) and fully divine (Marcion and Gnostics). The beliefs and traditions of the Jewish
founders were to be observed (the Jewish followers of Jesus) and rejected (Marcion and Gnostics). God is
one (the Jewish followers of Jesus) but also plural (Marcion and Gnostics). The Law was to be observed
(the Jewish followers of Jesus) but depleted (Marcion and Gnostics). The Jews were God’s chosen (the
Jewish followers of Jesus) but no longer (Marcion and Gnostics).

190
Although these dualistic pairs help us internalize the implications of ‘compromise building,’ they do not
fully clarify the complex and profound theological dilemmas they engender. We may showcase the
complexity of theological compromise-building by probing into a couple of theological challenges:

To the descendants of the Jewish founders Jesus was an exalted human. Some Gnostic believers believed
that Jesus was fully divine (Docetists). Other Gnostics believed that he was human, but had a divine spark
within and divine knowledge about how to free the soul from this evil world. Marcionites thought that
Jesus was the emissary of the supreme God of the universe and that YHWH was the creator of this evil
world of pain and suffering. Still others thought that Jesus was born a human but had been chosen by God
to be his son—his chosen (Adoptionists). The Via Media compromise: Jesus as both human and divine.

The proto-orthodox theological compromise is also reflected in attitudes toward suffering and evil. In
biblical Judaism YHWH is a warrior God, a just, severe, and wrathful deity. Evil and suffering are part of
reality. For the Gnostics, the world is a place of evil and suffering. Salvation is the escape from it. For
Marcion evil was the child of the lesser God of creation, a quasi-Gnostic view. The God of the Paulines,
on the other hand, was to be benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Thus, if God and his creation are
good, evil and suffering must originate elsewhere. To exonerate God from the evil and suffering evident in
this world, human sinfulness had to be made into the root cause of all that had turned wrong. This
theological compromise by the Pauline faction necessitated the internalizing of evil and suffering as
individual guilt and sin.

Thus, some of the Christian ‘mysteries and paradoxes’ appear to be the result of the attempts to absorb the
theological variety that existed during the second century into a compromise creed. By maintaining
elements of the theology of the contending factions, the predecessors of ‘orthodoxy,’ forged an appealing
(although tension-ridden) theological compromise. This forging process embedded tensions and
dissonances in the tradition. Centuries of theological work were required to craft harmonizing formulas
that would accommodate the diverse components of the Via Media.

191
 Ignatius

Introduction
The Adversaries
Summary

Introduction+
Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch, the hub of Roman Syria, at the dawn of the second century.634 It is
speculated that Jewish followers of Jesus that fled to safety during the events that followed Stephen’s death
(Acts 6:13–14) founded the community at Antioch. According to Acts, it was in Antioch that some of
them first began to preach to Hellenized Jews and later to Pagans, evidently with considerable success
(Acts 11:19–21). It was in Antioch that followers of Christ were first called ‘Christians’ (Acts 11:26).

Eusebius instructs us that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch, following Peter and Evodius,
apparently the first Gentile to rise to this position. Ignatius’s episcopate, whose background and affinities
were not Jewish, was a triumph for the Gentiles in the Antiochene community635- a community that would
have been initially Law-observant. His ascent to the episcopate, probably during the first decade of the
second century, would reflect Paul’s evangelizing success and the demographic shift to a Gentile majority.
It would have occurred in the face of opposition from the founding faction and their Gentile
sympathizers.636 For Ignatius, the first non-Jewish bishop of Antioch, Christianity (Pauline belief in Jesus)
and Judaism (the Jewish followers of Jesus) had already parted (Magn. 8:1; 10:3; Phld. 6:1). Ignatius claims
that his strand of belief in Jesus (‘Christianity’) should be the foundational faith, not the beliefs and
traditions of the founding fathers. Although the decline of the Jewish followers of Jesus as the
acknowledged guardians of Jesus’ legacy was a reality by the mid second century, the influence of the
Jewish followers of Jesus was never fully eradicated.637

Ignatius emphasized Jesus’s death and resurrection (not his life and ministry), advocated unity, church
authority and hierarchy,638 and strove for the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus639—a cluster of themes
associated with the Pauline faction. Insistence on unity and hierarchy, an Ignatian maxim, became
characteristic of the emerging Pauline strand.640 Ignatius, free from Paul’s complicated relationship with the
‘Pillars’ and from any emotional connection with Judaism, articulates a more overt and unequivocal
negative tone toward the character, traditions and beliefs of the founding fathers. Tradition has praised the
figure of Ignatius as exemplary of true faith and religious certitude under the threat of martyrdom. Most

192
scholars consider his letters genuine. Ignatius’s letters are the foundational rock of ‘Imitatio Christi,’ a
devotional inclination to praise and seek suffering and martyrdom.

Ignatius invites martyrdom, welcomes death, requests fellow believers in Rome not to intercede on his
behalf (Rom. 2), and argues that martyrdom allows believers to attain unity with God (2.1– 2). In Romans
4, he predicts and welcomes his death by wild beasts during the games at Rome - providing us with one of
the most graphic, yet exalted, depictions of this cruel form of martyrdom. Per the traditional account
(while in prison) Ignatius was able to write highly crafted letters at will (to Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles,
Philadelphian, Smyrna, and Rome), to receive and address delegations of fellow bishops (Eph. 1; Mag. 2;
Trail. 1), and to address local audiences (Phld. 7.1). Ignatius’s composure while awaiting martyrdom is
astonishing, inhumane.

Ignatius’s journey to martyrdom is odd in that it is cast, in the letters assigned to him, as a triumphant
journey from Antioch to Rome (Eph. 21.2). This staging fits a promotional tour by a religious celebrity.
The almost regal atmosphere does not fit the known viciousness of the Roman prison system, nor does it
fit the journey of a convict through the brutal pipeline that supplied victims for the spectacles at the
Roman capital. The leisurely and almost regal transit of Ignatius through the cities of Asia Minor defies
what we know about the inhumane conditions of the Roman penal apparatus. This leads me to speculate
that the letters were composed (or heavily edited) by a supporter or admirer, rather than by Ignatius
himself. [+pg 198]

The Adversaries
Throughout his letters, Ignatius champions the Pauline tenets against those insisting that true faith must be
affiliated with the traditions and customs of the Jewish founding fathers, and against Docetic believers that
rejected the humanity of Christ. Ignatius may be the earliest author to clearly reflect the imminent second-
century ‘religious civil war’ among differing believers in Jesus. In Ignatius, similar to Barnabas and
Hebrews, adversaries are marginalized and disenfranchised by inserting the duality us/them and by
‘labeling them out’ of the reference group. The adversaries are not explicitly identified, but they cast their
presence over the scene. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers are being marginalized, but
remain an ever-present shadow.

As Paul, Hebrews, and Barnabas confronted the influence of the founding faction among Gentile
believers, so did Ignatius of Antioch, decades later. Following an already established tradition, Ignatius
does not target the descendants of the founding fathers explicitly. Rather, his arrows are aimed at their
influence among their Gentile sympathizers. The immediate offenders are Gentile members of the
community that are embracing Jewish ways (i.e., the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish faction).

A group of scholars (Strecker, Gager, Gaston, J. Sanders, Wilson, Murray, and others) has done pioneering
work that supports the recognition that Ignatius, and some of his contemporaries, were concerned with the

193
influence, and the attraction, that ‘Judaism’ exerted over some Gentile converts. These scholars contend
that anti-Jewish polemic reflects the response of ecclesiastical leaders to attraction to Judaism and to
adherence to Jewish customs by certain Gentiles within their own communities.641 Their analysis emerges
from the meta-narrative that places emphasis on the conflict with, or attraction to, Judaism. I suggest
throughout that some Gentiles would be attracted to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers
due to the fact that they were the original, and therefore authoritative, guardians of his legacy (not on
account of an attraction Judaism).642 Attraction to Judaism should be viewed as the outcome, not the
cause, of this trajectory—creating a shift of emphasis and perspective.

We can assume a variety of Gentile sympathizers that ranges from those that yearned for fellowship with
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, to some that eventually converted to Judaism. In
Wilson’s words:

[W]hom Ignatius had in mind when, with grudging approval, he spoke of ‘the
circumcised expounding Christianity’ is unclear; but whether they were the early
disciples, Paul, or Jewish Christians active in his day, they serve mainly as a rhetorical
contrast to those who were the immediate and pressing problem—Gentiles who
expounded Judaism.643

Wilson’s articulation of the context seems to indicate that the attraction to Judaism was the core issue at
stake, an analysis I disagree with. To me, for the most part, attraction to Judaism was a consequence of the
Gentile yearning for recognition as rightful followers of Jesus. The descendants of the founding fathers
expected Torah observance from Gentile converts. Furthermore, Judaizing behavior was a natural
consequence of the fact that the founding fathers were Jewish, and should not be seen as reflective of
attraction to Judaism per se. To most scholars, the segment ‘For if we continue to live until now according
to Judaism we confess that we have not received grace’ (Magn. 8: l) is a reflection of the ‘conflict between
Judaism and Christianity.’ To me, it is a reflection of Ignatius’ opposition to the influence of opponents
within the Jesus movement, who were Jewish.

The Letter to the Philadelphians – In the Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius’s opponents are Gentile
believers in Jesus with varying degrees of affiliations and affinities with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples
and first followers. The danger that he warns against comes from within the Jesus movement—not from
without. In an enigmatic segment, a ‘mind-twister,’ we seem to have two gradations of adversaries, one
identified as worse than the other:

But if any one propound Judaism unto you, hear him not: for it is better to hear
Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one uncircumcised.
(Phld. 6:1)644

194
My deconstruction:
First and foremost: ‘But if any one propound Judaism unto you, hear him not’ If anyone promotes Judaism
to you, do not listen to him. Second: ‘for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised’
For, it is better to hear about belief in Jesus from a Jewish follower of Jesus Third: ‘than Judaism from one
uncircumcised.’ Than to hear Gentiles advocate Judaism.

In other words, Ignatius is fighting the influence of the descendants of the Jewish founders over the
Gentile rank and file by rejecting proselytizing by Gentiles that are promoting Torah observance or
Judaizing behavior among fellow Gentiles. He seems to recognize (grudgingly) the existence and the
legitimacy of the Jewish faction, but rejects Gentiles that sympathize with them. In another cryptic
segment, Ignatius rebuts those that require that belief be grounded in Jewish scripture (‘the charter’):

For I heard certain persons saying, If I find it not in the charters, I believe it not in the
Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written, they answered me That is the question.
But as for me, my charter is Jesus Christ, the inviolable
charter is His cross and His death and His resurrection, and faith through Him... (Phld.
8.2; same theme in 9:1)645

My interpretation:
‘For I heard certain persons saying, what I do not find in the ‘Hebrew Scriptures,’ (The charters) I believe
it not in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written (in the Hebrew Scriptures), they answered me
That is the question.’ In other words, some believers in Jesus will believe Ignatius’ strand of belief in Jesus,
only if it grounded in the scriptures of the Jewish faction (the charters). Ignatius reassures them that it is so.
Ignatius’s position is that his interpretation of belief in Jesus (belief in Christ’s death and resurrection)
stands on ‘the charters’ (The Hebrew Scriptures). The interlocutors’ reply: ‘that is the question.’ it is yet to
be proven.

It has been suggested that the attempt by some Gentile believers in Jesus ‘to be both Christians and Jews’
was the heart of the matter. Thus, per J. Sanders, Gentile believers ‘felt that the Jewish Christians should
give up their Jewish ways.’646 It is also possible that Gentile sympathizers with the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers, who transgressed the boundaries between church and synagogue and
sometimes defected permanently, blurred the distinction between the parties, causing confusion and a crisis
of identity.647

The Letter to the Magnesians - Ignatius’s zeal causes him to overreach and make seemingly bizarre and
incoherent statements:

It is absurd to talk Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. After all, Judaism believed in
Christianity, not Christianity in Judaism (Mag. 10.3).

195
In ‘It is absurd to talk Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism.’ Ignatius rejects the authority of the founding
faction, and their claim that belief in Jesus should be grounded in Judaism. It seems that in the second
sentence Ignatius attempted (ineptly) an early articulation of a claim put forward by future Paulines
throughout the centuries. Namely, that the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders (‘Judaism’) were
replaced and superseded by Ignatius’ version of belief in Jesus (‘Christianity’), and that the main purpose of
Jewish history and lore was to anticipate and announce the advent of the Pauline interpretation of Jesus
ministry.648 That seems to be the intent behind the seemingly incoherent argument ‘After all, Judaism
believed in Christianity, not Christianity in Judaism.’649

In Magnesians Ignatius targets those living according to Judaism (8.1–2), berates the practice of
‘Sabbatizing’ (9. 1), and refers to the ‘monstrosity’ of those who ‘talk of Jesus Christ’ and Judaize (10.3).
Despite the difficulty in decoding Ignatius’s rhetoric, he seems to address Gentile believers who would
understand the implied message: Pauline believers in Jesus are God’s New chosen. The Jewish faction, and
Judaism, are no longer God’s people.

On the other hand, in Trallians, Smyrnaeans, and Ephesians Ignatius battles adversaries that are
Docetists650- highlighting the fact that Ignatius was fighting non-Pauline believers within the Jesus
movement, and pointing to the internal focus of his concerns. Ignatius, like Justin and Tertullian, is
engaged in a debate about Judaism, not in a debate with Judaism. Overall, Ignatius letters seem to
corroborate our suspicion that his targets are Jews within the Jesus movement (not Judaism).651

Ignatius – Summary+
The unity of the church, on which Ignatius harps so much, is seen as an essential link in what we may call
the chain of ontological validation.652 Ignatius left all other forms of belief in Jesus outside the periphery of
inclusion, and made them into heretics. This protective barrier stood firm for almost two thousand years
and is the precursor of Eusebius’s later myth about the Christian origins. Ignatius’s relentless insistence on
unity and hierarchy is the clearest indication that they did not exist, that they were a goal to be achieved—
not a reality. From Ignatius forward, the early church and its legitimacy depend on validating the
hierarchical structure that claimed to originate in Jesus and flow through his disciples to the church.653

With Ignatius, the Pauline drive to demote the Jewish faction enters its overt phase. For Ignatius and his
followers, the struggle over legitimacy, identity, and authority is a struggle between ‘Christianity’ and
‘Judaism,’ that is, between the Gentile followers of Paul and the Jewish followers of Jesus. With Ignatius,
the Pauline campaign against the Jewish faction enters its explicit phase and thereby creates the danger of a
future projection onto normative Judaism. Although for Ignatius and for his followers the struggle for
legitimacy, identity and authority is clearly between Paul's Gentile followers and Jesus' Jewish followers –
his choice of words, his frame of reference, is a clear example of how a non-existent struggle between
"Christianity" and "Judaism" was engendered - creating the basis for the projection and transference of the
Judeo-Gentile crisis within the Jesus movement to the inter-religious arena. In Ignatius, we can clearly see

196
how a non-existent dispute with Judaism came into being by the projection of an internal dispute over
Judaism onto normative Judaism. [+pg 202]

197
 Justin

The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew

Appropriation and Supersession
The Adversaries
My Justin

Justin was born, ca. 100 ce, of Pagan parents in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria. It seems that he was
converted at Ephesus. He founded a school in Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius, who ruled from
138 to 161.654 He was more or less a contemporary of Marcion and his best-known opponent. After an
extended and active ministry, Justin was tortured and executed under the Roman prefect Junius Rusticus
(162–168).

The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew

The Dialogue teaches us that during the mid-second century, the debate about Judaism and about allegiance
to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers was still center stage. Even though Paul is never
mentioned or quoted, Justin clearly stands within the ‘Pauline’ tradition. However, compared to Paul and
Ignatius, Justin is reluctantly tolerant toward Gentiles not committed to the Pauline understanding of
Jesus’s legacy. The debate about Justin’s audience will not subside any time soon. Most modern scholars
allow for various possible target audiences and purposes. A number of possible constituencies have been
championed. The intended audience seems to be Gentiles that, Justin fears, may succumb to the lure of the
Jewish faction. Justin is aware that some Gentile believers were so attached to the descendants of the
founding fathers that they did eventually abandon ‘their faith in Christ.’ Some Gentiles strayed beyond the
limits of the Pauline community altogether. These individuals could not ‘in any way be saved’ (47.4) and
‘succumbed’ completely to ‘Jewish’ ways.

Various groups have been recognized as either antagonists or intended audiences in the Dialogue:655

1. Jewish followers who insisted that Gentile believers maintain Jewish traditions.
2. Jewish followers (perhaps from the previous group) who refused fellowship with Gentile believers
in Jesus.656
3. Jewish followers who did not fully observe the Torah but were not fully Pauline either.
4. Gentiles, who became believers in Jesus, began observing the law, eventually converted to Judaism,
and became Jewish followers of Jesus.

198
 5. Gentile believers who observed some of the Torah (i.e., Christian Judaizers) but did not convert to
Judaism.
6. Gentile Pauline believers in Jesus, apparently the majority in Justin’s audience.

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew does not ‘stand-alone’ and should be read and understood in the broader
context of Justin’s context, ministry and literary work. Despite the fact that the Dialogue seems to be cast
as a debate with Judaism, Justin’s dominance over the ‘debate,’ the bias in favor of the author’s views, the
weak arguments allowed to Thrypo, its obvious function as a rhetorical ploy - Justin’s other apologetic
treatises, and the nuanced depictions of followers of Jesus enumerated above do not favor a scenario
where the dominant element could be an inter-religious (Jewish versus Christian) debate.

Like Ignatius, Tertullian, and Chrysostom, Justin fought ‘heresy’ on multiple fronts. He wrote against
Marcion and against the influence of the Jewish faction suggesting that he saw himself holding the middle
ground between these two interpretations of Jesus’s legacy, that the context was internal, and that he was
not concerned about the influence of external Judaism. Rather than a dialogue with Judaism, the text seems
to address a more immediate, existential, and internal concern: the sway that the founding fathers exerted
over many among the rank and file. The Dialogue is a vehicle to battle ‘Judaism within.’

Furthermore, it seems to me that Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is too adversarial, derogatory and
rudimentary in Jewish matters to address an audience that would include Jewish followers of Jesus or
Jews—as claimed by many.657 Although Justin is sufficiently informed about Judaism to present a credible
case to a non-Jewish (and therefore less versed in Jewish lore) audience - his knowledge and arguments are
too simplistic and stereotypical to be effective on a Jewish one. The Dialogue is a debate between a Pauline
and a stereotypical and docile Jew that ‘stands in’ as a proxy for the Jewish faction.

Justin is unique in the literature of the period in that he provides explicit evidence on the Pauline struggle
with the Jewish faction (Dial. 47:2–3). Justin is also unique in acknowledging the existence of a range, and a
variety, of attitudes toward the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders. It seems that Justin viewed
Gentile believers, who observed Jewish customs, as misguided rather than as apostates (Dial. 47:2–4). That
is, he considers them as ill-advised members of the church but members nonetheless, and deems them
worthy of being saved (Dial. 47:4).658 Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction are personified in the
Dialogue by Trypho’s friends. They are described as ‘those wishing to become proselytes’ (23:3) and ‘the
fearers of God’ (10:4). Of the defectors, he says vaguely that they abandoned their ‘Christian’ commitment
‘for some reason or another.’659

Later Paulines framed Justin’s struggle as a debate between ‘Judaism and Christianity.’ However, for Justin
(as corroborated by his work against Marcion) the debate is within the Jesus movement and ‘Judaism’
stands for the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of the founding fathers. Similarly, ‘Christianity’
stands for his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. By Justin’s time this framing of the issues, already embryonic
in the Synoptics, seems to have become a persistent tradition: Paulines were true Christians, other believers
in Jesus were misguided at best.

199
Appropriation and Supersession+
It seems that initially, Paul and his early Gentile followers longed to be recognized as legitimate believers in
Jesus despite rejecting the observance of central traditions associated with Jesus and with his early
followers. Gradually, the frustration related to the non-realization of this yearning seems to have led
second and third generation Paulines to demand the exclusive guardianship of Jesus’ legacy, requiring
substantial appropriation-incorporation of the identity and of the religious heritage of Jesus' Jewish
followers. These Pauline scholars and community leaders concluded that they should affirm that Gentile
believers could not reject the religious narrative of the Jewish founders (as argued by Marcion and most of
the Gnostics) and invent a mode of belief in Jesus divorced from the Jewish religious narrative altogether.
Hebrews and Justin are the first proto-orthodox authors who try to articulate and systematically argue a
strategy that would navigate these difficulties and complexities.

Although we do not find explicit links between Justin’s work and Paul’s writings, his thinking is clearly
Pauline and it did become a cornerstone of the emerging Pauline orthodoxy and the apological effort
associated with it.660 As it relates to the Jewish facet of Justin’s interests, many of the themes that will
populate anti-Jewish denunciations throughout later centuries are laid down in Justin’s Dialogue:661

For the circumcision according to the flesh, that was from Abraham, was given for a
sign, that you should be separated from the other nations and us, and that you alone
should suffer the things you are rightly suffering now, and
that your lands should be desolate and your cities burned with fire, and that foreigners
should eat up the fruits before your face, and none of you go up unto Jerusalem. (Dial.
16:2) …If we did not know the reason why it all was enjoined even on you, namely,
due to the fact of your transgressions and hardness of heart. (Dial. 18:2) …He charged
you too to abstain from certain foods, in order that even in your eating and drinking
you may have God before your eyes, since you are prone and apt to depart from the
knowledge of him. (Dial. 20:1)

For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, and before Moses none of
keeping the Sabbath, and of festivals, and of offerings, neither in like manner is there
any need now, after the Son of God, Jesus Christ. (Dial. 23:3)

Per tradition and to current scholarship, Justin’s Dialogue is one of the earliest explicit and systematic
deployments of the arguments for the replacement of ‘Judaism’ (the beliefs and traditions of the founding
fathers) by ‘Christianity’ (Pauline belief in Jesus) in a format accessible to all.662 We have encountered
earlier supersessionists (Barnabas and Hebrews) whose arguments resonate with Justin’s, but he fashioned
the first accessible argumentation of substance. ‘The law, explains Justin, has no permanent value, but was
given by God as a temporary measure to restrain the sinfulness of the Jews… the fact that this law was
inferior and is now obsolete reflects badly, not on the God who decreed it of old, but on the people for
whom it was decreed.’663 In other words, according to Justin, the Law, Torah observance, and Judaism, the
rocks on which the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers stand, are no rocks at all. [+pg 204]

200
The Adversaries
The unique role that the descendants of the founding fathers and their Gentile sympathizers (Gentile
Judaizers) played in this saga has been recently re-discovered and re-cognized. Murray identified664 in Justin
four different types of believers in Jesus (of both Jewish and Gentile origin) who follow ‘the Law’:

a. Jewish Christians who followed the Law and live with Christians trying to convince them ‘either to
receive circumcision like themselves, or to keep Sabbath, or to observe other things of the same
kind’ are to be accepted (Dial. 47:2).
b. Jewish Christians who believe in Christ but ‘in every way compel those who are of Gentile birth and
believe on this Christ to live in accordance with the law appointed by Moses, or choose not to have
communion with them that have such a life in common’ are not accepted (Dial. 47:3).
c. Gentile Christians ‘who follow their advice and live under the law, as well as keep their profession
in the Christ of God will, perhaps be saved’ (Dial. 47:4).
d. Former Gentile Christians who ‘once professed and recognized’ Jesus as Messiah but ‘for some
cause or other passed over into the life under the Law’ and deny Jesus ‘cannot, I declare, in any wise
be saved’ (Dial. 47:4)

Given the Pauline hegemony over the narrative, a literal reading of the text of the Dialogue yields that the
intended adversary was ‘Judaism,’ and that Gentile believers in Jesus were attracted to, or influenced by, it.
However, for those seeking brotherhood and affiliation with the Jewish followers of Jesus, the synagogues
of the Jewish faction (where Jesus would be exalted) would be a more obvious and emphatic choice for
worship and fellowship than regular synagogues (where Jesus believers in Jesus would be rejected).
Therefore, given that the argument that ‘missionary competition between [non-Christian] Jews and
Christians over Gentiles was an important context for the Dialogue cannot be convincingly demonstrated
from the text…’665 nor from the context of authorship, it is plausible to assume that the synagogues and
the communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus are the setting where the Judaizing that concerns Justin is
advocated and promoted.

Justin’s description of, and engagement with, different types and degrees of Gentile affiliations with the
Jewish faction is further indication that his concern was Judaism within, not without. Significantly, for
Justin, Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish camp are dissidents, and may be saved, but all other Gentile
non-proto-orthodox believers (Gnostics and Marcionites) are heretics. Justin’s Dialogue is reflective of his
concern to draw Gentile believers from the influence of the Jewish faction. Thus, Justin’s ultimate
adversaries seem to be some among the Jewish faction who attract Gentile believers and ‘compel’ them to
observe Jewish practices.666

201
My Justin+
Why would Justin argue with ‘Jews’ whether or not Jewish customs and traditions should be embraced by
Gentile believers in Jesus—unless the Jews in question are the Jewish faction and the core contention is
about identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy within the Jesus movement? Traditional scholarship667 asserted
that Justin battles Gentiles attracted to Judaism. Traditionally, the texts of this period have been read as
reflective of a ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’ I differ. In my view, the later externalization of
the conflict obscures the fact that early Pauline believers were battling adversaries that were Jewish, not
Judaism without. Justin is concerned about attraction to the descendants to the founding fathers—not
attraction to Judaism per se. To me, at the time of authorship, the setting and the socio-theological context
seem to reflect an internal dilemma, not a theological rivalry vis- à -vis mainstream Judaism.

Justin acknowledges that some Gentiles succumbed to persuasion by the Jewish faction and its Gentile
sympathizers, and follow the Jewish law. He accepts these Gentile Judaizers as legitimate members of the
ecclesiastical community.668 Justin’s position in this matter makes sense only if the Gentile sympathizers
that follow the Jewish law do so within fellowship with the Jewish followers of Jesus. The yearning for
fellowship with the descendants of the founding fathers angered proto-orthodox leaders and intellectuals,
prompting them to denigrate their beliefs and traditions, a reaction that has contributed significantly to
anti-Jewish attitudes among members of the early Church.669

Reading Justin’s Dialogue in isolation tends to overemphasize the Jewish facet of his Apologetic efforts on
behalf of the emerging Pauline theology. It obscures the fact that Justin and his fellow proto- ‘orthodox’
were engaged in an internal and multilateral confrontation with the descendants of the founding fathers
and with differing Gentile believers.670 Justin’s concern with Jewish influences among his flock and with
differing Gentile believers resonate with Ignatius’ and Tertullian’s. Justin’s and Tertullian’s apologies
against ‘the Jews’ and against Marcion reflect the fact that throughout the first three centuries the Pauline
confrontation with the descendants of the Jewish founders paralleled and mirrored confrontations with
other differing believers within the Jesus movement—strengthening the internal context advocated here.

Justin reflects a turn, a junction, in the ever-growing polemical trajectory whose beginnings we discussed in
the previous chapters. As the crusade of the Pauline faction for ascendancy enters into high gear, so does
the de-Judaizing impetus. During the second century, intense and overt disparagement of the character,
traditions and beliefs of the Jewish faction, and of differing Gentile believers, becomes the highway to
Pauline ascendancy.

The Dialogue ’s plausibility has been discussed at length.671 ‘Justin enjoys the lion’s share of the debate and,
enjoying authorial control, he does not wittingly present arguments that would embarrass or disadvantage
himself.’672 Compared to what is to come, Justin is relatively civil and urbane. His rejection and belittling of
the character, traditions and beliefs of his opponents is persistent and sustained, but compared with his
more extreme anti-Jewish ‘peers’ (Hebrews, Barnabas, Melito’s Pascha, Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos,
Chrysostom, etc.) he is in the moderate range of the spectrum.673 Justin, although sophisticated and
articulate, fails his title and presents us with a tendentious and condescending document. The Dialogue is
best seen as a tendentious conversation where a Gentile audience would feel empowered and a Jewish one

202
would remain unconvinced. Overall, there is nothing in Justin’s Dialogue that requires us to expand its
horizon beyond the Jesus movement.

As far as the reaction of mainstream Judaism is concerned, we can’t say much. It is probable that at some
point the arguments presented by Justin and his contemporaries filtered out and reached Jewish non-
believers in Jesus. It is also probable that with time, as the polemical frenzy increased, we may speak of the
emergence of a ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’ However, that conflict would be a
consequence, a projection, of the internal strife within the Jesus movement - not an originating cause, as
argued by most.

203
 The Post-Canonical Era – Summary+

Attempting to navigate through the first centuries of belief in Jesus is an endeavor fraught with low
visibility and unstable ground – a daunting challenge exacerbated by the defenses that protect the bastions
of dogma. Loss of memory and loss of context, and the protective walls that surround religious beliefs,
conspire to blur our sight. Furthermore, most of the texts that concern us, were not authored with the
intent or expectation of their becoming sacred or canonical. With specific agendas and audiences in mind,
most seem to have been authored to address specific circumstances. In addition, given that the addressees
would know who the intended adversaries were, their identity is most often implied – rather than clearly
stated. Furthermore, once we internalize, any think through, the fact that belief in Jesus arose out of an
internal struggle among believers with differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and dissonant inclinations
and affiliations - many otherwise mystifying puzzles, and previously elusive phenomena emerge from the
fog and can be studied in light of their original socio-theological context.

The first burst of growth of the Jesus movement was impressive. Estimates vary, but most scholars agree
that within 250 years of Jesus’s birth 10–15 percent of the population of the Roman Empire was affiliated
to one of the second-century strands of belief in Jesus. Unfortunately, we know little about the socio-
metrics of these groups. It seems that during the second century the strands that we encountered in the
previous century gradually coalesced into proto-factions and then into factions. The degree of doctrinal
cohesion of these groups is unknown and may have been minimal. The situation ‘on the ground’ was, most
probably, characterized by great fluidity, variety, and instability. As attested by the texts surveyed in this
monograph, confusion and chaos were rampant. It appears that local variants and improvisation were the
rule. It seems that, at first, belief in Jesus was very much a local affair with some degree of coordination
among like-minded communities on a regional basis.

It seems that the confrontation among these second-century Christianities was spearheaded by elites.
Theologians and community leaders were the trendsetters in these debates. In a world of 5–10 percent
basic literacy, 38 only 1–2 percent of the people could articulate and sustain an intellectual argument. Most
were followers with daily and mundane concerns and interests and their allegiance was grounded on local
affiliations, on emotional inclinations, and on personal ties. It is probable that the founding faction, having
a shared and authoritative tradition, was more literate, cohesive and organized than the other groups.
Marcionites, followers of a single leader, would also exhibit considerable unity and uniformity. The variants
within Gnosticism are so diverse that the use of the term has been under attack. The Paulines, the fourth
faction, were characterized by great flux, anxiety, and confusion. The theological compromise they
championed, the ‘Via Media,’ was at the time, a ‘work in progress’ rather than a systematic theological

204
articulation. Following Ignatius, they viewed unity and uniformity (as opposed to division and diversity) as
good and necessary. Unity, it was hoped, would weed out some of the more extreme variants and would
bring some respectability and acceptance by Roman society.

Throughout the ages, great symbolism was attached to the destruction of the Temple. Yet, the last decades
of the twentieth century witnessed a shift of interest and emphasis from the traditional focus on the Jewish
War and the destruction of the temple (70 CE),674 to the impact of the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE).675 The
Jewish War had great impact on Pauline lore due to the fact that the Gospels, and most of the canonical
texts, were authored during the decades between the Jewish War and the Bar Kochba revolt. However,
‘Consideration of the political and social fallout from the two events suggests that the Bar Kochba
rebellion was likely to have been more traumatic for Jewish-Christian relations.’676

The view that Roman victory in the Jewish War of 70 CE did little to quell Judean nationalism and that the
quest for Judean liberation continued throughout the period preceding the Bar Kochba uprising, is now
widely accepted. The initial success of the Bar Kochba revolt was due to the fact that Roman occupation
strategy was based on a limited presence of military forces in the provinces, and on stationing the bulk of
their forces in the regional capitals. As the insurgents gained the upper hand against the small Roman
garrisons stationed in Judea, they misjudged and over-estimated their initial success, igniting a misguided
frenzy of nationalistic and messianic fervor. However, once challenged, the Romans inflicted extraordinary
devastation upon Judea, to impress upon future challengers the futility of opposition to their might.

Bar Kochba, the leader of the revolt, claimed messianic standing and was acknowledged as such by most
the population. Justin and Eusebius (260-340 C.E.) cite his messianic status among Jews.677 Rabbi Akiva,
the religious leader of the period, appears to have supported Bar Kochba’s messiaship. Bar Cosiba, his
disparaging nickname in Jewish sources, was later repudiated as a false messiah due to the decimation
brought about by his liberation campaign. From Bar Kochba forward, the Jewish religious establishment
intensified its traditional opposition to any attempt to challenge the Roman occupation and to incite
messianic fervor. The breakdown in Jewish-Roman relations following the Bar Kochba rebellion seems to
have been severe, but brief.678

The decimation of the strongholds of the Jewish followers in Judea during the revolt and the Roman
retaliation may have accelerated the second ‘parting of the ways,’ between the remnant of the Jewish
followers of Jewish and the growing Gentile majority. The emphasis is on ‘accelerated’ for there is no
doubt that the demographic shift toward a Gentile majority would have led, sooner or later, to a
confrontation about legitimacy, ascendancy and identity in the Jesus movement given that the movement
was becoming increasingly Gentile. The appointment of Gentile bishops in Jerusalem and Antioch
epitomizes this demographic shift.

Anticipating the chapters ahead, we may recapitulate that whereas the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and
first followers had a clear identity, doctrine, and theology, the non-Jewish strands entered the socio-

205
theological confrontation within the Jesus movement unprepared and in disarray. Although throughout the
second and third centuries, Gentile believers in Jesus will gradually achieve some theological definition and
clarity - it may be said that for Gentile believers, identity, doctrine, and theology matured as a by-product
of the struggle over legitimacy and ascendancy.
As to our focus, the evolution of Jewish-Gentile relations, the period between the second to the fourth
century may be described as an intermediate stage when anti-Jewish polemic becomes ingrained in the
cultural fabric of Pauline communities and expands to multiple friction points. This is a transitional stage
when undifferentiated anti-Jewish attitudes and expressions become prevalent as the result of persistent
and increasingly authoritative anti-Judaic rhetoric. During this phase the internal conflict between the
founding faction and the growing Gentile majority will be projected and externalized onto the inter-
religious arena, and will be gradually transformed into a unilateral attack on ‘Judaism.’

The existence of an effort to demote the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would be
theologically embarrassing. A scenario where the estrangement from the descendants of the Jewish
founding fathers would be center stage presents grave theological challenges to established truths,
cherished for millennia. It is no surprise, therefore, that the traces of this trajectory have been obscured
and are neither obvious, nor plain to see. We would expect that the mere existence of these phenomena
would barely percolate through the protective membrane of dogma. Precisely the situation we encounter.

206
Chapter 6

*Theology Gone Awry

Introduction
Melito
Chrysostom
Summary

Introduction+
Melito and Chrysostom, cherished and prominent leaders and theologians, wrote the extreme anti-Jewish
texts showcased in this chapter. These texts are part of a long list of virulent polemical texts authored by
Christian leaders (Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos, Eusebius’ Evangelical Demonstration, Aphrahat’s
Homilies, and Augustin’s Adversus Iudaeos - just to name the better known)679 that facilitated and enabled
the transformation of early tensions within the Jesus movement, into systemic anti-Judaism.

It is important to internalize the fact that the writings of Melito and Chrysostom, bishops and saints, are
not windows into marginal minds, nor the creation of fringe elements within Pauline thinking. Rather, the
texts we are about to survey reflect how many, if not most, Pauline religious leaders thought, and preached.
From the mid-second century forward, and under an umbrella of sanctified legitimacy, anti-Jewish
sentiment became endemic and extreme. It infected large segments of the clergy and laity during a period
that will eventually span seventeen hundred years. These writers were the third and more virulent wave in
the confrontation, within the Jesus movement, between the Torah-observant followers of Jesus and the
Gentile followers of Paul. These texts did not appear on the scene unannounced; they were ushered-in by
the circumstances and by the texts authored during the first century. The gradual polemical turn among
Pauline believers becomes unequivocal and overt with the emergence of this new generation of authors.
What is, more often than not, implied, embryonic, and veiled in the New Testament – is now explicit and
blunt.

We will see that by Chrysostom’s lifetime (347–407 CE) the projection of the conflict onto Judaism, that
become increasingly commonplace during the second and third centuries, had already taken hold of the

207
minds and hearts of believers. By the late fourth century, the targets are no longer the adversaries we
encountered in the canonical texts (Pharisees, the High Priest, the authorities, the elders or the scribes).
Nor are the adversaries targeted by these texts the enigmatic ‘Ioudaioi’ of John or the ‘they/them’ of
Hebrews and Barnabas.

208
 Melito

Introduction
Theology
Deicide
My Melito

Introduction+
Melito, c a. 120–185 ce, lived through the long reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161–180 ce). We have
noted that, at the time, the Jesus movement was struggling with multilateral strife and multi-dimensional
chaos within. It was also facing growing and intensifying Roman persecution. Eusebius portrays Melito as a
Quartodeciman680 ‘who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit’ (Hist. eccl. 5.24). Most of Melito’s writings have
been lost, except for a fragment from his Apology, which was addressed to the emperor, and the Peri
Pascha681 —authored ca. 170 CE. As a Quatrodeciman, Melito would be suspect of ‘Judaizing,’ leading him
to fight Jewish affinities among his community.682 The traditional assumption that Melito’s attack on
‘Judaism’ forms part of an active conflict between church and synagogue with religious as well as social and
political dimensions is firmly entrenched. 683

Melito is clearly and unabashedly part of the third phase of our journey; his attack against Jews and against
Judaism is undifferentiated and unrestrained. The Peri Pascha (On Pascha) is an exercise in extreme
demagoguery and unrestrained maliciousness embedded in mediocre argumentation and superb literary
skills. Regardless of who were the intended adversaries, the language deployed has all the characteristics of
later anti-Semitic incitement. Written during the second half of the second century, this text is the most
extreme rampage against Jews and against Judaism by a Gentile believer authored during the first two
centuries. Melito’s anti-Jewish rampage is widely recognized as the ‘opus maximus’ of pre-Constantine anti-
Jewish sentiment.

In Melito we find no traces of an awareness of the internal origin of the now sacrosanct hatred. The efforts
to explain Melito’s attitudes cover the full spectrum of theological, socio-theological, and social theories.
Some scholars have pointed to the lack of evidence for a Jewish presence among Melito’s adversaries.684
Wilson concludes that ‘no distinction is made between leaders and people, or between Palestinian and
Diaspora Jews—as in some earlier writings, nor apparently between Jews of the past and the present. The
crime is the crime of all Jews, past and present.’685 With Melito we are well into the third phase of the
evolution of the anti-Jewish trajectory.

209
Nothing can prepare the reader for the unrelenting denigration and incitement that permeate most of this
long homily (105 sections, 804 segments). Reading Melito’s Peri Pascha anticipates, and renders imitative
and derivative, the worst anti-Semitic literature of the Middle Ages and of the modern era. However, as we
enter our time capsules and travel to the time, and to the circumstances that originated this text, we must
acknowledge that we know little about the impact that this text may have had at the time.686

Deicide in the Peri Pascha+

Melito, Bishop of Sardis and a church father, is the first Pauline writer to make an unambiguous accusation
of deicide: the murder of God. The notion that ‘the Jews’ past, present, and future are responsible for the
death of Jesus is the culmination of the complex trajectory that we have surveyed – of theology gone awry.
With Melito we arrive to the final station of the libel about ‘the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’s death,’
which we have been tracking since Mark. Although the inauspicious beginnings of this libelous travesty
stretch back to the canonical Passion narratives that originated in pre-Synoptic strands or in Mark’s
creative mind - prior to Melito, no one had converted the implied or explicit accusations of responsibility
for the death of Jesus into the ‘Jewish responsibility for the death of God.’ For Melito, ‘the Jews’ are
culpable of deicide—a grave escalation of earlier viciousness:687

72. This one was murdered. And where was he murdered? In the very center of
Jerusalem! Why? Because he had healed their lame, and had cleansed their lepers, and
had guided their blind with light, and had raised up their dead. For this reason he
suffered. Somewhere it has been written in the law and prophets,

73. Why, O Israel did you do this strange injustice? You dishonored the one who had
honored you. You held in contempt the one who held you in esteem. You denied the
one who publicly acknowledged you. You renounced the one who proclaimed you his
own. You killed the one who made you to live. Why did you do this, O Israel?

74. Hast it not been written for your benefit: ‘Do not shed innocent blood lest you die
a terrible death’? Nevertheless, Israel admits, I killed the Lord! Why? Because it was
necessary for him to die. You have deceived yourself, O Israel, rationalizing thus about
the death of the Lord.

75. It was necessary for him to suffer, yes, but not by you; it was necessary for him to
be dishonored, but not by you; it was necessary for him to be judged, but not by you; it
was necessary for him to be crucified, but not by you, nor by your right hand.

79. [A]nd vinegar, and gall, and a sword, and affliction, and all as though it were for a
blood-stained robber. For you brought to him scourges for his body, and the thorns
for his head. And you bound those beautiful hands of his, which had formed you from
the earth. And that beautiful mouth of his, which had nourished you with life, you
filled with gall. And you killed your Lord at the time of the great feast.

210
80. Surely you were filled with gaiety, but he was filled with hunger; you drank wine
and ate bread, but he vinegar and gall; you wore a happy smile, but he had a sad
countenance; you were full of joy, but he was full of trouble; you sang songs, but he
was judged; you issued the command, he was crucified; you danced, he was buried; you
lay down on a soft bed, but he in a tomb and coffin.

81. O lawless Israel, why did you commit this extraordinary crime of casting your Lord
into new sufferings—your master, the one who formed you, the one who made you,
the one who honored you, the one who called you Israel?

92. But you, quite to the contrary, voted against your Lord, whom indeed the nations
worshipped, and the uncircumcised admired, and the foreigners glorified, over whom
Pilate washed his hands. But as for you—you killed this one at the time of the great
feast.

94. Pay attention, all families of the nations, and observe! An extraordinary murder has
taken place in the center of Jerusalem, in the city devoted to God’s law, in the city of
the Hebrews, in the city of the prophets, in the city thought of as just. And who has
been murdered? And who is the murderer? I am ashamed to give the answer, but give
it I must. For if this murder had taken place at night, or if he had been slain in a desert
place, it would be well to keep silent; but it was in the middle of the main street, even
in
the center of the city, while all were looking on, that the unjust murder of this just
person took place.

96. The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the
heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself
firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of
Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.

97. O frightful murder! O unheard of injustice! The Lord is disfigured and he is not
deemed worthy of a cloak for his naked body, so that he might not be seen exposed.
For this reason the stars turned and fled, and the day grew quite dark, in order to hide
the naked person hanging on the tree, darkening not the body of the Lord, but the eyes
of men.

99. Why was it like this, O Israel? You did not tremble for the Lord. You did not fear
for the Lord. You did not lament for the Lord, yet you lamented for your firstborn.
You did not tear your garments at the crucifixion of the Lord, yet you tore your
garments for your own who were murdered. You forsook the Lord; you were not
found by him. You dashed the Lord to the ground; you, too, were dashed to the
ground, and lie quite dead.

211
Theology+
Melito’s claim to the Jewish heritage and his emphasis on the culpability of ‘the Jews,’ places him within the
Pauline strand, the doctrinal trajectory that includes (among others) Paul, Mark, Luke/Acts, Hebrews,
Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Eusebius. After we express our astonishment and disgust at the
writings of this second-century bishop, we must ask ourselves: since Melito is an example of a large literary
corpus of vicious anti-Jewish literature, do we know and understand the circumstances that would explain
the emergence of this kind of texts? What was the socio-theological and emotional context within which
this type of incitement would be part of the religious services of a community of believers? Can we imagine
circumstances when a religious leader would read this kind of text to ‘edify’ his flock?688 What was
happening in this writer’s world that would induce him to author this extraordinary text?

Melito’s assertive and unequivocal claims about Jewish collective responsibility for the murder of God are
indefensible and theologically abhorrent.689 However, despite the nausea that accompanies reading Melito,
we must ‘bend backwards’ and try to decipher the genesis of this genre of texts. Despite the emerging
edifice of hate that we witness, and notwithstanding the heart’s turmoil, we must analyze the socio-
theological setting that gave rise to this type of literature – and to so cautiously.

For Melito, once ‘Christianity’ (i.e., Pauline belief in Jesus) emerged, ‘Judaism’ (i.e., the beliefs of the
descendants of the founding fathers) lost its value; it no longer served a function.690 For Melito, as
expressed in the Peri Pascha, God loved only ‘Christians’ (Pauline believers); the church now has the
honored position that once had belonged to ‘the Jews,’ the descendants of the Jewish founders.691

My Melito+
It is possible that by Melito’s time, the distinction between Judaism and the descendants of the founding
fathers had already faded. The fusion and the confusion of these two groups in the hearts and minds of
Pauline believers may have already become deeply-rooted and entrenched. Although at the time of
authorship the socio-theological background and the context do not yet support attacks on ‘external
Judaism,’ we are clearly crossing over into the inter-religious arena. In the Peri Pascha, the bias against the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their Gentile sympathizers is fully externalized and
projected onto ‘the Jews.’ It is unclear whether this blurring of identities, which has accompanied us
throughout, is intentional and conscious, an attempt to veil the theologically embarrassing demotion of the
descendants of the founding fathers, or due to loss of historical context.

The Peri Pascha showcases how the transition from internal invective against Jewish opponents within the
Jesus movement to attacks on Judaism came about: deep resentment toward adversaries that were Jewish
gradually morphed into vicious attacks on Jews and Judaism. We have witnessed that deep resentment
towards adversaries who were Jews and a deep emotional ambivalence and theological dissonance related
to the rejection of Jesus' religious beliefs - gradually morphed into a vicious polemic against the Jews and
against Judaism. This oversimplification of the complex trajectory that we have explored, highlights an
important point: religiously sanctioned incitement can become integral to the cultural and emotional fabric
of a community of faith and can, in certain circumstances, morph into ethnic cleansing or genocide.

212
It seems that we have sufficient corroborative evidence to suggest that by the end of the second century
unrestrained anti-Jewish incitement was increasingly dispensed from pulpits throughout the empire.
However, Melito could not have written his On the Pascha without standing on preexisting traditions.
Melito’s excesses are the fruits of the Pauline ploy to reject-denigrate but appropriate-incorporate, the
fruits of the anti-Jewish strand. Some scholars have argued that Melito’s oratorical success may have
blurred his judgment, that his language skills facilitated contrasts and denunciations that were bolder than
he might otherwise have created. Nonetheless, we cannot but see a pattern: Melito was part of a sequence
of connectable dots. Slowly, gradually, an unintended journey is moving toward its final destination.

The Peri Pascha unhinged my emotional floodgates and triggered my darkest emotions, my worst demons.
After exposure to Melito’s abuse, words lose their meaning and cognition disintegrates into profound
dismay and rage.

213
 Chrysostom

Introduction
The Sermons
The Context
My Chrysostom

Introduction+
In the Christian tradition, John of Antioch (347–407 CE), archbishop of Constantinople and known as
‘Chrysostom,’692 is venerated as a saint who was driven from the patriarchate by the evil scheming of the
empress Eudoxia and the plots of Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria. His courage in the face of
persecution and abuse, his devotion to his flock, and the nobility of his death quickly caught the
imagination of Christians... the reverence bestowed on him as a saint of the church has obscured the
memory of his earlier years when he was a presbyter in Antioch. John’s sermons are not only a
compendium of many of the themes that emerged in the Christian anti-Jewish phenomenon, they have also
had an enormous influence on later attitudes toward the Jews.693

Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish homilies ‘not only marked an important moment in the Church’s polemics
against Judaism, but they seem to have exercised an influence which went far beyond any specific occasion
or local situation.’694 John’s popularity as a preacher, his mastery of the Greek language, and his incendiary
style account for the fact that his writings have exerted a powerful influence on later believers.

The Sermons+
Half-truths, innuendo, abusive and inflammatory language, malicious comparisons, and, in all, excess and
exaggeration695 are the hallmarks of Chrysostom’s sermons against Gentile believers that were attracted to
the beliefs and traditions of the founding faction. Chrysostom advocates extreme measures to contain the
influence of ‘Jewish ways’ among his congregants:696

If one of our brothers hears the rumor that a large number joined in keeping the fast,
he will be more inclined to be careless himself; again, if it is one of weak ones who
hears the story, he will rush to join the strong of those who
have fallen. Even if many have sinned, let us not join with those who rejoice at this or
any other evil. If we do, we make a parade of the sinners and say that their name is
legion. Rather, let us stop the rumor mongers and keep

214
 them from spreading the story. (Jud. 8:4:8)697

Another more terrible sickness beckons and our tongue must be turned to heal a
disease which is flourishing in the body of the church... What is this sickness? The
festivals of the wretched and miserable Jews which follow one
after another in succession—Trumpets, Booths, the Fasts—are about to take place.
And many who belong to us and say that they believe in our teaching attend their
festivals, and even share in their celebrations and join in their fasts. It is this evil
practice I now wish to driven from the church. (Jud. 4.1; 48.844)

A favorite ploy was to describe opponents as ravenous wolves surrounding the helpless flock of Christ:698
Again those sorry Jews, most miserable of all men, are about to hold a fast and it is
necessary to protect the flock of Christ. As long as a wild beast is not causing trouble,
shepherds lie down under an oak tree or a pine to play
the flute, allowing the sheep to graze wherever they want. But when they realize wolves
are about to attack, they immediately throw down their flute, grab their sling, lay aside
the shepherd’s pipe, arm themselves with clubs and stones, and stand before the flock
shouting with a loud and booming voice, often driving away the wild beast without
casting a stone. So also we, in the days just passed, were frolicking about in the
exegesis of the Scriptures as in a meadow not touching on anything contentious due to
the fact no one was troubling us. But since today the Jews, more troublesome than any
wolves are about to encircle our sheep, it is necessary to arm ourselves for battle so
that none of our sheep become prey to wild beasts. (Jud. 4.1; 48.871)

The eighth homily on the Judaizers, probably Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish opus maximum, showcases the
effort to sever the influence that the descendants of the founding fathers had over some among his
congregation:

Gone is the fasting of the Jews, or rather, the drunkenness of the Jews. (Jud. 8:1:1)

This, in fact, is the special danger of madness: those who suffer from it do not know
they are sick. So, too, the Jews are drunk but do not know they are drunk. (Jud. 8:1:4)

Indeed, the fasting of the Jews, which is more disgraceful than any drunkenness, is
over and gone. (Jud. 8:1:5)

... For those who have just observed the fast have fallen among robbers, the Jews. And
the Jews are more savage than any highwaymen; they do greater harm to those who
have fallen among them. (Jud. 8:3:10)

... as is the case with circumcision, so, too, the fasting of the Jews drives from heaven
the man who observes the fast, even if he has ten thousand other good works to his
credit... (Jud. 8:5:5)

215
 ... When you see that God is punishing you, do not flee to his enemies, the Jews, so
that you may not rouse his anger against you still further... (Jud. 8:5:8)

... Tell me this. When you stand indicted before God’s tribunal, what reason will you
be able for considering the Jews’ witchcraft more worthy of your belief than what
Christ has said?... (Jud. 8:8:5)

... You profess you are a Christian, but you rush off to their synagogues and beg them
to help you. Do not realize how they laugh at you, scoff at you, jeer at you, dishonor
you, and reproach you?... (Jud. 8:8:9)

... Suppose you had to suffer incurable ills; suppose you had to die ten thousand
deaths. Would it not be much better to endure all that rather than have those
abominable people laugh and scoff at you, rather than live with a bad
conscience?... (Jud. 8:10:1)

Elsewhere:

Nothing is more miserable than those who kick against their salvation. When it was
required to keep the law, they trampled it under foot; now when the law has been
abrogated, they obstinately observe it. What could be more
pitiful than people who provoke God’s anger not only by transgressing the law but also
by observing the law? This is why the Scripture says, You stiff-necked and
uncircumcised in heart; you always fight against the Holy Spirit.
(Jud. 1.2; 48.845–846)

We must return again to the sick. Do you realize that those who are fasting have
dealings with those who shouted, Crucify him! Crucify him!’ and with those who said,
His blood be on us and on our children’? If a band of would-be revolutionaries were
apprehended and then condemned, would you dare to go to them and talk with them?
I certainly don’t think so! Is it not absurd to be zealous about avoiding someone who
had sinned against mankind, but to have dealings with those who affronted God? Is it
not folly
for those who worship the crucified to celebrate festivals with those who crucified
him? This is not only stupid—it is sheer madness. (Jud. 1.5; 850)699

John’s rampages are lucid, engaging, and demonstrate great ability, but they aim for the visceral, not for the
logical, spiritual, or theological core of his constituency. Chrysostom’s attacks are mostly tactical, not
strategic. In other words, they are sophisticated incitement. They aim to inflame by pandering to the lowest
instincts. [+pg 220]

216
The Context
Called ‘the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christian
theologian,’700 the eight anti-Jewish sermons targeted Gentiles in John’s congregation who worshipped at
synagogues. Although the audience would know who are the ‘Jews’ being targeted, Chrysostom does not
unequivocally identify ‘the Jews’ that attract his congregants: Jewish non-believers in Jesus, the Jewish
followers of Jesus, Gentile sympathizers with Judaism, or Gentile sympathizers with the founding
faction.701

Many modern scholars see Gentile sympathizers with Judaism as the focus of John’s ire. There is a wide
consensus that supports the identification of the target audience as Gentiles. Besides context, some
statements point decisively to their Gentile origin:702

[T]hat we might not shipwreck ourselves by becoming, as it were, proselytes to their

law. (3:6) Before we believed in God, our hearts dwelling-place was corrupt and weak,
truly a temple built by human hands, due to the fact it was full of idolatry and was the
home of demons, for we did whatever was contrary to God. (16:7)

‘If you believe Judaism is true,’ ... ‘why do you trouble the Church?’ (Jud. 4.4; 876). ‘Go
into the synagogues,’ says John, ‘and see if the Jews have changed their days of fasting,
if they observe the Paschal Feast at the same time we do,
whether they have ever taken food on that day?... When have they celebrated
the Pascha with us? When have they celebrated the festivals of martyrs with us? When
have they shared the day of Epiphany with us?’ (Jud. 4–3; 375–376)

In Chrysostom, as elsewhere, Israelite traditions of prophetic chastisement and

self-criticism, and the Judean tradition of sectarian anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric, are appropriated to
erode the influence of the founding faction. Chrysostom is quite explicit in recognizing that the biblical
prophets and authors are being subverted:703

‘By God’s grace, we made the prophets our warriors against the Jews and routed them.
As we return from pursuing out foes, let us look all around to see if any of our
brothers have fallen, if the fast has swept some of them off, if any of them have shared
in the festival of the Jews...’ (Jud. 8:1:6).

Antioch was the largest stronghold of the founding faction outside of Judea. It seems that the synagogues
of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers attracted Gentile sympathizers, to the inclusion of
some among Chrysostom’s flock.704 John’s ire originates in his rage at congregants that embrace his
opponents’ traditions and rituals. Indeed, John’s candor can be enlightening:

217
 ‘This is the reason I hate the Jews,’ he says, ‘due to the fact they have the law and the
prophets: indeed, I hate them more due to the fact of this than if they did not have
them’ (Jud. 6.6; 913). ‘If you admire the Jewish way of life,
what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish rites are holy and venerable…’

Also: ‘our way of life must be false’ (Jud. 1.6; 851). The Jewish Scriptures are ‘bait to
deceive the simple,’ the Law a ‘snare for the weak’ (Jud. 6.6; 913). ‘Don’t say to me that
the Law and the books of the prophets can be found in the synagogue. That is not
enough to make the place holy’
(Jud. 1.5; 850).

My Chrysostom+
When attempting to decipher what socio-theological context triggered the authorship of John’s incendiary
sermons, we face the same questions that we have considered throughout our journey: was it a conflict
with Judaism? Was it the attraction of some believers to Judaism? Was it the continuation of the centuries-
long effort to de-Judaize belief in Jesus? Was it the attraction of some believers to the authority and
legitimacy inherent in the founding fathers?

John’s career started in Antioch, a city with a long connection to the Jewish faction and their most
important stronghold outside of Judea. We have seen that two centuries earlier Ignatius, bishop of
Antioch,705 chastised Gentiles in his community who were attracted to the beliefs and customs of the
Jewish faction (Magn. 8.1–2; Phil. 6.1). It is clear from the content and context of John’s sermons that
three centuries later the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers among Gentile congregants
remained a challenge. During the third and fourth centuries, the declining but still powerful influence of
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers706 called into question the truth of the Pauline
interpretation of Jesus’ ministry. Chrysostom and the Apostolic Constitutions corroborate that the beliefs
and traditions of the founding fathers continued to attract rank-and-file Gentiles in Antioch, well through
the fourth century - a fact that infuriated John beyond civility.707

From Chrysostom we learn that some members of his congregation saw no problem in participating in
services and ceremonies at local synagogues, most probably at the synagogues of the Jewish followers of
Jesus (where Jesus was venerated) rather than at ‘regular’ synagogues (where followers of Jesus would be
rejected). Chrysostom attempts to draw the line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ but it is obvious that some
congregants yearned for fellowship with the founding faction and saw no problem in participating in both
forms of worship.

I place John’s sermons at the end of the excruciating and protracted ‘religious civil war’ that engulfed the
Jesus movement for at least three hundred years. Whether Chrysostom is aiming at Gentile sympathizers
with Judaism or with the Jewish faction, there is growing support for the view that his eight anti-Jewish
sermons were preached against ‘Judaizers,’ not against external/mainstream Jews.708 Thus, even though

218
Chrysostom’s assault on Jews and on Judaism is extreme, the context seems to be internal; the persistent
influence of the Jewish followers of Jesus among his congregants.

Thus, a dispute about Judaism was cast, and later misperceived, as a dispute with Judaism. The context is a
resentful and vicious debate about Judaism among believers in Jesus, not a conflict with it. In Chrysostom’s
resentful, defensive, and abusive homilies the externalization-projection of resentment toward adversaries
that were Jews onto all Jews is seemingly complete. The projection of the intra-religious abuse that we
encountered in previous texts onto the inter-religious arena is now almost seamless.
Overall, there is nothing in Chrysostom’s homilies that necessitates the expansion of his horizon beyond
the Jesus movement and I suspect that the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers is the
cause behind his ire:

1. Antioch was an important stronghold of the Jewish faction. Some Gentile believers seem to have
remained under its influence despite the Pauline de-Judaizing campaign, and would have attended
their synagogues (where Jesus was venerated) not ‘mainstream’ synagogues where his messiahship
was rejected.
2. John’s resentful complaint about lack of reciprocity (Jud. 4–3; 375– 376) makes sense only if ‘the
Jews’ are the descendants of the founding fathers, from whom reciprocity was hoped and desired.
3. Chrysostom deploys against ‘Judaizers’ rhetoric that resonates with the polemic he deployed earlier
against ‘Paganizers’ among his congregants - strengthening the argument that the texts reflect an
internal struggle against the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish faction (not a struggle with
external/mainstream Judaism). Whereas differing Gentile believers in Jesus are redeemable, but
Jews and Pagans are not.709
4. Chrysostom’s use of the generic ‘Jews’ to identify Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement
resonates with the deployment of the ‘Ioudaioi’ in the Gospel of John, and the deployment of
‘they/them’ in Barnabas and Hebrews. It may also reflect a persistent, intended or unintended,
fusion and confusion of Jews within and Jews without the Jesus movement.
5. At the time of authorship, the Pauline-orthodox assault on the beliefs and traditions of the
founding fathers was a few centuries old and already quasi-sacrosanct. I doubt that Gentiles would
be attending synagogue services under this derogatory barrage, unless they were attending the
synagogues of the Jewish faction.

It is important to internalize the fact that the writings of Melito and Chrysostom, bishops and saints, are
not windows into marginal minds. Their writings reflect how many, if not most, Pauline-orthodox religious
leaders thought and preached. During his tenure at Constantinople, the epicenter of the Eastern Empire at
a time when Rome and the West were beginning the descent into the dark ages, John was second to the
Pope in nominal hierarchy but was second to none in religious power and influence. Moreover,
Chrysostom’s sermons were popular with the masses and were reflective and representative of a culture of
denigration, incitement, and persecution that took hold of the orthodox mindset. With Chrysostom, we
have reached the zenith of early anti-Jewish incitement. That said, and due to my concentration on his anti-
Jewish ‘contribution,’ we must also acknowledge that Chrysostom’s sermons and concerns encompassed a
wide-ranging spectrum of theological and pastoral issues not discussed here.710

219
Despite the obvious importance of Chrysostom’s writings, these disturbing sermons have attracted
relatively little attention from scholars. Some modern scholars seem to find refuge in stressing that ancients
thrived on visceral clashes and often cling to the ‘bad apples syndrome;’ acknowledging the existence of
rotten trees while refusing to see the forest. Indeed, ancients could be vicious. However, neither ancient
nor turn-of-the-era religious texts were permeated by denigration and vilification of other religious
traditions with the intensity and the pervasiveness that we encounter in the lore of the Pauline faction. Nor
is the disparaging of other religious traditions as central and as dominant, in any major religious tradition,
as it is in that strand. We cannot know with certainty how Western history would have evolved in the
absence of the Pauline ascendancy.

However, the fact that views like John’s won out is significant for it shaped attitudes and emotions about
Judaism.711 Chrysostom’s vicious bias is undistinguishable from later anti-Jewish tractates in either content
or intensity. From here onward, and until the early twentieth century, unrestrained anti-Judaism will
become prevalent, normative, and sacrosanct. It will consume millions of Christian souls and Jewish lives.
When a defenseless minority is the target of a derogatory discourse, the souls that populate the margins of
human societies feast on the victims as the ever-silent majority looks away. Thankfully, hope and human
dignity were preserved by those few brave souls that ventured to deviate from the frenzy.

220
 Theology Gone Awry – Summary+

Chrysostom’s concern with Jewish and Pagan influences among his flock resonate with Ignatius’, Justin’s
and Tertullian’s apologies against ‘the Jews’ and against Marcion. These texts reflect the fact that
throughout the first three centuries the Pauline confrontation with the descendants of the Jewish founders
paralleled and mirrored confrontations with other differing believers within the Jesus movement—
strengthening the internal context advocated here.

Indeed, prior to his ordination to the presbyterate, Chrysostom’s primary intellectual concern was the
defense of the ascending Pauline strand of belief in Jesus from Pagan influences among his flock. His
sermons against Gentile sympathizers with the descendants of the founding fathers came later, highlighting
the internal nature of his concerns. Throughout his career at Antioch Chrysostom unleashed his rage
against differing believers in Jesus, whom he does not acknowledge as legitimate Christians.

Whereas Melito felt the need to explain the roots of his anti-Judaism. Chrysostom writing a couple of
centuries later, dispenses vicious and incendiary rhetoric without the slightest restraint.

Most anti-Jewish staples we encounter in the lore originate within the Jesus movement and may be
paraphrased as follows:

a. ‘You may have been God’s favorites but no longer, we are now the true Israel and God’s chosen.’
b. ‘The Jews forfeited God’s favor due to their sinfulness. You cannot lead the Jesus camp.’
c. ‘The Jews misunderstand and misinterpret the sacred texts. The disciples misunderstood and
misinterpreted Jesus ministry and legacy.’
d. ‘Jewish beliefs and traditions may have served a purpose for a time but were a mere foreshadowing
of the advent of our interpretation of belief in Jesus.’

These are some of the threads that sustain the Pauline edifice of disparagement that paved the way to the
ethical dead-end of anti-Semitism, and stands on trendsetters like Melito and Chrysostom.

Were it not for the impact it eventually had on the minds and on the hearts of millions of believers, the
claim put forward in these texts—that a religious tradition spanning two thousand years is unworthy of its
heritage and is incapable of understanding its own inner meaning—could be smiled upon. However, the
extraordinary audacity and affront of these claims are opaque to modern believers due to the fact that the

221
challengers were eventually successful and did come to dominate the cultural and theological discourse of
the West. Thus, what from a first-century perspective seems outrageous, did eventually become normative
and sacrosanct.

At first, the reader’s reaction may be to dismiss the more extreme of the post-canonical texts as marginal,
as non-representative of the mainstream. However, the texts that concern and outrage us were not
authored by marginal or renegade believers. Contrary to modern misperceptions, texts like Melito’s Peri
Pascha, Chrysostom’s homilies, and the vast Adversus Judaeos literature that followed,712 were not the product
of marginal ‘bad apples,’ nor were they the unfortunate indiscretions of otherwise admirable church
leaders. It is crucial to internalize the fact that we have discussed authoritative works authored by
individuals that were the acknowledged leaders and trendsetters of their time—venerated by millions, their
texts later read and revered throughout Christendom during almost two thousand years. Melito and
Chrysostom, the most extreme and strident of them all, were bishops and both were later sanctified.
Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople, second only to the pope in protocol, but at the time, the most
powerful ecclesiastical position in Christendom. Melito was the bishop of Sardis, a cultural and economic
hub. Melito and Chrysostom, cherished and prominent leaders and theologians, wrote the extreme anti-
Jewish texts showcased here. These texts reflect a deep, sustained, and pervasive trend that, with the
passage of time, will reach inconceivable scope and intensity. Contrary to earlier authors who are
apologetic, in Melito and Chrysostom, anti-Judaism is normative and sacrosanct.

Almost three hundred years after Mark’s seemingly inconsequential denigration of the disciples and the
launch of the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif, we find the beliefs and traditions of those chosen by Jesus to be
the guardians of his legacy thoroughly discredited and freely abused. Under the ever-increasing escalation
of the anti-Jewish strand, Jews are sinful and quasi-demonic—their lives deemed worthless. By the fourth
century, the disparagement of Jews and of Judaism that originated in the drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus
reached endemic proportions.

From here onward, with few exceptions, anti-Jewish incitement will ravage the souls, hearts, and minds of
Gentile believers in Jesus. From here onward, a distinct genre of literature (Adversus Judaeos)713 will
disseminate and intensify anti-Jewish sentiment throughout Christendom. At this stage, the transition from
conjectural bias to undifferentiated polemic becomes endemic and paves the way to genocidal inclinations.
As it concerns Judaism, the Christian fleet enters an era of inconceivable darkness. The age of
Christendom’s rise is the darkest age of Judaism. From here onward full-blown anti-Judaism and its worst
manifestations are derivative; the fruits of an unintended journey gone awry.

The non-canonical texts we have discussed in this chapter are the third stage of a polemical sequence, a
pre-anti-Semitic level. Although these texts did become the anchors, enablers, and facilitators of anti-
Semitism, we need to withhold categorizing their authors as anti-Semitic due to the internal context of their
writing and the identity of the intended adversaries. Thus, even though to a literal reader these texts feel
anti-Semitic in content and impact, and despite the fact that they were written in the context of pervasive

222
denigration of Jewish beliefs and traditions - we must acknowledge that, technically speaking, the writers’
intent was not anti-Semitic.

Therefore, and notwithstanding the hearts’ desire and the fact that with these texts the demons of anti-
Semitism entered their last gestational stages, we need to exonerate these writers from anti-Semitic
inclinations. Given on narrow technical grounds, this exoneration must stand even though, enhanced by
authoritative status, these texts were treasured by anti-Semites throughout the ages. This third level in the
‘edifice of sanctified hatred’ is the gateway into a horrific future. No leap of imagination is required to see
continuity between these texts and later anti-Semitism.

223
224
Chapter 7

*Polemic in The New Testament

Introduction
Mark
Matthew
Luke / Acts
John
Paul
Revelation
Hebrews
1 Peter
Summary

Introduction+
I have noted that pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish strands have cohabited in the traditions of believers in
Jesus from the earliest years and have wrestled since for their minds, hearts, and souls. In the New
Testament, we encounter pro and anti-Jewish segments, themes, metaphors, parables, motifs, and
theological constructs - with a preponderance of the latter. In the New Testament, the Q and M
materials in Matthew714 and the Epistles of James and Jude, are the only explicitly pro-Jewish residues of
the Torah observant lore of the early Jesus movement. Outside the New Testament these traditions
surface in The Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature.715

Anti-establishment and pro-establishment theologies cohabit the New Testament and the authoritative
lore. Simplifying for the sake of clarity, we can say that anti-establishment theologies tend to surface
among sectarians and among the marginalized, the poor, the vanquished, and the suffering. Belief in the
coming end of times, dualism, retribution, vindication, and God’s eventual just judgment, are commonly
attested features of anti-establishment theologies. These are theologies of the discontent and the
marginalized, and tend to tilt toward intense emotions and extreme imagery.

On the other hand, pro-establishment theologies tend to adhere to tradition and to ‘things as they are.’
These theologies tend to surface among the mainstream and the content, and tend to tilt toward serene,
sublime, and harmonious themes and imagery. In most religious traditions, pro-establishment theologies
are generally associated with the mainstream, the fortunate, the successful, the socially connected, and
the powerful. These theologies tend to promote the belief that one’s fortune reflects God’s favor, and
the truthfulness of one’s beliefs.

225
 Sometime during the second half of the first century some Gentile believers in Jesus started to think,
perceive, and express themselves in apparent emulation of Jewish anti-establishment sectarians.
However, this rhetoric was not only directed at the Jewish authorities but at the Jewish leadership of
Jesus' messianic movement. How this migration of lore and self-perception did take place is one of the
great enigmas that accompany the emergence of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus. This question will take
center stage in our inquiry and will be bountiful in insights on the evolution of belief in Jesus, and on
Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement.

In the New Testament we find two types of polemic:

1. Segments that contain language that disparages Jews, Judaism, or Jewish beliefs and
traditions. The segments selected below include some of the best-known instances of
anti-Jewish bias in the New Testament. The lists included later in this chapter are my
summary of 233 segments identified by N. Beck as reflective of anti-Jewish textual bias.716
Forty-four segments are redundancies that originate in the Synoptic phenomenon
(Matthew and Luke’s use of Mark).717 They do, however, contribute independently to the
anti-Jewish impact of the texts.

2. Themes, metaphors, parables, motifs, and theological constructs that disparage Jews,
Judaism, or Jewish beliefs and traditions. These will be introduced and engaged in the
chapters ahead.

Throughout the centuries, these manifestations have been understood to reflect the existence of a
pervasive and endemic polemical strand in the tradition. This study suggests, however, that Jewish-
Christian relations stand on a complex trajectory that originates in Jewish-Gentile relations within the
Jesus movement. It suggests that the Jewish-Christian saga originates in a conflict among followers of Jesus
with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations.

Therefore, and contrary to traditional interpretations, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were not
participants in this struggle. They were the subjects of a debate, (mostly) among Gentile believers - about
what belief in Jesus should be. Thus, Jewish-Christian relations do not emerge out of a conflict between
‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ The main thrust behind this saga is best characterized as a controversy about
Judaism, not as a conflict with Judaism.

Thus, Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement and in the New Testament are a complex and multi-
layered phenomenon that requires nuanced deciphering and interpretation. The crisis within the Jesus
movement included a Judeo-Gentile crisis, and an intra-Gentile crisis. I will argue that the polemic that
accompanies the Judeo-Gentile crisis in the Jesus movement, and is reflected in the New Testament has six
main layers or stages:718

1. Polemic by the Jewish followers of Jesus against the Judean establishment.

2. Polemic by Gentile believers against the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement, its
beliefs, and traditions.

226
 3. The de-contextualization and subversion, by Pauline believers, of the Judean tradition of self-
criticism and prophetic anti-establishment censure of the Hebrew Scriptures, to de-Judaize
belief in Jesus.
4. Appropriation Theology—The claim that Gentile followers of Paul replaced the Jewish
followers of Jesus as the New Israel, as God’s new chosen.
5. Supersession Theology—The view that Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy superseded the
beliefs and traditions of Jesus and of his first followers.
6. Loss of context, fusion, confusion, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of these
rhetorical layers by later believers, resulting in their projection onto Judaism.

This layered and complex origination creates the puzzling collage of polemic that we encounter in the
New Testament texts. This complex evolutionary trajectory will challenge our ability to understand and
discuss the emergence of polemical attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus. In the chapters
ahead, these elements and variants will be introduced, and engaged in the context of Jewish-Gentile
relations in the early centuries. Throughout the texts we will survey, these elements will surface, and
resurface in a variety of configurations. Intertwined, layered, appropriated, projected, retrojected,
subverted, or de-contextualized - they will create a rich, layered, and complex textual theological tapestry.

The Judeo-Gentile conflict is pre-eminent in the Christian tradition because the Judeo-Gentile relationship
was the central axis in the evolution of belief in Jesus. In addition, whereas the Judeo-Gentile crisis
originated during the decades of New Testament authorship, the conflicts between Gentile believers
(between Paulines, Marcionites, and Gnostics) arose later, had a marginal impact on the authorship of the
New Testament, and thus had less impact on later believers. Throughout this survey, the theological
ramifications of these observations will arise, implicitly and explicitly.

Furthermore, disputes about Jesus among Jews (was Jesus the messiah or not), disputes among differing
followers of Jesus (was Jesus human, divine, or both), and disputes about what theological worldview
should be adopted (Jewish, Pauline, Marcionite or Gnostic) lay fused and intertwined in the authoritative
texts.

Here are some of the better-known examples of polemic in the New Testament:719

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit that
befits repentance, and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our
father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to
raise up children to Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every
tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matt.
3:7–10)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs,
which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all
uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to people, but within you are full
of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build

227
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we
had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in
shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are
sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
(Matt. 23:27–33)

Therefore, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill
and crucify, and some of whom you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute
from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth,
from the blood of the innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,
whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all this
will come upon this generation. (Matt. 23:34–36)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood
under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate.
(Matt. 23:37–38)

Jesus said to them [i.e., the ‘Jews’], ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I
proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Why do you not understand what I say? It is due to the fact you cannot bear to hear
my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, due to
the fact there is no truth in him... He who is of God hears the words of God; the
reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.’ (John 8:42–47)

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy
Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers
persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the
Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the
law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. (Acts 7:51–53)

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, ‘It was necessary that the word of
God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves
unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles’ ... and when the Gentiles
heard this, they were glad. (Acts 13:46–48)

And when [the Jews] opposed and reviled [Paul], he shook out his garments and said
to them, ‘Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to
the Gentiles.’ (Acts 18:6)

228
 So, as [the Jews] disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one
statement: ‘The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the
prophet: ‘Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand…’
Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles;
they will listen.’ (Acts 28:25–29)

For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are
in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from
the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and
displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that
they may be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath
has come upon them at last! (1 Thess. 2:14–16)

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander
of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Rev.
2:9)

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are
not, but lie—behold, I will make them 9come and bow down before your feet, and
learn that I have loved you. (Rev. 3:9)

Bias in Mark

Mark 2:1–12
Mark 2:13–17
Mark 2:18–20
Mark 2:23.28
Mark 3:1–6
Mark 3:20–30
Mark 5:21–43
Mark 6:1–6a
Mark 7:1–23
Mark 8:11–12
Mark 8:15
Mark 9:14c
Mark 10:1–12
Mark 10:17–31
Mark 8:31
Mark 9:31
Mark 10:33–34
Mark 11:12–25
Mark 11:27–33

229
Mark 12:1–12
Mark 12:13–17
Mark 12:18–27
Mark 12:28–34
Mark 12:35–37a
Mark 12:37b–40
Mark 14:2
Mark 14:10–11
Mark 14:43
Mark 14:53–55
Mark 14:64
Mark 15:43
Mark 15:3, 10, 11
Mark 15:8, 11, 15
Mark 15:38
Mark 15:39
Mark 15:29
Mark 15:31, 38, 39

Bias in Matthew

Matthew 3:7b–10 Luke 3:7b–9

Matthew 5:11–12 Luke 6:22–23
Matthew 8:10 Luke 7:9; 13:28–29
Matthew 11:16–19 Luke 7:31–35
Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15
Matthew 12:27–28, 30 Luke 11:19–20, 23
Matthew 12:41 Luke 11:32
Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31
Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35
Matthew 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17
Matthew 5:18, 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17
Matthew 15:14b Luke 6:39
Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15
Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31
Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35
Matthew 19:28d Luke 22:30b

Matthew’s Bias - Material Originating in Mark

Matthew 7:29b Mark 1:22c
Matthew 8:16–17 Mark 1:32–34
Matthew 9:4 Mark 2:8
Matthew 12:1–8 Mark 2:23–28

230
Matthew 12:9–14 Mark 3:1–6
Matthew 10:1–16 Mark 6:7; 3:13–19a; 6:8–11
Matthew 16:53–58 Mark 6:1–6a
Matthew 15:1–11, 15–20 Mark 7:1–23
Matthew 16:5–12 Mark 8:14–21
Matthew 21:33–46 Mark 12:1–12
Matthew 22:15–22 Mark 12:13–17
Matthew 22:34–40 Mark 12:28–34
Matthew 22:41–46 Mark 12:35–37a
Matthew 23:1–12(14) Mark 12:37b-40
Matthew 24:1–51; 10:17–22a; 25:13–15
Mark 13:1–37
Matthew 26:1–5 Mark 14:1–2
Matthew 27:1–2 Mark 15:1
Matthew 27:11–23, 26 Mark 15:2–15
Matthew 27:33–42, 44–56 Mark 15:22–41

Bias in Matthew - His Use of Unidentified Sources

Matthew 1:1–17
Matthew 1:18–25
Matthew 3:1–6, 11–12
Matthew 3:13–17
Matthew 5:20–22, 27–28, 31–32a, 33–39, 43–44a
Matthew 6:1–8, 16–18
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 12:17–21
Matthew 12:34a
Matthew 12:45c
Matthew 15:12–14a
Matthew 16:17–19; 18:18
Matthew 21:31b–32
Matthew 22:1–10
Matthew 23:12, 15–33
Matthew 23:34–36
Matthew 27:24–25
Matthew 27:43
Matthew 27:62–66; 28:4, 11–15

Luke’s Bias - Material Originating in Mark

Luke 4:14–30 Mark 1:14–15; 6:1–6a
Luke 5:17–26 Mark 2:1–12
Luke 5:27–32 Mark 2:13–17
Luke 5:33–35 Mark 2:18–20

231
Luke 6:6–11 Mark 3:1–6
Luke 11:14–23 Mark 3:22–30
Luke 8:40–56 Mark 5:21–43
Luke 11:37–41 Mark 7:1–23
Luke 12:1 Mark 8:15
Luke 16:18 Mark 10:1–12
Luke 9:22; 9:44; 18:31b–33 Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34
Luke 13:6–9; 19:45–48; 21:37–38
Mark 11:12–25
Luke 20:1–8 Mark 11:27
Luke 20:9–19 Mark 12:1–12
Luke 20:20–26 Mark 12:13
Luke 20:27–40 Mark 12:18–27
Luke 10:25–28 Mark 12:28–34
Luke 21:5–36; 12:11–12; 12:40;
17:23; 19:12–13
Mark 13:1–37

Bias in Luke - Own Material and in Unidentified Sources

Luke 1:5–23
Luke 1:26–38
Luke 1:39–45, 56
Luke 1:68–79
Luke 2:8–15
Luke 2:34–35
Luke 2:38
Luke 2:46–47
Luke 7:29–30
Luke 10:29–37
Luke 10:38–40
Luke 11:27–28
Luke 11:42–48, 52
Luke 11:49–51
Luke 11:53–54
Luke 13:10–17
Luke 13:31–33
Luke 14:1–6
Luke 14:7–24
Luke 14:1–32

Bias in Luke - Use of Q Material

Luke 3:7b–9 Matthew 3:b–10

232
Luke 6:22–23 Matthew 5:11–12
Luke 6:26
Luke 7:9 Matthew 8:10
Luke 7:31–35 Matthew 11:16–19
Luke 10:12–15 Matthew 11:20–24
Luke 12:54–56 Matthew 16:2–3
Luke 13:34–35 Matthew 23:37–39
Luke 16:16–17 Matthew 11:12–13; 5:18
Luke 22:1–2 Mark 14:1–2
Luke 7:36–50 Mark 14:3–9
Luke 22:3–6 Mark 14:10–11
Luke 22:47–53 Mark 14:43
Luke 22:54a, 63–65 Mark 14:53, 55–65
Luke 23:2–5, 13–25 Mark 15:2–15
Luke 23:33–49 Mark 15:22

Bias in Luke – Material shared with Acts

Acts 2:1–47
Acts 3:1–26
Acts 4:1–31
Acts 5:17–42
Acts 6:8–8:3
Acts 9:1–31
Acts 10:1–11 12:1–24
Acts 13:6–12
Acts 13:14–52
Acts 14:1–7
Acts 14:19–20
Acts 15:1–35
Acts 17:1–9
Acts 17:10–14
Acts 17:16–17
Acts 18:4–6
Acts 18:12–17
Acts 18:19–21
Acts 18:28
Acts 19:8–10
Acts 19:11–20
Acts 19:33–34
Acts 20:1–3
Acts 20:17–38
Acts 21:11
Acts 21:27–36
Acts 22:30–23:10

233
Acts 23:12–35
Acts 24:1–27
Luke 16:14–15
Luke 16:19–31
Luke 17:11–19
Luke 17:20–21
Luke 17:25
Luke 18:9–14
Luke 19:3–40
Luke 19:41–44
Luke 23:6–12
Luke 23:27–31
Luke 23:50b–51a
Luke 24:6–8
Luke 24:20

Bias in John and the Johannine Epistles

John 1:1–18
John 1:19–34
John 1:35–51
John 2:1–11
John 2:13–22
John 3:1–21
John 3:25
John 4:1–3
John 4:4–42
John 5:1–47
John 6:1–71
John 7:1–52
John 7:53–8:11
John 8:12–59
John 9:1–41
John 10:1–21
John 10:22–39
John 11:1–54
John 12:9–11, 17–19
John 12:42–43
John 13:33
John 15:18–25
John 15:18–25
John 16:2
John 18:1–12
John 18:13–23
John 15:28–19:16

234
 Acts 25:1–12
Acts 25:13–22
Acts 25:23–26:32
Acts 28:17–28

Bias in Paul
Romans 3:20
Romans 9:31
Romans 11:28
2 Corinthians 3:14f
Galatians 3:10
Galatians 3:11
Galatians 6:15

Bias in Revelation
Revelation 2:9
Revelation 3:9

Bias in Hebrews
Hebrews 7:5–12
Hebrews 7:18, 28
Hebrews 8:1–13
Hebrews 10:1

Bias in 1 Peter
1 Peter 2:4–5, 7–8
1 Peter 2:9–10

235
236
Chapter 8

*Scholarship

Introduction+
The pre-Holocaust mindset
The post-Holocaust mindset
Encountering Judaism anew
Afterthoughts

Introduction
The main meta-narratives that have been put forward to explain Christian anti-Judaism may be
summarized as follows:
Traditional theology: The Jews rejected Jesus and were responsible for his death. They forfeited God’s
favor due to their sins and their transgressions. Their fate is their own doing. Christianity is the ‘New Israel’
and God’s new people. The Jews forfeited God’s favor. Their suffering is just retribution for their
transgressions. The tribulations of the Jews are a sign of their depravity. The tribulations of Christians were
seen as the martyrdom of the righteous.

Modern theology: Most modern theologians posit multiple originating causes for the emergence of
Christian anti-Judaism. Positioning is nuanced and the relative importance of each element is highly
calibrated. Some see first and second century Judaism and Christianity as proselytizing competitors (anti-
Jewish attitudes are seen as reflecting the intensity of that struggle), others think that the Pauline aim to
sever the attraction to Judaism was the main thrust behind polemical attitudes among early Gentile
believers in Jesus. Some emphasize theological incompatibilities as the main originating source for a
‘parting of the ways.’

The pre-Holocaust mindset720+

To showcase the impact that the rhetoric against the Jewish followers of Jesus had on the minds and on
the hearts of believers, we will travel to the first half of the twentieth century, when many of today’s
leading scholars and theologians were young students. By looking into what Christian theologians said at
the turn of the 20th century, prior to the emergence of modern theology, we will be able to gauge the
impact of seventeen centuries of polemical indoctrination on the minds and souls of believers. In other

237
words, before engaging Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement – as reflected in the texts authored
during the first four centuries of belief in Jesus, let’s look at the impact (unintended by their authors) that
these texts have had on attitudes toward Jews and toward Judaism among later believers in Jesus. Later, as
we engage the rhetoric against the Jewish followers of Jesus among early Gentile believers in Jesus, the
anti-Judaism of the early twentieth century will be tragically familiar, derivative.

Until the Holocaust, there were few and mostly inconsequential attempts at an objective portrayal of
Judaism. Scholarship and theology were tools in the quest to maintain Christian hegemony.721 According to
traditional Christian theology, the centuries between the Babylonian exile (sixth century BCE) and the
emergence of Christianity were a period of decadence and decline for Judaism. Per this tendentious
narrative, by the turn of the era, Judaism had become externalized and rigid. God had become distant and
secondary to ritual, and the prophetic message was forgotten. Judaism was accused of misunderstanding its
role and its purpose. Destruction and exile were deemed just punishment. We may speak of polemical
attitudes that cast Judaism as a discarded, even corrupt, religious phenomenon - as opposed to spiritual
Christianity that overshadowed it, and rendered it worthless.

As we survey the views of early 20th century Christian theologians and scholars, on Jews and Judaism, we
will see that seldom do any of the authors refer to Jewish sources. Nor do they seem to be acquainted with
them. Pauline dogma was regarded, and internalized, as objective descriptions of the Jewish way of life, and
of the Jewish religion. There is no hint of the actual position of The Law (The Torah)722 as man's grateful
response to the covenant, as the sanctification of daily life. Ignorance or prejudice, partly attributable to a
literalist reading of the Pauline epistles, blinded Christians to Judaism, as Jews know it. Theologians
addressed the ‘Jewish problem’ as a question of obstinacy; the consequence of the arbitrary and culpable
rejection of Jesus’ ministry, as understood by Pauline believers. These predispositions deflected believers in
Jesus from penetrating more deeply into the history of Judaism, into Jewish sources, or into living and
enduring Judaism.
Forty years ago, writing in the footsteps of G. F. Moore, Charlotte Klein reported on anti-Judaism among
Christian theologians.723 Klein’s report was sobering and disheartening. Let’s eavesdrop to what was being
taught, and internalized, at seminaries and at theology schools during the decades preceding the holocaust:

The Law:
‘This law, which ruled the life of the Jew in an abundance of individual precepts and
prohibitions, was no longer understood as God’s living word but had become a rigid,
firmly outlined factor.’724

‘The law as it confronts man in the form of the law of Moses is the way in which man
comes to grief in sin. Christ is the end of the law.’725

‘[Here] lies the difference between two worlds: the world of merit, and the world of
grace; the law contrasted with the gospel.’726

238
‘In their life encompassed by the law and yet disobedient to the law, they incur the
wrath of God which is now hovering above them and will overwhelm them on the day
of retribution.’727

Legalistic piety:
‘God’s commandment is used by them |the Jews] for self-exaltation and self-esteem.
For them what matters is not God, but their own righteousness.’728

‘The Law with its precepts could have become for men the occasion for recognizing
the absolute will of God. But men have defrauded themselves of this opportunity by
their expansion of the precepts into a legal system.’729

‘we cannot, of course, forget how heavily burdened this piety was with externals, with
the most trivial regulations and hairsplitting, with anxieties and doubts about
ceremonial, which a tireless ingenuity had made into mountains.’730

‘Thus it happens that at the sight of the actual state of the leaders of the people and of
the great mass of the people itself —at the sight of religion frozen into ritualism, at the
sight of superficiality and love of self and the world—Jesus’ message becomes a cry of
woe and repentance.’731

‘Legalistic piety was ‘mere appearance and the desires for which they struggled were
exclusively selfish: they were fighting for money and women.’732

‘The gradual making absolute of ‘the law’ must be looked on as a false track, which led
to consequences which led right away from the authentic foundation of faith.’733

‘Jewish piety ‘became hardened and rigid.’ It attached the greatest importance to ‘forms
and externals’ and made no distinction ‘between minor and major matters in the
law.’734

‘As a result of a more or less ‘mechanical adjustment’ to it, the law serves only to
‘alienate man inwardly from God.’ Jesus turns the law into ‘a religious ethic,’ something
that the Jews had not been able to do, ‘since they had neither the strength nor the
courage to discard ritualism.’735

239
The loss of God’s favor:
‘There is an undercurrent of hostility to God running right through the history of
Israel in the Old Testament from generation to generation. And it was finally
concentrated in deadly hatred against him in whom God—who gives everything—
pressed hard on Israel.’736

Consequently, after His rejection the Lord of the vineyard would ‘come and destroy
the tenants, and give the vineyard to others’ … This sentence … announced … that
what the prophets had threatened was now taking place in redemptive history, namely,
the covenant people as such were being rejected.’737

From then onward Israel’s political role lies in the fact that ‘the whole Old Testament
heritage passes over to the Church and above all in the fact that the completion of the
Church involves the conversion of the Old Testament people of God.’738

‘The Christian revelation on the other hand is eternally young. But, once it is here,
those who prepared the way for it have lost any real meaning for their existence. Their
tragedy, indeed their guilt, consists in the fact that they do not regard themselves as
precursors and consequently are not prepared to be absorbed in the New when the
New appears.’739

‘The Mosaic law was meant to prepare precisely for this righteousness through faith in
Christ, so that in this sense Christ is not only the end but also the goal of the Mosaic
religion: with Christianity, the latter is abolished and transcended.’740

‘The descent of the ‘Jews’ from Abraham and also their claim to be children of God
would be proved if they were to believe. But they do not believe: they want to kill Jesus
and therefore can have neither Abraham nor God as their Father.’ The sins of Israel
against Jesus weighed heavily: ‘These are transgressions which touch the covenant
relationship itself and which thus render Israel liable to divine penal sanctions.’741
‘That part of Israel which continues to resist is to be brought back to its senses
through the fall from its former exaltation and through all its afflictions. Only because
God cannot forget his people … he chastises it harshly and often.’742

For, ‘instead of remaining faithful to the true tradition of the saints of the Old
Covenant, [they] ignored the need of divine help and looked for justification only from

240
their own fulfillment of the Law, that is to say, in the final analysis, only from their
own human efforts.’743

Moral ruin and sinfulness:

‘Jesus and his disciples lived in daily contact with a system of piety that was built on a
rational computation of the relation of man to God, and thereby set itself up over
God.’744

‘Under such a burden it was impossible for a healthy moral life to flourish…. For
anyone who took it seriously life was a continual torment … And for anyone who had
brought the understanding and manipulation of the law to a fine art, pride and vanity
[were] almost unavoidable.’745

‘but as such, if the observance does not spring from an internal disposition, it is not
only worthless appearance, but really spiritually ruinous.’746

‘The study of the law ‘leads to sanctimoniousness and hardening of the heart; behind
formal correctness worldly ambition and cupidity are concealed…. The traditions …
often enough are in outright opposition to the law and force on it an interpretation
which actually nullifies it.’747

‘The works of morality were largely set aside; the works of sanctification, fasting,
prayer, almsgiving preferred. But nothing was of value unless it was firmly regulated;
the important thing was formal exactitude.’748

‘prayer was reduced to being at the service of vanity’ and was misused ‘as a cover for
inward corruption. There was no ‘true piety, only external formalism’; prayer too was
‘chained within a rigid mechanism.’749

‘They are ‘enemies of God for your sake.’750

‘What happens now? ‘Israel has ‘fallen’ … it is lying on the ground … And a ‘blinding’
and ‘hardening,’ as promised in Scripture, are fulfilled in Israel, fallen as no other
people has fallen…. There is a cover over the rigid Torah and there is a cover over
their hard hearts.’751

241
‘The Jews’… ‘were bound to be upset by Christ, since he disturbed them in their
worldly thoughts and actions … Their uneasiness … grew into hatred against him.
They decided to eliminate this disturber who frightened them out of their human way
of thinking, and they killed him.’752

The Jews at heart do not seek God ‘but themselves,’ so that, ‘contrary to their own
knowledge and striving, they hate God.’753

‘Hillel’s fine words about ‘loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Law’ (Abolh
1.12) are merely propaganda… ‘the individualism of Jewish piety culminates in the
hope of recompense in the next world.’754

‘the nature of Judaism as a religion of observance finds expression in the incapacity to

distinguish the important from the unimportant, in the whole casuistic attitude, and finally in
the negative basic orientation’…’All this is linked with a certain lack of subjective truthfulness
and sincerity, a striving after externals and appearances.’755

‘Jesus rejected the self-confident claim of the Jew to his own greatness and showed
him the hypocritical contradiction in which he became involved when he attempted to
cover up his inward alienation from God by parading his veneration of the law and his
fidelity to Scripture.’756

‘For the Jews, there is no internal link between the good person and the good thing;
the action of the hands and the aspirations of the heart fall apart.’757

The cause of Jewish suffering:

It is this blindness which 'fills their history with such great self-consciousness, unrest,
resentment, and fanaticism. Yet the people of Israel are punished, not only mentally
but also corporeally.'758

‘They rejected Jesus Christ. Consequently, they could no longer be partners in God's
covenant with men. By rejecting Christ, they abandoned their own history, the basis of
their own existence as God's people. That is the reason why they themselves are
rejected (Rom. 0.31-3; 11.7-10)’759

‘…Nor are the sufferings of Jewry—as Jews frequently think—the consequence of the
fulfillment of Israel's divine task, through which it has become the object of mankind's

242
hatred; for Judaism has not in fact fulfilled its task. It suffers indeed on account of that
task which still faces it, by which... it is marked, which makes it seem like a foreign
body in the world: the world for which it was intended to be an example and model,
sign and pointer to an existence founded in God, and—by fulfilling its task—a
permanent call to decision for God. But Jewry suffers also because it has always failed
to seize this task, by understanding it wrongly, refusing to fulfill it, or rejecting it
outright, and seeking security instead in the world in its own way.'760

'The Church can never overlook this sorrowful function [of the Jews] which has made
its Marks on them. But the Church also, if it takes the gospel seriously, must see in this
resistance the obstinacy and guilt which deprive them of salvation.’761

Today’s Jews:
'This therefore is the history of the Jews;' … 'every Jew bears upon him from his
fathers the light of God's presence. On every Jew the Marks of God's wrath is
imprinted. Over every Jew God holds his breath'762

'This people... is no longer a people, nor can it be a ‘non-people’... nor yet can it be
absorbed in other peoples... Consequently, it lives abandoned in the desert of the
world.... The whole torment of that first stay in the desert is constantly repeated in
Israel's history, now however without the grace of the continually new revelation and
indeed now only kept together by one thing: the curse by which it is burdened and the
hatred and aversion of the nations whose godless instincts make a scapegoat for their
own sins shamelessly and brutally out of this alien, unprotected people thrown by God
into their midst.’763

'The curse will accompany this people—reduced to a remnant— throughout history

and will call down one judgment after another on them, but one day it will come to an
end.'764

'The Jews reject him as a scandal to them even in the name of God. We could almost
say that a supernatural demonism is exercising its power in the hatred of this people
against the true kingdom of God.’765

‘Israel still lives, but, so to speak, on the lower plane of the promise and the law. But
they [Jews today] are different from the Israel of the Old Testament, because they not
only did not enter on the plane of fulfillment, but are in opposition to it. Against
Christ, they remain attached to the covenant with God eschatologically dissolved by
Christ.’766

243
The quotes above are from the most distinguished theologians from the late eighteenth to the early
twentieth century and they reflect a centuries-long frenzy of anti-Judaism that took hold of Christian
theology, culture, and popular attitudes. As we will encounter and engage the rhetoric against the Jewish
followers of Jesus that emerged, grew and festered in the canonical and in the authoritative lore – we will
face the question of a causal connection between these phenomena.

The post-Holocaust mindset+

George Foot Moore is widely acknowledged as anticipating the post-Holocaust mindset. In ‘Christian
Writers on Judaism,’ Moore stated that ‘Christian interest in Jewish literature has always been apologetic or
polemic rather than historical.’767 Unfortunately, Moore’s manifesto of 1921 did not resonate with
contemporaneous scholars and theologians and it remained an isolated call for change. The most notable
exceptions would be James Parkes768 and Travers Herford,769 who anticipated their peers but remained un-
influential until the post-WWII era.

At the dawn of the twenty first century, the traditional view that sees Antisemitism as the result of the
Jewish rejection of Jesus, of the Jewish loss of God’s favor, of a legalistic and morally inferior tradition, and
of the responsibility for Jesus’ death770 - is on the defensive. New perspectives have been put forward and
are the subject of intense debate. New paradigms have emerged out of an intense and fruitful scrutiny.771

The competitive model - This view of the Jewish/Christian saga argues for the existence of a proselytizing
struggle between turn of the era Judaism and early Christianity.772 To a large extent, variants of this model
have replaced the traditional view. This ‘conflict’ theory surfaced with Marcel Simon’s Versus Israel, one of
the most influential post-Holocaust monographs on the subject. Couched in Darwinism and in
‘marketplace competition,’ Simon’s model sees anti-Judaism as the consequence of excessive militancy by
the more aggressive and vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone awry.773 Simon did
cast Judaism and Christianity in the roles of competitors for ‘religious market share’ or as ‘religious species’
in an evolutionary struggle for supremacy. By casting a complex phenomenon as a simple metaphor,
sanctified hatred was downgraded to ‘negative campaigning’ or to ‘survival of the fittest.’
Despite the deflationary impact of Simon’s views, his neo-triumphalism and his derogatory views on
Judaism are indisputable:

‘The poverty of its doctrine, the absence of the mystical element, the burden of ritual
observances, all these go a long way to explain why Judaism was not long able to
sustain its appeal to the Gentiles in competition with the Christians.’774

Like Harnack, Simon argued that Gentile attraction to Judaism during the first three centuries was the
result of active Jewish proselytism - which he perceived to be vigorous and persistent. He maintained that
‘the observance of Jewish ritual by Gentiles implies as its precondition an effort on the part of the

244
dispersed Jews to make themselves felt in the Gentile world.’ Simon further maintained that by the fourth
and fifth centuries CE, when Jewish missionaries became less militant, ‘the attractive power of Judaism
declined.’775 Simon’s misperception originates in the bondage of mid-century scholarship to the Pauline
narrative that negates the natural and plausible attraction of some Gentile believers to the beliefs and
traditions espoused by Jesus and by the founding fathers of the Jesus movement.

Despite these observations, and despite the failure to substantiate Simon’s characterization of first century
Judaism as an active proselytizer, the competitive-conflict model has fueled the modern misperception of
the Jewish-Christian saga as reflective of a struggle over religious supremacy.776 Under this construct, anti-
Jewish sentiment is seen by many as the result of heated exchanges between contenders, as the result of
excessive zeal and vigor. The support for Simon’s theory is wide and deep:777

‘It is now clear that Judaism and Christianity were regular competitors for the religious
loyalties of the Gentiles. Literally as well as figuratively, they faced each other in the
marketplace’778

Simon’s competitive model did foster the unraveling of the traditional mindset. However, Simon remained
anchored in the anti-Jewish mindset, and described the actions and intentions of Jews in ethically loaded
terms. Per Simon, in their anxiety to dissociate themselves from the new sect, the Jews, (Simon claims)
‘were not always able to be scrupulous in their choice of methods.’ In their attempt to defend their
tradition against Christian preaching, the Jews ‘might sometimes have gone further than they were
supposed to do.’ The Jews gave assistance, ‘often in a very active and spiteful way’ to the Pagan
persecutors.779

At first, post Holocaust scholarship did embrace the competitive model to explain the impetus for the
emergence of polemical attitudes among early Gentile believers. Hoping to explain and mitigate anti-Jewish
prejudice, scholars fashioned turn of the era Judaism into a fierce proselytizing competitor. However,
Simon’s tendentious descriptions and his casting of first century Judaism as an active and aggressive
proselytizer could not be corroborated and collapsed under scholarly scrutiny. Unfortunately, by projecting
onto turn of the era Judaism the combative and militant proselytizing zeal that has characterized Paulines
since their early days, the ‘competitive model’ has helped scholars deflect painful introspection: the
‘competitive model’ has been a valve through which the urgency to engage the polemical phenomenon has
been minimized.

The attraction to Judaism - The attraction of some turn of the era Gentiles and Pagans to Judaism is
increasingly viewed by many scholars as fueling the polemical fervor that is embryonic in the canonical lore
and permeates the authoritative texts thereafter.780 This emphasis, a nuanced version of the competitive
model, has gained momentum during the last decades of the 20th century and seems to be gaining ground
against the ‘competitive’ model:

245
 ‘the most compelling reason for Christian Antisemitism was the religious vitality of the
Jews.’781
‘Judaism, far from coming to an end, was a real, active and often effective rival and
competitor of Christianity.’782

I will question throughout whether the sympathy for Judaism among first and second century believers in
Jesus originates in attraction to Judaism (as claimed by most advocates of this view) or is the consequence
of the sway that the founding fathers of the Jesus movement had over new converts. This distinction is
important in our attempts to decipher the origins and the impetus behind the anti-Jewish strand. For the
most part, and acknowledging the existence of a marginal occurrence of Pagan and Gentile sympathy with
Judaism, it seems to me that the apparent influence of Judaism among believers in Jesus was due to the fact
that Jesus, and Jesus’ disciples and first followers were Jewish – not to the influence of Judaism per se.
Therefore, the Judaism that infuriates early Pauline authors is Judaism within the Jesus movement, not
Judaism without. In other words, the preponderance of the evidence and the socio-theological context
have lead me to the conclusion that attraction of some Gentile believers in Jesus to Judaism, was not the
main cause behind the emergence of polemical attitudes among Gentile believers in Jesus. Anecdotal
evidence for the attraction to Judaism is insufficient to explain the pervasive presence of polemical
attitudes among second and third century Pauline believers in Jesus.

I have concluded that, for the most part, the threat that Pauline authors of the first and second centuries
attempt to engage is internal; the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers among their
congregants. For the most part, the targets of their ‘anti-Jewish’ ire were Gentile sympathizers with the
Jewish faction who favored a greater affinity to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. The
Jewish faction, self-segregated from these intra-Gentile debates, was the ultimate adversary. However, for
the most part, it seems that the founding faction was not an active participant in these debates, which took
place (mostly) among Gentiles. [+pg 253]

Encountering Judaism anew

Contemporaneous with the models discussed above, a new awareness of Judaism ‘as Jews-know-it’ has
started to percolate through the dogmatic membrane that has sustained the Pauline hegemony through the
ages. E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism is widely recognized as a seminal turning point. For Sanders,
Judaism cannot be understood or defined by reading Christian literature against it. Christian scholars,
including Weber, Schiirer, Bousset, BillerBeck, and Bultmann, are criticized for anachronistic and
tendentious misrepresentations of Judaism. Sanders’ work signaled the rediscovery of ancient Judaism, or
rather, its rediscovery by non-Jews. What most Jews have always known about their faith, many Christian
scholars are acknowledging only lately. Sanders argues that Judaism must be understood from within its
own context, through its texts, not through the prism of Christian theology:

‘The supposed legalistic Judaism of scholars from Weber to Thyen (and doubtless
later) serves a very obvious function. It Acts as the foil against which superior forms of
religion are described. It permits, as Neusner has said, the writing of theology as if it
were history.’783

246
Earlier, G. F. Moore had accused Bousset of incompetence in his use of second-hand Jewish sources; that
he did not consult the original texts:

‘Bousset also relies on material drawn from the apocalyptic writings, which are not
authoritative either for the Judaism of the first century or for the later normative
Judaism. As Moore very rightly observes, this is rather like judging Christianity in the
light of the apocryphal gospels. The authors have failed in their main concern which
was to portray the 'religion of Judaism': it serves merely as background and contrast to
the Christian faith so that the latter is made to appear so much more sublime.’784

For Lloyd Gaston, one of the leaders of the new paradigm, Christian anti-Judaism ‘…
arises out of an inner theological debate rather than a rivalry with a living Judaism.’785

‘It is Paul’s rejection of the Law which most disturbs Jewish interpreters and those
who know something of the concept of Torah in Jewish writings. It is not Paul’s
invective which disturbs them so much as his ignorance. For anyone that understands
Rabbinic Judaism, Paul’s attacks are not merely unfair, they miss the Marks completely.
The Rabbis never speak of Torah as the means to salvation, and when they speak of
salvation at all, the way of Torah, ‘which is your life’ (Deut 32:47), is that salvation. The
ethical earnestness of the Rabbis becomes all the more impassioned because of their
belief that the commandments express God’s will for Israel’s good, but they can never
in all fairness be called legalists.’786

John Gager on the same subject:

‘…first-century Judaism is regularly described, using Paul as the primary evidence, as a
religion of narrow ethnic interests; as a piety, particularly in its Pharisaic and later
Rabbinic forms, of dry, legalist religion in which individuals earned their way to
salvation (works righteousness); or, alternatively, as a faith of impossible demands (the
Law) and harsh judgments (no forgiveness) …’ on every point, Judaism stands in sharp
contrast to Christianity.’787

However, the Torah is a ritual, behavioral and disciplinary pathway that assists individuals and
communities to live a life of service to God:

247
 ‘Judaism was never a religion of ‘legalism,’ but a religion of revealed commandments
which seeks thereby to concretize God’s presence in everyday life. For Judaism, there
can be no such antithesis of Law and grace, letter and spirit, for the Torah is itself
God’s gift and mediates the presence of the spirit. Since Judaism does not accept the
Pauline doctrine of original sin, it believes that people are capable of responding to
God out of their natural powers. But this is also due to the fact Judaism does not
accept the quasi-Gnostic dualism of ‘nature’ and ‘grace’ that demonizes creation;
making grace alien to nature…This Pauline view fatally distorts Judaism’s
understanding of the way of the Torah. Judaism is not letter without spirit, but a way
of life which knows the unresolved tension of letter and spirit.’788

‘Faith and works could never be seen as opposites, for each would be meaningless
without the other. The law is not felt to be burdensome (when it is, it is modified), and
the characteristic phrase is ‘the joy of the commandments.’ Far from being an
inducement to sin or the curse of condemnation, the Law is God’s gracious means of
helping people to conquer their ‘evil impulse.’789

‘One could learn simply by studying the discussions about which means of atonement
atone for which sins, that the Rabbis believed in the enduring validity of the covenant
relationship, that they did not count and weigh merits against demerits (but rather
atoned for transgression), and that they believed that God has provided for the
salvation of all faithful members of Israel – all those who maintain their place in the
covenant by obedience and repentance, for transgression… We conclude, then, that
there is a generally prevalent and pervasive pattern of religion to be found in rabbinic
literature. The pattern is based on election and atonement for transgressions, it being
understood that God gave commandments in connection with the election and that
obedience to them, or atonement or repentance for transgression, was expected as the
condition for remaining in the covenant community. The best title for this sort of
religion is ‘covenantal monism.’790

Among recent readers of Paul, no one has argued more vigorously for a new view of ancient Judaism than
E.P. Sanders. Following on the earlier work of George Foote Moore, W.D. Davies, and others, he has
coined the phrase ‘covenantal monism’ to describe the relationship between redemption and the Law in
ancient Judaism. In other words, the covenant with Israel is offered, established, and maintained by God;
the Law is Israel’s response, her part of the bargain. Sanders advances this view in contrast to the persistent
conception of Judaism as a religion of works-righteousness, (i.e., the notion that Jews thought of
themselves as saved by virtue of their obedience to the Law and commandments).791

‘…If Jesus during his ministry had abrogated the Torah, apparently neither his own
disciples nor Paul himself knew. Paul had to argue his case regarding the Gentiles and
Torah some twenty years after Jesus' death before Christians in Jerusalem who had
known Jesus ‘in the flesh,’ namely, James, Peter, John, and possibly the ‘false brethren’

248
 as well. Neither they nor he evoked a teaching of Jesus to clarify the situation. Further,
Paul says repeatedly that the source of his Law-free gospel was not human tradition
but his vision of the Risen Christ. It is difficult, then, to sustain the position that Jesus
during his lifetime publicly taught against the Torah, and thus that such teachings were
a source of mortal conflict between him and his contemporaries.’792

‘It was simply not true that Jews thought they were saved by deeds or works. The
lesson to be learned here is that old prejudices die hard.’793

This critique by theologians and New Testament scholars became increasingly mainstream during the
second half of the twentieth century and was accompanied by an increasing rejection of traditional views
about Jews and about Judaism. Among those that stood at the forefront of the effort to correct the
stereotypical views about Judaism that permeate the tradition:

‘We should observe that the descriptions of Rabbinic Judaism given by Bultmann,
Braun, Becker, Jaubert, Black, and Thyen are not simply eccentric examples. What is
striking about all these works is that the authors do not feel the need to defend their
view of Rabbinic Judaism or even to turn to the sources to verify it. This illustrates that
there is a very large community of scholars – not only these authors, but also their
reviewers and readers - which is prepared to accept this view of Rabbinic Judaism as
the standard view’794

‘Thus, the general Christian view of Judaism, or some part of it, as a religion of
legalistic works-righteousness goes on, unhindered by the fact that it has been sharply
– one would have thought, devastatingly – criticized by scholars who have known the
material far better than any of its proponents… The Weber/Bousset/BikkerBeck view,
as it applies to Tannaitic literature, is based on a massive perversion and
misunderstanding of the material.’795

‘Judaism which many see reflected in Paul’s polemics is thus a joyless, hypocritical,
nationalistic means of earning salvation by mechanically doing the works of the Torah
(Law). The God of the Jews is seen as a remote, gloomy tyrant who lays the burden of
the Torah (Law) on people, and their response is twofold: they either become proud
and self-righteous hypocrites who are scrupulous about food but ignore justice, or they
are plunged into guilt and anxiety, thinking themselves accursed for breaking a single
commandment. Schurer speaks of ‘the fearful burden which a spurious legalism had
laid upon the shoulders of the people.’796

‘But the disparagement of the Pharisees continues largely unabated, despite the
excellent work of those scholars who, availing themselves of diverse Jewish sources,

249
 have argued—one would have thought decisively—against this misrepresentation…
The evangelists, reading the post-70 situation of Jewish/Christian debate back into the
lifetime of Jesus, presented the Pharisees as his chief opponents; while Luther per-
ceived and modeled the sixteenth-century intra-Christian debate in terms drawn from
this late first-century conflict. Modern New Testament critics, unwittingly replicating
the polemics of both Luther and the evangelists in their own scholarship, thus
perpetrate a double anachronism.’797

‘Christians have consistently described Judaism as essentially legalistic, hypocritical,

works-righteous, judgmental, committed to the letter rather than the spirit of faith.
Jews are said to be legalistic and works-righteous if they keep the law, hypocritical if
they do not. The church has put them in a no-win situation. By contrast, Christianity is
gracious, committed to love and acceptance, and spiritual, everything new and good
that Judaism, being old and bad, can never be. Yet legalism, works-righteousness,
judgmentalism, and literalism amply characterize the Christianity with which I am
familiar.’798

Rethinking anti-Judaism - Judaism’s idiosyncratic beliefs and traditions were a stumbling block for most
Gentiles. Thus, for the most part, and acknowledging the existence of a marginal occurrence of Pagan and
Gentile attraction to Judaism, the appeal of Judaism among believers in Jesus seems to be associated with
the fact that Jesus’ disciples and first followers were Jewish – not to the attractiveness of Judaism per se.
Therefore, the draw of Judaism would be a consequence of this context and should not be seen as
corroborating the existence of a competitive struggle between Judaism and Christianity.

Internal feuds are often characterized by extreme virulence. The threat that the authors of most of the texts
that we have surveyed are reacting against, must be existential. The Judaism that infuriates these authors
seems to be within, not without, the Jesus movement. Gentile believers yearned to be recognized as
legitimate followers of Jesus, despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of
Jesus’ disciples and first followers. On the other hand, the founding fathers rejected the many Gentile
forms of belief in Jesus that spawned following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. The pain
and the resentment caused by the failed fellowship, and subsequent estrangement, between Gentile
believers and the founding faction further fueled the fire. Anecdotal evidence for the attraction of
individuals to Judaism is insufficient to explain the emotional intensity, the fascination, and the obsession
of most Pauline leaders and literati with all things Jewish.

It seems to me that, for the most part, the immediate targets of the ‘anti-Jewish’ ire that we encounter
throughout the lore may have been Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - who favored a greater
affinity to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. The Jewish faction, the ultimate addressee of
most of the Pauline rhetorical arrows, does not seem to have been an active participant in these debates.
Self-segregating from adversaries on both fronts (Gentile followers of Jesus and Jewish non-followers of
Jesus) the descendants of the founding fathers seem to have remained mostly unengaged and uninvolved in
the debates among Gentiles.

250
Afterthoughts+
An edifice of sanctified hatred emerged out of emotional and intellectual predispositions that took hold of
the minds and souls of believers following prolonged exposure to messages of ambivalence and hatred that
were perceived to be sacrosanct, legitimate, sanctioned and justified. These emotions and attitudes
epitomize theology gone awry and are incompatible with the modern mindset:

‘…what has proved decisive in the new shift of perspective has been the groundswell
of reaction, in New Testament scholarship as in Christian scholarship generally, against
the denigration of Judaism which has been such a deeply rooted and longstanding
feature of Christian theology.’799

Fortunately, since Klein’s survey, we have witnessed unprecedented and breathtaking change. During the
last decades of the 20th century overt anti-Judaism receded in academic circles. Benign winds have swept
through, and have deflated attitudes and sentiment toward Jews and toward Judaism. At the dawn of the
twenty-first century overt anti-Judaism is no longer acceptable in theological and scholarly circles. Pre-
Holocaust scholarship is, for the most part, too embarrassing even for those harboring residual anti-Jewish
attitudes. It may be said that although Judeo-phobia has not been eliminated, it is on the defensive.
Nonetheless, New Testament scholarship is still deeply embedded in, and dependent on, the orthodox
paradigm. In the context of this survey, scholarship’s bondage to the Pauline orthodox worldview and
mindset is noteworthy due to its continuing impact on attitudes toward Judaism.

In modern scholarship, we see repudiation800 coupled with attempts to keep anti-Judaism ‘local and;’ an
effort to de-emphasize the recurrent and systemic nature of the phenomena.801 The many ‘dots’ on the
graph are seldom connected into a trajectory, or understood as consistent and recurrent. Overall, the
attempt to impress upon the rank-and-file the ominous nature of the polemical strand embedded in the
New Testament has not been successful. Change in theology and in people’s minds has been, expectedly,
difficult to achieve. People’s beliefs, especially those that have opted to self-segregate from scholarship, are
resilient to change. Leading theologians and scholars of the early 20th century did exacerbate this natural
conservatism in religious matters. These include Bousset, Eduard Meyer, Emil Schurer and
Starck/BillerBeck, who, despite their embrace of anti-Jewish attitudes, are still authoritative among many
believers and continue to impact large audiences.

251
252
Chapter 9

*Recapitulation

Delegitimizing the Disciples

Challenging Unassailable Legitimacy
Projection onto Judaism
About Judaizing
An Elusive Response
The Anti-Jewish Strand
Orthodoxies and Sacred Texts
What If?
Miscellaneous Disclaimers

Delegitimizing the Disciples+

The disparaging of the disciples and their traditions in the canonical Gospels and in the authoritative texts
is a peculiar and unique deviation from most religious legitimating narratives, where the disciples of the
founding leader are usually honored as the legitimate heirs of the founder’s legacy and ministry.802
Therefore, we must ask ourselves: why did Paul’s followers engage in this unique and peculiar
disparagement and vilification of those chosen by Jesus to be the custodians of his legacy? Why do the
canonical Gospels signal to believers that Jesus’s disciples ‘misunderstood’ his ministry and his message,
that they abandoned and betrayed him, implying that their descendants do not deserve to be revered and
respected? signaling that their customs, traditions, and beliefs should be rejected?

The use of ancestral and authoritative figures and stories to chastise contemporaneous antagonists is widely
attested in many ancient cultures. In the Hebrew Scriptures, denigration of the ancestors of one’s
adversaries is a clear indication of the agendas driving the texts.803 Judeans disparaged their adversaries’
ancestors (internal804 and external805) and belittled their ancestral traditions by deploying negative
metaphors, allegories, and literary proxies. Thus, we may suspect that the criticism of the disciples, Jesus’s
alleged alienation from fellow Jews, and the battering of Jewish beliefs and traditions, may reflect the

253
emerging Pauline effort to delegitimize ‘the Jews’ (i.e., the Jewish faction) rather than the circumstances of
Jesus’s life.

Therefore, we may suspect that the delegitimating of the disciples, the supposed alienation of Jesus from
his Jewish co-religionists, and the abuse of Jewish beliefs and traditions, reflect the Pauline goal of
delegitimizing "the Jews" (the Jewish faction) rather than the historical circumstances of Jesus’ life. To
delegitimize the Jewish followers of Jesus through the delegitimization of the disciples perfectly matches
the polemical needs of the Pauline faction in the first phase of the Judeo-Gentile crisis within the messianic
movement of Jesus. At that time, the Jewish followers of Jesus were the undisputed leaders of the
movement and the Paulines did not seek an open confrontation with them. To delegitimize the disciples
was an adequate, convenient and propitious tactic for such circumstances.

Furthermore, we have seen that there are strong reasons to suspect that the anti-Jewish rhetoric that we
encounter in the lore seems to emulate, and emerge out of, Judean polemical traditions. This rhetoric
seems to target the existential danger confronting the Gentile followers of Paul a couple of generations
after Jesus’s death—the draw, the influence, of the descendants of the founding fathers among Gentile
believers.

Delegitimizing the Disciples – Mark

Writing some four decades after the events and alien to Jesus’ cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage, Mark
implies that he ‘understands’ what was obscure to those that shared Jesus’s life, ministry, religious
background, and ethnicity - those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy. Hindsight derived from
our knowledge of what was to come, helps us identify the disparagement of Jesus’s disciples and followers
as the first salvo
in the emerging opposition to the authority and to the legitimacy of the Jewish faction as the exclusive
guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s ministry.806

Throughout his gospel, and in line with the ancient tradition of denigrating the ancestors of one’s
opponents, Mark disparages the Twelve Apostles, the special Three, and Peter. Peter is the recipient of the
lion’s share of Mark’s arrows and seems to be the leader of those that are seen by Mark as his adversaries.
The author of Mark suggests that Jesus’s associates and companions, his family, and fellow Jews did not
understand his true mission.

Therefore, the Markan account is not only about a conflict between Jesus and some Judeans in positions of
authority, it also reflects a conflict about identity and legitimacy among believers in Jesus, as seen from a
Pauline perspective. By the time of Mark’s writing, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles appears to have met
success in attracting Pagan sympathizers and recruits. These new converts must have soon encountered
Jewish followers of Jesus or their Gentile sympathizers in the public arena, and must have realized that
they had joined a beleaguered faction at odds with the founding fathers of the movement they had joined.

254
Thus, Mark’s denigration of the disciples seems to have been crafted to counteract the claim, by some
among the descendants of the Jewish founders, that Gentile forms of belief in Jesus were insufficient and
lacking. It may have also been crafted to explain and justify, to the rank and file, the rejection of the
traditions and beliefs of Jesus and his disciples, and the estrangement from the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers. In other words, Mark attempts to reassure the rank and file that they are
rightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus
and by those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy. He does so by denigrating the disciples and
by casting Jesus as trespassing his ancestral traditions (Sabbath observance, dietary Law, etc...).

From Mark forward we encounter in the Synoptics (Mark, Matthew and John) a crescendo of denigration
that shadows the growing tension and the estrangement within the Jesus movement.807 This upsurge of
defamation is exemplified by the portrayal of the disciples who:

‘did not understand’ 1 Corinthians 10:25–27; Romans 4:14; Acts 10:15, Mark 6:52; 7:17, 8:17; 9:32;
Matthew 13:10–15. ‘will deny Jesus’ Mark 14:30; John 13:36–38; 25:27. ‘fail to keep guard’ Mark 14:32–42;
Matthew 6:13; 26:36–46; Luke 11:4; 22:40–46. ‘abandon Jesus’ Mark 14:50; Matthew 26:47–56; Luke
22:47–53. ‘deny Jesus three times’ Mark 14:66–72; Matthew 26:69–75; Luke 23:2–3, 18–25.

Although the synoptic phenomenon creates considerable redundancy in this summary, the fact that
decades after Mark, Matthew and Luke chose to embrace and intensify Mark’s denigration of the disciples
is significant.

Delegitimizing the Disciples – John

John’s deployment of the multivalent ‘Ioudaioi’ and his intense anti-Ioudaioi rhetoric signal a significant
pivot, a turning point. It seems that for the Johannines, the denigration of the disciples that characterized
the Synoptics was no longer sufficient. The tensions between the parties had become an open conflict; a
confrontation-estrangement-secession. Sharper tools were deemed necessary to sever the sway of the
descendants of the founding fathers among John’s audience. Furthermore, when the author(s)/editor(s) of
the canonical John criticize or downplay the disciples or Peter (12:16;12:27; 13:23–26; 18:2–11; 18:11;
18:15–16; 19:26–27; 20:2–10; 21:7, 21:20–23) they are justifying to their audience the estrangement from
the Jewish founders, not their estrangement from mainstream Jews, to which they would have been
indifferent.

Delegitimizing the Disciples – Hebrews and Barnabas

Whereas Mark seems to imply that Jesus’s messiahship was deliberately hidden, causing the disciples to
misunderstand his ministry, Barnabas and Hebrews are the first to insinuate that ‘their’ understanding of
Jesus’s life and ministry was erroneous, misguided, and originated in sinful minds. Whereas Mark hints that
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers did not understand Jesus’s legacy and abandoned
him, Barnabas and Hebrews reach deeper; they claim that the true meaning of the Israelite journey is to be
understood and deciphered by non-Jews.

255
Hebrews and Barnabas, roughly contemporaneous with the Synoptics, reflect a more strident and explicit
antagonism toward the character, traditions and beliefs of the descendants of Jesus’s first followers.
Whereas the Synoptics insinuated and veiled their dissent, in Hebrews and Barnabas we encounter the first
stages of a shift to open and undifferentiated attacks deployed to batter the Jewish elite of the Jesus
movement. Hebrews’ and Barnabas’ anti-Jewish rhetoric has populated the tradition since, and is deeply
embedded in the theological discourse and in the lore.

In Mark, the Synoptics that stand on him, and the Pauline tradition that dominates the canonical and
authoritative texts, the people that shared Jesus’s life and ministry as well as his religious and ethnic
affiliation ‘do not understand.’ Mark, the Synoptics that stand on him, and the Pauline leaders that follow,
that did not share Jesus’s life and ministry, as well as his religious and ethnic affiliation ‘understand.’

Challenging Unassailable Legitimacy+

It seems that, for the most part, Jews and Gentiles did not enjoy an amiable fellowship within the Jesus
movement. For a while, some among the Jerusalem faction and small numbers of Gentiles may have
attempted full fellowship and may have coexisted in an asymmetrical relationship; where Gentile believers
would have felt marginalized and un-empowered. Furthermore, it appears that most Gentiles found the
Jewish milieu of the descendants of the founding fathers alien and yearned for recognition and legitimacy
as rightful followers of Jesus—despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions embraced by the
founding fathers.

On the other hand, members of the Jewish faction may have remained ambivalent and equivocal about the
many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the
Gentiles, resulting in self-segregation, estrangement, and mounting tension between the parties.

Most Gentile converts seem to have resented the attempt to impose the beliefs and traditions of the
founding generation as a requirement for being recognized as legitimate followers of Jesus. These beliefs
and traditions, while integral and intrinsic to Jesus and to the descendants of the founders, were alien to
most non-Jewish converts and consequently emerged as wedge issues in the drive to de-Judaize belief in
Jesus.

Facing the unassailable legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to be the guardians of his legacy, intuitively
confident of their core arguments - but standing on not fully formed, evolving, and often shifting
theological ground - Pauline leaders and intellectuals gradually gravitated to a strategy of ancestor
denigration and rhetoric, that centered on deprecating their opponents’ character, lore, beliefs, traditions,
and institutions. Rejecting the beliefs and traditions of a religion’s founders would be a towering task, in
any religious tradition. However, by challenging the legitimacy of Jesus’ disciples and by casting them as
‘not understanding,’ ‘denying,’ or ‘abandoning’ Jesus, the Pauline faction successfully bypassed and
obscured the theological conundrum of how to explain and justify the rejection of Jesus’ beliefs and
traditions, and the estrangement from those chosen by him to be the leaders of the movement.808

256
 By shifting the debate away from the weak flank of the Pauline argument (the fact that their adversaries
were the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and therefore the presumptive guardians of his
legacy) and by framing the debate around beliefs and traditions that most Gentiles found strange and
idiosyncratic, the Pauline faction gradually fashioned a strategy that was eventually victorious, and led to
growing estrangement between Gentile believers and the founding faction.

However, Paulines could ill afford (at first) to state their aims. Not surprising, their claims were initially put
forward in an implied and veiled manner; their ultimate aims seldom stated overtly. Indeed, throughout this
confrontation, and throughout the lore accompanying it, we encounter a persistent reluctance to cast the
conflict as a rejection of the beliefs and traditions that grounded Jesus’ ministry. The strategy that won the
day had several components:

1- The delegitimating of the disciples, the biological and theological ancestors of the Jewish followers
of Jesus.
2- The appropriation and usurpation of the disciples’ identity and self-perception as the new people of
God (the New Israel, God’s new chosen).
3- The subversion of their anti-Jewish-establishment lore and of the Jewish traditions of prophetic
exhortation and self-criticism.
4- The rejection and delegitimating of beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus and by his
early followers.

By deploying this complex and multifaceted strategy proto-orthodox leaders and intellectuals waged a
protracted and uncertain, but eventually successful, challenge to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and
first followers. The struggle over identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy of which the de-Judaizing effort was
a central facet - was cast by the later guardians of orthodoxy as a confrontation with ‘the Jews.’ Intended or
unintended, conscious or unconscious, this blurring of the identity of the adversaries was self-serving; it
allowed the proto-orthodox leadership to erode the status of the descendants of the Jewish founders, to
the point that two centuries later the descendants of the founders could be considered marginal and
‘heretical.’ Success, however, came at the cost of embedding in the tradition and in the minds and souls of
believers a pervasive anti-Jewish strand.

The de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus was also facilitated by the weakening of the Jewish faction caused by the
decimation in their ranks during the two failed Judean revolutions. The decimation of the Judean
strongholds of the Jewish faction may have created an unexpected vacuum of authority that facilitated the
proto-orthodox ascendancy.

Projection onto Judaism+

Anti-Jewish sentiment among Pauline believers reaches its zenith in the Apostolic Fathers and in the
apologists of the second and third centuries. What in the New Testament was ambivalent, ambiguous, and

257
implied, bursts to the surface in the blunt and undifferentiated polemic that accompanied the second- and
third-century religious ‘civil war.’ Great resentment and pain underwrite the texts authored during this
period. The extreme anti-Jewish tone of the post-canonical texts is indicative of great emotional and
psychological stress, of great anxiety about identity and legitimacy. It appears that the need to explain and
justify the estrangement from the Jewish founding fathers and the rejection of Jesus’ beliefs and traditions,
internal dissent, theological confusion, and Roman persecution did exert a great toll on the proto-orthodox
psyche.

Even though a literal reading of the texts seems to indicate that the intended adversary was ‘Judaism’ I
suspect that dynamics of projection and externalization are at play. I have suggested throughout that the
socio theological context of the Jesus movement at the time, seems to preclude Judaism as the intended
adversary. Rather the intended adversaries, the intended audience, and the goals of the anti-Jewish Pauline
literature of the second and third centuries seem to be internal. At that time, the abuse of Judaism seems to
be aimed at the Jewish followers of Jesus, and the goal was to disqualify them as the authoritative
custodians of Jesus’ legacy. Furthermore, during the first three centuries, believers in Jesus were immersed
in a fierce internal struggle about self-definition, legitimacy, and identity that makes their engagement of
external enemies implausible. Although, originally, the defamation of Judaism was a means to a goal (the
de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus, and the eradication of the influence of the Jewish followers of Jesus in the
Jesus movement). As the Paulines gradually emerge ascendant and as they gradually reach minimal internal
and theological cohesion, Judaism gradually emerges as the intended and explicit adversary.

Judaism’s idiosyncratic beliefs and traditions were a stumbling block for most Gentiles. Thus, for the most
part, and acknowledging the existence of a marginal occurrence of Pagan and Gentile attraction to Judaism,
the appeal of Judaism among believers in Jesus seems to be associated with the fact that Jesus’ disciples
and first followers were Jewish – not to the attractiveness of Judaism per se. Therefore, the draw of
Judaism would be a consequence of this particular context and should not be seen as corroborating the
existence of a competitive struggle between Judaism and Christianity.

Until the Christianization of the empire, the Judaism that infuriates these authors seems to be within, not
without, the Jesus movement. However, it seems that by the second century, a gradual fusion and
confusion of ‘Jews within’ and ‘Jews without’ had become an ingrained phenomenon, triggering the initial
phases of the externalization and projection of anti-Jewish attitudes among some Gentile believers in Jesus
onto ‘external-mainstream’ Judaism. Jewish followers of Jesus were often labeled as ‘Jews’ by Gentile
opponents within the Jesus movement. Bauer, Kraft and Krodel, Koester, and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-
Wilson were the earliest to identify this phenomenon.809 This argument stands even though we should
acknowledge circumstances where Jewish-Christian tensions may have surfaced.

The pioneering work of Munck (1959), Stendahl (1976), Gager (1985), Gaston (1987), Lieu (1996), Murray
(2004), and others has shed new light on the importance of ‘Gentile Judaizers’ (Gentile sympathizers with
Judaism) for our understanding of the anti-Jewish bias in the canonical and in the authoritative literature. I
have questioned throughout the current views about ‘the conflict between Judaism and Christianity’ and
about ‘the attraction to Judaism’ that emerge out of this body of scholarship and are the current favorite

258
narratives employed to explain the emergence of anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in
Jesus. I have argued that clarity and consistency emerge out of re-placing the ‘anti-Jewish’ rhetoric of the
first three centuries within the Jesus movement. Moreover, the texts authored during this period seem to
originate in a rather closed universe; their context, purpose, horizon, and protagonists seem to be inside
the Jesus movement. Therefore, I do not see socio-theological grounds for a conflict between first-century
Judaism and the many Gentile strands of belief in Jesus that surfaced at the time.

Conflict with external-mainstream Judaism seems to be a later, derivative, and unilateral phenomenon that
stands on a complex and multilayered trajectory that seems to originate, mostly, within the Jesus
movement. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence for the attraction of individuals to Judaism is insufficient to
explain the emotional intensity, the fascination, and the obsession of most early Pauline leaders and literati
with all things Jewish. Therefore, attacks on Judaism (distinct from attacks on the character, traditions and
beliefs of the Jewish founding fathers) should be considered a later by-product of issues and tensions
within the Jesus movement, a derivative phenomenon. I have posited that since the legitimacy of the
Pauline ‘orthodoxy’ could not be based on the acknowledgment of a Gentile adversarial takeover of the
Jesus movement, it was necessary to obscure and conceal the demotion of the descendants of the founding
fathers. This deletion may have emerged out of the desire to project a consensual transfer of leadership and
of legitimacy from Jesus’s disciples and followers to the ascending Pauline ‘orthodoxy.’

We do not know whether Eusebius’s deletion of this troubling phase from his ‘Historia Ecclesiastica’ was
conscious or reflects an already authoritative tradition that stood on the fusion and confusion of Jews
within and Jews without the Jesus movement. Either way, his telling of the origins of the faith (that
emphasized ‘Jewish vs. Christian’ tensions) became the foundational myth of the new religion. Eusebius
writing, three hundred years after Jesus’s death, solidified the externalization and the transference of the
Pauline rhetoric against the Jewish followers of Jesus, onto all Jews. Whether Eusebius was intent on
obscuring and misrepresenting the evolution of belief in Jesus or was misinformed, his work enshrined the
myth about the evolution of belief in Jesus from unity to diversity and heresy – and the evolution of
‘Christianity’ in opposition to ‘Judaism.’ By concealing the confusion, chaos, and conflict that engulfed the
Jesus movement well into the fourth century, Eusebius’s work offered the Pauline victors a comprehensive
and seemingly authoritative legitimating account of origins on which the exclusivist, triumphalist, and
ascendant orthodoxy stood for the next sixteen hundred years. From his ecclesiastical ‘history’ and from
his apologia to Constantine (Vita Constantini) we can surmise that Eusebius had a strong sense of ‘where
the political wind was blowing’ and was keen to cater and ponder to the powerful and the mighty.810

Whether Eusebius intentionally distorted the evolution of belief in Jesus or was misinformed, his work:
1. affirmed, solidified and consecrated the myth about the evolution of the belief in Jesus of an
original unity to a later diversity.
2. affirmed, solidified and consecrated the myth of the evolution of "Christianity" in opposition to
"Judaism."
3. affirmed, solidified and consecrated the myth of a quasi-consensual transition of leadership from
the Jewish followers of Jesus to the Pauline leadership.

259
 4. Concealed the confusion, chaos and conflict that characterized the messianic movement of Jesus
until the end of the fourth century.
5. Concealed and veiled the rejection of the religious traditions associated with Jesus.

Hence, after Eusebius, and given his presentation of the genesis of belief in Jesus, the rancorous vitriol
against the Jewish faction could not but be read as reflective of a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and
‘Christianity.’ The vacuum created by the Eusebian erasure of the campaigns to demote the descendants of
the founding fathers and to de-Judaize belief in Jesus thus enabled (and may have necessitated) the later
reading of the anti-Jewish sentiment generated during the protracted second-century religious ‘civil war,’ as
aimed at all Jews. As time passed, Eusebius’s account of belief in Jesus became increasingly authoritative,
and the projection of the rhetoric against Jewish followers of Jesus onto ‘external’ Jews became seemingly
seamless. The externalization of internal tensions within the Jesus movement onto the intra-religious arena
became ‘history.’

Disconnected from their original socio-theological grounding, the emotions and attitudes that
accompanied the estrangement between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement - were internalized as
reflective of a Jewish-Christian conflict. Gradually, hyperbole against the founding faction, often hidden
behind multivalent phantoms (Ioudaioi, they/them, Jews) and mostly indirect and implicit to start with,
morphed into endemic anti-Judaism.

What's more, until the Pauline faction emerged ascendant, the internal and external circumstances of the
Jesus movement do not favor a scenario where the dominant element would be an inter-religious (Jewish
versus Christian) conflict. A first stage of self-definition, consolidation, and integration must have taken
place before the proto-orthodox would engage enemies beyond the boundaries of the movement. We
should not expect a religious movement in the initial stages of identity formation, engulfed in a ‘religious
civil war,’ and enduring persecution by the Roman authorities - to engage external enemies gratuitously.

Undeniably, during the second and third centuries Gentile believers were not in a position to ‘take-on’
mainstream Judaism. Nor was it their most pressing concern. This was a period during which the energies
of believers must have been focused inward. For the most part, in the canonical and in the authoritative
lore, ‘Jews’ and ‘Judaism’ seem to be (often) rhetorical and literary derogatory labels and phantoms—
proxies for adversaries within, rather than external adversaries.

It is noteworthy that polemical internal religious exhortation is attested in many religious traditions.
However, when internal resentment against kin is subverted-appropriated by an alien group and resurfaces
as an inter-religious derogatory discourse, a qualitative and unprecedented phenomenon has occurred.
Outside its original setting, Jewish sectarian anti-establishment rhetoric was transposed to an external
environment and became virulent. Lacking the natural protection provided by kinship, the intense and
militant vitriol that characterizes sectarian posturing metamorphosed and became undifferentiated polemic.
This trajectory, from infighting among Jews - to Gentile incitement against Judaism, has been a core
concern of our inquiry.

260
When internal rhetoric (Jewish followers of Jesus chastising establishment-Judaism) migrates from their
hearts, minds, and lips to the hearts, minds, and lips of Gentiles, and is used to dehumanize and to
disenfranchise Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement, a unique phenomenon and a major shift have
taken place. Similar to a virus that mutates and invades a new species, identity takeover is the vehicle
through which the ire of Jewish sectarians toward the Jewish mainstream did migrate to Gentile hearts, and
became endemic.

Scholars and theologians often cite exhortation by biblical prophets and Judean sectarian anti-Jewish-
establishment rhetoric to mitigate, explain or justify the anti-Jewish deluge that we encounter in the Pauline
lore. However, the issue is not whether ‘by the measure of contemporary Jewish polemic, the New
Testament’s slander against fellow Jews is remarkably mild.’811 Rather, the issue is that behavior that we
accept in our kin is unacceptable in a stranger. Fraternal exchanges are often strident, buy they do not
license strangers to trespass inter-religious markers. Moreover, the viciousness of internal feuds is
unacceptable in the dialog between religious traditions. Therefore, non-Jews may not use the fact that Jews
denigrated Jews, as licensing, or ‘justifying’ their denigration of Jews or of Judaism. The fact that the insults
of a stranger are similar to fraternal attacks, does not make the former any more acceptable—or less
dangerous.

The tensions that we encountered in the New Testament between the authors and the Jewish followers of
Jesus gradually morphed (in the memory and in the perception of later believers) into a conflict between
the ‘synagogue and the Church.’ The complex and theologically unsettling socio-theological processes that
dominated the first centuries of belief in Jesus were thereafter hidden behind a monolithic and all-
encompassing mega-stereotype about Jews and about Judaism, and a largely mythical ‘conflict between
Judaism and Christianity.’ This deeply rooted misperception was further exacerbated by the
misinterpretation, and misreading, of the multivalent ‘Ioudaioi’ and of ‘they / their / them’ into the
univalent ‘the Jews’ - distorting our ability to discuss, let alone understand, what transpired.

As we see the edifice of anti-Judaism grow before our eyes, it is difficult to restrain our outrage at the fact
that vicious slander and defamation remained sacrosanct, authoritative, and influential for so long.
Knowing their subsequent impact on attitudes toward Jews and toward Judaism, the polemical rampages of
second and third century are hard to endure. Moreover, this derogatory and inflammatory hyperbole is
abhorrent and unnecessary. It is abhorrent due to the fact that it contains the rationale for the future
disenfranchisement and martyrdom of defenseless Jews. It is unnecessary due to the fact that integration of
preceding lore does not need be derogatory, adversarial, or supersessionary.

About Judaizing+
Accusations of ‘Judaizing’ surface when the drive to Gentilize the Jesus movement encounters opposition
from those attempting to maintain the Jewish affiliation of the Jesus movement. This peculiar term
originates in the misperception that there was a relapse to sympathy for Jewish practices or beliefs.

261
Ironically, the Pauline drive to de-Judaize the Jesus movement was cast as the defense of orthodoxy,
whereas the defense of ‘things as they are’ is cast as apostacy.

It is possible that the term Judaizing may have originated in the minds of recent converts from Paganism
who joined Pauline communities. Upon encounter with the Jewish followers of Jesus or their Gentile
sympathizers in the public arena, these Gentiles would have perceived them as attempting to ‘Judaize.’
Thus, the attempts by the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their Gentile
sympathizers to fend off the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movement are often portrayed in the lore as
offensive moves to Judaize it. However, these activities should not be considered proselytizing given that
they would be directed to oppose change, not to bring it about. During the first century, belief in Jesus was
not in danger of being ‘Judaized’; it was Jewish.

Recognition of the importance, and of the impact, of Judaizers (Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish
faction) has been slow to emerge. Scholars have devoted considerable attention to ‘Judaizing’ in Revelation,
Barnabas, Justin and Ignatius. Michele Murray,812 standing on Strecker, Wilken, Stendahl, Gager, Gaston,
Wilson, Taylor, and Lieu, argued the case for recognizing Gentile sympathizers with Judaism (Gentile
Judaizers) as main targets of some of the texts we have discussed. Her work focuses on Gentile
sympathizers with Judaism as the opponents of the authors and rejects the traditional identification of ‘the
Jews’ as ‘the’ main adversaries. Murray’s conclusions support the existence of an influential Jewish faction
through the first four centuries of belief in Jesus.813 On this subject Murray concluded that:

…certain Gentile Christians received encouragement and pressure to Judaize from

fellow Gentile Christians already engaged in Judaizing behavior—as was likely the case
in Galatians, in Ignatius’s letters to the Philadelphians and the Magnesians, and in the
Epistle of Barnabas. They also were likely influenced by Jewish Christians, as reflected
in Galatians, the Didache, in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, the Kerygmata
Petrou in the Pseudo-Clementine literature, and in Colossians.

She further elaborates that:

assuming that Judaizing was indeed occurring, there is no substantive evidence that
Jews were the instigators of such behavior among Christians. Rather, as stated above,
this study contends that fellow Gentile Christians more likely were the primary
aggressors—as, for example, in Galatia and, possibly, in Philadelphia. In other cases—
such as the Didache and, possibly, in Colossae—Jewish Christians were the
propagating party. Sometimes both Jewish and Gentile Christians were involved—as in
Galatia.814

Whether the opponents of an author are members of the Jewish faction, their Gentile sympathizers, or
Gentile sympathizers with Judaism is important, but either is reflective of the opposition to the proto-

262
orthodox campaign to Gentilize the Jesus camp, not of a drive to Judaize it.815 Per the thesis advocated
here, Paul and later Pauline authors were not fending off ‘Judaizers,’ they were de-Judaizing the Jesus
tradition816 (they were not fending off change, they were promoting it). The promoters of change labeled
the original identity holders as ‘heretical’ and engendered the view that their efforts, and those of their
supporters, to persist and persevere in maintaining the Jewish affiliation of the Jesus movement were
‘Judaizing practices.’

Indeed, ‘Judaizing’ has been traditionally understood as the activities of those ‘relapsing’ or promoting a
‘relapse’ to Jewish ways, instead of the opposition to change that it represents. Much more than a squabble
about semantics is at play here for ‘Judaizing’ is an anachronistic term that has come to symbolize heretical
change and is associated with a discourse tainted by anti-Judaism. ‘Judaizing’ is a tendentious term that
reflects a Gentile perspective on the opposition to the crusade to de-Judaize the Jesus movement. The
Pauline goal was to fashion a Gentilized version of belief in Jesus that would maintain some similitude to
the tenets of the founding fathers, but would reject those features that were most foreign, demanding, and
alien to new converts from Paganism (i.e., Torah observance, circumcision, and food laws).

Murray further suggests that it was unlikely that Jewish followers of Jesus followed a policy of aggressive
proselytizing learned from Jews, for there is no evidence in extant sources from antiquity for a significant
missionary activity by Jews, although we cannot rule out that individuals may have occasionally
proselytized.817 Most scholars agree that a tradition of ‘Gentile-Judaizing’ existed without interruption from
the earliest times.818 Lacking is the recognition that it reflects and corroborates the persistent influence of
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and/or their enduring legacy – not the influence of
Judaism per se.

Furthermore, Gentile Judaizing is often associated to the ‘attraction’ to Judaism, not to the yearning for
fellowship with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, where it originates.819 I suggest that
the ‘Judaizing’ phenomenon that infuriated Pauline leaders and intellectuals should be re-placed within the
Jesus movement. Christian anti-Judaism does not emerge out of the reaction of Church leaders to the
attraction of some Gentile believers to Judaism, as suggested by most scholars. Rather, some Gentile
believers in Jesus were attracted to the synagogues of the Jewish followers of Jesus, not to mainstream
synagogues, and that attraction was due to the fact that they were the original (and therefore authoritative)
guardians of Jesus’ legacy.

The main motivating factor behind this attraction would be Gentile yearning for fellowship with the
descendants of the founding fathers of the Jesus movement, not attraction to Judaism per se. Attraction to
Judaism by some Gentiles would be a consequence, not the cause, of this phenomenon—creating a shift of
emphasis and perspective in our quest to understand the evolution of Jewish-Christian relations.

Wilson describes the situation accurately when he states that whereas the practice of Judaism among Jewish
Christians was understandable and acceptable even well into the second century, the deliberate adoption of
Jewish ways among Gentiles posed a serious challenge to the sense of identity, indeed to the very raison

263
d’être, of the Christian community [The Pauline community]. According to Wilson, the ‘Jewishness’ of
Jewish Christians could be seen as a hangover from the past, even if it served as an uncomfortable
reminder of the rapidly receding Jewish roots of the Christian movement.

To the Pauline leadership the ‘Jewishness’ of Judaizing Gentiles lent unwelcome standing to what was
supposed to be a moribund and superseded competitor for it challenged the distinctiveness and
supersessionary thrust of the Pauline claim. The denigration of Judaism that this could inspire is seen most
clearly in Ignatius and Barnabas—that it was inferior and passé, that its rites and festivals were superseded,
and that it did not understand the true meaning of its own traditions.

An Elusive Response+
It is noteworthy, that throughout this survey, we have relied almost exclusively on texts preserved by the
Christian tradition. This is due to the fact that, despite great efforts by many scholars, the search for the
Jewish side of these debates has yielded dismal results. Moreover, scholars have noted an enormous
disproportion in intensity and quantity—to the point of rendering insignificant, the few segments that have
been identified as possible Jewish responses.820 The absence of a commensurate Jewish response, if
Judaism understood itself to be the intended adversary, is difficult to explain. However, if the original crisis
was within the Jesus movement, as suggested here, we should not expect a significant Jewish response (at
the time, debates within the Jesus movement would be unknown, inconsequential, and irrelevant to those
outside the Jesus camp). Furthermore, the literature of the losing side is seldom preserved.

Throughout the first and second centuries Judaism would have been a formidable adversary for the Gentile
followers of Paul. Not only was it vastly superior numerically, it enjoyed significant prestige among Roman
elites. Despite Judean rebelliousness, and the opposition of some Pagan writers, it enjoyed significant
privileges including being the only foreign religion given official recognition by the Roman authorities. If,
as argued by traditional and current scholarship, the intended adversary was establishment Judaism, it’s
(almost total) silence and lack of response to the Pauline onslaught is intriguing. I have already noted that
compared to the scope, centrality, and pervasiveness of the anti-Jewish hostility among early Gentile
believers in Jesus, the Jewish side is intriguingly silent.821

A scholar assigned to present a report on the subject concluded:

‘It seems that searching for references to Christians and Christianity among the
documents of the early rabbis neither elucidates greatly the condition of early
Christianity, nor its anti-Judaism, nor, for that matter, the conditions under which
second century rabbinism developed... In view of such benign results we simply must
ask different questions.’822

During the centuries, much has been said about a single instance of suspected Jewish anti-Christianism:
Birkhat Haminim, ‘the benediction against the heretics,’823 an issue we addressed in our discussion of the
Gospel of John. Here we need only reiterate that the benediction seems to be a later collective and generic

264
repudiation of heretics that was expanded to include the Jewish followers of Jesus. The benediction is not
concerned with Gentile believers in Jesus. It was (apparently) designed to dissuade Jewish followers of
Jesus from leading Jewish religious services.

A few second-century citations of ‘Jewish’ persecution are occasionally cited when a Jewish response is
argued. However, in most of these citations, it is often unclear whether the persecuted are Jewish sectarians
(the Jewish followers of Jesus) or Gentile believers in Jesus, and whether the instigators are Jewish
believers in Jesus824 or mainstream Jews. In addition, it is often difficult to discern whether the persecution
refers to biblical times, Jesus’s lifetime, or is contemporaneous.825

It has also been suggested that later Jewish self-censorship, triggered by fear (following the orthodox
ascendancy), may lie behind the silence at the Jewish end.826 However, during the first three centuries,
Judaism would have had no reason to exercise self-restraint, or self-censure, of its reaction to the attacks by
Gentile believers in Jesus. Furthermore, evidence of a Jewish reaction should have survived beyond the
reach of the later church in the Jewish strongholds of Judea, Egypt, Syria, and Persia, which had an
extensive cultural interchange.

In this respect, it is noteworthy that from Theodosius and until the sixteenth century, the Jewish center of
gravity moved to Mesopotamia and later spread to Muslim Spain and Egypt, far beyond the reach of
Pauline Christianity. The geographic dispersion of the Jewish people and lack of a centralized authority or
hierarchy should have guaranteed the survival of literary evidence of a Jewish reaction to the Pauline anti-
Jewish strand, if existent.

Therefore, we seem to be on solid ground when concluding that the anti-Jewish rampage we have
encountered in the Pauline lore and tradition was not addressed, or reciprocated. It was either unknown or
disregarded by the Jewish side. Mainstream Judaism seems to have remained uninformed, unconcerned,
and unengaged. This conclusion is significant given the Pauline obsessive negativity regarding the attitudes
of Jews toward Jesus and his Jewish followers. Wilson contributes corroborating support when he observes
that while we know that for many Christians their relationship to Judaism was of central importance, we
cannot assume that the same was true for the Jews.827

The search for the response of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers to the challenge, and
the vitriol, by the non-Jewish majority has also come to naught. Other than the Pauline perspective of the
events, the reaction of the founding faction to the de-Judaizing crusade also eludes us. It would appear that
the lack of evidence for a reaction of the Jewish faction to the Pauline attacks is due to the fact that the
literature of small and defeated adversaries seldom survives.

The Jewish followers of Jesus, the children and the grandchildren of Jesus’s first followers, understood
themselves to be the true and legitimate heirs of his legacy and ministry. The role of the Jewish followers
of Jesus as non-participating antagonists originates in their being Jewish sectarians and in their wish to live-

265
up to their claim to being ‘the New Israel’ and the most righteous and Torah observant Jews. This sectarian
posturing toward establishment Judaism would tend to exacerbate their self-segregation828 from non-
Jewish believers in Jesus, and give birth to resentment in the form of claims of ‘elitism.’ The cacophony of
Gentile voices that emerged following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles may be a factor
too. The descendants of the founding fathers may have distanced themselves from the large influx of
newcomers espousing, from the perspective of the founding faction, ‘strange’ views, and beliefs about
Jesus. This scenario may have predisposed the founding fathers to become unengaged and absent
antagonists in the debates among Gentiles about what belief in Jesus was, or should be.

Per Pauline orthodoxy, Judaizing (the influence of Judaism among believers in Jesus) was the result of
active efforts by Jews to gain converts. This projection of Christian evangelizing zeal onto Judaism could
not be further from the evidence. Despite meager evidence to support the claim that first and second
century Judaism was an active proselytizer,829 variants of this theory have maintained a firm hold on
academic thinking. This characterization was never less accurate than during the first and second centuries
when Judean energies where consumed by two failed attempts to overthrow the foreign occupation, and by
the need to digest their momentous implications.

Imposition of Christian templates on Judaism, a phenomenon that characterizes traditional and modern
scholarship, has yielded significant misperceptions about Judaism. Among them, the perception of first and
second century Judaism as a vigorous proselytizer and fierce competitor, that emerged out of the post-
Holocaust Christian search for a meta-narrative that would explain the anti-Jewish bias in the lore, without
the disturbing implications of Pauline orthodoxy. According to this narrative, anti-Judaism reflects the
over-zealous enthusiasm of the ascendant religion over its declining competitor.

The traditional certitude about the causal connection between Jewish proselytizing and the influence of
Judaism among believers in Jesus830 is also a consequence of the Eusebian myth of origins. Since affinity to
‘Judaism’ could not be acknowledged as the residual influence of the Jewish followers of Jesus, it gradually
came to be understood as the consequence of ‘Jewish proselytizing.’

Nonetheless, the recognition that ‘Jewish proselytizing’ existed mostly in the minds of Gentile beholders, is
slowly gaining momentum. During the last decades, as modern scholarship has gradually (but partially)
peeled-off the impact of the Pauline hegemony over the Christian mind, ‘Judaism as Jews know it’ has been
gradually introduced to Christian audiences. Within this new awareness, some scholars have revisited the
traditional claims about Jewish proselytizing and have brought forward a variety of new insights. McKnight
and Goodman have argued persuasively that a distinction ought to be made between the passive reception
of converts or interested Pagans, and an active desire or intent to convert the non-Jewish world to
Judaism.831

However, despite the absence of evidence on the reaction of the Jewish side. It is plausible that the intense
anti-Judaic attitudes that came to predominate in the hearts and minds of Gentile followers of Paul did,
eventually, filter out and did impact relations with local Jewish communities. Therefore, we should not

266
preclude local circumstances where boundaries may have been breached and animosity ignited. This,
however, would not be the cause behind the emergence of the anti-Jewish strand. Rather, it seems to have
been one of its consequences.

The Anti-Jewish Strand+

The trajectory from the anti-establishment rhetoric of a Judean sect (the Jewish followers of Jesus), to a
religion that made hatred of all Jews sacrosanct, is complex, elusive, and layered. It has six main sources
that lay fused, confused, and intertwined in the texts:

1. Polemic by the Jewish followers of Jesus against the Judean establishment.

2. Polemic by Gentile believers against the legitimacy, beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers of
the Jesus movement.
3. Appropriation Theology—The claim that Pauline believers in Jesus replaced the Jewish followers of
Jesus as the New Israel, as God’s new chosen.
4. Supersession Theology—The view that the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’s legacy replaced and
annulled the beliefs and traditions espoused by Jesus and by his first followers.
5. De-contextualization and subversion of the Judean tradition of self-criticism and prophetic anti-
establishment censure.
6. Loss of context, fusion, confusion, and misinterpretation of these rhetorical layers and their
projection onto Judaism.

Throughout this survey, I have tried to speculate on the origins, context and interplay of these sources.
The initial layer of rhetoric originates in the relationship between the Jewish followers of Jesus and
establishment Judaism (candidates: James, proto-Mark, proto-Matthew, proto-John, and maybe proto-
Revelation). Rumors and accusations regarding cooperation or participation of the hated and illegitimate
‘Jewish authorities,’ traitors, and minions that administered Judea on behalf of the Romans may have
surfaced following Jesus’s death.832 At this early stage, allegations against the ‘Jewish authorities’ (distinct
from later attacks on ‘the Jews’) may signal that we are reading textual traces of the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers—filtered through the prism of Gentile editing.

The second layer of rhetoric targets the descendants of the founding fathers as the ‘establishment’ group
within the Jesus movement. At this stage the antagonists were not the ‘Jews without’ but rather ‘the Jews
within.’ The Pauline mission to the Gentiles evolved in opposition to the founding faction and would have
directed its sectarian and militant rhetoric first and foremost toward them, not toward Judaism—as
commonly understood. Initially, the issues that the authors were trying to address, the frame of reference,
the horizon, the intended adversaries, and the context seem to have been within the Jesus movement.

This layer includes many points of friction that surfaced as the protracted conflict within the Jesus
movement lingered on. They included the tensions between Paul and the Pillars, the disparagement of the
disciples and their beliefs and traditions, the rejection of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus by the founding

267
faction, the Gentile gravitation toward Jesus’s divinity, the self-segregation / elitism of the descendants of
the founders, the exoneration of the Jewish faction from Roman persecution, and the influence that the
descendants of the Jewish founders had among some Gentiles.

The Pauline claim to the identity, authority, and legitimacy of the Jewish founding fathers resulted in the
subversion and de-contextualization of their lore - including their self-perception as the New Israel, their
anti-Jewish-establishment posture, and the Judean traditions of prophetic self-criticism. This wide-ranging
subversion-appropriation, was a consequence of the assertion, innocuous at first sight but enormously
consequential, that the Gentile followers of Paul superseded and replaced the Jewish followers of Jesus as
the new people of God, as the New Israel (items 3-5).

The full systematic consolidation of Pauline thinking and its pivot toward the theological rejection and
supersession of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus occurred from the second
century forward. The arguments elaborated during this period became the bedrock of later anti-Jewish
attitudes. An odd mixture of clever, vicious, and bizarre arguments created a crescendo of incitement that
is fully anti-Semitic in tone, intensity, and pitch. In addition to Melito’s infamous Peri-Pascha, scholars point
to the writings of Justin, Tertullian, Aphrahat Ephrem, Cyril, and Eusebius as this era’s most notable
contributions to the transition to anti-Semitism.

Without this layer of consolidation and systematization, the edifice of hate that looms in the horizon would
have had no foundation to stand on. Influential leaders and intellectuals will follow the pathway created by
the authors we have surveyed. They will harness the human propensity to fall prey to our darkest instincts
in a misguided attempt to sever the influence of opposing interpretations of Jesus’s legacy at first, and
against other internal and external adversaries thereafter.

A more virulent strand of the anti-Jewish bias emerges as these layers become fused and confused in the
lore and in the hearts and minds of later Gentile believers. Somewhere along the way, authors and audience
seem to have lost the distinction between the founding faction, their Gentile sympathizers, and
establishment Judaism. As this occurred, the layers surveyed above merged into an undifferentiated, and
tumultuous, river of anti-Jewish incitement. Dynamics of fusion, confusion, extrapolation, and projection
converted an internal debate about Judaism into undifferentiated anti-Judaism. It is reasonable to assume
that this ‘melting pot of incitement’ matured at different times and at different rates for different
communities. We know, however, that by the fifth century the process was almost complete.

The disparagement of religious adversaries is found in many religious traditions. However, within the
proto-orthodox tradition defamation, vitriol, and abuse of adversaries within and without became a central
modus operandi that left a significant footprint in the lore and had a tragic impact on the souls and hearts
of believers and on the lives of opponents.

268
Undifferentiated and genocidal polemics originate in ‘normal’ conflicts that take a ‘wrong turn.’ At what
point did Pauline believers make an unintended and irreversible turn into an ethical dead end? Genocidal
tendencies emerge when the disenfranchisement and the dehumanization of internal adversaries or external
enemies merge with a secular or religious delegitimizing narrative. Undifferentiated anti-Judaism is an
intermediate phenomenon that matures when the proto-orthodox interpretation of Jesus’s legacy becomes
the imperial faith. It reaches full bloom when first century polemic against the Jewish followers of Jesus is
distilled into a systematic anti-Jewish theology.

The evolution of anti-Jewish attitudes, from the fourth century onward, is well documented and is beyond
the scope of this work. The spiral of denigration that starts with the anti-Jewish establishment rhetoric of
the Jewish followers of Jesus, and culminates with modern anti-Semitism seems to be, mostly, the result of
complex socio-religious and socio-theological processes and dynamics that originated within the Jesus
movement.

Orthodoxies and Sacred Texts+

Orthodoxies emerge to preserve, control, maintain, and dispense religious legitimacy. Dogmatic
gatekeepers attempt to perpetuate structures of religious power and legitimacy, even though humans are
not qualified to place limitations on the creator’s transcendence, immanence, or on his dialog with his
creation. Continuous divine revelation and a continuing dialog of believers with the divine are orthodoxy’s
worst nightmare.
Furthermore, during the twentieth century we have come to suspect that ‘reading’ sacred texts is an
intricate phenomenon. It seems that when we consult our sacred lore a cyclical sequence is at work—an
interactive process where one’s worldview, mindset, and predispositions are the dominant factors in the
interpretation that emerges. The religious beliefs, socio-political perspectives, and ethnic heritage that we
‘bring to the table’ when reading sacred texts, are reinforced when we reencounter them in the sacred
literature—one of the wells they emanated from. A believer’s reading of a sacred text may be seen as a
ritual act of reassurance and reinforcement that yields a pre-determined set of beliefs and values.

The dynamics and the processes that we have debated, surveyed, and speculated about were, most often,
hidden from the participants. To the protagonists, reality was chaotic, the outcome uncertain. It is only
with hindsight and through the filter of time and interpretational meta-narratives that we can discern and
connect events into processes. From the vantage point of the participants, militancy, factionalism, dissent,
turmoil, and uncertainty were the rule. Our relatively organized, systematic, informed, and rational
environment would be utterly foreign to them.

Reading the authoritative texts, we can take the pulse of a religion at the cradle of its birth; we can see a
major world religion emerging before our eyes. The ‘push and shove’ of theology-in-the-making is
fascinating; so is the transition from chaotic creativity to structure and normative orthodoxy. The anxiety,
confusion, enthusiasm, fervor, and exuberance of first- and second-century believers in Jesus are palpable
in the canonical and authoritative texts we have surveyed. [+pg 274]

269
What If?
Even though victory does not bestow ethical or divine validation, the ‘reality’ it engenders becomes a
template that is hard to shed off.833 Pondering on alterative historical (and theological) paths goes against
our conceptual ‘wiring’ due to the fact that such exercises threaten the validity of ‘the world as we know it.’
Alternative historical scenarios require a ‘leap of imagination’ for they force us to realize how dependent
our worldviews (our ‘reality’) are on conjectural outcomes.

These scenarios are unsettling for they question, challenge, and threaten our innermost need to see ‘reality’
as the victory of justice over injustice, of good over evil, of right over wrong, of what is true over what is
not. However, ‘History’ has been, since time immemorial, the legitimating narrative of the victors. Up to
the modern era victors had a monopoly on ‘history’ and often reshaped the past to legitimate the present.

This suspicion, that ‘history’ tends to reflect the agendas of the party that gained the upper hand, is only a
few decades old. It is no surprise, therefore, that for nineteen hundred years the orthodox account of the
emergence of belief in Jesus was accepted as the original, and therefore ‘true,’ understanding of his
ministry. Whether this outcome was providential or the result of conjectural socio-theological processes,
we cannot but wonder what might have been the alternatives. Could belief in Jesus have remained Jewish?
Could either the Marcionite or the Gnostic worldviews have emerged as the majority view? Would a
Marcionite, Gnostic, or Jewish Christianity have evolved free of the ‘conflict between the Synagogue and
the Church’?

At the dawn of the twenty-first century there is a growing recognition that unity emerged out of diversity,
contrary to the traditional account. It may be said, in a gross oversimplification, that prior to the fourth
century theology was local, that Rome became predominantly proto-orthodox, that the communities of
Asia Minor tended to go counter-Rome and were inclined toward Marcion, that the Syrian communities
were influenced by Judean strands, and that in Egypt there was great sympathy for Gnostic views.

Furthermore, we have seen that while the founding faction focused on Torah observance, Pauline believers
in Jesus emphasized Jesus’s death and resurrection. Other believers emphasized, his sayings, teachings, or
secret knowledge (Gnosis). Some believed that Jesus’s death was a sacrifice for the sins of the world
(Paulines). Others believed that death is freedom from a world of suffering (Gnostics). Some believers did
not see Jesus’s death as central to his legacy.

Significantly, James and his community, the Q community, the M material in Matthew, the Didache, the
Pseudo-Clementine literature, and the communities behind the Gospels of Mary, the Savior, Thomas,

270
Truth, and Phillip as well as the Apocryphon of John do not seem to share the Pauline-Synoptic emphasis
on Jesus’s death, Roman exoneration, and Jewish culpability. The rediscovery of the second-century
Jewish, Marcionite and Gnostic variants has momentous consequences for our reconstruction of the
evolution of belief in Jesus and invites us to speculate about alternative pathways. The existence of several
early forms of belief in Jesus also allows us to speculate that Christianity could have evolved differently.

If the New Testament had included only texts recognized as authoritative by the descendants of Jesus’s
disciples and first followers, it would have an anti-Jewish-establishment tone and would include a demand
for strict Torah observance. A Gnostic New Testament is more of an enigma, since Gnosticism, more a
trend and a state of mind than a theology, was extremely diverse. We also know with some certainty that
the Marcionite New Testament would have focused on Paul’s Epistles and Luke, purged of ‘Judaizing’
influences.

Whether the victory of Marcion would have resulted in a less strident anti-Jewish stance is one of history’s
greatest enigmas. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would pose a challenge to a
Marcionite Christianity, but the supersessionary impulses behind the crusade to lay claim to their identity
and lore would not be there to fuel the anti-Jewish flame. It is plausible that a non-orthodox Christianity,
free of the need to supersede Judaism and to lay claim to its heritage, may have parted company with it and
may have avoided the anti-Jewish dead end. By rejecting the Jewish heritage of the founding fathers, a
Marcionite Christianity may have avoided the anti-Jewish trajectory inherent in the ambivalent Pauline
denigrate-but-appropriate model.

Moreover, ‘Marcion’s insistence on the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures potentially created a
bond of understanding between him and at least some Jews that his opponents could not have achieved.’834
Whereas the Pauline faction claimed to supersede the beliefs of the founding faction and strived to demote
them from their position as the guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy, Marcionites and most Gnostic
believers rejected their beliefs and traditions altogether.835 This critical difference may explain the growth
of more strident strands of anti-Judaism among the Paulines.836

Whereas Marcionites and Gnostics recognized that by rejecting the beliefs and traditions of the founding
fathers they were creating new interpretations of Jesus’s ministry, the proto-orthodox strove to vest
themselves as the rightful inheritors of the Jewish founders, setting them on the supersessionary trajectory.
Rejection-separation leaves ground for separate and respectful coexistence, claims to appropriation and
substitution do not - they set in motion the sequence that led to the dead end of anti-Semitism:

Appropriation > supersession > disenfranchisement > persecution

The incorporation of cultural and theological precursors does not need be adversarial, derogatory, or
dehumanizing. Furthermore, this type of serial denigration of an opponent’s religious tenets has little

271
rhetorical or theological merit and can easily be turned around. Some ancient rhetoric was vitriolic, but not
all ancients developed a persecutory bent toward their predecessors (see the benign integration of Greek
culture by the Romans and of Hinduism by Buddhism). Indeed, the life stories of Jesus and the Buddha
share striking similarities. Both aimed at reforming their native cultures (Judaism and Hinduism). Neither
claimed to be the founders of a new religion. Both were deeply touched by the human condition (poverty,
suffering, and death) and both championed mercy and love. Interestingly, their legacies were
extraordinarily successful among strangers but were rejected by most their brethren.

Christianity and Buddhism also differ significantly: whereas Christianity forged an alliance with power and
despotism, Buddhism by and large shun power and wealth. Christianity became exclusivist and persecutory.
Buddhism, by and large, emphasized inclusiveness and non-confrontation. Whereas Christianity built an
edifice of disparagement and contempt toward Judaism, Buddhism incorporated the Hindu tradition
without a discourse of denigration or supersession.

Miscellaneous Disclaimers+
A note of caution is appropriate: socio-theological processes are complex, protracted, interdependent, and
elusive. The processes that we have attempted to identify and decipher are fog-like. ‘In real time,’ the
trajectory ahead was unclear and uncertain. Long-term processes that are identifiable to us in hindsight,
were hidden from the protagonists. Only in retrospect can we sketch the outline of this rather intricate
story. A complex reality where multiple protagonists and themes interact in a fluid and inconclusive
manner for some three hundred years seems to be the best depiction of reality-on-the-ground as reflected
in the textual corpus before us.

During the early decades of the Jesus movement the internal divide between the Jewish followers of Jesus
and mainstream Judaism looms large (i.e., the adversaries are specific groups within Judaism: the high
priests, the Pharisees, the elders, and the scribes). During the last decades of the first century the epicenter
shifts and points to growing opposition to the beliefs and traditions of the founding faction among Gentile
believers. In the earlier layers the ordeal and the perspective of the Jewish followers of Jesus left footprints
in the texts. As the movement becomes increasingly Gentile, the ordeal and the perspective of recent
Gentile converts dominates the scene. It is also possible that projection and externalization onto the
interreligious arena, and the emergence of the misperception about the existence of a ‘conflict between
Judaism and Christianity,’ may have started earlier than implied by the trajectory suggested here.

It is plausible and probable that the blurring, the fusion, and the confusion between ‘internal’ and ‘external’
Jews and between Judaism ‘within’ and Judaism ‘without’ may have started earlier than implied by my
presentation. We can expect that in towns or regions where communities of Jews and of Jewish followers
of Jesus coexisted, Gentile believers would maintain a clearer distinction of the two. In areas where Gentile
believers would encounter only one type of ‘Jews’ or none, the fusion, and the confusion would occur
earlier and would be more pronounced. Moreover, we should be hesitant to reconstruct a socio-theological
reality by projecting a partial and posterior selection of texts onto the canvas of reality. In addition, the
Pauline faction was not monolithic. We can distinguish moderate (Justin and Theophilous),837 intermediate
(Tertullian, Origen), and extreme (Melito, Chrysostom) anti-Judaism. Significantly, the Pauline leaders of

272
the second and third century were defensive and abusive toward all their adversaries within, not just toward
the ‘Ioudaioi.’ Indeed, their rampages against Pagans, Marcionites, and Gnostics and against any and all
adversaries and enemies thereafter, were also intense.

273
 Polemic in The New Testament – Summary+
The journey we embarked upon did span four centuries. Along the way, Pauline believers gradually
transited from yearning for fellowship with the Jewish followers of Jesus, to militant anti-Judaism. This
progression, from failed fellowship to militant anti-Judaism, did take place at a different pace in different
communities. A simplified presentation of the trajectory:

THE EMOTIONS THE THEOLOGY

We are worthy followers of Jesus too!
You never understood!
You are not better than us!
We are the New Israel!
We are the new people of God!
You are no longer God's chosen!
Jews are irredeemable and sinful!
Rejection of Torah observance
Delegitimizing the Disciples
Challenging the leadership
Appropriation of the identity and
lore of the Jewish followers of Jesus
Supersession Theology
Projection onto Judaism

Many junctures, themes, and motifs characterize the unintended journey we have tracked:

1. According to the New Testament, Jesus’ ministry lasted 18 to 36 months. This extraordinarily short
ministry may account for the fact that, unlike Buddha, Plato, Moses and Mohammed, who enjoyed
lifelong ministries, he did not leave behind a normative legacy.
2. The descendants of the founding fathers, similar to other Jewish sectarians, seem to have developed
a militant anti-Jewish-establishment lore, would have perceived mainstream Judaism as ‘apostate
and sinful,’ and would have claimed to be ‘the new people of God,’ ‘The New Israel.’
3. The anti-Jewish-establishment lore of Jesus’s Jewish disciples and first followers may have included
accusations and rumors about participation or cooperation of the hated and Roman-appointed
Judean traitors, collaborators, and minions that ruled Judea, in Jesus’s death.
4. During the first decades following Jesus’ death, his disciples and first followers were the
acknowledged guardians and interpreters of his legacy. Their beliefs, customs and traditions were
grounded in first century Judaism.
5. The rejection, by the Jewish leadership of the movement, of non-Jewish forms of belief in Jesus as
inadequate and lacking and the rejection of Judaism by most Gentile believers are the engines
behind the estrangement between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement.

274
6. A situation where Gentiles of Pagan origin would be required to embrace the customs and
traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus, would be untenable. Eventually, it would exacerbate
tensions between Jews and non-Jews within the Jesus movement and would precipitate a bitter
estrangement between the parties.
7. The Pauline (proto-orthodox and Marcionite) and Gnostic interpretations of Jesus’s ministry
struggled for recognition and for equal standing with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions espoused by Jesus and by those chosen
by him as the custodians of his legacy.
8. Some Gentile converts joined the communities of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and
first followers. However, it seems that after finding the milieu of the Jewish faction unfamiliar and
unwelcoming - most seceded amidst great bitterness and resentment.
9. Other Gentile converts, the majority, joined the Gentile strands of belief in Jesus that were
established by the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. Most of these communities
rejected the beliefs and customs of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers as
demanding, alien and idiosyncratic.
10. These Gentile converts, evangelized by Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, would have met the
descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their Gentile sympathizers in the public
arena, and would become aware that they had been inducted into factions at odds with the founding
fathers of the movement, a volatile situation that required a dissonance-reducing narrative.
11. Gentile believers with Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affiliations and inclinations were the protagonists
in the crisis that followed. Everyone claimed to espouse the only ‘true’ form of belief in Jesus.
Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism were not protagonists in these debates; they were the subjects
of contention.
12. Framing the crisis about identity, legitimacy and authority within the Jesus movement as a debate
about Judaism, the rock on which the Jewish followers of Jesus stood, seems to have emerged out
of the Pauline dilemma of how to de-Judaize belief in Jesus without openly challenging the
legitimacy of the Jewish faction as the exclusive guardians and interpreters of Jesus’ legacy.
13. Facing an uphill struggle for legitimacy vis- à -vis the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first
followers, lacking a mature narrative, and standing on a still-evolving theology, Pauline believers
seem to have gradually gravitated toward a strategy built on the belittling of the Disciples and on the
denigration of their beliefs and traditions.
14. The denigration of the disciples may have originated in the need to justify and explain, to Gentile
followers, the estrangement from the founding factions, the rejection of their beliefs and traditions,
and the rejection of Gentile understandings of Jesus’ ministry and legacy by the Jewish faction.
15. The implicit message: the ancestors of the Jewish followers of Jesus did not understand Jesus’s
legacy and betrayed him. All Jews, to the inclusion of the Jewish followers of Jesus, have forfeited
God’s favor. Therefore, they are not rightful custodians of Jesus legacy. Believers don’t have to
follow their beliefs and traditions to be rightful followers of Jesus. Gentiles are God’s new chosen.
16. In need of a polemical arsenal to sever the influence that the descendants of the founding fathers
had over some Gentiles, the de-Judaizing camp found in the lore of their opponents a throve of
anti-Jewish-establishment stones that they could use to denigrate Judaism—the pillar on which the
Jewish faction stood.
17. By decontextualizing the Hebrew Scriptures and by subverting-appropriating the founders’ identity
and anti-Jewish-establishment lore, and by subverting-appropriating the Jewish traditions of
prophetic exhortation and self-criticism—Pauline leaders and intellectuals crafted a strategy that,

275
 although ultimately successful in de-Judaizing belief in Jesus, resulted in a protracted and rancorous
struggle that lasted more than two centuries.
18. Most the texts that were incorporated into the New Testament were authored when the drive to de-
Judaize the Jesus movement was brewing-up. This coincidence tends to over-emphasize tensions
with followers of Jesus that were Jews.
19. Most the texts that focus on the struggle with differing Gentiles (Marcionites and Gnostics) were
authored after the apostolic era, and were not canonized. This coincidence tends to under-
emphasize tensions with followers of Jesus that were Marcionite and Gnostic.
20. Many texts contain a fusion of layered traditions. Earlier attacks on ‘establishment Judaism’ by
Jewish followers of Jesus are intertwined with later attacks by Gentile believers on the Jewish
establishment of the Jesus movement. This peculiar layering may have exacerbated the dissonant
messages about Judaism that permeate the tradition.
21. The Pauline literature of the second and third centuries reflects the uncertainty, anxiety, and
resentment that characterized the long transitional period between the campaign to de-Judaize belief
in Jesus to its realization.
22. Demotion by denigration is a protracted endeavor. Success is uncertain, and hard fought. Animosity
and hatred became deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the challengers.
23. With the passage of time, and loss of context, the rhetoric that accompanied the de-Judaizing
campaign came to be understood as reflecting a conflict with Judaism. This misinterpretation, or
misrepresentation, transformed (in the minds of later generations) a conflict among believers in
Jesus into a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’
24. Eusebius’ authoritative Ecclesiastical History deleted this second century religious ‘civil war’ from
‘history’ and projected a mythical, and almost consensual and idyllic, transfer of leadership and of
legitimacy from Jesus’ disciples and first followers to the later Gentile orthodoxy.
25. The vacuum created by this deletion necessitated and exacerbated, enabled, and facilitated the
projection of the resentment toward the Jewish followers of Jesus, onto Judaism.

Thus, what began as the seemingly harmless denigration of the disciples aimed at defending the right of
Gentiles to be rightful followers of Jesus without having to be Jews, gradually gravitated toward an
exclusivist and supersessionary mindset. Standing on the rejection of Torah observance, and expanding on
Mark’s deprecation of the disciples, and on the supersessionary foundation provided by Hebrews and
Barnabas, Pauline authors claimed that their opponents’ understanding of Jesus’s life and ministry,
anchored in Judaism, was erroneous. Furthermore, the true meaning of Israelite history was to be
understood and deciphered by non-Jews.

Throughout the lore, authors obsessed with ‘the Jewish question’ argued that ‘the Jews’ are sinful,
irredeemable, misunderstand their religious heritage, lost or never had the covenant, lost God’s favor, and
were no longer his chosen. The logic behind this strategy seems to be that if the Israelites were
incompetent to properly interpret their own theological heritage, the Jewish faction could not understand
Jesus’s legacy either.
The architects of the Pauline appropriation-supersession edifice maintained that Gentiles could not
reinvent themselves outside the legitimacy inherent in the founding fathers, as Marcion and most Gnostics

276
argued, and did set the markers of the theological construct that was to be the central anchor of
‘orthodoxy.’

The traditional narrative+

This construct included three elements: (a) to accept the Jewish meta-narrative; (b) to gut out most of its
institutions, beliefs, and traditions; and (c) to appropriate the remaining narrative to vest a non-Jewish
edifice with legitimacy and antiquity. The tensions and ambiguities inherent in the this appropriate-
supersede answer to the continuity-discontinuity dilemma vis- à -vis the founding fathers triggered the
emergence of the appropriation-supersession phenomenon, with horrific consequences. The theology of
supersession is the reflection, elaboration and transformation of these socio-theological circumstances into
a theological claim.
The de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus was an adversarial take-over, not the quasi-idyllic transmission of
leadership and of legitimacy that Christian orthodoxy placed at the genesis of the religion. The
discretionary path of fashioning a compromise creed eventually brought Pauline believers in Jesus to a
unilateral assault on Judaism. These historical processes were later obscured to render the compromise
creed sacrosanct, and to de-emphasize the Pauline disenfranchisement of the descendants of Jesus’
disciples and first followers.
As it pertains to deciphering the evolution of the anti-Jewish strand, the traditional account of the origins
of belief in Jesus emerges as a narrative that:

1. Legitimates the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus and stands on a myth about a quasi-consensual
transfer of leadership and of legitimacy from Jesus’s disciples and first followers to Pauline belief in
Jesus.
2. Obscures the marginalizing, the disenfranchisement, and the eventual persecution of the
descendants of those chosen by Jesus to be the guardians of his legacy.
3. Justifies the claims to the appropriation of the identity and to the lore of the Jewish faction and to
the supersession of their beliefs and traditions.
4. Externalizes and transforms a conflict among believers in Jesus into a conflict between ‘Judaism’
and ‘Christianity.’

277
278
Chapter 10

*The Post Constantine era

Imperial Christianity
About canonization
From Theodosius, onward
Summary
Afterthoughts

Religious orthodoxies are the result of complex evolutionary processes. The pursuit of unity and the
emergence of orthodoxy are a widely-attested phenomenon in many religious traditions. Orthodoxy caters
to the human need for coherence and unity and is naturally intolerant of deviance and diversity. In battles
for religious hegemony, ‘history’ and ‘legitimacy’ are the victors’ spoils. Claims to exclusive access to, and
understanding of, the divine realm are often used to further factional interests and power agendas. The
sectarian infighting that, more often than not, precedes the establishment of orthodoxy is often under-
emphasized or erased.

Imperial Christianity+
By the fourth century, Roman religion838 was tainted by its association with a decadent Roman aristocracy,
and was seen by many as irrelevant and lacking spiritual substance. Christianity’s universalistic message,
untainted by association with the old elites and discredited oligarchies, seemed to fit a multi-cultural and
multi-ethnical mega-empire in need of a new unifying ethos. Furthermore, Pauline militancy and
enthusiasm coupled with the claim to exclusivity of ‘right belief’ were an advantage in promoting undivided
loyalty. For Constantine, a ruthless and pragmatic power broker, these were valuable features and traits in
his quest to unify the Roman Empire and to usher-in a new era of Roman revitalization.

Constantine was first and foremost an ambitious, ruthless, pragmatic, and cold-blooded warrior and
tactician. His reasoning was not theological, nor spiritual. For Constantine, religion, creed and ceremony
were political tools - to be measured by their political effectiveness in servicing his goals. Many theories
have been formulated to explain Constantine’s decision to end the persecution of Christians. My favorites:

279
 a. The Empire was in decline. A new religion without significant political and cultural ‘baggage’ and
without connections to the traditional religious Roman centers of influence could be a source of
renewed vigor, a thankful power base, and a valuable ally.
b. The increasingly multi-cultural and multi-ethnic population regarded Roman religion as irrelevant
and out of touch. Christianity’s call to ‘faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection’ seemed perfectly
positioned to offer a creed that all could easily embrace.
c. Christianity was universal, militant and exclusivist - the perfect Imperial creed.
d. Constantine may have been impressed by the valor that Christians displayed when faced with
martyrdom. A religion that could engender such traits in its followers was very valuable.
e. The Church was the only organized force throughout the empire, aside from the army – an
attractive power base. Social cohesion and the hierarchical structure of the Church were appealing
assets in a society lacking large scale social organizations.
f. The great influence of his mother, Helena, who was a devout Christian.

More an agglomeration of incompatible, still evolving, and competing factions than a mature theological
worldview—the early fourth-century strands of belief in Jesus were forced by Constantine into a crucible
that demanded a compromise. Constantine wanted, needed, and demanded, a unified Church standing on a
unified creed. At Nicaea, under pressure to become a religious organization worthy of imperial favor,
Church authorities hastened the processes of consolidation and reached a basic creedal articulation – even
though the bulk of the theological work needed to achieve and implement that goal was still incomplete.
Per Mary Boys:

‘…of the nearly three hundred bishops gathered at Nicaea, all but two signed the
creed. Yet such an apparent consensus is misleading. Not only did some of the Arian
bishops later admit they had signed in order to placate Constantine— ‘The soul is none
the worse for a little ink’— but the Arian controversy continued for years, unsettling
the empire and creating a fractious atmosphere within the church. Furthermore, … ‘a
‘worldwide’ ecclesiastical body convened by no less than the emperor himself had
mandated a formulation that condemned and excommunicated those whose theology
was deemed heretical. Not only had a boundary been drawn, but it enjoyed the
sanction of the state.’839

The decision to embrace a minority creed was a bold move. Church and Empire started-off on a long and
complex relationship. However, Constantine’s efforts to boost the dying political structure were
unsuccessful and failed to revitalize the decaying Roman Empire. Constantine’s vision of harnessing the
new creed to imperial purposes was not fully realized during his lifetime either. At the dawn of the fourth
century, the decline that led to the disintegration of the Empire was already in motion, and the
Christianizing of the empire failed to stem it.

Decades of inconclusive struggle between Pagan and Christian elements within the Roman aristocracy lay
ahead, before the Christianizing of the empire under Theodosius was achieved (379-395 CE). Mutual

280
interests and the need for reciprocal legitimating bound Church and Empire in a centuries-long dialectic of
power. Politics and religion became intertwined for the benefit of the powerful and the impoverishment of
ethics. The religion about Jesus, the humble Jewish preacher from Galilee, became the official creed of the
most powerful Empire in the history of Western Civilization.840

From Constantine onward, the Paulines burst onto the world stage with the body of a religion, the muscle
of empire and the soul of a sect. Dogma, power, wealth, and exclusivism seemed to overtake the
enthusiasm, creativity and diversity of the previous centuries. The extraordinary ascent of Christianity to
absolute power brought an unprepared and not yet fully coherent creed to global pre-eminence. The
militancy and the resentment of a recently persecuted sect, and its exclusivist mindset, became embedded
in the psyche of the official religion of the mightiest empire of the era.

From the fourth century onward, with the power, wealth and authority of Empire, Christian orthodoxy
was no longer limited to persuasion and compromise. Following Constantine’s patronage and Theodosius’s
Christianizing of the empire Pauline ‘orthodoxy’ could enforce its hegemony in more efficient and
expeditious ways. Only then did the orthodox yield real might and were able to persecute adversaries
within more effectively. As orthodoxy consolidated its ascendancy and its alliance with the mighty and the
powerful, a persecutory demeanor gradually matured. It progressed from the rancor of peer infighting, to
more efficient and emotionally detached mechanisms of dissent control.

Accommodation to power and despotism was swift, the turn to intolerance almost immediate. Catapulted
to power and influence by Constantine’s patronage, intoxicated by power, wealth and privilege, and
militant and exclusivist at soul - Imperial Christianity entered a marriage of convenience with the Roman
elite. Constantine’s patronage placed the Church at the center of world power and turned the Christian
ethical compass toward subservience to the rich and the powerful. Catering to the ruling elites eventually
took precedent, and Jesus’ social teachings were gradually de-emphasized.

The Jewish prophetic tradition, with its chastisement of the mighty and its concern for the meek, was
shunned. The new focus was elite-friendly and bypassed Jesus’s subversive legacy. It diverted the yearnings
of believers to fulfillment in the afterlife - facilitating their plundering by the powerful. Infused with great
enthusiasm and fervor born out of this sudden transformation, Christianity, now the ally of the powerful
and the mighty - became triumphalist, exclusivist and persecutory. Coercion, imposition and persecution
became the tools of choice to combat ‘deviant’ belief and achieve unity. This later phase, when ‘heresy’
within and enemies without are dealt with the sword and the power of empire, is beyond the scope of this
work – but its outlines will be summarized ahead.

Moreover, catering to power required de-emphasizing revolutionary and socially unsettling elements of
Jesus’ message. A religion based on Jesus’ social teachings would be perceived as subversive by the Roman
elites and could not become an imperial religion. From the fourth century onward, political power and the
Church became entangled in a paradoxical relationship (increasingly interdependent, complementary and
nonetheless often adversarial).

281
Three centuries of conflict with ‘the Jews’ (the Jewish followers of Jesus and their Gentile sympathizers)841
left deep scars in the Pauline psyche. Instructed by sacred texts permeated with ‘anti-Jewish’ sentiment
originating in the identity crisis within the Jesus movement, post-Constantine Christians directed their
resentment toward external Jews. After Theodosius, the victorious Pauline faction (now Christian
orthodoxy) will harness and re-direct the vast anti-Jewish rhetorical arsenal it deployed against the founding
fathers - toward external, mainstream Judaism.

From Nicaea forward, having attained some degree of self-definition and internal cohesion, and permeated
with an ingrained tradition of anti-Jewish sentiment, Imperial Christianity turned with full force against
Judaism. As time passed, and aided by Eusebius’ obscuring of, or ignorance about, the diversity of early
belief in Jesus, the intricate and mostly intra-Christian origin of the anti-Jewish trajectory was forgotten and
obscured. As Christianity entered the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism became an integral part of its lore and
mindset. Anti-Jewish sentiment was part of the fabric of life, deeply embedded in the religious lore and in
the culture at large. The culture of polemical incitement and theological degradation that emerged from this
crucible became a pivotal component of the emerging Christian identity. Indeed, ‘The notion of Jewish
guilt, of Jewish sinfulness, envy and hostility had become fundamental to the supersessionary argument of
the church.’842

Nonetheless, some positive developments did take place during this period. ‘Augustine, though he did
repeat much of the polemics against Jews and Judaism current in the Patristic period, argued very strongly
that Jews should be allowed to practice their faith freely without interference, since in so doing Jews
witnessed to the divine truth of the Hebrew Scriptures, without which the New Testament and the
teachings of Jesus make little sense. The Augustinian position was accepted by Pope St. Gregory the Great
and became papal policy through the ages.’843

About canonization+
It is now a majority view that the Pauline ascendancy did not occur as early, or as smoothly, as implied by
the ‘orthodox’ narrative. Furthermore, it took at least three centuries for the emergence of a canon and at
least as long for that canon to be widely accepted. Irenaeus (c 130-200 ce), bishop of Lyons and the person
to coin the term ‘New Testament,’ provides us with the first evidence of the existence of a list (not yet a
canon) of sacred scripture, a proto-New Testament. To address the theological chaos and confusion
among believers, Irenaeus created a list of recommended-sacred Gospels. Some of these texts, despite the
fact that they contained elements or residuals of non-Pauline worldviews, were eventually included in the
New Testament. According to Irenaeus, one of the Church Fathers, the canonical Gospels were associated
with differing constituencies. He informs us that the Ebionites (a group of Jewish followers of Jesus and
their Gentile sympathizers)844 and Gentile adoptionists used the Gospel of Matthew. Those who ‘separate
Jesus from the Christ’ (i.e., most Gnostics) used Mark. The Marcionites used a revised Luke, and
Valentinian Gnostics and Docetists used John.

Significantly, despite the eventual hegemonic status of the Paulines that followed the fourth century
council of Nicaea, the epic battle about Gentile attitudes toward Judaism, Paganism and Gnosticism did

282
not subside altogether, and did re-surface under various guises during the next centuries. The tensions
between believers with Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affiliations and inclinations were never fully
harmonized and remained latent at the core of the tradition. The footprints that these tensions left in the
lore were never extricated either. Consequently, future Gentile believers in Jesus were to internalize deeply
ambivalent attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism.

Irenaeus’ choice of Gospels became normative and later canonical, when Athanasius’ list of authoritative
texts was used to supply the churches throughout the empire with an authoritative canon (approx. 367
CE). This path to canonization embedded in the tradition a large number of discrepancies, inconsistencies,
and tensions that originate in the diversity of the Jesus movement – and reverberate throughout the
discourse to this day. We have Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ lists. However, and unfortunately, we only have
occasional quotations of the content of the original texts. The earliest full texts we have are from the sixth
and seventh centuries. Consequently, we do not know the extent of re-editing that the original texts were
submitted to.

From Theodosius onward+

Sixty years after Nicaea, the Roman Empire became officially Christian but the full Christianizing of the
empire took centuries to accomplish. To us, events in the fourth century may seem to have been moving
inexorably toward the formation of the Christian civilization ‘as we know it.’ However, at any given
moment the dynamics and the processes that gave rise to Christianity were unclear, uncertain, and tentative
to those living through them. Wilken cautions that people living through the fourth and fifth centuries
were not aware that they were living at the threshold of a Christian era. Indeed, the sequence of emperors
between Constantine and Theodosius — Constantius II, the militant Pagan Julian, the non-committal
Valentinian, the ardently Arian Valens—gave no one cause to think they stood at the beginning of a new
age.

Eusebius's dreams of one God, one emperor, one empire, one Church and his celebration of Constantine
as a ‘mighty victor beloved of God’ had been replaced by the memory of orthodox bishops languishing in
exile, of an emperor offering sacrifices in cities throughout the east, of laws prohibiting Christians from
teaching literature in the schools, of resourceful and aggressive Arian leaders attacking the Nicene
decrees.’845 The path to a full conversion to Christianity was not easy, nor simple. It was protracted and
hard fought. Although the emperor had embraced Christianity, the culture of the empire was still Pagan.

From Theodosius I (379-395 CE) onward, the Paulines, now Orthodox Christianity, imposed ever-
increasing restrictions and burdens on the Jews:

- Jews forced to convert were not allowed to return to Judaism.

- Capital punishment was imposed for marrying a Jew.
- Jews were excluded from public office and the military.

283
- Special taxes were imposed on the Jewish population.
- Building of synagogues was forbidden.
- Jews were forced to celebrate Christian holy days.
- Jews were forced to listen to Christian evangelizing sermons.
- Restrictions on any type of religious fraternizing.

- Between 465 and 694, some twenty councils issued rulings regarding relations with Jews. Among their
decrees:846
-Marriages between a Jew and a Christian were forbidden (Councils of Orleans, 533 and 538; Clermont,
535; Toledo, 589 and 633).
-Jews and Christians forbidden to eat together (Councils of Vannes, 465; Agde, 506; Epaone, 517; Orleans,
538; Macon, 583; Clichy, 626-7).
-Jews banned from public office (Councils of Clermont, 535; Toledo, 589; Paris, 614-5; Clichy, 626-7;
Toledo, 633).
-Jews prohibited from owning Christian slaves (Councils of Orleans, 538 and 541; Macon, 583; Toledo,
589, 633 and 656; Clichy, 626-7; Chalon-sur-Saone, ca. 650).
-Jews were forbidden to appear in public during Easter (Councils of Orleans, 538; Macon, 583) and to
work on Sunday (Council of Narbonne, 589).

Facing a reality of persecution, disenfranchisement, and anti-Semitism the coping mechanisms of

European Jewry were, for the most part, defensive and escapist. Emigration, false conversion, and
withdrawal from reality were commonplace. Jewish creativity and energy found expression in the unlimited
freedom of religious learning, and in esoteric and mystical speculation. Submersion in religious learning and
in the esoteric world of Kabbalah mysticism offered freedom from a world gone mad.

Of the 5–6 million Jews living in the Roman Empire at the dawn of the Common Era, 1–3 million lived in
Europe. By the seventh century, the anti-Jewish policies implemented from Theodosius onward brought
about the almost complete de-Judaizing of Europe.

By the end of the first millennium, the Jewish population in the Christian lands had been decimated,
expelled, forced into conversion or worse. Only a few small and scattered communities survived. Europe
had been thoroughly de-Judaized. This first ethnic cleansing of the largest minority in the Roman Empire
is largely unknown and has been largely erased from ‘history.’

Throughout their history, the Israelites survived seemingly irreversible defeats at the hands of Assyrians,
Persians, Greeks, and Romans. Thanks to staunch adherence to their beliefs and traditions, and thanks to
long-established diasporas, they also survived seventeen hundred years of intermittent and recurrent

284
Christian persecution and marginalization. The existence of large concentrations of Jews beyond the reach
of Christianity was the key factor in the Jewish survival. Geographical concentration has doomed to
extinction countless peoples whose suffering no longer disturbs our sleep. These vanquished nations have
disappeared from the world scene and from our consciousness.
The Adversus Iudaeos literature847 and the virulent anti-Jewish incitement pouring from all corners of
European society does not leave much room for doubt as to the means deployed to achieve de de-
Judaizing of Europe. Most would have had to choose between forced conversion, expulsion, or worse.
This cleansing, erased from Christendom’s historical memory, did create a vacuum that has enabled the
myth about the later emergence of ‘modern anti-Semitism.’

For the period after the seventh century, in addition to countless regional, local, and individual acts of
disparagement, discrimination, and persecution, four large-scale cycles are identifiable beyond the initial de-
Judaizing of Europe:

1. The French Carolingian and the British Anglo-Saxon monarchies, frozen in the Dark Ages, tried to
emulate the economic success of the Jewish-Muslim coexistence and invited Jews to settle in their
midst. This cycle ended when, a few centuries later, the Jews were expelled and their property seized
as the French (1182 and 1392) and British (1290) emerging elites started to see them as competitors.
2. Throughout Western Europe the era of the Crusades witnessed large-scale massacres of Jewish
communities by mobs incited into religious frenzy induced from the pulpits.
3. The Muslim conquest of Spain ushered a period of Jewish renaissance under Muslim patronage that
lasted until the Christian conquest of Spain, that give rise to the expulsion or forced conversion of
all Jews (1492, from Portugal in 1497).
4. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Eastern European and German principalities, aware
of the benefits that the Jews had brought to England, France, and Spain, invited them to dwell in
their midst. This cycle ended a few centuries later with the Holocaust.

This sobering survey does not negate periods of peaceful coexistence as well as the acknowledgement due
to individual Christians that stood by their Jewish neighbors and friends in times of need.

History instructs us about the consequences of disenfranchising, delegitimizing, or dehumanizing members

of national, religious, or ethnic communities. The anti-Jewish bias that we have tracked throughout was the
precursor, the enabler, and the facilitator of the endemic persecution endured by the Jewish people since
the fifth century. Spanning fifteen hundred years, Jewish-Christian coexistence has had many highs and
lows, within an overall context of cyclical but ingrained anti-Judaism. The period beyond Theodosius’
reign is the next phase of the progression we have tracked throughout, and may be described as follows:

Anti-Semitic polemic – anti-Semitism emerges out of anti-Jewish attitudes that became religiously and
culturally sanctioned and legitimated. These attitudes were perpetuated and exacerbated due to the
canonization of texts permeated with the bias that characterized the drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus.
Anti-Semitism is genocidal in that it has nurtured, enabled and facilitated genocide.

285
Genocidal polemic - An emotional and intellectual predisposition that emerges following prolonged
exposure to undifferentiated messages of ambivalence and hatred that are perceived to be legitimate,
sanctioned and justified. Genocidal polemic emerges when the disenfranchisement, the de-legitimating and
the dehumanization of internal adversaries or external enemies merges with a secular or religious de-
legitimating narrative. This polemic enables and facilitates Genocide.

The Post Constantine era – Afterthoughts+

Sectarian and factional conflicts are often characterized by militancy, extreme fervor and exclusivist
inclinations. We would expect the evolution from sect to religion to reflect the transition from the margins
of society to a mainstream mindset, a transition that may be associated with a ‘tuning down’ of extremism.
Creedal evolution toward a normative and coherent theology, and a scriptural canon might help clean-out
or mitigate sectarian tensions. However, this evolution is absent when the transition from marginalized-
persecuted sect to religious and political ascendancy is expedited by political patronage (Christianity) or
extraordinary military success (Islam).

Stroumsa notes that when Christianity was still a religio illicita, and early Christian intellectuals were striving
for intellectual respectability, they were the first in the ancient world to develop a coherent argument about
the need for religious tolerance, and hence pluralism. Oddly enough, it was their fourth- and fifth-century
heirs who carried out the de-legitimating of religious pluralism.848 Indeed, as the Pauline religious corpus
became the sacred lore of the most powerful religious movement humanity has known - Paulines no longer
needed to compromise and divested their defense for religious pluralism.

In the case of Christianity, the accelerated transition from persecuted sect to Imperial religion placed at the
zenith of world power a religion in the making, a worldview and a religious mindset still in flux. This
accelerated trajectory may account for the fact that the sectarian anti-Jewish virulence that accompanied the
Pauline drive for ascendancy was canonized and became normative – without a ‘tuning down’ of
extremism. The result was intensification, rather than mitigation.

With the might of empire and in full control of the Jesus legacy, the combination of great power and a
resentful and vindictive mindset yielded triumphalist attitudes and an explosion of persecutory zeal. The
implications for the Jewish-Christian relationship were momentous. According to Crossan, as Christianity
became the official religion of the Roman Empire, anti-Judaism moved from theological debate to lethal
possibility. He concludes: ‘think, now, of those passion-resurrection stories as heard in a predominantly
Christian world. Did those stories of ours send certain people out to kill?’849

From the fourth century onward, Christian Orthodoxy (the doctrinal descendants of the Pauline lineage)
embraced the myth of an evolution from unity to heretical challenge - instead of the actual evolution from
diversity to forced unity. As the eradication of the Second Century Christianities from ‘history’ was

286
successfully accomplished, the internal nature of the original debates was lost. Through persuasion,
coercion, vilification and disenfranchisement, believers in Jesus were eventually forced into a narrow
interpretation of a rich and diverse heritage.850

This mythical account of the Christian origins was necessary to legitimate the Pauline ascendancy, to
obscure the adversarial demotion of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers from
preeminence, and to obscure the transition from the original Jewish and Torah-Observant Jesus movement
to a non-Jewish religion. The consolidation of orthodoxy was achieved by a thorough re-editing of events,
the destruction of competing sacred texts, and the vilification and persecution of the opposing factions.
Their sacred texts destroyed and their beliefs persecuted, differing interpretations of Jesus’ legacy became
‘heresies,’ and were erased from ‘history’ and from the minds and hearts of believers. The triumphant
Orthodoxies (The Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) were extraordinarily successful in
their efforts to rewrite history. The imposition of the orthodox veil was so complete that 1500 years later
we are only beginning to uncover its existence and its consequences.

Up to the fourth century, the protagonists in our saga were religious enthusiasts motivated by fervor and
deep commitment. However, the enablers and facilitators of the transition to virulent anti-Semitism are a
different cast of characters. From Nicaea onward, we find at the steering wheel a leadership infatuated with
power and might, and concerned with boundary definition and enforcement. Intense persecution of
dissent will rage throughout Christendom. The Dark Ages are upon Europe and darker ages are upon its
Jews.

287
288
Chapter 11

*The Responsibility for Jesus’ Death

Introduction
Mark - the foundation
The ‘Jewish authorities’
The exoneration of the Romans
Compatible views
A gradual unraveling
Summary
Afterthoughts

Introduction+
The libel about the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death has loomed large over the Jewish-Christian saga.
Detailed and thorough discussions of the related New Testament verses are available elsewhere.851 The
implausibility and the anti-Jewish tendentiousness of the Markan account of Jesus’ death is covered by a
vast bibliography and needs not be repeated here. In this chapter I attempt to engage this thorny issue
through the lens of the conclusions of this monograph. We will prepare the ground by restating the
questions that have accompanied us throughout this survey: Was the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif present
in all the first and second century strands of belief in Jesus? Where attested, did it have the same meaning,
centrality and intensity? Why were the Romans, Jesus’ executioners, exonerated? Why where the Jews
blamed? Did the anti-Jewish strand emerge out of Jewish-Christian issues, or out of tensions within the
Jesus movement? Did it originate in suspicions, among the Jewish followers of Jesus, about the
involvement of the Roman-appointed traitors and collaborators that ruled Judea in Jesus’ death?

Inquiring further: Why did the Markan accusation against ‘the High Priests, the scribes and the elders’, a
plausible claim within the context of Jewish anti-establishment rhetoric, morph into accusations against all
Jews? Why did the binary ‘Jewish responsibility’/ Roman exoneration emerge despite clear Roman
culpability and intense Roman persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus? If the ‘Jewish responsibility for
Jesus death’ was a known fact, why did several generations pass before it was stated explicitly? Why does
the libel intensify as time passes?

289
Moreover, why did this tradition resonate so deeply with the Gentile followers of Paul852 and not with the
other gentile strands of belief in Jesus? Is it coincidental that the group that made Paul’s belief in Jesus’
death and resurrection into the central tenet of belief, and was keen on deflating the Roman responsibility
for Jesus’ death, is also the group that promoted the libel regarding ‘the Jewish responsibility ‘for Jesus’
death? What dynamics, processes and agendas made the anti-Jewish tradition central and dominant to the
thinking, attitudes and theology of later Pauline believers?

Mark - the foundation+

We do not know whether Mark invented or inherited his claim about the involvement of some Jews in
Jesus’s death. It is plausible that following Jesus’s death, a variety of accusations and rumors may have
originated among his followers regarding the role played by the traitors and collaborators that ruled Judea
on behalf of the Romans.853 This theme may have originated with him or may reflect an intensification or
de-contextualization of traditions originating in the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of the descendants of
the founding fathers of the Jesus movement. There is no consensus as to which elements are
incorporations or intensifications of previous attitudes and which are original.

By casting Jesus’s crucifixion as caused by a Jewish conspiracy, Mark may have attempted to signal to
internal and external constituencies that Jesus’s followers are not a threat to Roman society. By
emphasizing Jewish culpability, he may be attempting to exonerate the Romans of responsibility for Jesus’s
death, an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate persecution. Mark may have also aimed at addressing concerns
among prospective converts, some of which would be reluctant to join a sect at odds with the Roman
authorities.

Mark’s often contradictory and ambivalent positioning is noteworthy. Mark informs us that Jesus’s identity
as the messiah is both; the trigger for his death sentence (14:61–65; 15:26) and part of God’s will and plan
(8:31; 9:11–13; 14:21, 27). This position, however, does not restrain Mark from placing at the core of his
work a seemingly contradictory claim. Namely, that Jesus’s death was not the consequence of Jesus’s
messianic claims (or of Roman charges of sedition) but the result of a conspiracy by wicked priests and
scribes who opposed him (14:55).

Furthermore, according to Mark, Pilate was a ‘reluctant’ crucifier who did not want to crucify Jesus. Pilate
was ‘forced.’ He tried to save Jesus, to no avail (15:9–10, 12–14). Pilate, a ruthless and notoriously cruel
Roman prefect, is cast by Mark as indecisive and subject to the influence of those ruled by him. The chief
priests (11:18; 14:43, 53–65; 15:31–32) and the scribes (1:22; 9:11–13; 11:18, 27; 12:35–40; 14:1, 43, 53;
15:1, 31) are, according to Mark, the main culprits in Jesus’s death. Mark’s casting of ‘the crowd’ as asking
for Jesus’s crucifixion (15:12–14) implicates the Jewish people too.

290
The ‘Jewish authorities’ +
I have already noted that from the Babylonian captivity forward (587 BCE), the removal of local dynasties
required their replacement with an alternative local oligarchy that would do the conqueror’s bidding. High
priests were, for the most part, appointed by the conquerors and lost their religious legitimacy in the eyes
of many among the local populations. We find that not only in Judea, but throughout the Middle East, the
scions of venerable and legitimate priestly families were coerced into representing the interests of the
foreign conquerors, or were forced into acquiescence by other means. Most of these traitors, minions and
collaborators with Persian, Greek and Roman conquerors were hated opportunists that collected taxes and
ruled the provinces on behalf of foreign oppressors.

In Judea, this process was accelerated by the Hashmonean usurpation of the high priesthood and its
transformation into a quasi-monarchical role. Thus, by the time of the Roman conquest, the High Priest
had little religious legitimacy among the people. Furthermore, ‘It is noteworthy that in every known case
action against the Jerusalem church or its leaders was taken when the reigning high priest was one of those
who belonged to the powerful Sadducean family of Annas (Ananus),’854 a clan hated for its ties with the
Roman occupiers. The persistent presentation of a corrupt elite; traitors despised by most Judeans, and the
surrogates of the conquerors, as ‘the Jewish authorities,’ is misinformed at best. This casting is a
disingenuous and tendentious misrepresentation of a nation under foreign occupation, a nation oppressed
by the Romans and by Judean collaborators and traitors.

Despite the delicate and sensitive nature of the terrain we are exploring, we must acknowledge that rumors
and suspicions as to the involvement in the death of Jesus, of these Roman appointed traitors and
collaborators, may have originated among his disciples and first followers. We may further say that as long
as the Romans and their appointed minions were viewed as responsible for Jesus’ death and the story was
told by a Judean, we are grounded in a seemingly plausible setting. This would be a Qumran-like anti-
Jewish establishment polemic, with no external repercussions. The recasting of these charges into an anti-
Jewish saga occurred as Gentile believers, in their quest for legitimacy as rightful believers in Jesus,
appropriated the anti-Judean-establishment lore of the Jewish followers of Jesus. Experiencing a painful
and resentful estrangement from the descendants of the founding fathers, these Gentiles appear to have
turned these accusations into a tool to delegitimize the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement.

Indeed, the symbiotic nature of the focus on Jesus’ death and on ‘the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’
could not but damage the prospects of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers to lead
the Jesus camp, and did strengthen the proto-orthodox drive for ascendancy in the Jesus movement. As
narrator, audience, and perspective shifted – so did intent, content and deployment. The transition, in the
canonical Gospels, from the original culprits (‘the chief priests, the scribes and the elders’ – Mark 14:43) to
the different later variants of ‘the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ - seem to be reflections of this
shift.

291
The exoneration of the Romans+
The Romans were the acknowledged executioners of Jesus, were inhumanly oppressive, were engaged in an
ongoing persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus that was to be responsible for the martyrdom of
thousands, and were the mightiest empire of the time. Nonetheless, as we move from Mark to later texts,
the Romans are increasingly cast as ‘reluctant’ crucifiers and ‘the Jews’ are increasingly cast as Jesus’ willful
killers. We have seen that despite the almost unanimous agreement among modern scholars that the
Roman authorities where the main factor in Jesus death,3 the canonical Gospels create a continuum that
emphasizes the culpability of ‘the Jews.’

By the end of the first century, the Synoptics had settled the choice of patron and villain. The Roman
executioners were exonerated and became benefactors and sponsors, ‘the Jews’ became the scapegoat. The
inclination to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews was politically savvy; the Romans were the
choicest target audience, the promised land of power and plenty, and the largest reservoir of potential
converts. Furthermore, blaming ‘the Jews’ turns out to be supportive of the Pauline struggle against the
Jewish followers of Jesus.

Intended or unintended, by preventing the creation of an anti-Roman strand in the New Testament, the
Markan inclination to exonerate the Romans for Jesus’ death turned out to be politically expedient and
paid-off handsomely. The resentment generated by Jesus’ death was channeled toward the Jewish ‘culprit,’
allowing Paulines to be pragmatically accommodating toward Jesus’ executioners. It is noteworthy that
despite Jesus’ torturous execution and despite centuries of intermittent Roman persecution, no systemic
‘anti-Roman’ sentiment did develop among Gentile believers in Jesus. Christianity had chosen its scapegoat
and its benefactor, to the benefit of its coffers and the detriment of its soul.

Compatible views+
Rosemary Ruether, a Catholic theologian whose views4 created shock waves that reverberate to this day, is
clear and blunt on the consequences of the anti-Jewish strand embedded in the New Testament and its
impact on Christian culture:855

‘As long as the Christian Church regards itself as the successor of Israel, as the new
people of God substituted in the place of the old, and as long as the Church proclaims
Jesus as the one mediator without whom there is no salvation, no theological space is
left for other eligions, and, in particular, no theological validity is left for Jewish religion’

‘The Church made the Jewish people a symbol of unredeemed humanity; it painted a
picture of the Jews as a blind, stubborn, carnal, and perverse people, an image that was
fundamental in Hitler’s choice of the Jews as the scapegoat.
What the encounter of Auschwitz demands of Christian theologians, therefore, is that
they submit Christian teaching to a radical theological critique…The fratricidal side of

292
 Christian faith can be overcome only through genuine encounter with Jewish identity.
Only then might a ‘Judeo-Christian tradition,’ which has heretofore existed only as a
Christian imperialist myth, which .usurps rather than converses with the Jewish
tradition, begin to happen for the first time’

In response to a book dedicated to discuss her challenge,856 Ruether further chastises her fellow Christians
as follows:857

‘The Church must take responsibility for creating this cultural role of the Jews, even
though it murderous results were contrary to its strict intentions. Century after century
the Church nurtured the demonic image of the Jews with theological vituperation that
fed these murderous instincts, yet also tried to protect the Jews from the pogroms of the
mobs.’

‘The Church that turned the cross into an instrument of triumph and persecution must
now meet the Jews, the messiah-people, after the holocaust. The Church which
fomented a cultural myth about the Jew as Christ-killer must now meet itself as Jew-
killer. Those who pursued the Jews as deicides must know themselves as the ones who
laid the ground for genocide. If Christians are to find the Holocaust as the
contemporary image of the cross, as Paul Van Buren would do, they cannot do this by
portraying themselves as the innocent aggrieved ones. In this drama we are the
crucifiers, the heel of Roman power.’

‘If we are the followers of the crucified, then we must take our stand with the victims.
We cannot use the cross to be crucifiers of others. If we take our stand with the victims,
we cannot do this in a self-mystifying way, but today only in deepest shame and
repentance of our historical reality as the victimizers.’

Norman Beck addresses the consequences of the anti-Jewish strand as follows:

‘… the anti-Jewish polemic in the Christian New Testament over a period of many
centuries has contributed to the development of prejudices and actions that have been
extremely detrimental to Jewish life and community. As Christians, we are concerned
about what has happened to Jewish people during the intervening centuries due to the
fact of this polemic in the New Testament and the prejudices and oppressive actions
for which it has provided theological justification. … What are we who live as Chris-
tians during the latter decades of the twentieth century going to do about the anti-
Jewish polemic in the New Testament which has provided the theological basis for
oppressive, unjust, and extremely hurtful Antisemitism?’858

293
On the same subject:

‘As long as Christians were the marginalized and disenfranchised ones, such passion
fiction about Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence did nobody much harm. But,
once the Roman Empire became Christian, that fiction turned lethal. In the light of
later Christian anti-Judaism and eventually of genocidal Antisemitism, it is no longer
possible in retrospect to think of that passion fiction as relatively benign propaganda.
However explicable its origins, defensible its invectives, and understandable its motives
among Christians fighting for survival, its repetition has now become the longest lie,
and, for our own integrity, we Christians must at last name it as such.’859

‘Evangelical Christians have a more difficult positioning challenge. Some wish to

differentiate between ‘appropriate anti-Judaism’ and ‘inappropriate anti-Judaism.’ Here
‘appropriate anti-Judaism’ is a necessary component in any form of Christianity that
seeks to be true to the New Testament. That this can lead and has led to Antisemitism
is not denied. But that it is the same as Antisemitism or necessarily leads to
Antisemitism is denied.’860

‘The anti-Judaism which begins in the New Testament becomes much nastier in the
writings of the early fathers and in the legislation of the post-Constantinian emperors.
At least some of this development, however, must be understood as a misunderstanding
by later generations of the polemic of earlier generations. At least some statements
which were later understood to refer to Judaism or to Jews or to Jewish Christians were
originally made to correct beliefs and practices of Gentile Christians.’861

We need keep firmly in mind that most converts to Pauline belief in Jesus had little previous exposure to,
or direct contact with, Judaism. Their anti-Judaism was, for the most part, the result of indoctrination and
incitement, not of first-hand experience or knowledge – not the result of a learned rejection of Judaism.
These innocent believers absorbed and internalized a stereotypical, distorted, and imaginary view of
Judaism. The Law that Pauline-believers in Jesus rejected was not the Torah that the Torah-observant
Jewish followers of Jesus revered. The ‘Law’ that Pauline believers were induced into hating was an
imaginary, restricted and distorted caricature of the Torah that Jews have observed for generations.
Incredibly, this distorted misperception did populate Christian souls for more than two thousand years.

A gradual unraveling+
The gradual unraveling of the longstanding libel about ‘the Jewish culpability’ regarding Jesus’ death has
not yet run its course. This process is the result of decades of awe inspiring effort by Christians that have
labored tirelessly, often against strong counter-currents. This shift is also a consequence of the emotional
and theological trauma caused by the Holocaust, of the great human march toward religious tolerance, and
of the impact of increasing cultural and ethnic diversity in Western societies.

294
The final text of Nostra Aetate (‘In our Times’), the declaration of the Catholic Church on its relationship
toward the Jews, widely acknowledged as a precursor of a new dawn, reads:862

‘True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of
Christ; still what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without
distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new
people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if
this followed from the Holy Scriptures.’

The Nostra Aetate was the first historically significant re-statement of Christian views toward Judaism. It is
no coincidence that the statement centers on the Jewish responsibility for Jesus death, the epicenter of our
saga. Unfortunately, final document was a compromise that fell short of expectations:

A- ‘True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead…’
As indicated earlier, the persistent presentation of a corrupt elite; traitors despised by most Judeans and the
surrogates of the conquerors, as ‘the Jewish authorities,’ is disingenuous, unacceptable and tendentious
(although technically correct). The notion that a conquered nation is responsible for the actions of an
illegitimate leadership appointed by conquering armies is preposterous and suggests unstated agendas. The
identifiers ‘illegitimate and Roman-appointed High Priests’ or ‘illegitimate and Roman imposed authorities’
or ‘Roman appointed collaborators’ would be factual and truthful to context. Thus, unless unequivocally
corrected, the current text panders to old misconceptions and prejudices, worrisome in its avoidance of an
absolute rejection of the libel and in its impact on the uninformed.

B- ‘The Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God’ should be replaced by the simpler,
non-ambiguous and higher standard of: ‘the Jews were not rejected or accursed by God.’

C- ‘Although the Church is the new people of God…’ This supersessionary statement at the heart of an
historical overture is a frank disclosure of the core intent: the dispossession of the Jews as God’s chosen,
and should be eliminated.

D- The re-statement: ‘some Jews bear responsibility for Jesus’ death,’ a welcome deflation from the
traditional ‘the Jews bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death’ is nonetheless contaminated by anti-Jewish
bias.

Despite the fact that the final text was a compromise designed to placate the conservative wing of the
Catholic Church, and regardless of our reservations about the wording of the Nostra Aetate, we must
acknowledge that it was an historical accomplishment of great value and impact. Years later, Pope John
Paul II declared that ‘Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objective
manner, free from prejudices and without any offenses.’ Pope John Paul’s heart and mind were in the right

295
place. As a young priest in WWII Poland, Pope John Paul II saw the suffering of the Jewish people and
witnessed the deportation of his Jewish childhood friends to the death camps. The anti-Jewish incitement
that emanated from the pulpits and legitimized, nurtured and enabled anti-Semitism was obvious to him.
Intra-Catholic consensus building and the traditionalist backlash that followed the great strides of the 70s
and the 80s required him attenuate the pace of change. His courageous and groundbreaking personal
attitude expressed in this and many other statements were directed at alleviating the shortcomings of the
‘Nostra Aetate’ declaration of Vatican II.

The Responsibility for Jesus’ Death – Summary+

Conflict within the Jesus movement became inevitable as the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles
changed the demographics of the movement. Tensions festered as the relatively homogeneous sect of
Jewish followers of Jesus finds itself overwhelmed by an influx of recent non-Jewish converts, willing to
embrace Paul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus – but resentful of the attempt (by some among the Jewish
followers of Jesus) to impose Jewish beliefs and traditions on them.

We have already pointed out that in sharp contrast to the Pauline view, other factions held differing views
about Jesus death, its causes and implications. Some Gnostics believed that Jesus’ death was a positive
event signaling the end of his suffering. The Gnostic Gospel of Judas instructs us that, for some early
believers in Jesus, Jesus’ death was a welcome event (under most Gnostic belief systems the material world
is the dominion of demonic forces and life is to be escaped so that the divine spark within may join the
divine realm, where it belongs).863 Marcion had a different perspective: Jesus did not fit the Jewish
expectations for a messianic savior and thus was not recognized by most Jews (Marc.3, 6). Furthermore,
Jesus’ death was divinely ordained (Marc.3.24; 5.6).

We do not know the demographics of the Jesus movement at each decade following Jesus’ death.
However, we can say with relative certitude that the Pauline understanding of Jesus’ death and resurrection,
the intense focus on culpability that this belief entailed, and the consequent libel about the ‘Jewish
responsibility for Jesus’ death,’ were not embraced by all early believers in Jesus and were not intrinsic to all
forms of belief in Jesus.

The diversity of the Jesus movement during the second century instructs us that this emphasis was not an
inevitable or intrinsic outcome. We have seen that to all strands Jesus’ death was a matter of record, but
not the pivotal focus of belief. The realization that the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ was
theologically central to only one of the four earliest interpretations of Jesus’ ministry challenges us to query
and decode the evolution of proto-orthodox theology. Furthermore, the fact that the faction that strove to
demote and replace the Jewish followers of Jesus as the authoritative custodians and interpreters of Jesus
legacy also embraced the libel and made it into a central theological motif is intriguing.

Although we may have deciphered the process that lead to the emergence and growth of the anti-Jewish
strand in the New Testament and in the non-canonical lore, the process that lead to the emergence and

296
growth of the libel about ‘The Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’, is quite is opaque to us. It is plausible
that following Jesus’ death, accusations and rumors may have originated among his followers regarding the
responsibility for his death. Whether fact, rumor or grounded on a pre-existing Essene template,864 the
accusations against the Roman appointed ‘Jewish authorities’ may have been part of the folklore of the
Jewish followers of Jesus.

By appropriating the identity and lore of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers,
Pauline believers internalized the resentment of these Jewish sectarians toward the ‘Judean authorities’ and
made them their own. As these accusations or rumors migrated to the Gentile camp, Gentile believers
started to feel and to express themselves as Jewish sectarians. As these Jewish sectarian rhetorical staples
became part of the lore and self-perception of Gentile believers in Jesus they morphed, mutated and
intensified. Gradually, Pauline believers, engaged in a resentful struggle for legitimacy and ascendancy with
Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement, seem to have converted these appropriated Jewish anti-
establishment claims and lore, into anti-establishment arguments within the Jesus movement.

Furthermore, being strangers to the identity they had invaded-appropriated, and lacking the nuance,
allegiance and affiliations inherent in the Judean rhetoric they had internalized - Gentile believers poured
their anger and resentment onto all Jews. Bundling oppressed and oppressors, a nation and its illegitimate
rulers, is a shift that could occur only in a non-Jewish mind, alien to the events and to Judean socio-
political reality. It should be no surprise that, bent on de-Judaizing the Jesus movement and alien to the
tradition they were appropriating, the Pauline proto-orthodox literati and leaders told and remembered
Jesus’ ministry from the perspective of an outsider, i.e., disconnected from its historical context. The shift
from the martyrdom of a Jew at the hands of the Romans and their collaborators, to deicide by ‘the Jews,’
could only occur in a non-Jewish context.

It is no surprise that the emergence and the expansion of the libel about ‘the responsibility of the Jews’
served the interests of the adversaries of the Jewish faction within the Jesus movement, and was promoted
by them. As so often in this sad saga, slander is subservient to, and derivative of, socio-theological
interests. The emergence of an almost perfect match between the agenda of the Pauline faction (the
demotion of the Jewish followers of Jesus and the de-Judaizing of the Jesus tradition) and theology (the
focus on Jesus’s death and on the Jewish responsibility for it) is intriguing.

Is it a coincidence that the group that staged the takeover and the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus was also
the group that embraced wholeheartedly the theme of the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’s death and made
it a central theological tenet? Did the focus on Jesus’s death nurture attitudes that enabled and facilitated
the de-Judaizing drive? Or was it the other way around? Either way, we can say that the gradual
intensification in the ire against “the Jews” that we encounter in the New Testament, and the
accompanying Pauline libel about the “Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death,” could not but support the
Pauline drive to demote and delegitimize opponents that were Jews.

297
Despite all said, the Pauline proto-orthodox drive to de-Judaize the Jesus movement is not tantamount to a
conflict with Judaism. This observation stands despite the fact that with the passage of time, and loss of
context, this distinction was lost and Judaism came to be perceived as the enemy. Even though literal
readings of the canonical Gospels, embedded in a hegemonic Pauline proto-orthodox hermeneutic, yield
Judaism as the adversary - the actual opponents seem to have been the descendants of Jesus’ disciples and
first followers, and their Gentile sympathizers.

The Responsibility for Jesus’ Death – Afterthoughts+

The anti-Jewish strand is unique in its longevity, complexity and scope. The ‘Jewish rejection of Jesus’ and
the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ have been the oxen that have pulled the chart of traditional anti-
Judaism. A national poll of American adults conducted in 2003 found that 25 percent of those surveyed
accepted the statement, ‘Do you think that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ?’ as being
‘probably true.’ In a separate poll, the Anti-Defamation League’s 2002 survey, 26 percent said that Jews
were responsible for the death of Jesus. Yearly surveys conducted since in the USA and in Europe, show
no significant change in this sobering picture.865 Even though most modern-day believers in Jesus reject
the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death,’ the libel and the prejudices and derivatives associated with it are
still alive. Surveys instruct us that one in four American Christians, and one in five Europeans carry the
libel in their hearts. Half of these respondents disclosed that they believe that today’s Jews are to be blamed
for Jesus’ crucifixion. A host of corollary prejudices and stereotypes still loom large in people’s hearts and
minds and are deeply embedded and engrained.

The libel regarding the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ stands on truncated logic, as exemplified by a
couple of historical scenarios:

During the WWII occupation of Europe, the Germans imposed draconian measures against any and all
forms of dissent or subversion. Any activity that could potentially challenge the German occupation was
harshly uprooted. During this period, the Germans ruled through appointed sympathizers and
collaborators. Some among these imposed collaborators and their sympathizers among the populace
participated, facilitated, enabled or were complicit in the deportation of ‘dissident and subversive’
intellectuals and politicians. They were also responsible for the deportation and eventual murder of
hundreds of thousands of Jews in German death camps.

In these circumstances, is the statement that ‘the French,’ ‘the Belgians,’ the Deutch,’ or ‘the Italians’866
were responsible for the death of Jews, dissidents, and intellectuals in the German concentration camps’
accurate, meaningful?

Similarly, during the turn of the era, the Romans imposed draconian measures against any and all forms of
dissent or subversion throughout the empire. Any activity that could potentially challenge the Roman
occupation was harshly uprooted. During this period, the Romans ruled through appointed sympathizers
and collaborators. Some among these appointed collaborators may have participated, facilitated, enabled or
might have been complicit in the death of Jesus.

298
In these circumstances, the statement ‘some Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death’ may be technically
true, but it is also disingenuous, manipulative, tendentious and unhelpful.

Often, some of the truth is as reprehensible as a lie. In complex situations ‘truth’ is not necessarily ‘the
whole truth.’ The incoherence of blaming the ‘Jews’ for Jesus’ death may be further illustrated by rendering
‘Americans’ culpable for the assassination of Joseph Smith (the prophet-founder of the Mormon faith). It
is also not dissimilar to blaming ‘the French’ for the death of Joan D’Arc, blaming ‘the British’ for the
deaths of Thomas Becket and Thomas More, blaming ‘the Hindus’ for the death of Mahatma Gandhi,
blaming ‘the Greeks’ for the death of Socrates, or ‘the Muslims’ for the death of Hussayn bin Ali, just to
name a few.

Statements can be seemingly exact and nonetheless malicious and morally reprehensible. As stated earlier,
the ‘authorities’ at the center of the controversy did not represent ‘the Jews;’ they were hated ‘puppet’
appointees imposed by foreign conquerors, not the legitimate leaders of the nation. Acts that may have
been committed by them, or on their behalf, cannot be the responsibility of the people. Failing to clarify
this context is disingenuous, at best.

299
300
Chapter 12

*Consequences

Introduction
About sacrosanct hatred
The ancient background
An unintended journey
An edifice of incitement
The post-canonical trajectory
Afterthoughts

Introduction+
All human communities are subject to the curse that underwrites journeys from rhetoric to genocide.
Persistent disenfranchisement, de-legitimating and dehumanization of internal adversaries or external
enemies leads to human right abuses at best, genocide at worst. Anti-Semitism867 is an emotional and
intellectual predisposition that emerges following prolonged exposure to undifferentiated messages of
ambivalence and hatred toward Jews and toward Judaism that are perceived to be legitimate, sanctioned
and justified. The outward symptoms of anti-Semitism range from dislike to persecution, and from
contempt and ambivalence to genocidal inclinations.

The impact of the anti-Jewish strand on Christendom throughout the centuries is beyond the scope of
this monograph. My limited excursions beyond the fourth century have a limited goal; to explore the
connection between the anti-Jewish strand of the early years and anti-Semitism.

About sacrosanct hatred+

The Pauline penchant for extreme militancy seems to have emerged out of a conflation of multiple
factors that exacerbated and intensified outcomes. The trajectory that infused these religious enthusiasts
with unparalleled zeal may have started with the binary-dualistic worldview of the Jewish followers of
Jesus. In line with other Jewish sectarians, they seem to have developed a militant anti-Jewish-
establishment rhetoric and may have perceived reality as a struggle between good and evil, light and
darkness, right and wrong. When extricated from the original Jewish setting, where it was mitigated by

301
tribal kinship and by the Judean penchant for self-criticism and self-chastisement, this worldview fueled
a hyper-militant mindset among Gentiles.

Furthermore, the Pauline outlook was forged in the heat of a protracted struggle over legitimacy and
ascendancy within the Jesus movement, and in the midst of intermittent Roman persecution. This
environment further intensified militant and exclusivist attitudes. Defensive reactions to claims by their
adversaries may have also influenced the Pauline temperament: militancy may have evolved as
compensation for the theological diversity, confusion, and ambiguity that characterized the various
Gentile forms of belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the
Gentiles.

Moreover, ethical monotheism, the belief in one God that is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient
seems to engender, enable and facilitate the vilification of adversaries within, and of enemies without.
Since tragedy, suffering, and strife may not be assigned to a benevolent God, it must originate in wrong
beliefs, wicked minds or sinful souls. Moreover, ethical monotheists (Jews, Christians, and Muslims)
tend to characterize warfare as a contest between good and evil; a struggle of the forces of light against
the forces of darkness. Since the universe is the creation of a benevolent deity, the adversaries that ‘drag’
the ‘reluctant’ monotheist armies to a ‘just war’ must be on the side of evil. Therefore, ethical
monotheists tend to demonize and vilify the enemy, before they engage it.

The ancient background+

The evidence for the existence of pre-Christian anti-Semitism is tenuous at best. Nonetheless, there has
been a persistent effort to further the view that hatred of Jews and of Judaism is old and endemic.
Furthermore, there seems to be an enduring bias in New Testament scholarship that lowers the
threshold to the existence of pre-Christian anti-Semitism. Tensions and conflicts between Judeans and
other religious or ethnic groups have been often showcased as proof for the existence of ancient anti-
Semitism. However, occasional anti-Judean outbursts and the existence of some pre-Christian anti-
Judaic polemic do not amount to much more than inter-ethnical and inter-religious rivalry.

Tension and friction are inherent to human heterogeneity since times immemorial. Tensions between
Judeans and other groups in the Roman and pre-Roman periods are an historical fact. Undeniably,
frictions and conflicts between Judaism and other religious or ethnic communities were occasionally
accompanied by anti-Judaic polemic. This is a normal by-product of multi-cultural co-existence,
commonplace when and where religious communities share a geographical and socio-political
environment. Conflicts between Pagans and Judeans were not significantly different from conflicts
involving other nations or ethnic groups. We encounter Greek and Roman authors that praise or
criticize Judaism, alongside those that acclaim or denigrate other prominent non-Roman cultures.
Indeed, ‘If we exclude the situation in Alexandria and the passage from Tacitus, which heavily depend
on Alexandrian sources, we must conclude that Roman attitudes toward Jews and Judaism were much
more positive than the traditional view would allow. One might even argue that the traditional view
must be stood on its head.’868

302
 An unintended journey869+
The Gestation of antisemitism - Not every human atrocity is the result of trajectories from rhetoric to
Genocide. Nationalistic, xenophobic or cultural prejudice is present in many conflicts but may not be
sufficient to qualify as genocidal polemic. Genocidal polemic or genocidal discourses may emerge when
prejudice, conjectural tensions or self-interest are reinforced by secular or religious delegitimizing
narratives or ideologies. These perpetuate and exacerbate the antagonism and make it integral to the
community’s mindset and emotional makeup. Long standing feuds do not become genocidal as long as
they remain conjectural - as long as an ingrained secular or religious delegitimizing narrative is not
present.

We have seen that the attitudes of the Pauline leadership toward Judaism evolved through a complex
sequence of layers and phases that often-exhibited dynamics of symbiosis, interdependence, fusion,
confusion, reinforcement, intensification, retrojection, and projection. Throughout a trajectory that
encompasses seventeen hundred years, attitudes transited from inauspicious anti-Jewish-establishment
rhetoric from within the Jesus movement - to endemic anti-Semitism.

Throughout this study, we have tried to understand, and decipher, a polemical trajectory that:

A. Starts with the rhetoric of Jesus' Jewish followers against institutional Judaism - that
B. was appropriated-subverted by the Pauline leadership and aimed-back against the Jewish leadership
of the Jesus movement, and
C. engendered the Pauline rhetoric against the character, traditions and beliefs of Jesus' Jewish followers
that, with the passing of time and the loss of the original context,
D. morphed into rhetoric against the character, traditions and beliefs of Judaism -
E. culminating, eventually, in endemic anti-Semitism.

 The anti-Jewish-establishment posturing of the Jewish followers of Jesus, with its characteristic
militancy, extremism and intense fervor was harnessed by some Gentile believers to delegitimize the
Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement - and became among them, establishment theology.
 This seems to be how the Jewish followers of Jesus (‘The Jews’) became the target of their own Jewish
anti-establishment discourse. This is how, claims like ‘we are the New Israel,’ ‘you have lost God’s
favor,’ ‘you are no longer God’s chosen,’ ‘we are the new Zion’ characteristic and prevalent among
Jewish sectarians became integral to Christian theology.
 The drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and the claim to the authority, the legitimacy, the identity, and
heritage of the Jewish ‘founding fathers,’ deepened the resentment toward the Jewish elite that had been
brewing in the hearts of the non-Jewish majority since Paul’s days.
 A gradual fusion and confusion of the conflict among Jews (about whether Jesus was the awaited
messiah) with the conflict among believers in Jesus with Jewish, Gnostic, and Pagan inclinations and
affiliations (about what belief in Jesus should be) facilitated the later misperception about the existence
of a conflict between Judaism and Christianity.
 First the misperception, and later the perpetuation, of a mythical conflict between the ‘synagogue and
the Church’ were reinforced by the need, and wish, to blur and veil the drive to de-Judaize belief in
Jesus, and the demotion the descendants of those chosen by Jesus to be the custodians of his ministry.

303
 The gradual diffusion and success of the Pauline legitimating myth of origins that claimed to vest them
as the rightful custodians and interpreters of Jesus’ ministry and legacy intensified previous processes,
and accelerated the extrapolation and the externalization of the rhetoric that originated within the Jesus
movement, onto all Jews and onto Judaism.
 The canonization of texts originating, mostly, in Pauline communities and containing the polemic
accompanying conflicts and tensions within the Jesus movement - exacerbated and legitimated anti-
Jewish attitudes, and nurtured and facilitated the emergence of anti-Semitism.

Modern believers in Jesus have attempted to shielded themselves from full introspection by categorizing
anti-Semitism as marginal behavior. In fact, from the fifth to the twentieth century, anti-Semitism was
nurtured, facilitated, enabled and sanctioned throughout Christendom by religious lore and by religious,
cultural and political elites.

The anti-Semitic progression had a wide array of consequences. It impacted the lives, the hearts, and the
minds of hundreds of millions of people, Jews and Christians. It has been nurtured, facilitated and
enabled by an array of theological, cultural and emotional narratives, themes, concepts, attitudes and
negative stereotypes that were engendered during the period we have surveyed. They include:

1- The Jews are responsible for Jesus’ death; they are guilty of deicide.
2- The tribulations of the Jewish people are God's punishment for Jesus’ death and for their
forfeiture of God’s favor.
3- By their sinfulness and by rejecting Jesus, the Jews forfeited the covenant.
4- By virtue of a new covenant, Christians replaced the Jews as God's people.
5- The Jewish Bible (‘Old’ Testament) showcases the opaqueness and the stubbornness of the Jewish
people and their faithlessness to God.
6- The Jews are blind to the meaning of their own scriptures.
7- By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8- The essence of Judaism is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9- The New Testament religion — Christianity — emphasizes love; the Jewish Bible emphasizes
legalism, justice, and a God of wrath.

An edifice of incitement+
Excerpts from Martin Luther’s writings about Jews and Judaism provide us a glimpse into attitudes
prevalent during the sixteenth century. Luther’s views showcase the troubling fact that otherwise
profound and sensitive thinkers and theologians did harbor deep anti-Semitic feelings and contributed
to the edifice of hate that concerns us. Furthermore, it is important to internalize the fact that variants
of Luther’s views were embraced by many. Although there is no consensus about the impact, or the
importance, of Luther’s views on Jews and on Judaism, the words of the founder of the Protestant
movement are especially disheartening and are emblematic of views that were widely held at the time:

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since
they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their
lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing
and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of

304
which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of
God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from
the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse
than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere
advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever
will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be
done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are
Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and
blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past
unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now
that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right
before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ
and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even
worse ourselves, as we very well know.

In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally
destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would
be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy
4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtracted
from his law. And Samuel says in I Samuel 15:23 that disobedience to God is idolatry.
Now the Jews' doctrine at present is nothing but the additions of the rabbis and the
idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as
we said before), just as the Bible became unknown under the papacy in our day. So also,
for Moses' sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they
do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for such idolatry.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them
the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a
barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in
our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they
incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry,
lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life
and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor
Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commands
them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: ‘what they
teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.’ Those villains ignore that. They wantonly
employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them
with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive
with the declaration in Matthew 16:18, ‘You are Peter,’ etc., inducing us to believe all the

305
 lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with
the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews.
For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials,
tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now
traveling across the country with twelve horses his ambition is to become a Kochba
devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it
with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway
legally, someday a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the
true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their
activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become
participants in their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good
could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver
and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a
measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than
usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us what they possess. Such money
should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely
converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as
personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some
occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the
old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's
blessing in a good and worthy cause.870

It is difficult to reconcile oneself to the coexistence, in the same soul, of the most exalted and the most
reprehensible emotions and attitudes. The fact that the author of ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ is the
theologian that brought about The Reformation is especially discouraging for it epitomizes the split
cognition that enabled, even in the most important and lofty Christian theologians, deep anti-Semitic
attitudes.

The post-canonical trajectory+

The margins of human societies are populated by elements ever ready to unleash their frustration, anger,
and resentment on defenseless minorities. When a minority is marginalized and disenfranchised by
religious or political elites, a message of acquiescence to violence reaches our most troubled and violent
souls. Sanctioned and sanctified hatred lead to atrocities at the bottom of the social pyramid. Elites have
been aware of this ‘trickle down’ effect of incitement and have used it countless times for political gain
and to release and misdirect tensions - while at the same time enjoy deniability.

Historically, minorities have been targeted by elites intent on deflecting the frustration of the masses,
and on offering a scapegoat to quell popular anger. Since times immemorial elites have knowingly and
purposely unleashed the rage of the discontent on defenseless Jews and other minorities. Genocides

306
prior and after the Jewish Holocaust instruct us about the consequences of disenfranchising,
delegitimizing or dehumanizing members of other national, religious or ethnic communities.

Given the ingredients, the outcome is hardly surprising: the assault on Judaism intensified and became a
central theme in Christian theology, liturgy and culture. The persecution of the Jews was officially
sanctioned and sanctified by Christian rulers, theologians and clergy from the fifth century onward and
was nurtured and justified by sacred lore. Since, sanctified hatred has sent the mobs countless times to
vent their resentment and their frustrations on the Jewish minority. Anti-Jewish violence and hatred
have been ignited by overt incitement and by subtle appeals to ingrained prejudices. There has not been
a shortage of souls eager to understand the implicit, or explicit, message.

The anti-Jewish bias that we have tracked throughout our survey was the precursor, the enabler and the
facilitator of the endemic persecution endured by the Jewish people since the fifth century. From the
fifth to the mid-twentieth century, the Jewish-Christian saga has had many highs and lows, within an
overall context of cyclical and ingrained anti-Judaism. The Holocaust was a monstrosity of Nazi genesis
but it was nurtured, enabled and facilitated by the anti-Jewish sentiment embedded in the tradition and
by the marginalizing, the disenfranchisement, the disparagement, and the persecution of Jews and of
Judaism that predated WWII.

The persecution of the Jews throughout Europe has been intermittent in its historical scope, in its
intensity and in its geographical spread. The de-Judaizing of Europe between the reign of Theodosious
and the ninth century is a silent ethnic cleansing that is largely unknown and unacknowledged. Of the 5-
6 million Jews living in the Roman Empire at the dawn of the Christian Era, 1-3 million lived in Europe.
By the ninth century, the Jewish population in the empire had plummeted to a meager remnant. The
fate of the largest minority in the Roman Empire is unknown. How did they disappear? By what means
was this achieved?

The virulent anti-Jewish incitement pouring from all corners of European society does not leave much
room for doubt as to the means. We must suspect that most were forced to convert, fled or worse. This
silent disappearance has been largely erased from our historical memory, creating a vacuum that has
enabled the myth about the later emergence of ‘modern anti-Semitism.’

The scope and impact of the fifteen centuries of the persecution of the Jews are beyond our ability to
convey or grasp: at the high point of Solomon's kingdom, around 1000 BCE, some two million Jews
lived in the Land of Israel. On the eve of the destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.), the number
of Jews in the Roman empire and the other diasporas reached a peak of about 4.5 million. Prof. Sergio
Della Pergola an expert on Jewish demography, estimates that given an ideal hypothetical scenario,
without Anti-Semitism, persecution, forced conversion, and assimilation, there would be approximately
100-120 million Jews in the world today. Right before the Holocaust the Jewish population was
estimated at 16.5 million. Currently, the number of Jews is estimated at 13-20 million, depending on the
definition of Jewish identity – whether religious or cultural.

Words can, and do, kill. Language, YHWH’s instrument of creation, is the most powerful weapon in the
human arsenal. The causal chain that results in discrimination and genocidal violence begins with

307
incitement, delegitimizing and disenfranchisement. From time immemorial, elites have mastered the art
of incitement and sanctified hatred. The weak links in the societal chain often snap and act under the
influence of those that write, preach and teach. While these ‘rotten apples’ sometimes pay the price for
their actions, those that instigate and incite - are most often shielded. Protected by our distinction
between speech and action, we prosecute surrogates and minions and protect the ‘free speech’ of the
marketers of hate, shielding those guilty of incitement to hate crimes form accountability. The igniters,
enablers and facilitators of Genocide do not do the killing – their surrogates and minions do.

When a minority is disenfranchised, de-legitimated and de-humanized, genocide is in the air.

Unfortunately, it was necessary for the hate train to reach its ultimate destination, before Christianity did
awake and took notice. After the WWII ended and cinematographic evidence flooded the movie
screens, ambivalence and silent acquiescence turned into a groundswell of guilt, empathy and support
for the victims and for the survivors. Spearheaded by a small minority of courageous Christians that
protected Jews during the WWII, the post Holocaust era has witnessed a great Christian leap, a great
awakening of the Christian soul.

Consequences – Afterthoughts+
Some scholars see first and second century Judaism and Christianity as proselytizing competitors.
Others emphasize the need to sever the attraction to Judaism as the main thrust behind anti-Jewish
attitudes among early believers in Jesus. As suggested earlier, the rejection of Judaism by most Gentile
believers in Jesus and the rejection by the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers of
the many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to
the Gentiles, are the triggers of a protracted and bitter struggle about identity, legitimacy and authority
that burst into the open during the early decades of the second century. Judaism, Gnosticism and
Paganism were not participants in this struggle; they were the subjects of contention. This protracted
conflict between followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan and Gnostic affinities,
affiliations and inclinations engulfed the Jesus movement for several centuries and is the birth crucible
and the precursor of Antisemitism.

However, the authors of the canonical and the authoritative texts did not intend, nor anticipate, the
consequences of their campaign to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and to appropriate the identity and lore of
the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. These early Gentile believers in Jesus must be
exonerated of anti-Semitic intent despite the fact that the anti-Jewish strand that emerged out of their
challenge to the legitimacy of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers of the Jesus movement
was the foundation, the precursor, and the enabler of what was to come.

Moreover, ‘anti-Semitism’ is a nineteenth-century term associated with later socio-political realities, and
should not be applied retroactively. Therefore, and despite the heart’s ambivalence, we must exonerate
the writers and the early compilers and editors of the canonical and the authoritative texts from anti-
Semitic intent. However, our exoneration of the authors’ intent must note the fact that the intense
emotions that characterized the protracted effort to de-Judaize belief in Jesus, gave birth to pre-anti-
Semitic attitudes.

308
Nonetheless, the canonization of texts that embraced the anti-Jewish strand, and the misinterpretation
by later believers of the anti-Judaic rhetoric that accompanied this foundational crisis within the Jesus
movement - are the determining factors in the emergence of anti-Semitism. Without this component,
the conflict would have run out of combustion and would have found its place among the many
forgotten national, religious and ethnic struggles that do not disturb our sleep. It is first and foremost
the sanctification and the legitimating of the anti-Jewish strand that have made anti-Semitism the most
ferocious and longest lasting persecution the world has witnessed.

At present, the consequence of seventeen centuries of de-legitimization, dehumanization and

persecution of the Jewish people by institutional Christianity is modern anti-Semitism, the most
frequent symptom of which are derogatory stereotypes about Jews and Judaism. Despite a number of
Catholic and Protestant statements, and despite decades of positive interreligious relationships and
teachings aimed at rejecting anti-Jewish attitudes, the stereotypes associated with anti-Semitism survive
and infect minds and hearts throughout the Christian world. According to a study commissioned by the
American Anti-Defamation League, that investigated attitudes and opinions towards Jews in more than
100 countries via 53,100 interviews, 11% of the population in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian
countries believe six or more anti-Jewish stereotypes. In Western Europe, 19% of people in countries
with Catholic or Protestant origins believe six or more anti-Jewish stereotypes.

The Spanish-speaking world with more than 500 million inhabitants presents a special challenge since
29% of the inhabitants of the Spanish-speaking countries believe six or more anti-Jewish stereotypes.
Considering that the Spanish-speaking world is mostly Catholic and taking into account that the
Catholic Church has in recent decades fought anti-Semitism vigorously - the data is indicative of the
difficulty of eradicating the impact of the anti-Jewish indoctrination of the previous seventeen centuries.
The areas of influence of the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches, Greece, the Balkans, Eastern
Europe and Russia are of even greater concern. The percentage of inhabitants that believe six or more
anti-Jewish stereotypes being: Greece 69%, Poland 45%, Bulgaria 44%, Serbia 42%, Hungary 41%,
Belarus 38%, Ukraine 38%, Russia 30%.

The Muslim world, historically hospitable to Judaism but opposed to the creation of the state of Israel,
has adopted, internalized and actively promoted stereotypes that originated in Cristian antisemitism.
While Muslims are more likely to hold anti-Semitic views than members of any other religion (49% of
people believe six or more anti-Jewish stereotypes), geography makes a big difference in their views.
Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa are much more likely to harbor anti-Semitic attitudes
(75%) than Muslims in Asia (37%), Western Europe (29%), Eastern Europe (20%), and Sub-Saharan
Africa (18%).

309
310
Chapter 13

*The Present and the Future

Introduction
Catholics
Protestants
The dilemma
The current outlook
The road ahead
Afterthoughts
Probing the divine enigma

Introduction+
Since the end of the Second World War, Christianity has embarked on an admirable process of
introspection regarding its Jewish roots and its attitudes toward Judaism. For the first time in human
history, a religious community of great power and influence has entered a painful process of
introspection, self-criticism and rediscovery. The depth and width of this Christian rethinking is awe-
inspiring. This process is nothing short of paradigmatic,871 and will have great impact on how next
generations of Christian believers will address the Jewish-Christian saga. The eradication of the anti-
Jewish tendencies is but one dimension of this ongoing Christian introspection, that attempts to engage
a variety of legacies that disturb modern believers (Anti-Semitism, slavery, racial and ethnic prejudice,
colonialism, sexism, homophobia and religious persecution).872 However, although the anti-Jewish
strand is on the defensive, the battle is not over yet. Change has been most dramatic in the public arena,
and in liturgy. Commitment and implementation vary significantly. Progress is not uniform throughout.
Among academics, the recognition and the repudiation of the anti-Jewish invective in the New
Testament873 have gained momentum, but the strand remains intact in the authoritative lore.

At the dawn of the twenty first century, despite impressive initial momentum, we have a transition at a
standstill, a liberation march at a pause. Unfortunately, the great liberating winds of the 1970s have
subsided, and the opposition has succeeded in holding the battlefront short of irreversible change.

311
Unless forward movement is reignited, heartfelt contrition could become a temporary palliative on our
way to further harm.

The Catholic Church, benefiting from a centralized organization, has made significant progress in
engaging the anti-Jewish strand and has made substantial strides. Protestant denominations, with their
great diversity, range from most progressive to the some of the least. The Greek and Eastern Orthodox
Churches have been conspicuously ambivalent and minimalist in embracing, and implementing, the new
trends. Whereas Catholics and Protestants have engaged the ‘Jewish question,’ the Greek and Orthodox
Churches, dominant in Greece, the Balkans, eastern and south-Eastern Europe, and in the Middle East -
have been rather vague and less engaged.

The relative silence of the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the struggle against anti-Judaism
in their midst, combined with the rise of xenophobic sentiment in their area of influence, are of grave
concern. With a constituency that harbors deep anti-Semitic traditions, the Greek and Eastern
Orthodox Churches have not displayed the courage of their western counterparts. Enjoying a post-
Soviet religious renaissance, Eastern Orthodox Church has not harnessed the will, or the courage, to
engage the subject with sufficient focus and will. This neglect exacerbates traditional anti-Semitic
currents in these countries, and facilitates the stage for the current flare-up of anti-Jewish sentiment in
their areas of influence. Weak or non-existent traditions of human rights and tolerance, economies in
disarray, and ingrained anti-Semitism combine to set the stage for a disastrous outburst.

The most through and consistent effort has been by the Catholic Church and by liberal Protestant
denominations. Of most concern is the situation among some literalists that have self-segregated from
mainstream academic research, and in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Overall, to the exclusion of the
Eastern Church, the effort is impressive and unprecedented – but may prove to be insufficient.

During the last six decades, many courageous theologians and scholars have been hard at work, and the
fruits of their efforts are already with us. The annulment of the Deicide charge against all the Jews
(Vatican II), expressions of regret and apology by various Popes since, and statements by Protestant
denominations and by prominent Protestant theologians and scholars are welcome steps. At present, we
encounter a mixed picture that includes important historical declarations, significant changes in
attitudes, and a large array of halfway measures. Some declarations and statements are supersessionary
and patronizing, adding insult to injury. Many Christian leaders and thinkers have wrestled with the
realization that the canonical texts include tendentious and biased polemic. The recognition that,
although divinely inspired, sacred texts reflect the circumstances, agendas, shortcomings and flaws of
their writers, is an epic shift.

Furthermore, ‘studies of Catholic and Protestant textbooks used in religious education courses in this
country and in Europe. These studies show that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and
parallel Protestant official statements have indeed had a positive impact on the way the New Testament
and Jews and Judaism are presented in religious education programs on the local level.’874

The jeopardy in which the Christian soul has found itself is the result of human choices, not of divine
design. For some seventeen hundred years Christianity did understand itself to be the negation and the
rejection of Judaism, a choice that was both discretionary and tragic. Anti-Judaism is not intrinsic to

312
belief in Jesus. Reflection on alternative trajectories that were cut short may offer a source of inspiration
on viable paths to a future without anti-Jewish bias. Torah-observance, the teachings of Jesus and the
Gnostic insights were alternative Christian core beliefs that faded away under the militancy of the
victorious Pauline faction. The diversity of 21st century Christianity, extensive as it is, is limited by the
boundaries set by the faction that gained ascendancy. Much is to be gained by reclaiming ancient
alternative perspectives on the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and by reflecting on the implications of
early diversity on the validity of other paths to the divine.

Re-connecting with the diversity of the second century may support the strengthening of theological
edifices that do not depend on the anti-Jewish narrative. Recognition of the validity of other paths to
salvation enables coexistence in respectful harmony with other communities of faith.

Jewish-Catholic relations+
The Catholic Church has undergone a remarkable transformation and has marched at the forefront of
the battle against its anti-Jewish past. This shift was facilitated by its hierarchical and centralized
organizational structure, its ability to sequence decision-making and implementation, and its tradition of
emphasis on liturgy over scripture:

‘To a greater extent than Protestant statements, Roman Catholic documents spell out
the implications of theological statements on relations between Christians and Jews for
education (catechesis), preaching, and liturgy. The Roman Catholic contention is
doubtless correct that the actual ways in which prejudice against Jews was inculcated in
generation after generation of Christians were through the liturgy, education, and
preaching. If there is to be change, it will come not only at the level of theological
pronouncement but in attending to liturgy, education, and preaching in local
congregations.’875

At the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church took the unprecedented step of taking a
stand against anti-Judaism in its midst. In the ‘Declaration on the Relationship of The Church to Non-
Christian Religions’ (Nostra Aetate) it affirmed that:

‘Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as
repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures. All
should take pains, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of God’s word
they teach anything out of harmony with the truth of the gospel and the spirit of
Christ.’876

Despite the supersessionary emphasis of this statement, the overall momentum has been deflationary.
Time will tell if this stand will weather internal opposition, given that a traditionalist backlash was
already active and visible in Vatican II:

313
 ‘Second Vatican Council in Chapter 4 of the Declaration of the Relationship of the
Church and non-Christian Religions …The final version runs: ‘All should take pains,
then, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of God's word they teach
anything out of harmony with the truth of the gospel and the spirit of Christ.’ In the
light of the conclusions of the present study it is unfortunate that this should have been
the final formulation. For what 'the truth of the gospel' means with reference to the Jews
is still a matter of dispute, and it is not clear what is the 'spirit of Christ' with which it
seems very disparaging, biased, and condemnatory statements by Christians about Jews
can be made compatible. It would have been clearer for Christian theology—which has
to speak of Christ—if the penultimate version of this statement had been allowed to
stand: 'All should take pains, then, lest in catechetical instruction and in the preaching of
God's word they teach anything which might rouse hatred or contempt for the Jews in
the hearts of the faithful.’877

In 1988, the United States Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious relations
published a pamphlet, ‘Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion.’ This pamphlet
stresses that passion plays should not stereotype Jewish people. It also recommends avoiding casting
confrontational scenes between Jews and Jesus. According to the pamphlet, Jews should be portrayed
accurately, sensitively and positively. The Catholic Church today calls for great caution in all
presentations of the passion, to ensure that they not nurture anti-Semitic attitudes or behavior.

Protestants+
Reinhold Niebuhr, a leading American Protestant theologian and one of the foremost exponents of
American Neo-orthodoxy, was among the first to place the responsibility for anti-Semitism on the
Christian lap: ‘It is a problem that Hitler did not create but only aggravated.’ Niebuhr’s path-breaking
and lifelong support for Jewish causes has had an enduring positive impact on the Neo-Orthodox view
of Jews and of Judaism. Some of Niebuhr’s disciples and younger fellow Neo-Orthodox theologians
were among the first supporters of his diagnosis of the malignancy, an admirable and courageous stand
at the time.

Roy Eckardt, Niebuhr’s disciple and for many years Chairman of the Department of Religion at Leigh
University, went further than most in identifying the sources of Christian anti-Semitism. Eckardt saw
the Holocaust as deriving from Christian teaching about Jews:

‘To shut my eyes at the anti-Semitic proclivities of the Christian scripture is

indefensible.’878

Frank H. Littell, Methodist Minister, historian and Professor of Religion at Temple

University:879

‘No one can be a true Messiah whose followers feel compelled to torture and destroy
other human persons who think differently…The murder of six million Jews by
baptized Christians, from whom membership in good standing was not (and has not

314
 yet been) withdrawn, raises the most insistent question about the credibility of
Christianity.’880

Paul M. van Buren, whose Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality is a landmark in

the Christian self-examination of its relationship toward Judaism:881

‘Precisely the point of hesitation in the orthodox doctrine of the cross, the inability to
go so far as to say that God was directly, personally, and immediately involved in the
suffering of Jesus becomes unbearable when we reflect on the suffering of the Jewish
men, women, and children in the Holocaust. If God was not there, suffering with his
people, if God did not suffer a loss there at least as painful as that suffered on
Golgotha, then that God is not worthy of respect by moral persons.’882

Norman Beck has postulated the most far-reaching changes, including a new translation and
interpretation of the New Testament:883

‘If we will take seriously the statements of Christian groups such as the World Council
of Churches since 1948, the Lutheran World Federation and the House of Bishops of
the Protestant Episcopalian Church since 1964, the Second Vatican Council of the
Roman Catholic Church since 1965, the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. since 1971,
and The American Lutheran Church since 1974, we will repudiate the defamatory anti-
Judaic polemic of the New Testament not only in word but also in deed.’884

For Protestant denominations, decentralized and focused on scripture, change is difficult to achieve:

‘Most evangelical Christians are attempting to divorce themselves and their

communities from anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic inclinations, without negating
supersession and proselytizing. Due to the fact of the centrality of the incarnation and
the cross for any possibility of salvation, evangelical Christians believe that the Church
must continue to evangelize – even to the Jews. Nonetheless, evangelical Christians are
exercising more care and awareness in how they express the gospel and in how they
speak of Judaism.’885

‘Recent studies of anti-Judaism in Christian preaching find that it persists in strength in

contemporary Christian preaching, particularly among Protestants. Other studies
conclude that anti-Judaism is learned in church, specifically that laity learn it there from
clergy and teaching staff… Much of traditional Christian anti-Judaism persists in the
liturgy, hymns, and services of the church. A particular point of liturgical difficulty
surrounds the services held in Holy Week, specifically on Palm Sunday and Good
Friday. In planning worship services for Holy Week, pastors should take advantage of
all the benefits of recent scholarship pertaining to the events of the last week in the life
of Jesus.’886

315
The dilemma+
For almost two thousand years Christianity defined itself with the help of a Jewish mirror. Many
scholars and theologians are hard at work to define a positive Christian theology, devoid of its anti-
Jewish scaffold. Replacing the ‘over and against’ language of Christianity with a positive theology that
would let go of the anti-Jewish prosthesis is still a work in progress that encounters a traditionalist
backlash. The cultural, ethnic and religious diversity of the interconnected twenty first century seems to
favor a multi-covenant perspective.

Two thousand years after James’ blessing of a separate and valid mission to the Gentiles, Christianity is
re-evaluating its turning away from the recognition and embrace of diversity. Awakening to the
existence and to the pervasiveness of the anti-Jewish bias in the sacred lore and in the authoritative
tradition has been a slow process. Encountering the vicious virulence of the post-Apostolic period is
traumatic and sobering for most Christians:

‘As always, the victims remember; the victors forget. Consequently, when Christians
begin to absorb some of this hidden history, there is at first great incredulity. It seems
impossible that all this could have happened for so long, and we never heard of it! Our
history books did not mention it! The line, here and there, that touched on it went
unnoticed by us, unstressed by our teachers.’887

‘The Holocaust and the re-founding of the State of Israel have opened some startled
theological eyes, but in general theology has gone on as if nothing had happened. Now
Rosemary Ruether has posed in all its sharpness what must surely become the
theological question for Christians of our generation.

‘Possibly anti-Judaism is too deeply embedded in the foundations of Christianity to be

rooted out entirely without destroying the whole structure.’

It may be that the church will survive if we fail to deal adequately with that question,
but more serious is the question whether the church ought to survive. A Christian
Church with an anti-Semitic New Testament is abominable, but a Christian Church
without a New Testament is inconceivable. Many would add that a New Testament
without the Christ-event as its material center and the Pauline corpus as its formal
center would not be the New Testament at all.’888

‘No longer is it a case of the illegitimacy of Judaism. Unless they succeed in finding
within the New Testament some area which is substantially free of anti-Judaism, the
issue becomes the illegitimacy of Christianity.’889

if ‘we leave unchallenged and do not wipe out the tradition of anti-Judaism which we
have inherited, we shall have failed those who will follow us. Whatever we say about
the roots and rise of that tradition, we today — after 1945 — can no longer continue
it.’890

316
 ‘Is The New Testament so wholly contaminated by anti-Jewish prejudice as to lose all
moral authority? Can Christian theologians find a satisfactory way of expressing the
salvic meaning of the great symbols of their faith that possess religious power, without
lapsing into the anti-Jewish overtones of the past?’891

Many theologians and scholars are still reluctant to connect the anti-Jewish legacy of the early Christian
texts, which some have come to acknowledge, with the later development of a culture of incitement and
persecution. Although the evidence for this genealogy is well attested in the vast literature that we have
surveyed – most are stalling at crossing the Rubicon. The ‘dots’ representing the evidence that connects
sanctified denigration, disenfranchisement and incitement to anti-Semitism have been ‘out there’ for
many centuries. However, ‘connecting the dots’ seems to require a leap of insight that is difficult to
attain from within a hegemonic religious mindset.

Unintended journeys to ethical dead-ends often start from inauspicious beginnings, and end at
troublesome shores. I have suggested that genocide is at the door when the disenfranchisement and the
dehumanization of internal adversaries or external enemies merge with a secular or religious de-
legitimating narrative. The social fabric fractures following prolonged exposure to undifferentiated
messages of ambivalence and hatred that are perceived to be sacrosanct, legitimate, sanctioned and
justified. Furthermore, periods of crisis and uncertainty bring to the surface fears and anxieties that are
easily channeled against scapegoats, and adversaries within or enemies without.

During the last 50 years, the blunt and overt anti-Jewish incitement that used to emanate from the altars
and from the pulpits has been significantly de-legitimized. This retreat is a valuable tactical achievement,
but is not a strategic victory: although the anti-Jewish strand is dormant or in remission - it has not been
eliminated. The long and painful journey of introspection set in motion by the Holocaust is still
unfolding. Christians worldwide were appalled at what happened ‘under their watch.’

The ethical earthquake generated by the impact of the Holocaust should reverberate in Christian minds,
hearts and souls until the root causes are identified, eradicated and extricated. History teaches us that
temporary lulls are not signs of irreversible change. Unless the breeding grounds are thoroughly
cleansed, the past will recur. Sustainable change will require addressing the theological and cultural
sources that sustain and nurture anti-Jewish attitudes and sentiment. Whether extricating the anti-Jewish
strand from the Christian soul will require its extrication from the Christian textual heritage is a daunting
question for 21st century believers in Jesus.

The current status+

The second half of the 20th century was an eventful period for New Testament research (The
discoveries at Nag Hammadi and the Judean desert. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the rediscovery of Jesus the
Jew, and of the various second century strands of belief in Jesus). The second half of the 20th century
was also a turning point for Christian attitudes toward Judaism (The Holocaust, the rebirth of the State
of Israel and Vatican II). To a large extent, the impact of these events is still unfolding, and our current
understanding of them may be transitional.

317
A significant number of Christian congregations have explicitly divested the supersessionist outlook, a
crucial and positive course. The earliest declarations:

‘The singular grace of Jesus Christ does not abrogate the covenantal relationship of
God with Israel (Rom. 11:1-2). In Christ, the Church shares in Israel's election without
superseding it.’ Joint Catholic Protestant Statement to Our Fellow Christians, 1973

‘Jesus came not to destroy the Covenant of God with the Jews, but to affirm it in a
manner that would bring the blessing of God's people to non-Jews, also.’ 1977
Mennonite European Regional Conference

‘The church's claim to be the sole, New Israel of God can in no way be based on the
Bible.’ 1967 Belgian Protestant Council on Relations Between Christians and Jews

‘We reject the position that the covenant between the Jews and God is dissolved with
the coming of Christ.’ 1982 Texas Conference of Churches

‘We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people
of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore,
Christians have not replaced Jews.’ 1987 General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A)

‘Although the church, already in the New Testament, applied to herself several
promises made to the Jewish people she does not supersede the covenant people,
Israel.’ 1977 Central Board of the Swiss Protestant Church Federation

The realization that no religion can be understood through the polemic against it, that religious
narratives are self-contained universes, and that theologies are self-confirming and self-referential
discourses - is slowly gaining ground. Traditional views about Judaism are now less prevalent among
Christian theologians, scholars and clergy. There is a growing awareness that Judaism is to be studied
and understood from within, not through external polemical prisms and mirrors. The momentum seems
to be on the side of those working for a true Judeo-Christian ethos. Progress among theologians and
scholars has been the strongest. However, the great strides made in these matters in the theological and
scholarly arenas seem to have stalled at the gates of lay ears and hearts:

‘Despite decades of positive interfaith relations and teachings aimed at rejecting the
notion of Jewish guilt in the Crucifixion, surveys over the last four decades have found
that the question about ‘deicide’ has remained constant – at about 25 percent of the
population. Previous ADL surveys on anti-Semitism in America have found that while
the overall level of anti-Semitism has steadily declined since 1964, reaching historic

318
 lows in the late 1990s, the number of Americans who accept that ‘the Jews killed
Christ’ has remained virtually unchanged over a span of four decades.’892

‘…the documents that record ecclesial rethinking are typically prosaic and often
characterized by excessive caution and ‘church-speak.’ Consequently, they are largely
unknown, and their impact on the life of the church all too minimal. If the teaching of
the Catholic Church on issues of social justice is ‘our best kept secret,’ Catholicism's
rethinking of its relationship with Judaism is equally unknown. Nor are Protestants any
more aware of the reassessment in their own denominations.’893

Indeed. For the most part, clergy are seen as promoters and protectors of cherished truths and
traditions, not as heralds of newly found ones. Thus, pastors seldom step ahead of their congregations
for fear of finding themselves ahead, and alone.

The road ahead+

Christianity is a religion of faith, love, grace, salvation, and redemption. The vast majority of believers in
Jesus have no anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic inclinations. Furthermore, many of today’s believers in Jesus
consider Jews to be God’s chosen people and have but the warmest attitudes toward them. Therefore, it
is intriguing, perplexing, and noteworthy that most are unaware of the deep and pervasive presence of
the anti-Jewish strand in their theology, culture, and lore. The implicit and explicit crescendo of anti-
Jewish polemic that accompanies the tradition seems to elude the ears and hearts of most believers,
despite lifetimes of exposure to the disparagement and to the vilification of Judaism, its customs, and
traditions. For most, whose life in Christ is one of loving kindness and mercy, awakening to the anti-
Jewish bent that permeates the canonical and authoritative lore is a troubling and disconcerting
experience.

Decades ago, Reinold Niebur in his ‘Moral man and Immoral society’ did attempt to wrestle with the
vexing dissonance between the high ethics of individuals, and the often-troubling collective behavior of
groups. The purity and innocence of individual belief, on the one hand, and the loss of the ethical
compass by institutional religion on the other - are hard to reconcile. Will the current approach of
gradual declarations, and creative reinterpretation be enough to keep the anti-Jewish legacy at bay? Are
we leaving behind the seeds of recurrence?

Aware of past cycles of recurrence, we must be concerned that the current spirit of tolerance could be a
temporary lull - not permanent, positive, and irrevocable change. History teaches us that when root
causes are not eradicated, recurrence is the rule rather than the exception. Since the anti-Jewish strand
lays untouched in the canonical lore, given the cyclical and recurring nature of the anti-Jewish
phenomenon, and given the human propensity to fall prey to discourses of incitement – we must reach
the somber assessment that despite great strides, recurrence is still the probable outcome. If the anti-
Jewish strand remains in the texts, Jews will not be free from the specter of anti-Semitic recurrence, and
Christians will not be free from its malevolent influence.

319
Although religions are self-referential discourses that do not require external validation, and Torah
observance and the covenant between the Israelites and their God are not subject to validation by non-
Jews, the anti-Jewish strand embedded in the Christian lore requires our attention and demands our
concern.

While many scholars, clergy, theologians and lay believers repudiate anti-Jewish attitudes, the texts that
harbor the anti-Jewish strand, and have nurtured and enabled anti-Jewish attitudes, remain intact. Many,
considering the difficulties ahead, find themselves incapable of moving from symbolic declarations to
the cleansing phase of extrication. Some fear that the dependency is too great, that the malignancy is
intertwined with vital theological tissue, that extrication would endanger the theological and emotional
core of belief in Jesus. N Beck has instructed us that cleansing the theological dependency on anti-
Judaism requires three stages: recognition, repudiation and extrication. Progress has been greatest in the
declaratory and symbolical areas of recognition and repudiation. As necessary, the first changes were at
the symbolic, declarative and doctrinal levels. Most, misguidedly, hope that repudiation and creative re-
interpretation will suffice. The frontlines have been slowly and painstakingly closing-in on the core issue
of the appropriateness of the anti-Jewish strand as a sacred motif. Extrication remains the greatest
challenge.

The current re-evaluation of Christian attitudes toward Judaism has not resulted in uniform and
monolithic change. The fragmentation and the diversity of modern Christianity guarantee painstakingly
slow progress. This diversity implies that different segments of the Christian fleet will choose different
paths and will travel at different speeds. Change will be gradual and hard fought. The effort to eradicate
the anti-Jewish strand from Christian lore, if embraced, would be a gradual and protracted process too.

Although many scholars and theologians are engaged in the effort to define a positive Christian
theology, free from the anti-Jewish scaffold, the great excitement of the first phase has subsided, while
the most difficult tasks are still ahead. The challenges ahead are daunting, the stakes are great., and a
unique window of opportunity may be closing-up. As the Christian generation that witnessed, and was
burdened by the Holocaust leaves the world stage, the impetus for change is losing momentum –
without having reached irreversible closure.

As time passes, there are fewer and fewer people alive carrying the Holocaust in their hearts, minds and
consciences. Without the sense of urgency that characterized the post-Holocaust era, it will be difficult
to gather the momentum needed to bring about further change. In these circumstances, the advantage
goes to the ingrained-incumbent-traditional narrative. The fact that disparagement, abuse, dismissal, and
trespassing have been deemed appropriate for the exhortation, edification, and inspiration of the faithful
is hard to accept or comprehend. Anti-Semitism, acknowledged by one in eight Americans and
Europeans, and unknown numbers worldwide - is a ticking bomb that must be addressed.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, mainstream scholarship and most believers have turned away
from traditional views on Jews and Judaism. The view that a proselytizing struggle between turn of the
era Judaism and early Christianity may have been the main generator of anti-Jewish attitudes among
early Gentile believers in Jesus seems to be espoused by many (the competitive thesis). Scholars that

320
embrace this model often describe anti-Judaism as the consequence of excessive militancy by the more
aggressive and vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone awry.

A variant of this competitive thesis or model sees the attraction of some turn-of-the-era Gentiles to
Judaism as the main generator of anti-Jewish sentiment among early Gentile believers. Under this
construct, attraction to Judaism infuriated Gentile leaders and intellectuals and fueled the anti-Jewish
fervor that is embryonic in the canonical lore and permeates the authoritative texts thereafter.

We now know that prior to the fourth century, there were believers that advocated differing views about
what belief in Jesus was, or should be. Therefore, we need internalize the fact that all these believers
understood themselves to be the only ‘true’ Christians and viewed their adversaries’ beliefs as heretical,
misguided, or inadequate. The re-discovery of the diversity of the early Jesus movement requires the
retroactive legitimating of all interpretations of Jesus’ ministry. The implications of this early diversity
and of the re-placement of the origins of the Jewish-Christian saga within the Jesus movement, are the
main themes of this monograph.

Each of the relevant meta-narratives or models; the traditional thesis, the competition thesis of
Simon,894 and the thesis suggested in this monograph, have implications of great importance and scope
for the future of both religions. The future of Judeo-Christian relations and the future of the Christian
self-perception depend on which meta-narrative on the Christian origins and on Jewish-Christian
relations will be eventually embraced, taught and internalized by institutions and believers.

The debate about whether the deprecation of Judaism that permeates the canonical and the authoritative
texts is historically, theologically and ethically justifiable, and whether it is an appropriate theme and
component of sacred lore, needs to remain at the forefront of the debate. The danger to the Christian
soul and to Jewish lives dictates a decisive approach. We should not wait for the future to unfold to find
out whether the current approach was sufficient and effective.

As long as a legitimating narrative is available to nurture the fire, the ever-present danger may resurface
when the circumstances are propitious. The anti-Semitic monster may burst out again, should a new
generation of marketers of hate gain hold of the Christian soul once more. As we wait for the future to
unfold, many Jews (and some Christians) fear that the cancer may recur during periods of instability and
anxiety, when the societal immune system is at a low point.

Twenty first century believers in Jesus yearn for a personal connection with the divine and for a life in
harmony with Jesus’ teachings. Many modern Christians shy away from the old agendas and stereotypes,
and seek a life grounded in a post-historical Jesus. Inner spiritual search has replaced traditional
affiliation and adherence to dogma. Many have actively distanced themselves from exclusivist-
adversarial-triumphalist elements. Many have embraced a post-dogmatic faith that centers on Jesus’
message of unconditional love and on belief in Jesus’ death for the sins of the world. Thanks to
worldwide efforts by the Catholic Church and by most Protestant denominations, Judeo-phobia is in
retreat from the public arena, and, hopefully, from the hearts and minds of clergy and lay believers in
the West.

321
The great gains of the last forty years have enabled a return to normality and improved security for the
Jewish people. A process of healing and rehabilitation from multi-generational trauma is under way. An
increasing number of Christians are Judeo-Christian in inclination and emotional predisposition.
However, most have not ‘gone, yet, the extra mile.’ Only absolute respect for the ‘otherness’ of other
cultures and religious traditions, extrication of the anti-Jewish strand from the sacred texts, and the
divestiture of claims to exclusivity of access to salvation and to the divine - may foster the advent of a
‘Judeo-Christian’ age. A true Judeo-Christian ethos can only come about through an encounter of
mutual respect between two independent, legitimate and equally valid dispensations - free from the
specter of the anti-Jewish strand, and supersession theology.

Sacred scriptures are the depositories of our collective engagement with the divine as understood
through the fog of human imperfections and limitations. Imperfect hearts and minds can only produce
imperfect vehicles of faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that believers were involved in religious
debates, that tempers flared, and that the literature we surveyed was written. It is, however, deeply
disappointing and troubling that religious leaders sanctified, exacerbated, and perpetuated the attitudes
and emotions that accompanied the contentious evolution of belief in Jesus. For almost two millennia
anti-Jewish attitudes were nurtured, deemed worthy, and edifying. The consequences of the unintended
journey that ensued are sobering, their scope difficult to grasp.

In the past, believers could rightly claim innocent ignorance about the existence and the consequences
of the anti-Jewish strand. However, twenty-first-century theologians, religious leaders, and believers
seem to be poised to determine for all times, by action or by default, whether the anti-Jewish strand that
lies dormant in their tradition reflects the spirit of God or the human shortcomings and imperfections
of the authors and editors of the texts. Ultimate responsibility rests with those that write, teach and
preach.895 It is the religious, intellectual and power elites of the past that stand accused as we
contemplate the consequences of the anti-Jewish turn in early Christianity. The past is their burden. On
the other hand, it is the religious, intellectual and power elites of the present that must contemplate the
future consequences of preserving the anti-Jewish strand in the canonical lore. The future is their
burden.

The Present and the Future – Afterthoughts+

We have noted that most of today’s believers are not aware that the canonical and the authoritative
literature harbors an anti-Jewish strand. Most are not aware of its impact on how believers in Jesus have
thought and felt about Jews and about Judaism. The realization that their sacred literature may be
contaminated by an anti-Jewish strand is a traumatic surprise to most modern-day believers in Jesus.

One characteristic of derogatory discourses is that they become invisible to those within the culture.
Becoming aware to captivity to a reigning paradigm, and exorcising its hegemony, requires awareness to
the fabric of our consciousness and tests the limits of our intellect and our emotional fiber. We live
within meta-narratives whose underpinnings we seldom ‘see’ and rarely question. For the most part,
cognitive templates emerge, are preserved, and are nurtured without the conscious awareness of its
constituents.

322
This peculiar phenomenon may be illustrated by an anecdote. During the 1970s N. Beck, with whom I
share the experience of an unintended encounter with the anti-Jewish strand, was given the assignment
of investigating whether the New Testament contained a systemic anti-Jewish bias. Up to that moment,
despite graduate studies in theology and a lifetime of belief in Jesus, Prof. Beck had not ‘seen’ the anti-
Jewish strand – showcasing the phenomenon of our blindness to hegemonic narratives. Following his
research and the presentation of his conclusions, Beck authored his influential Mature Christianity, The
Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament.

The suffering of the Jews during the last fifteen hundred years cannot be overstated. However, little has
been said about the ‘collateral’ damage of this malignancy: its impact on the souls of millions of
Christians. Throughout the ages the anti-Jewish narrative has not only victimized Jews and Judaism; it
has also victimized the Christian soul. The impact of the anti-Jewish strand on the Christian soul may be
the untold story within this saga:

‘Ultimately, we might even say inevitably, those in positions of power and authority
won out. And in the process they painted a depressingly negative picture of their
opponents—in this case of Jews and of those whom we might call the Christian
friends of Judaism. All of us, I fear, have been victimized by the consequences of their
victory. But at the same time, as I have tried to argue in this paper, that victory need
not be final. For all of us it may still be possible—many centuries after the initial
victory—to hear the full debate and to decide for ourselves who the winners are and
who the losers.’896

This Jewish-Christian tale is a case study of enthusiasm gone awry, of militancy turned genocidal. The
processes that underwrite the journey from rhetoric to genocide are not unique to the Jewish-Christian
relationship. Persistent and undifferentiated disenfranchisement, de-legitimating and de-humanizing of
internal adversaries or of external enemies lead to human right abuses at best, genocide at worst. These
potential ethical failures threaten all human communities, nations and religions. At the dawn of the 21st
century we hear the drumbeat of religious and xenophobic acrimony emanating from various corners of
the globe. We must not allow our ancestral narratives, fitted for a clannish, tribal and religiously
exclusivist world, to dominate our lives in the multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-national world of
the 21st century.

On the other hand, it is important not ‘to equate modern, racial antisemitism, the genocidal ideology of
Nazism, with the ancient Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism. While the latter can be
said to have paved the way for the former, they are qualitatively different. The latter led to force
conversions, ghettos and all too frequent massacres of Jews throughout European history, but it never
conceived of the idea of genocide as such.’897

My deep admiration for the sincere and awe-inspiring efforts of the last 40 years and my awareness of
the excruciating difficulties ahead, do not change the fact that Jewish lives (and the Christian soul)
remain at risk. Although the anti-Jewish mindset has been weakened, the hosts of hate have not been

323
eradicated - they have been partially subdued. This grave danger to the Christian soul and to Jewish lives
dictates a decisive stand. Without it, the troublesome footprint of resentment toward adversaries that
were Jews will continue to reverberate and point in the wrong direction. As long as the anti-Jewish
narrative is available to nurture the fire, this ever-present danger may resurface, as exemplified by the
four cycles of anti-Jewish recurrence surveyed earlier.

We must acknowledge that the ‘unintended journey’ of early Gentile believers in Jesus will remain
somewhat veiled and opaque. However, within the possible outcomes, the proposition that the anti-
Jewish strand originated in a struggle between followers of Jesus with Jewish, Gnostic and Pagan
inclinations and affiliations is deflationary. If explored further and found worthy, this meta-narrative
may contribute to reduce the tragic and harmful impact that the anti-Jewish strand has had on the
reading and understanding of the authoritative texts.

Probing the divine enigma+

The rivers of human faith probe the divine enigma. Great civilizations have risen and fallen in the fertile
valleys nurtured by them. Whereas civilizations have been adversarial, self-centered and self-referential,
we seem to have arrived at a crossroad that may open new horizons. Humanity has slowly and painfully
traveled from ethnocentric ancestral myths to an emerging awareness of the equivalence of all humans,
and of the legitimacy of multiple paths to the divine. The realization that the religious fountains that
nurture our souls and our communities are part of one universal spiritual quest, comes from our
increasing awareness of a shared human destiny.

However, the rivers of faith we currently see and experience are no longer pristine, serene and vital. The
vitality of these rivers has been compromised by the debris of past human conflicts and by the pollution
of their waters in the upstream of history. Boulders and debris from the historical upstream cause most
of the rivers’ turbulence. When the rivers flood; the debris becomes deadly. Pollutants originating in the
historical upstream are poisoning the rivers’ inner life. This current state is not a natural, necessary or
preordained outcome; it is the result of millennia of contamination. Human imperfections and human
shortcomings have brought our rivers of faith to their current state. This is a reversible human-made
situation.

Judaism and Christianity originate in countless springs and tributaries, some of which we share in
strange and often tragic ways. Regardless of differing understandings of how we got here, our destinies
are intertwined. For centuries, our tragic saga was perceived as preordained, inevitable. We now have a
better understanding of how we arrived at this juncture. We have a better understanding of the causes
for the recurring floods, the reasons for the rivers’ turbulence and for the pollution of their waters. We
can take control of our future and avoid the tragic floods that have periodically devastated our
communities and our souls. Human progress has brought us to the threshold of a new paradigm where
self-perpetuating orthodoxies and dogmas are crumbling under the impact of uncensored inquiry.

We now know that our life-sustaining rivers carry troublesome residues originating in the historical
upstream. The debris and the pollution are not their essence; they are their curse. By extricating the
debris, and by good works, we can gradually clean up past pollution and prevent further contamination.

324
Cleaning up the debris and the pollution of ancient conflicts will restore the rivers to their natural and
majestic state. A dam of fellowship at their upstream would keep recurring floods out of our lives.

Sixty years have passed since the last great flood. Complacency has settled-in. We have done a
reasonable job at the downstream, but we have failed to extricate the boulders and the debris at the
upstream. We may be squandering a temporary reprieve and making tragic recurrence inevitable. We
must extricate the debris from our socio-theological upstream and rejoice anew in the majestic flow of a
serene, positive, self-assured and forward-looking encounter with the divine enigma.

Journeys of inquiry into our tragic past are emotionally difficult for all involved. We do share a
disturbing past about which we can do little and a future that is up to us. Let’s be inspired by the great
minds on whose shoulders we stand; the courageous theologians and scholars that have led the way in
the effort to cleanse their lore and faith from the debris of an unintended journey, and from the all-too
human imperfections of its authors and past interpreters.

Critique, commentaries, and dialogue are welcome jchrelationsfirstcenturies@gmail.com

325
326
 *Teaching Highlights+

PG.
A. Preview 19-25
B. The Gentile-Jewish arguments 21-22
C. Three meta-narratives 22-23
E.
F. The Protagonists 27-29
H. Polemic in the New Testament – Chapter 227
K. My Paul 60
L. New Testament and Qumran 64
M. My James 81
N. A growing tension - The Gentile dilemmas 83
O. Categories of anti-Judaism 85
Q. My Mark 97
R. My Matthew 106
S. Marcion and Luke/Acts 1111
U. My Hebrews 156
W. The Pauline compromise – The Via Media 189
X. Theology gone awry 209

327
a. Delegitimizing the Disciples 255
b. Challenging Unassailable Legitimacy 258
c. Projection onto Judaism 259
d. About Judaizing 263
e. An Elusive Jewish Response 266
f. The Anti-Jewish Strand 270
g. Orthodoxies and Sacred texts 271
h. What If? 272
i. Polemic in The New Testament – Summary 276
j. The traditional narrative 279
k. The post Constantine era 288
m. The Responsibility for Jesus’ Death 291
n. Consequences 303

328
  *Bibliographies of important topics

The synoptic problem-

Mark and the Disciples –
Mark’s incomprehension motif
The Jewish followers of Jesus -
Who Killed Jesus -
Appropriating the Jewish Scriptures –
The parting of the ways-
Supersession-
The myth of Jewish proselytizing-
Birkhat Haminim: the benediction against the heretics-
Adversus Judaeos literature-

-----------------

The synoptic problem

On present state of synoptics research: Burkett Delbert Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark
(2004); Burkett Delbert The Unity and Plurality of Q (2009); Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and
Verheyden Joseph eds. New Studies in the Synoptic Problem BETL, vol. 239 (2011); Sim David Matthew and the
Synoptic Problem Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Joseph eds. New Studies in the
Synoptic Problem BETL, vol. 239 (2011); Arnal William The Synoptic Problem and the Historical Jesus NSSP (2011)
371-432; Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Jozef eds. New Studies in the Synoptic
Problem (2011); Becker Eve-Marie and Runesson Anders eds. Mark and Matthew I and II: Comparative Readings:
Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (2011, 2013). The papers in the first volume focus on the two
gospels in their first century settings. The papers in the second volume focus on the reception history of these two
gospels; Kloppenborg John S Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays WUNT, vol. 329 (2014); Goodacre Mark The
Farrer Hypothesis and Farrer Hypothesis Response in Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (eds.), The Synoptic
Problem: Four Views (2016) 47-66 and 127-38; Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer eds. The Synoptic Problem: Four
Views (2016); Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 18-41;

Mark and the Disciples

Neufeld, Dietmar Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (2014); Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and
Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 41-43, 196-199; Black, C. Clifton The Disciples According to Mark:
Markan Redaction in Current Debate (2012) for an updated survey of scholarship on the Markan disciples; Watson,
David F. Honor among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret (2010); Donahue, John and Daniel
Harrington The Gospel of Mark (2002); Henderson, Suzanne W. Concerning the Loaves: Comprehending
Incomprehension in Mark 6.45-52 JSNT 83 (2001) 3-26; Danove Paul Paul The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’s
Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples JSNT 70 (1998) 21-38; Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry Irony in Mark’s Gospel:
Text and Subtext SNTSMS, 72 (1992); Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: ReaderResponse Criticism and
the Gospel of Mark (1991); Matera, Frank J. 1989 The Incomprehension of the Disciples and Peter’s Confession
(Mark 6,14– 8,30) Biblica 70: (1989) 153-72; Best, Ernest Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according
to Mark (1986); Donahue, John R. The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983); Hawkin,
David J. The Incomprehension of the Disciples in Markan Redaction JBL 91 (1972) 491-500; Tyson, Joseph B. The
Blindness of the Disciples in Mark JBL 80 (1961) 261-68.

Mark and the incomprehension motif

329
Attempts to decipher Mark’s characterization of the disciples and the ‘incomprehension’ motif abound: Neufeld,
Dietmar Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (2014); MacDonald, D.K. The characterisation
of a false disciple: Judas Iscariot in Mark’s Gospel McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 15 (2013)119–135;
Iverson, Kelly R. Wherever the Gospel Is Preached’: The Paradox of Secrecy in the Gospel of Mark in Kelly R.
Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner eds. Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (2011) 181–209; for an updated
survey of scholarship on the Markan disciples see Black, C. Clifton The Disciples According to Mark: Markan
Redaction in Current Debate (2012); Watson, David F. Honor among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic
Secret (2010); Guijarro Santiago The First Disciples of Jesus in Galilee Hervormde Teologiese Studies 63.3 (2007)
885-908; Skinner, Christopher W. Whom He Also Named Apostles: A Textual Problem in Mark 3:14 Bibliotheca Sacra
(2004) 322–9; Wilkins Michael J. Unique Discipleship to a Unique Master: Discipleship in the Gospel according to
Mark Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 8.3 (2004) 50-68; Maloney Linda Mark and Mystery Currents in Theology
and Mission 30.6 (2003) 433-437; Donahue, John and Daniel Harrington The Gospel of Mark (2002); Henderson,
Suzanne W. Concerning the Loaves: Comprehending Incomprehension in Mark 6.45-52 JSNT 83 (2001) 3-26; Moo
Douglas J. Question Mark: Understanding the Gospel of Mark Leicester: Religious & Theological Studies Fellowship
(2000); Malbon Elizabeth Struthers in the Company of Jesus: Characters in Mark’s Gospel (2000). Danove Paul Paul
The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’s Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples JSNT 70 (1998) 21-38; Camery-
Hoggatt, Jerry Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext SNTSMS, 72 (1992); Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader
Understand: ReaderResponse Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (1991); Matera, Frank J. 1989 The Incomprehension of
the Disciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14– 8,30) Biblica 70: (1989) 153-72; Best, Ernest Disciples and
Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark (1986); Donahue, John R. The Theology and Setting of
Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983); Hawkin, David J. The Incomprehension of the Disciples in Markan
Redaction JBL 91 (1972) 491-500; Tyson, Joseph B. The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark JBL 80 (1961) 261-68.

The Jewish followers of Jesus

Q AND M – The earliest Jewish followers of Jesus -
On the Q source: Q is believed to be the earliest source, generally dated 40–50 CE.- Kloppenborg John S Composing
Matthew by Recomposing Q: The Composition of Matt 23–25.’ (2016); An Early Reader of Mark and Q van Belle
Gilbert and Verheyden Josef eds. Biblical Tools and Studies, vol. 21, 187–215 (2016); Harb G. (ed.), Documenta Q:
Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated (2012); D.A. Smith
D.A. Matthew and Q: The Matthean Deployment of Mark and Q in the Apocalyptic Discourse ETL 85 (2009) 99-116;
Burkett Delbert The Unity and Plurality of Q (2009); Kloppenborg John S Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to
the Original Sayings and Stories of Jesus (2008); Luz Ulrich Matthew and Q (2005); Dunn, Christianity in the
Making—Vol 1— Jesus Remembered (2003) 60, 144, 147; Darrell Bock, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, David
Alan Black and David R. Beck, eds. (2001); Robinson James M., Hoffmann Paul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. The
Critical Edition of Q (2000); Kloppenborg J. S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (2000),
Robinson J.M. The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark, in Yarboro Collins (ed.), Ancient and Modern Perspectives
on the Bible and Culture (1998) 122-15; Chapter 1; Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity
(1996); Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah (1994); Hartin Patrick James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47
(1991); Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 128–171; Kloppenborg J. The Formation of Q (1987);
John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (1986);
On the M material: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015).
Amy-Jill Levine The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (2014), Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat and
the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; On the M material: Stephenson Brooks
Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat
and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; Snodgrass Klyne R. Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2008); Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1997) 2:403-18; Kingsbury Jack Dean The Parables of Jesus
in Matthew 13: A Study in in Redaction-Criticism (1969)

General - Bibliowicz Abel M. Jewish-Christian Relations, The First Centuries (2016) ; Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and
Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013); Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007); Skarsaune

330
Oskar The History of Jewish Believers in the Early Centuries in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:
Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (2007); Skarsaune Oskar Jewish-Christian Gospels: Which and How Many? In
Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in
Judaism (2006) 393-408; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First and
Second Centuries CE (2004) 77-93; Knox John The Origin of the Ebionites in The Image of the JudaeoChristians in
Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81; Taylor Joan E
The Phenomenon of Early Jewish Christianity: Reality or Scholarly In The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient
Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003); Gager, John G. Did Jewish
Christians See the Rise of Islam?’ in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages. Edited by A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (2003) 361-72; Mimouni, Simon C Les elkasaites: etats des
questions et des recherches in The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in the Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature.
Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 209-29; Tomson P. J. and Lambers-Petry D. The Image of the
Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (2003); Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache:
Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); Jones F. Stanley Hegesippus as a Source
for the History of Jewish Christianity in Le Judeo-christianisme dans tous ses etats: Actes du colloque de Jerusalem 6-
10 juillet 1998. Edited by S.C. Mimouni and F. Stanley Jones (2001); Hengel, Martin. Early Christianity as a Jewish-
Messianic, Universalist Movement in Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Edited by D. A. Hagner (1999) 1-
41; Paget James Carleton Jewish Christianity in vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism Edited by William
Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999) 731-75; Knox John Jews and Jewish Christians in the Land of Israel
at the Time of the Bar Kochba War, with Special Reference to the Apocalypse of Peter in Tolerance and Intolerance in
Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa (1998) 228-38; Horbury William Jewish
Messianism and the Cult of Christ (1998) 1-41; McLaren, J. S. Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66-70 C.E in Ancient
History in a Modern University. Vol. 2. Edited by T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, and A. M. Nobbs. (1998) 54-60;
Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions
1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995); Saldarini Anthony J. Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (1994);
Baumgarten, Albert I. Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited
by Lee I. Levine (1992) 39-50; Klijn A. F. J. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition Vigiliae christianae Supplements 17
(1992); Pritz R. A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance
in the Fourth Century. Vigiliae christianae 43 (1989) 409-10; Flusser D. Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the
Didache in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions. Edited by S.
Shaked et al. (1987) 71-90; Segal Alan F. Jewish Christianity in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism Edited by W.
Attridge and Gohei Hata (1987) 327-51; Klijn A. F. J. Jewish Christianity in Egypt in The Roots of Egyptian
Christianity Edited by B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (1986) 161-75; Pritz
Ray A. The Jewish Christian Sect of the Nazarenes and the Mishnah in The Period of the Bible Edited by D. Assaf
(1986) 125-30; Brown, Raymond E. Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile
Christianity (1983) 74-79; Lüdemann, Gerd The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical Evaluation of
the Pella-Tradition in The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Vol. 1
of Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (1980) 161-73; Riegel S. K. Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology.
New Testament Studies 24 (1978) 410-15; Malina Bruce. Jewish Christianity or Christian Judaism? Toward a
Hypothetical Definition Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 7 (1976) 46-
57; Klijn,A. F. J., and G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 36 (1973); Klijn A. F. J. The Study of Jewish Christianity New Testament Studies 20 (1973-74) 419-43;
Kraft Robert A. In Search of 'Jewish Christianity' and its Theology: Problems of Definition and Methodology.’
Reserches de science religieuse 60 (1972); Schoedel William R Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early
Church (1969); Pines Shlomo The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source
in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 237-309; Barnard Leslie W. The Early
Roman Church, Judaism, and Jewish Christianity Anglican Theological Review 49 (1967): 371-84; Munck Johannes
Primitive Jewish Christianity and Later Jewish Christianity: Continuation or Rupture? in Aspects du judao-
christianisme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 22-25 avril 1964 (1965) 77-93; Munck Johannes Jewish Christianity in Post-
Apostolic Times New Testament Studies 6 (1959-60) 103-16;

331
The responsibility for Jesus’ death
Suggested: Stonehouse N. B. Who Crucified Jesus? in Paul before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies
(1957); 41-69; Crossan J. D. Who Killed Jesus (1957) 59; Fitzmyer J. A. Anti-Semitism and the Cry of 'All the People’
TS 26 (1965) 670-71; Crossan J. D. in G. G. O'Collins Anti-Semitism in the Gospel TS 26 (1965) 663-66; Kosmala H.
His Blood on Us and Our Children (The Background of Mat. 27, 24-25)’ ASTI 7 (1970) 94-126; Hare Douglas The
Rejection of the Jews in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 22-25; Richardson Peter David
Granskou, Stephen G. Wilson Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity: Paul and the Gospels: Volume 1 (1986), Kingsbury
J. D. Matthew as Star (1988) 56-57; P. L. Maier Who Killed Jesus? Christianity Today 34/6 (1990) 16-19;
Luedemannn, Gerd The Unholy in Holy Scripture (1997) 97-98; Allison Dale Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet
(1991); Brown Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah (1994). Yarbro Collins Adela and John J. Collins King and
Messiah as Son of God Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (2008);
Collins John J. The Scepter and the Star - Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2010); Simmonds Andrew
Mark's and Matthew's ‘Sub Rosa’ Message in the Scene of Pilate and the Crowd JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 733-754;
Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 43-46;

Appropriating the Jewish scriptures

Marcus Joel, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (1992);
Leschert, D.F. Hermeneutical Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some
Core Citations from the Psalms (1994); Moyise Steve & J. Lionel North The Old Testament in the New Testament
(2000); Guthrie, G. Hebrews - Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research. CBR 1.2 (2003): 271-294.
Wallace, D. The Use of Psalms in the Shaping of a Text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1’, RestQ 45: 41–50
(2003); Johnson, L. T. The Scriptural World of Hebrews Int 57 (2003): 237-250; George J. Brooke The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the New Testament (2005); Moyise S. and Menken M.J.J. eds. The Psalms in the New Testament (2004); in
Moyise S. and Menken M.J.J. eds. Isaiah in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel
(2005); Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007); Polen
Nehemia Leviticus and Hebrews ... and Leviticus in Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds.
The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); Le Donne Anthony, The Historio-graphical Jesus:
Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (2009); Susan E. Docherty The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A
Case Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (2009); Dirk J. Human and Gert Jacobus Steyn (eds.), Psalms and
Hebrews: Studies in Reception (LHBOTS, 527; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010); Gelardini Gabriella Hebrews,
Homiletics, and Liturgical Scripture Interpretation in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to
the Hebrews (2011 )121-145; Moffitt David M. The Interpretation of Scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason
Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 77-99; Moyise Steve The Later New
Testament Writings and Scripture: The Old Testament in Acts, Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles and Revelation (2012);
Ounsworth, R.J. Joshua Typology in the New Testament (2012); Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early
Jesus Movement (2013) 13-19; Whitfield, B.J. Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4 (2013); Dyer
B.R. The epistle to The Hebrews in recent research: studies on the author's identity, his use of The Old Testament, and
Theology (2013) 104-31; Foster Paul Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly
Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament
(September 2015) 38: 96-111; Susan Docherty Do you Understand what you Are Reading?’ (Acts 8.30): Current
Trends and Future Perspectives in the Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New Journal for the Study of the
New Testament (September 2015) 38: 112-125

The parting of the ways

On the parting of the ways debate: Segal Alan F. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World
(1986); Neusner Jacob Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (1991). Dunn James D.G ed. The
Parting of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism (1992); Wilson, Stephen G Related Strangers: Jews and

332
Christians, 70–170 C. E. (1995); Porter Stanley E. and Pearson Brooke W.R. Why the Split? Christians and Jews by
the Fourth Century Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000) 82–119; Meeks Wayne A. Breaking
Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities in Search of the Early
Christians: Selected Essays Hilton Allen R. and Snyder Gregory h. (2002) 115–23; Becker Adam and Annette Reed
Yoshiko eds. The Ways that never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (2003);
Fredriksen Paula What Parting of the Ways? in The Ways that Never Parted, (2003); Lieu Judith, neither Jew nor
Greek? in The Ways that never Parted (2003); Zetterholm Magnus The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-
Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003); Boyarin Daniel Border Lines: The
Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (2004); Reinhartz Adele A Fork in the Road or a Multi-Lane Highway? pages 278–
329 in Henderson Ian and Oegema Gerbern eds. The Changing Face of Judaism: Christianity and Other Greco-Roman
Religions in Antiquity (2006) 278-329; Jossa Giorgo Jews or Christians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their
Own Identity (2006); Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and
Texts (2007); Heemstra Marius The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways (2010); Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways
that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013), Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in
The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 151-167; Gager J.G. Who Did What to Whom? Physical Violence between Jews and
Christians in Late Antiquity in A most reliable witness edited by Harvey Susan Ashbrook, DesRosiers Nathaniel,
Lander Shira L., Pastis Jacqueline Z. and Ullucci Daniel (2015)

Supersession-
Homer A. Kent The New Covenant and the Church GTJ 6 (1985) 295; Attridge, H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1989) 228; Johnson Luke T. The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander
and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas The Theology of the
Letter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to
the Hebrews NIGTC (1993) 413, 417; Walters J. R. The Rhetorical Arrangement of Hebrews As 7/51 (1996) 59–70;
David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (2000),
287; Salevao Iutisone Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic
Universe JSNTSup 219 (2002)192–195; Wedderburn A. J. M. Sawing off the Branches: Theologizing Dangerously
Ad Hebraeos JTS 56 (2005) 393-414; Kim L. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism,
Supersessionism? (2006); Hays Richard Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews in The
Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, et al. (2009) 151-73; Nanos, M. D. New or
Renewed Covenantalism? A Response to Richard Hays In Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews (2009) 183-
188; Skarsaune, O. ‘Does the Letter to the Hebrews Articulate a Supersessionist Theology? A Response to Richard
Hays.’ In Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews, (2009); Mitchell Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise Does Hebrews
Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 251-
269; Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 103-151;

The myth of Jewish proselytizing

On the meager evidence for Jewish proselytizing: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement
(2013) 204-210; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 118-119; Paula Fredriksen ‘What Parting of the
Ways?’ In The Ways that Never Parted, (2003) 48–56; J. Lighthouse, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. in Wilson
Stephen G., ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 2. Separation and Polemic.’ Studies in Christianity and
Judaism (2000) 106; Levinskaya I., The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. V. Diaspora Setting (1996), 21–47;
Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (1995); Murray,
Playing a Jewish Game, 118–119; Martin Goodman, The Jews among Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire
(1992), 53, 55, 70–71; T. Kraabel, The Roman Diaspora: Six questionable assumptions (1982), 451–452; David
Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (1982), 32–44; For the opposite position: D. Georgi, The Opponents
of Paul in Second Corinthians (1986), 83–228; L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (1993), 288–415.
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 118–119.

333
Birkhat Haminim: the benediction against the heretics

Langer Ruth Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (2012) 16–39; Schremer Adiel Brothers
Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010); Marcus, Joel. Birkat ha-Minim Revisited
New Testament Studies 55 (2009) 523– 51; Kinzig Wolfram The Condemnation of the Nosrim in the Birkat Haminim
in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 482-488; Horbury
William Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (1998) 67-110, 240-43; Daniel Boyarin Justin Martyr
Invents Judaism CH 70 (2001) 427–61; Horbury William Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation in
Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity ed. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa (1998) 296-317;
van der Horst, Hellenism; Mimouni Simon C. Les Nazoreens: Recherche etymologique et historique.’ Revue biblique
105 (1998) 161-88, 212-15; A. Reinhartz The Johannine Community: A Reappraisal in ‘What Is John?’ edited by
Fernando F. Segovia (1996 –1998); Mimouni Simon C. La 'Birkat ha-mininVm: Une priere juive contre les
judeochretiens RSR 71 (1997) 275-98; Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 47; van der
Horst Pieter W. The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research ExpTim 105 (1993-1994) 363-68; van der Horst
Hellenism—Judaism—Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction (1994) 99-111; Joubert S. J. A Bone of Contention in
Recent Scholarship: The 'Birkat HaMinim' and the Separation of Church and Synagogue in the First Century AD.
Neotestamentica 27 (1993) 351-62; Mimouni Simon C. Pour une definition nouvelle du judeo-christianisme ancient
New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 161-86; Overmann J. A. Matthew’s Gospel and Formative Judaism (1990) 48–56;
Thornton Timothy C. G. Christian Understanding of the Birkath Ha-Minim in the Eastern Roman Empire JTS NS 38
(1987) 419-31; Schiffman Lawrence Η. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian
Schism (1985) 56-61; Katz S. T. Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C. E.: A
Reconsideration JBL 103 (1984), 43–76, 74; Horbury William The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-
Christian Controversy JTS NS 33 (1982) 19-61; Schalom Ben-Chorin, Betendes Judentum: Kimelman, Reuven Birkat
Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an AntiChristian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity in Aspects of Judaism in the
Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson. Vol. 2 of Jewish and Christian
Self-Definition (1981) 226-44, 391-403; J. Townsend, ‘The Gospel of John—Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,’
in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations Christianity, A. Davies, ed. (1979), 72–97

Adversus Judaeos literature-

Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans and Christian Identity Formation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 in
Black, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and Its Social World (2014); Van Nuffelen, Peter
Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons for John’s Deposition
Adamantius 19 (2013b) 138-55; Côté, Dominique Le problème de l’identité religieuse dans la Syrie du IVe siècle. Le
cas des Pseudo-Clémentines et de l’Adversus Judaeos de saint Jean Chrysostom in Mimouni Simon C. et Pouderon
Bernard eds. La croisée des chemins revisitée. Quand l’Église et la Synagogue se sont-elles distinguées? (2012) 339-
70; Lahey Lawrence Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640; David Satran in
Contra Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Stroumsa Guy G. Contra
Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996) 8–10;

334
 --------------------

*Citations
1
M. Simon, Versus Israel-Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire (1986)
2
For a recent survey, Peter Schäfer The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (2012); J. Lighthouse, in
Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. in Wilson Stephen G., ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 2. Separation and Polemic.’
Studies in Christianity and Judaism (2000) 106; On the absence of anti-Christian polemic in the foundational texts of Rabbinic
Judaism, see Eugene Fisher and L. Klenicki, eds., Root and Branches: Biblical Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity
(1987).
3
Telos (Greek)—end, result. History evolves in a purposeful (telic), rather than chaotic, manner.
4
Recently: Tomson Peter Jewish Christianity, A State of Affairs: Affinities and Differences with Respect to Matthew, James, and the
Didache in Matthew, James, and Didache : three related documents in their Jewish and Christian setting (2008) 92-122; Hengel
Martin Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity Translated (2013); Zetterholm Magnus Paul within
Judaism: The State of the Questions in Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-
Century Context to the Apostle (2015) 37-42, although his casting is Gentiles vis-à-vis Jews and not (as I suggest) Pauline believers in
Jesus vis-à-vis the Jewish followers of Jesus.
5
Amy-Jill Levine The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (2006).
6
See bibliography on the appropriation of the Jewish scriptures by Pauline believers pg. 415
7
See bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing pg. 415
8
The foundational work is Brown, Raymond E. ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile
Christianity.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 74-79
9
See bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus
10
John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (1942); and ‘Marcion and the
Synoptic Problem,’ in Jesus, the Gospels and the Church, E. P. Sanders, ed.
(1987), 25–31; Joseph Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts (2006).
11
The traditional kerygma, the basic Pauline formula of belief as reflected in
I Cor. 15.3 and its variants in cf. Rom. 3.25; 5.9; Eph. 2.13; I Pet. 1.19;
Rev. 1.5; 5.9; 7.14.
12
Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers
(1996) 55.
13
7. P. J. Donahue, Jewish Christianity in the Letters of Ignatius (1978), 87, identifies the ‘heretics’ Ignatius is fighting against as
Christian-Jews.
8. See Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (1958), 31–46; B. Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (1980); Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic
Gospels (1943); Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (1987); and Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle
for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003). 9; Williams Michael Allen Rethinking ‘‘Gnosticism’’: An Argument for
Dismantling a Dubious Category (1996). King Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? (2003)

16
Christoph Markschies Gnosis An Introduction (2003) Chap III-IV.
17
On the impact of this verse see Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in The New Testament? (1978), 66.
18
2.1 Pro-Jewish and pro-Torah texts and sources in the New Testament: Q, the M material in Matthew, and James. Outside the NT
see The Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature.
2.2 Christopher Leighton, in his introduction to N. Beck’s Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish
Polemic of the New Testament (1994).
19
Christopher Leighton, in his introduction to N. Beck’s Mature Christianity,
The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament
(1994).
20
‘Those pages of history that Jews have committed to memory are the very ones that have been torn from Christian (and secular)
history books.’ E. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Anti-Semitism (1985).

335
21
Stephen G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2 (1986), 48; and D. P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and
its Role in Theology (1976), 112–146.
02 Historical Background
22
Commonly used transliteration of the Hebrew name of the God of Israel.
23
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987) 27-29
24
End of Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987) 27-29
25
For a recent collection of papers on current ‘messiah’ scholarship from a Christian Evangelical perspective see Hess Richard and
Daniel Carroll eds. Israel's Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2003)
26
These categories are my elaboration on Flavius Josephus’ four ‘schools’ or ‘philosophies’ (Antiquities 18.11-25).
27
Flavious Josephus Antiquities XVII 2, 4 (41-5) reports on 6000 Pharisees during Herod’s reign.; Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees,
Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society (1988) 273, 277; ‘The level of animosity, unprecedented in Matthew, let alone the other
Gospels, strongly suggests that the scribes and Pharisees stand for contemporaries with whom the author is in conflict.’ Wilson,
Related Strangers, 50; The scribes and the Pharisees are the main Matthean enemies. Peter Tomson Jews and the New Testament
Authors (2001), 276; Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic
Intragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on the Pharisees in the NT: Marshall, Mary. The Portrayals of the
Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (2015). Also Philip F. Esler Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible Historical
Interpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–59
28
Neusner J. Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (1973) 85-95
29
Standing on Flusser D. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (1987) 28-9
30
Zadokim – Associated with the priestly aristocracy and the descendants of Zadok, one of David’s High priests.
31
Dunn James D.G. Christianity in the Making – Vol 1 - Jesus Remembered (2003) 270-271
32
For a discussion of these terms see Rowland Christopher The Open Heaven: A Study of the Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early
Christianity (1982) 23-48
33
Nickelsburg, George Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity and Transformation (2003) 168 and Nickelsburg
G. W. 1 Enoch: a Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (2000) 68-69
34
Dunn James D.G. Christianity in the Making – Vol 1 - Jesus Remembered (2003) 270-271. Josephus Flavius was a Judean traitor,
and a collaborator with the Roman conquerors. His views on Roman behavior and on Judean opposition to the Roman conquest are
therefore problematic.
35
Horsley, Richard and J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs (1985) 88-106 and Mendels, Doron (The Rise and Fall of Jewish
Nationalism, 1992, 55-80 and 385-394)
Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society (1988) 273, 277
36
37
Flavious Josephus Antiquities XVII 2, 4 (41-5) reports on 6000 Pharisees during Herod’s reign.
38
Brown, R.E. Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity CBQ 45, Jan l983, 74-79
39
Here Torah = Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The term is also used to describe the totality of biblical lore and
wisdom.
40
Belief in YHWH, the Judean tribal God.
41
Wellhausen, Julius: Prolegomena To The History of Israel (1882). Martin Noth A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (1948).
Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 53 (1987). Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible? (1987). Joel S. Baden The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing
the Documentary Hypothesis (2012)
42
Pentateuch (Torah) – The first five texts of the Hebrew scriptures. Torah, in its expansive usage, is also used to encapsulate the
totality Jewish religious lore.
43
Generally, Torah = the beliefs and customs of Judaism (expansive usage). Occasionally Torah = Pentateuch (reductive usage).
44
For an updated review of scholarship on the evolution of Christian monotheism, see Stuckenbruck, Loren T., and Wendy E. S.
North, eds. Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism Early Christianity in Context, 2004
45
Similar position in Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, (1995) and
Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 118-119. For bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing see pg. 415.
46
Beck’s presentation of this type of polemic in the Hebrew Scriptures is the best I have encountered. Beck N. A. Mature
Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament)1994) 57-9
47
Beck N. A. Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament)1994) 57-9.
See also Goldenberg, Robert The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes Toward Other Religions (1997).
48
Standing on M. T. Melakhim 8,11 (Lloyd Gaston, 1987-13).
49
Standing on Sanders E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 238

336
50
On the need to correct misperceptions about first century Judaism see Levine Amy-Jill Baring False Witness: Common Errors
Made about Early Judaism in Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context
(2006).
51
The Judean Messiah had to be of Davidic descendent.
52
Similar perspectives in Gurevitz Zali Al Hamakom (2007)
53
Here Torah=Pentateuch.
54
Klein, Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978) 41-3 on the impact of the transition from prophetic to priestly influence.
55
Dunn J. in Bieringer, Pollefeyt, Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (2001) 47
56
For a recent survey see Schäfer Peter The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (2009).
57
For eschatological elements in Qumran see Cross Frank The Ancient Library of Qumran (1995) 89-93. On the variety and
multiplicity of claims to revelation and to divine inspiration see Horsley Richard and J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs
(1985) 135-175.
58
Eschatology—The doctrine of the last things, the end of time and the end of history.
59
See thoughtful survey of the subject see Smallwood E.M. The Jews Under Roman Rule (1976) 136-7. For supporters of a
substantially positive view of this relationship see Simon Appelbaum and Menahem Stern. For a comprehensive survey of this topic,
see Gager John (1985) Ch. 3. ‘Traditionalists’ and some recent academics such as R.B. Ward and T. Idinopulos persist in presenting a
traditionalist view of Roman attitudes toward Judaism.
60
Judas Maccabeus leader of the Judean revolt was revered as the messiah by his followers.
61
E. M. Smallwood describes this relationship with great economy. For supporters of a substantially positive view of this relationship
see also Simon Appelbaum and Menahem Stern. For a comprehensive survey of this topic, see Gager John (1985) Ch. 3.
‘Traditionalists’ and some recent academics such as R.B. Ward and T. Idinopulos persist in presenting a traditionalist view of Roman
attitudes toward Judaism.
62
Based on Wilken Robert The Christians as The Romans Saw Them (1984) 113, Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers (1995) 21 and
Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 92 estimate 5-7 percent.
63
See Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 20-21 who elaborated on Gager J. The Origins of
Antisemitism (1983) 35-112. For other views see J. N. Sevenster The Roots of Antisemitism in the Ancient World (1975), J. Meagher
As the Twig Was Bent: Antisemitism in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Times,’ in A. T. Davies, ed., Antisemitism and the
Foundations of Christianity (1975) 1-26 and Z. Yavtz Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity. A Different Approach,’ JJS 44 (1993) 1-22.
Schäfer Peter, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (1997). Recently, on Jews and Christians in the Greco-
Roman World A most reliable witness Harvey Susan Ashbrook, DesRosiers Nathaniel, Lander Shira L., Pastis Jacqueline Z. and
Ullucci Daniel eds. (2015)
64
In 38 CE and 66 CE riots erupted in Alexandria in opposition to Jewish influence.
65
See further insights in Gager John Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (1985) 88 and 98. See also
Tchericover V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (1971) 90-174 on the impact of Hellenism.
66
See Court, John M., and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, eds. Religious Diversity in the Greco-Roman World: A Survey of Recent Scholarship
(2001), similar conclusions in Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 9
67
Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 92-94
68
On the Hasmoneans dynasty Mendels Doron The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (1992) 55-80
69
See Harold Remus in Blasi, Anthony J., Jean Duhamel and Paul-Andre' Turcotte, eds. Handbook of Early Christianity (2002) 433
and 431-452 for an updated summary of scholarship on Roman persecution of Christianity. Also J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus
(1995) 25
70
See Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 28-29
71
On readiness to withstand hardship as a corroboration and exaltation’ of belief in Jesus:King, Karen L. Rethinking the Diversity of
Ancient Christianity: Responding to Suffering and Persecution in Iricinschi Eduard et al. eds. Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: Studies
Building on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 60-78; King, Karen L. Willing to Die for God: Individualization and Instrumental
Agency in Ancient Christian Martyr Literature in Jörg Rüpke ed.The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (2013);
Kelhoffer, James A. Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the
New Testament (2010) 342-84; Yarbro Collins, Adela Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus JR 78 (1998) 175-96; Talbert, Charles
H. Learning through Suffering: The Educational Value of Suffering in the New Testament and in its Milieu (1991); Lee-Pollard,
Dorothy Powerlessness as Power: A Key Emphasis in the Gospel of Mark SJT 40 (1987) 173-88
72
Similar views in Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 90
73
See Wilken The Christians as The Romans Saw Them (1984) 197-205, Court, John M., and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, eds. Religious
Diversity in the Greco-Roman World
74
Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 28-29

337
75
Zetterholm Magnus The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social- Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and
Christianity (2003) chap 223
76
Similar views in Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 81 and Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians
(1995) 163.

04 – Chapter 4 – The First Years

77
In John, Jesus’s ministry seems to include three Passovers. See James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol 1—Jesus
Remembered (2003), 165–167.
78
On early diversity, see R. E. Brown, ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity,’
CBQ 45, January 1983.
79
On the pre-Synoptic era, see scholarship on Q and M see Pg. 415.
80
Recently, White Benjamin L. Remembering Paul: Ancient and Modern Contests over the Image of the Apostle (2014); For a
comprehensive review of scholarship on the subject, see R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in
Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations (2012).
81
See analysis in Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), 151. Also, Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed.
Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (2007).
82
See analysis in Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), 151.
83
John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (2000), 4–7.
84
Beker Christiaan J. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (1980); Keck, Leander E. Romans (2005); For a
recent volume see Sumney Jerry L. ed. Reading Paul’s letter to the Romans SBL (2012), Fredriksen Paula Paul’s Letter to the
Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ‘Justification by Faith’ JBL 133, no. 4 (2014): 801–808.
85
Conversation with N. Beck (January 2008). See discussion in Luke/Acts segment ‘Marcion and Luke/Acts’.
86
For an updated, thorough, and comprehensive review of scholarship on the subject, see R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and
Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations (2012).
87
My summary of E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), 432. See Hagner Donald A. Paul as a Jewish Believer in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-154.
88
On Paul’s use of scripture - recommended recent collections of essays: Paul and scripture Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D.
Stanley, eds., As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture SBL SymS 50 (2008), Paul and scripture: extending the conversation
/ edited by Christopher D. Stanley (2012); Hagner Donald A. Paul as a Jewish Believer in the History of Research in Jewish believers
in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-154.
89
My interpretation of W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958), 324.
90
Kerygma —Greek for preaching. Bultmann distinguishes between two theological strata in the early Church: (i) the doctrine of the
Mother-Church in Jerusalem, and (ii) ‘The Kerygma of the Hellenistic Community.’
91
For an updated guide to the subject, see Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman
Religion (2003). See also David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline Christianity (1988),
242. Further discussion of Gnosticism in pg. 96.
92
The usefulness and relevancy of the term ‘Gnosticism’ has recently been criticized as interest in Gnosticism has increased, due to its
multiple meanings. See Williams Michael Allen Rethinking ‘‘Gnosticism’’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (1996).
King Karen L. What Is Gnosticism? (2003).
93
My summary of Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 125.
94
See ibid.; Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003); and Elaine Pagels, The
Gnostic Gospels (1943).
95
For a detailed presentation of the Mystery Religions, see Hans-Josef Klaick, The Religious Context of Early Christianity (2003).
96
James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered (2003), 181–184. ‘Paul in particular seems to show little
interest in the ministry of Jesus and little knowledge of the Jesus tradition.’
97
see Robin Scoggs, in Pauline Conversations in Context, J.C. Anderson, J. Capel, P. Sellew, and C. Seltzer, eds. (2002).
98
H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (1969),
164, on the centrality of ‘by faith alone’ in Paul’s teaching. Recent: Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (2013).
99
On the Jewish followers of Jesus during the first decades: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement
(2013) pg. 11-21; Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007); Skarsaune Oskar The History of Jewish Believers in the
Early Centuries in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; Skarsaune
Oskar Jewish-Christian Gospels: Which and How Many? In Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective
Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in Judaism (2006) 393-408; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian
Judaizing in the First and Second Centuries CE (2004); Hengel, Martin. Early Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic, Universalist

338
Movement in Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Edited by D. A. Hagner (1999) 1-41; Paget James Carleton Jewish
Christianity in vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999) 731-
75; Flusser D. Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence
in the History of Religions. Edited by S. Shaked et al. (1987) 71-90; For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see
pg. 415.
100
Gerd Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity (2002), 16.
101
See recent Harding Mark and Nobbs Alanna eds. All Things to All Cultures: Paul Among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (2013).
102
see also Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, eds., The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture (1999); Anthony J. Blasi, Jean
Duhaime, and Paul-Andre’ Turcotte, eds., Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), section 2, for a discussion of rhetorical techniques
and their effectiveness. L. T. Johnson,
The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic (1989), 419–441; G. N. Stanton, Aspects of Early
Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic (1985); and Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? (2000), 184–185.
103
For bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see Pg. 415.
104
Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 41, on the Jewish Christian ambivalence toward Paul. Recent: Wright, N. T. Paul
and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (2013).
105
Per Murray’s research: F. C. Baur (1876); H. D. Betz (1979); F. F. Bruce (1982); E. D. Burton (1921); Gager (2000); G. Howard
(1979); R. Jewett (1971); J. B. Lightfoot (1865); J. Murphy O’Connor (1996)—Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004);
David Flusser, ‘Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache,’ in Jonathan A. Draper, ed., The Didache in Modern Research
(1996), 197; Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, trans. E. Boring (1989), 1–34. H. J. Schoeps, Jewish
Christianity (1969); A. F. J. Klijn, The Study of Jewish-Christianity (NTS 1973 –74), 419–426. Updated views in Matt Jackson-
Mccabe, ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007).
106
On Paul’s need and yearning for pre-eminence, see ibid., 187–191.
107
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 176-7.
108
According to O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), the Gentiles he went to were the same as the
ones he had already met in the synagogue (Acts 13:43; 18:7).
109
J. C. Becker, Paul the Apostle—The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (1980), 144. Non-Torah observance by Gentiles at the
core of Paul’s theology.
110
Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch (2003), 142, correctly identifies the lenient position of the early
Jewish followers of Jesus toward the inclusion of gentiles. The argument was about Torah observance as a condition for inclusion.
111
Same position in Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus, 151; and S. G. Wilson, Luke and the Law (2005), 68.
112
For a somewhat similar view of the collapse of the Jerusalem compromise, see Philip
Alexander, in James D. G. Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians—the Parting of the
Ways (1989), 24; Recently, Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013).
113
See Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A
Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity
(2003), 156–166, for a consonant presentation of the Paul-James relationship.
114
G. Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity and Transformation (2003), Chapter 2; and E. P.
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) for critiques of the traditional view of Judaism.
115
Recently, Rosner Brian S. Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say Journal for the Study of the New Testament (June 2010) 32:
405-419.
116
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). For a discussion of Sander’s thesis, see E. Fabian, S. Heschel, M. Chancey, G.
Tatum, eds., Redefining First-Century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders (2008).
117
H. J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (1961), 213–219, argues that Paul failed
to see the connection between covenant and the Law.
118
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 550–551.
119
Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (1976), 2. Recent: Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. 2nd edition
(2008).
120
Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 70, pioneered the shift toward a Law observant Paul who opposed Law observance only as it
regards Gentiles. Also Hagner Donald A. The Changing Understanding of Paul in the History of Research in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 97-101, 118-121.
121
For the contrary view that Paul may be anti-Jewish, see J. C. Becker, Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought
(1980), 75–90.
122
For an opposing view, see P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (1969) 133–136.
123
A non-exhaustive list: Stuhlmacher P. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (2001); Das
A. A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (2001); Kim S. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origins of Paul’s

339
Gospel (2002); Carson D. A., O’Brien Peter T. and Seifrid Mark A. eds., Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volumes I and II
(2001); Gathercole S. J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (2002); Dunn James D.G.
Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (2011), Wright N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Volumes 1 and 2 (2013), Harmon Matthew S.
and Smith Jay E., editors Studies in the Pauline Epistles (2014), Longenecker Bruce W. and Still Todd D. Thinking Through Paul: An
Introduction to His Life, Letters, and Theology (2014); Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring
the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015).
124
Dunn James D.G. What’s Right about the Old Perspective on Paul in Harmon Matthew S. and Smith Jay E., editors Studies in the
Pauline Epistles (2014) 229; Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978), 39–66. Luther’s impact on later readings of
the New Testament texts.
125
Westerholm Stephen What’s Right about the Old Perspective on Paul in Harmon Matthew S. and Smith Jay E., editors Studies in
the Pauline Epistles (2014) 235-6
126
Recently; Zetterholm Magnus Paul within Judaism: The State of the Questions in Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds.
Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015) 46; Hagner Donald A. The Changing Understanding
of Paul in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
97-101, 118-121.
127
See appendix I for a survey of modern scholarship on Paul.
128
Recently, Nanos Mark D. and Magnus Zetterholm Magnus eds. Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the
Apostle. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015);
For a somewhat different presentation, see P. J. Tomson, If This Be from Heaven...: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their
Relationship to Judaism (2001), 400. Tomson sees a split within the Pauline tradition between the Lukean (non-anti-Jewish) tradition
and the Ignatian interpretation that reads Paul as ‘anti-Jewish.’
129
An omnipotent, universal, and benevolent God.
130
Teleology is the philosophical study of purpose (from the Greek from telos,
end, result).
131
Worldwide the earliest explorer of inner consciousness appears to be Siddhartha Gautama (The Buddha). There is no consensus on
the date of the historical Buddha (estimates range from early fifth century to mid-fourth century BCE).
132
For a detailed discussion of Paul’s ‘justification by faith alone’ in the context of traditional versus new interpretations of Paul, see
Westerholm Stephen Understanding Paul: the early Christian worldview of the letter to the Romans (2004, part 3 and 445), and
Sumney Jerry L. ed. Reading Paul’s letter to the Romans SBL (2012).
133
1 Cor. 1:23.
134
Similar views in Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered, 260.
135
Paul’s Jewish grounding: W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958) pioneered the shift toward a Law-observant Paul who
opposed Law observance only as it regards Gentiles. Also E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977); Lloyd Gaston, Paul
and the Torah (1987); John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (2000); Luedemann, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 136; Dunn, James D.
G. The New Perspective on Paul. 2nd edition (2008).
136
Standing on Paul M. Van Buren, A Theology of the Jewish Christian Reality: Christ in Context (1983), 274, but emphasizing the
intra-muros nature of the debates (within the Jesus movement).
137
James D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham- Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and
Judaism, Durham; Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. 2nd edition (2008) 312.
138
Also Gaston, Paul and the Torah, 32.
139
Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian
Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67; Trebilco Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (1991) 145-66.
140
Jacob Jervell, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (1996): Paul proselytizes in synagogues, creating friction and animosity;
‘we find nowhere in Acts Paul addressing audiences which consist of Gentiles only’ (p. 85).
141
J. T. Sanders aims in the right direction when he states regarding Matthew:
Nowhere does Matthew provide clues about the causes of this persecution, and
the question of cause is the more puzzling due to the fact that, in the Jewish
Christian source of Matthew, the Christian mission is clearly restricted to ‘Israel’
(Mf 10.23). Therefore, the synagogue flogging known to this Jewish Christian
source cannot have been for the ‘crime’ of admitting Gentiles to Christianity
without converting them at the same time to Judaism. J. T. Sanders, in Blasi,
Duhaime, and Turcotte, Handbook of Early Christianity, 362.
142
On this matter see recent Mark D. Nanos and Daniel Boyarin, and Neil Elliott in Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds.
Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (2015); Similar views in Clark M. Williamson, A Guest in the
House of Israel (1993), 87.

340
143
For diversity and adversity in early Christianity, see the foundational works of Walter Bauer Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity (trans. 1971) and James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester Trajectories through Early Christianity (1971); James D. G.
Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (1990). For a critical appraisal
of Bauer’s thesis, see Köstenberger Andreas J. and Michael J. Kruger The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's
Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (2010); Bauckham Richard James and the
Jerusalem Church in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting ed. Bruce W.
Winter (1995) 415–80; Bauckham Richard James, Peter, and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul (2005) 91–142; Schnabel Eckhard J. Early Christian Mission (2004).
144
Traditionalist-universalist (Dunn), neo-traditionalist (Westerholm),
Christological (E. P. Sanders), sociological (Watson), or revisionist (Stendahl, Gaston, Gager).
145
On Paul’s need and drive for pre-eminence, see Luedemannn, Paul—The Founder of Christianity, 187–191.
146
My view on Paul is somewhat close to Räisänen’s ‘probably not the dominant voice in early Christian theology,’ ... not a ‘a
theologian in the modern sense, and more a mix of charismatic enthusiast and pragmatic community organizer.’ Heikki R, Paul and
the Law (1987), 200, 218. See also Rosner Brian S. Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say Journal for the Study of the New
Testament (June 2010) 32: 405-419.
147
On Jewish perspectives on Paul, see Daniel R. Langton, The Apostle Paul in the Jewish Imagination: A Study in Modern Jewish-
Christian Relations (1999).

The New Testament and Qumran

148
Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Dead Sea Scrolls (2010); George J. Brooke,
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (2005); George Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity (2003),
48; and James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2002). See also Schiffman Lawrence H. Reclaiming
the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (1994).
149
Recent work on Judean sectarian groups and culture: Collins, John J. Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(2014); Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2009); Lynn LiDonnici
Lynn and Lieber Andrea eds. Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism JSJSup, 119 (2007) 177-92
150
‘The sons of light,’ ‘the house of perfection and truth in Israel,’ the chosen ones, and so on (1QS 2.9; 3.25; 8.9; 11.7). Dunn
Christianity in the Making—Vol 1—Jesus Remembered 86.
151
Standing on George Nickelsburg Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity (2003) 48.
152
Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol. 1—Jesus Remembered, 86. Streeter dated Matthew circa 85 CE in Antioch, the foundation
for the contemporary consensus.
153
‘Son of Man’ derives from Dan 7:13–14. See Dale C. Allison Jr. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (2010)
298–303.
154
See next segment and p. x and y for more on this topic and in G. W. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch
(2001), 454–459.
155
Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000).
156
Watts Rikk Messianic Servant or the End of Israel’s Exilic Curses? Isaiah 53.4 in Matthew 8.17 Journal for the Study of the New
Testament (September 2015) 38: 81-95.
157
Recent work on Judean sectarian groups and culture: Collins, John J. Scriptures and Sectarianism: Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(2014); Collins John J. Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2009); Lynn LiDonnici
Lynn and Lieber Andrea eds. Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism JSJSup, 119 (2007) 177-92.
158
Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, for comments on the
impact of DSS scholarship on the Christian origins.
159
See David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline Christianity (1988, 23–25. At the other end of this side of the spectrum
we encounter Robert Eisenman and Barbara Theiring, who believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated in the first century with
distinct connections to the early, and pre-Gentile, Jesus movement.
160
The arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery deployed by the Pauline-Lukan faction against the establishment of the Jesus
movement seem to emulate the arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery that Jewish sectarians, most notably Qumran, deployed
against the Jewish establishment.
161
With the exception of the Qumran community, there was no antecedent for the survival of a messianic sect after the death of its
leader.16 Following Jesus’s death, the Qumran community (having survived the death of The Teacher of Righteousness) may have
offered a template to follow.
162
Among the most important examples: Isaiah 42:52–53; Psalms 22, 69, 110, and 118:22- Daniel 7- Hosea 6:2- Zecharia 12:10-
Matthew 1:23 (standing on Isaiah 7:14). Habakkuk 2:4 is used in Qumran (Pesher Habakkuk) and in Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and
Hebrews 10:37–380.

341
163
Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus.
164
Ibid.; Collins John J. The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (1995).
165
Also in Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 1Enoch.
166
S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (1990), 130–131; and W. D. Davies, ‘Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to
Come,’ JBLMS 7 (1952), 21–28.
167
The Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran texts. Jesus in the New Testament.
168
In the non-canonical texts of the period it is found in Barnabas and in the
Didache. See Didache (chaps. 1–6) and Barnabas (2.10, 18.2). See alsoVan de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish
Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, 454–459.
169
For the John-Qumran connection see Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years
of Discovery and Debate (2011).
170
G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1975), 265–268.
171
See Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1989),
192–195. See also Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews
(1991), 75.
172
See Mark 1:4–6 and Matthew 3:1–6.

The James Enigma

173
See Streeker The Four Gospels (1924), Kilpatrick G. D. The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew (1946), Manson T. W.
Sayings of Jesus (1949); Hartin Patrick James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47 (1991); Van Voorst, Robert E. The Ascents of
James: History and Theology of a Jewish Christian Community. SBL Dissertation Series 112 (1989); Bauckham R. ed. James and the
Jerusalem Church in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting Edited by
Bruce W. Winter (1995) 417-80; Johnson Luke Timothy The Letter of James Anchor Bible 37A. (1995); Painter John Just James: The
Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997); Chilton B. and Evans C. A. Eds. James the Just and Christian Origins Supplements
to Novum Testamentum 98 (1999) 33-57; Chilton Bruce and Jacob Neusner, eds. The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His
Mission (2001); Chilton B. and Evans C. A. Eds. Peter, James and the Gentiles in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensions
in Early Christianity Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115 (2005) 91-142; Bauckham Richard James and the Jerusalem
Community Jewish Believers in Jesus in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 55 -77.
174
Evans Craig A., Bauckham R., Chilton B., Neusner J., Painter John, Davids Peter H and others.
175
Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context (2006).
176
See bibliography on the Q source, Pg. 415
177
For scholarship on Q and M see Pg. 415.
178
Bauckham Richard The Community's Self-Understanding in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 55-60.
179
List of canonical books in Greek. A Latin version was discovered by Muratori in the eighteen century. The date of the Greek
original is disputed (second to fourth century).
180
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001).
181
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin Fathers in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in
the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
305-323; Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002);
Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71.
Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995).
182
Among them (Clarke 1856), Luther (1960:396) and (1967:424), Bultmann (1955:143), Kümmel (1975:416).
183
Luther Preface to the New Testament 1522; cf. Luther’s Works, vol. 35: 362.
184
On the history of the Epistle see L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God (2004), The Letter of James: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary (1995).
10. Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob
eds. (2001) 100.
185
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his
mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100
186
Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context (2006)
187
Koester H. GNOMAI DIAPHOROI HTR 58 (1965) 279-318, Kloppenborg J. The Formation of Q (1987), Hartin P. James and the
Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47(1991), Penner T. The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Rereading an Ancient Christian Letter

342
JSNTSup 121(1996); Hartin P. Who is wise and understanding among you?' (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology and
Apocalypticism in the Epistle of James (1996) 483-503; Jackson-McCabe M. A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdom
and 'Apocalyptic' Eschatology in the Letter of James (1996) 504-17) .
188
The existence of these Gospels has been deducted from the writings of Jerome, Epiphanius, and Origen. See Klijn A. F. J. Jewish-
Christian Gospel Tradition VCSup (1992) 27-30; Knox John The Origin of the Ebionites in The Image of the JudaeoChristians in
Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81; Evans Craig A. The Literary
Heritage of Jewish Believers [Part Three] in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 241-278; Skarsaune Oskar The Ebionites in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik
Reidar (2007) 419-463; Kinzig Wolfram The Nazoraeans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and
Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 361-373.
189
Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); van de
Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 1, Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralism
in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 259-71; Draper
Jonathan A. and Jefford Clayton N. The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity SBLECL 14 (2015).
190
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin Fathers in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in
the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
305-323; Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002);
Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71.
Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995);
Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71.
Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995), Painter John Who was James? The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton
Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 61-62.
191
My views in this subchapter are indebted to Mark D. Nanos ed. The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and
Historical Interpretation (2002), and Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical
Developments in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache (2008).
192
Bauckham Richard Leadership in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70; Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568 in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581.
193
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1930) 511-
12.
194
The foundational work is Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, & Dates (1930) 232; Flusser David Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory NTS 29 (1983);
Evans Craig A. Comparing Judaisms in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. James the Just and His Mission (2001) 182, Schröter
Jens Problems with Pluralism in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew,
James and the Didache (2008) 259-71.
195
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1930) 513.
196
Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew,
James, and Didache (2008); Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568 in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries
eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion (2005) 17–18; Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James,
Peter, and Paul (2005) Lieu Judith, neither Jew nor Greek? in The Ways that never Parted (2003); Zetterholm Magnus The
Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003);
Painter John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997 2nd ed.); Painter John Who was James? in The brother
of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001).
197
Mark D. Nanos, ‘What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘eating with Gentiles’ at Antioch?’ in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues
in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation Ed. M. D. Nanos (2002) 282–318.
198
Dieter Mitternacht, Foolish Galatians? A Recipient-Oriented Assessment of Paul’s Letter’ in Nanos, ed., Galatians Debate, 408–
32: 431–32; Mark D. Nanos The Irony of Galatians: Pauls’ Letter in First Century Context (2001) 257–71.
199
See also 1 Cor 1:2; 3:17; 6:1–2, 19; 7:14; Phil 1:10; 2:14; 4:21; 1 Thess 4:3, 7.
200
Terrance Callan, The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) CBQ 55 (1993) 28–97. Cf. Acts 15:29; 21:25.
201
Zetterholm, Formation of Christianity in Antioch, 13–9. See also John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (1983, 1965) 259–62;
Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter 50–56.

343
202
Other interpretations: Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 152–5; Nanos, What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘eating with Gentiles 285–92;
Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion (2005) 17–
18, Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew,
James, and Didache (2008) 84-6.
203
Bauckham Richard James, Peter, and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005)
125-6.
204
Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments in Antioch in Matthew,
James, and Didache (2008) 86
205
Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 70-75.
206
Other possible interpretations of Gal 2:12: Nanos, Irony of Galatians, 152–5; Nanos, What Was at Stake in Peter’s ‘eating with
Gentiles 285–92; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on
Religion (2005) 17–18.
207
Esler P. a New Reading of Galatians 2:1-14 in Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches (1995) 285–31.
208
For further discussion, see Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing Historical Developments
in Antioch in Matthew, James, and Didache (2008) 84-6, and Bauckham Richard James, Peter, and the Gentiles in Chilton Bruce &
Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 125-6.
209
See J. D. G. Dunn, The Incident at Antioch JSNT 18 (1982) 3-57; and P. J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47
(1991) 230.
210
M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (1994) 3, 108.
211
Contra Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates
(1930) 514-15.
212
There are traces and insinuations of the term ‘New Israel’ in Matthew, Hebrews, and in the Pauline letters but the unequivocal and
overt claim to the designation ‘New Israel’ does not occur in any of the New Testament documents. I assume the use of this
designation, or similar and equivalent ones, by the Jewish followers of Jesus.
213
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob
eds. (2001) 100.
214
See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians CWBC 41(1990); D. Wenham (ed.). The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (1993)
chap. 9; Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting chap. 15 (1995); There are significant differences between Paul
and Acts about Paul's two visits to Jerusalem (FIRST - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, SECOND - Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15). However,
the discrepancies for the first visit are much more consequential. are more far reaching than the regarding the second visit.
215
Betz Hans Dieter Galatians in A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible (1989) 106.
216
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 176-7.
217
Painter Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 193-4; Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways
that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013), 3.
218
Bauckham Richard Leadership in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70; See summary in Painter, John Just James: The Brother of
Jesus in History and Tradition (1997).
219
Painter John Who was James? in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds.
(2001) 32-35.
220
On the proto-orthodox ambivalent casting of James Hartin Patrick J. James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth (2004) 135-40.
221
Bauckham Richard the Jerusalem Community after James Jewish Believers in Jesus in The New Testament and Related Material in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 77-81.
222
Painter John Who was James? In The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds.
(2001) 61-62.
223
McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament:
James.
224
Allison, D.C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, T&T Clark, New York/London/New Delhi/Sydney,
Bloomsbury. (International Critical Commentary), 67-68
225
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897
226
Has been found to be remarkably similar to the Septuagint’s Greek and would have required more exposure to Hellenistic culture
and learning than James’ background would seem to grant.
227
For support of this argument see F. 0. Francis The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1
John ZNW 61 (1970) 110-26.
228
Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, ed. Helmut Koester; trans. M. A. Williams (1975).

344
229
Ibid., 6.
230
Wisdom: Hartin Patrick J. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47 (1991): 23-35, 42-43, Mullins T. Y. Jewish Wisdom
Literature in the New Testament JBL 68 (1949) 339. Eschatology: Penner Todd The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an
Ancient Christian Letter, JSNTSS, 121 (1996). Jackson-McCabe Matt, A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdom and
‘Apocalyptic’ Eschatology in the Letter of James in SBL Seminar Papers (1996): 504-17; Penner, Todd C. The Epistle of James and
Eschatology JSNT Sup 121 (1996) and Verseput Donald J. Wisdom, 4Q185, and the Epistle of James JBL 117 (1998): 691-707, favor
an eschatological background for James and question the more established label of wisdom literature. Both: John J. Collins, ‘Wisdom,
Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility’, in L. G. Perdue, B. B. Scott, and W. J. Wiseman, eds., In the Search of Wisdom: Essays
in Memory of John G. Gammie (Louisville: Westminster, 1993): 165-86, Bauckham, James Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the
Sage (1999) 33, Lockett, Darian R. 2005. ‘The Spectrum of Wisdom and Eschatology in the Epistle of James and
4QInstruction,’ Tyndale Bulletin 56 (2005) 132-3.
231
Standing on Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005)
50-1.
232
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011)
233
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob
eds. (2001) 100
234
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 3
235
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 3-4
236
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001)
among many.
237
Standing on Painter John The Power of Words: Rhetoric in James and Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of
James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 270
238
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999)
239
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 2.
240
Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 3
241
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and
Paul (2005) 205.
242
Recent contributions: Horrell David G. and Wei Hsien Wan Christology, Eschatology and the Politics of Time in 1 Peter Journal
for the Study of the New Testament (March 2016)
; Hurtado L. and Bond H. eds. Peter in History and Tradition (2015) 130-45; Horrell David G. Ethnicity, Empire, and Early Christian
Identity: Social-Scientifi c Perspectives on 1 Peter in Mason Eric F. and Martin Troy W. eds.Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude (2014) 135-
151 Bockmuehl Markus Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church (2012) 32; Foster
Paul The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary TENTS 4 (2010) 91, Lapham Fred Peter: The Myth, the
Man and the Writings JSNTSup 239 (2003). Earlier contributions: Selwyn Edward G. The First Epistle of St. Peter (1947) 7-63;
Elliott John H. The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research (1976) 118-38; Michaels J. Ramsey 1
Peter WBC 49 (1988); Soards Marion L. 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School ANRW II.25.5 (1988).
243
The Apocryphon of James (first half of second century), Protevangelium of James (second half of second century). First and
Second Apocalypse of James, the Gospel of Peter (mid-second century). Apocalypse of Peter (first half of second century), Kerygma
Petrou (second century), Kerygmata Petrou (c. 200 C.E.), Acts of Peter (180-190 C.E.), the Letter of Peter to Philip (late second
century), or the Act of Peter (c. 200 CE or later) – In Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 8.
244
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and
Paul (2005) 209
245
Painter Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 191
246
Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 51.
247
Chilton Bruce Conclusions and Questions in Chilton B in Chilton, B., and C. Evans. James the Just and Christian Origins (1999).
248
Popkes Ward The Mission of James in His Time in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission
(2001).
249
Edgar David Hutchinson, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James Journal for the Study of the
New Testament Supplement Series 206 (2001) 250.
250
Painter John Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997 2nd ed.)
251
Matt Jackson-McCabe Logos and Law in the Letter of James (2001).
252
Mitchell Margaret M., The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism? in Webb, Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds.
Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (2007) 75–98.

345
253
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011) 263.
254
Chilton Bruce James, Peter, Paul, and the Formation of the Gospels in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter,
and Paul (2005).
255
My summary of Painter John The Power of Words: Rhetoric in James and Paul in Chilton Bruce James, Peter, Paul, and the
Formation of the Gospels in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 269.
256
Streeter B.H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition,
Sources, Authorship, & Dates (1930) 511-12.
257
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 77, 81, 84, McKnight Scot A Parting
of the Way: Jesus and James on Israel and Purity in Chilton B., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission
(2001), Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 197-2007, Edgar David
Hutchinson, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 206 (2001).
258
Hartin Patrick J. Law and Ethics in Matthew’s Antitheses and James’s Letter 315, van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds.
Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 365, also Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the
Letter of James (1999) 77, 81, 84.
259
Lockett, Darian R. Structure or Communicative Strategy? The 'Two Ways' Motif in James' Theological Instruction Neotestamentica
42, no. 2 (2008): 269-87, Van De Sandt, Huub. James 4,1-4 in the Light of the Jewish Two Ways Tradition 3,1-6 Biblica 88.1 (2007):
38-63.
260
van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 6- 7.
261
McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011).
262
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and
Paul (2005) 208.
263
Painter John in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 222.
264
Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob
eds. (2001) 105.
265
Standing on Neusner Jacob What, Exactly, Is Israel's Gentile Problem? Rabbinic Perspectives on Galatians 2 in Chilton Bruce &
Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 292-3.
266
Hartin, Patrick J. The Letter of James: Faith Leads to Action, Word & World, Volume 35, Number 3 (2015) 229.
267
Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralism in the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in
Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 259-71.
268
Baker W. R. Personal Speech-Ethics: A Study of the Epistle of James Against Its Background WUNT 2/68 (1995), Lockett D. R.
Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James LNTS 366 (2008) and Batten A. J. Friendship and Benefaction in James Emory Studies
in Early Christianity 15 (2010).
269
Penner, Todd C. The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (1996).
270
Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999), Hartin, Patrick J. James of Jerusalem:
Heir to Jesus of Nazareth (2004), McKnight Scot, The Letter of James, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2011).
271
Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James, ed. Helmut Koester; trans. M. A. Williams (1975).
272
Witherington Ben III The Many Faces of the Christ The Christologies of the New Testament and Beyond (1998) 201, cf.
Bauckham 1998, Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission in Chilton Bruce and
Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 135.
273
Evans Craig A. Comparing Judaisms in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. James the Just and His Mission (2001) 182-3; Part
Five - Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin Fathers in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505.
274
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and
Paul (2005) 209.
275
See Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 70-75.
276
Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and
Paul (2005) 206-7.

A Growing Tension
277
On the cross-influence among Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism, see
Alan F. Segal in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Stephen G. Wilson,
ed. (1986), 133–162.
278
Both sides of the debate among Jews considered Jesus an exalted human, not a divine being.

346
279
For bibliography on the appropriation of the Jewish scriptures by Pauline believers see pg. 415
280
D. R. A. Hare, ‘The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity,
A. T. Davis, ed. (1979), 28–32.

What is at stake
281
During the second century Paulines split into Pauline-Lukan and Pauline-Marcionite strands.
282
‘Thus Q cannot be seen as a teaching supplement for a community whose theology is represented by the Pauline kerygma. Q’s
theology and soteriology are fundamentally different.’ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 160. For scholarship on Q
and M see Pg. 415.
283
For an updated review on ‘the historical Jesus,’ see Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan, eds., The
Historical Jesus in Context (2006).
284
The better known—L. Vaganay (Mark drew on proto-Mark), B. H. Streeter (proto-Luke first, second edition drew on Mark), and C.
Lachmann and H. J. Holtzmann (Matt and Luke draw on proto-Mark). Other proposals include Koester’s ‘dialogue Gospel’ and
Crossan’s ‘Cross Gospel’ whose existence as separate texts or textual traditions are hotly debated.

05 – Chapter 5 - Crisis in the Jesus movement

285
On early diversity, see R. E. Brown, ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity,’
CBQ 45 (January 1983).
286
On the Jewish followers of Jesus during the New Testament era Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus
Movement (2013) pg. 87-93; Taylor Joan E The Phenomenon of Early Jewish Christianity: Reality or Scholarly In The Image of the
Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003); Van de Sandt H.
and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); Hengel, Martin. Early
Christianity as a Jewish-Messianic, Universalist Movement in Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Edited by D. A. Hagner
(1999) 1-41; Paget James Carleton Jewish Christianity in vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of Judaism Edited by William Horbury, W.
D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999) 731-75; McLaren, J. S. Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66-70 C.E in Ancient History in a
Modern University. Vol. 2. Edited by T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, and A. M. Nobbs. (1998) 54-60; Flusser D. Paul’s Jewish-
Christian Opponents in the Didache in Gilgul: Essays on Transformation, Revolution and Permanence in the History of Religions.
Edited by S. Shaked et al. (1987) 71-90; For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415.
287
For bibliography on the appropriation of the Jewish scriptures by Pauline believers see pg. 415.
288
I present these two types of communities as a conceptual model, see Magnus
Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific
Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003), who
advocates a secession of Gentile believers in Jesus from a synagogue of Jewish
followers of Jesus as the pivot for the separation of the two communities in Antioch.
289
For this proportion, see the prosopographic review by Reidar Hvalvik in Oskar Skarsaune
and Reidar Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007), chapter 6.
290
James R. Mueller, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, Craig Evans and
Donald Hagner, eds. (1993), 257, who points to Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History
and Literature of Early Christianity (1982); and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, the earliest
to identify this phenomenon.

Mark
291
On interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels, see Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 40–46.
292
The minority view (that Mark is the latest of the Gospels) is presented by William Farmer in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem,
David Alan Black and David R. Beck, eds. (2001).
3. See Craig Evans in Reading the Gospels Today, Porter Stanley, ed. (2004), 1–8, for an updated defense of Mark’s priority.
293
Mark is the first Gospel (the “Perrin school”); Mark is the first written Gospel (W. Kelber); Mark and the redeemer myth (B.
Mack); Mark is antiapostolic (T. J. Weeden, W. Kelber); Mark tames the original traditions (H. Koester.
294
Recently: Joel Marcus Mark—Interpreter of Paul NTS 46 (2000) 473–87; Wischmeyer Oda, Sim David C. and Elmer, Ian J. eds.
For and against Pauline Influence on Mark in Mark and Paul, Comparative Essays Part 1 (2014).
295
Recent: Bock, Darrell L. Mark (NCBC) (2015); Strauss, Mark L. Mark (ZECNT) (2014); Marcus, Joel. Mark, 2 vols. (AB, rev.)
(2000 and 2009); Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore, eds., Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2008);
Culpepper, R. Alan. Mark (SHBC). M (2007). Also, Iverson, Kelly R. and Christopher W. Skinner, eds. Mark as Story: Retrospect
and Prospect (2011) for methodological developments of narrative criticism in Mark.

347
296
On Mark and the Roman context: Thiessen Matthew The Many for One or One for the Many? Reading Mark 10:45 in the Roman
Empire HTR 109:3 (2016) 447–466; and C. Clifton Black, Mark (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2011); Winn Adam The Purpose of
Mark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Imperial Propaganda (WUNT 2/245 (2008); Roskam Hendrika N. The Purpose of
the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context NovTSup 114 (2004); Kaminouchi Alberto de Mingo But it is Not So Among
You’: Echoes of Power in Mark 10.32–45 JSNTSup 249 (2003) 161; Peterson Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan
Community in Current Debate (2000).
297
Supersession, or replacement, theology – Traditional: The view that Christianity was superior to Judaism in every way and replaced
it as the People of God. My suggestion: Supersession theology is the theological articulation of the Pauline claim to the exclusive
custody of Jesus’s legacy. In other words, supersession is the view that Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy replaced the beliefs and
traditions of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the foundation of belief in Jesus.
298
Recent contributions on Jesus and the food laws in Mark: Rudolph David J. Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark
7:19b The Evangelical Quarterly 74.4 (Oct.-Dec. 2002) 291-311; Neufield Dietmar Jesus’ Eating Transgressions and Social
Impropriety in the Gospel of Mark: A Social Scientific Approach Biblical Theology Bulletin 30.(2000).
299
On the Jewish followers of Jesus in the Q source and Mark: Q is believed to be the earliest source, generally dated 40–50 CE.-
Kloppenborg John S Composing Matthew by Recomposing Q: The Composition of Matt 23–25.’ (2016); An Early Reader of Mark and
Q van Belle Gilbert and Verheyden Josef eds. Biblical Tools and Studies, vol. 21, 187–215 (2016); Harb G. (ed.), Documenta Q:
Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated (2012); D.A. Smith D.A. Matthew
and Q: The Matthean Deployment of Mark and Q in the Apocalyptic Discourse ETL 85 (2009) 99-116; Burkett Delbert The Unity and
Plurality of Q (2009); Kloppenborg John S Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Sayings and Stories of Jesus
(2008); Luz Ulrich Matthew and Q (2005); Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol 1— Jesus Remembered (2003) 60, 144, 147;
Darrell Bock, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, David Alan Black and David R. Beck, eds. (2001); Robinson James M., Hoffmann
Paul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. The Critical Edition of Q (2000); Kloppenborg J. S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the
Sayings Gospel (2000), Robinson J.M. The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark, in Yarboro Collins (ed.), Ancient and Modern
Perspectives on the Bible and Culture (1998) 122-15; Chapter 1; Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (1996);
Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah (1994); Hartin Patrick James and the Q Sayings of Jesus JSNTSup 47 (1991); Helmut Koester,
Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 128–171; Kloppenborg J. The Formation of Q (1987); John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels:
Shadows on the Contours of Canon (1986); For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415. On Mark’s
appropriation of the Hebrew Scriptures: Evans C.A. How Septuagintal is Isa. 5:1-7 in Mark 12:1-9? Novum Testamentum 45.2
(2003) 105-110; De Jonge Henk Jan The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21 in: C. M. Tuckett (ed). The
Book of Zechariah and Its Influence (2003) 87-100; Watt's Rikk The Psalms in Mark's Gospel in Moyise Steve & M. J. J. Menken eds.
Psalms in The New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (2004); Kloppenborg J.S. Isa 5:1-7 LXX And Mark
12:1, 9, Again Novum Testamentum 46.1 (2004) 12-19; Hooker D. Morna Isaiah in Mark's Gospel in Moyise Steve & M. J. J.
Menken eds. Isaiah in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (2005); Moyise Steve Deuteronomy in
Mark’s Gospel in: Steve Moyise & M. J. J. Menken eds. Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures
of Israel (2007) 27-41.
300
Similar arguments in Kelber Werner, The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983), 130–131; and Lindsey P. Pherigo, The Gospel
According to Mark in the Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1971), 644.
301
Attempts to decipher Mark’s characterization of the disciples and the ‘incomprehension’ motif abound: Neufeld, Dietmar Mockery
and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (2014); MacDonald, D.K. The characterisation of a false disciple: Judas Iscariot
in Mark’s Gospel McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 15 (2013)119–135; Iverson, Kelly R. Wherever the Gospel Is
Preached’: The Paradox of Secrecy in the Gospel of Mark in Kelly R. Iverson and Christopher W. Skinner eds. Mark as Story:
Retrospect and Prospect (2011) 181–209; for an updated survey of scholarship on the Markan disciples see Black, C. Clifton The
Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (2012); Watson, David F. Honor among Christians: The Cultural
Key to the Messianic Secret (2010); Guijarro Santiago The First Disciples of Jesus in Galilee Hervormde Teologiese Studies 63.3
(2007) 885-908; Skinner, Christopher W. Whom He Also Named Apostles: A Textual Problem in Mark 3:14 Bibliotheca Sacra (2004)
322–9; Wilkins Michael J. Unique Discipleship to a Unique Master: Discipleship in the Gospel according to Mark Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 8.3 (2004) 50-68; Maloney Linda Mark and Mystery Currents in Theology and Mission 30.6 (2003) 433-437;
Donahue, John and Daniel Harrington The Gospel of Mark (2002); Henderson, Suzanne W. Concerning the Loaves: Comprehending
Incomprehension in Mark 6.45-52 JSNT 83 (2001) 3-26; Moo Douglas J. Question Mark: Understanding the Gospel of Mark
Leicester: Religious & Theological Studies Fellowship (2000); Malbon Elizabeth Struthers in the Company of Jesus: Characters in
Mark’s Gospel (2000). Danove Paul Paul The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’s Ambiguous Characterization of the Disciples JSNT 70
(1998) 21-38; Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext SNTSMS, 72 (1992); Fowler, Robert M. Let the
Reader Understand: ReaderResponse Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (1991); Matera, Frank J. 1989 The Incomprehension of the
Disciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14– 8,30) Biblica 70: (1989) 153-72; Best, Ernest Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the
Gospel according to Mark (1986); Donahue, John R. The Theology and Setting of Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983);

348
Hawkin, David J. The Incomprehension of the Disciples in Markan Redaction JBL 91 (1972) 491-500; Tyson, Joseph B. The
Blindness of the Disciples in Mark JBL 80 (1961) 261-68.
302
On this subject, see, e.g., T. J. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (1971); J. B. Tyson, The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark
JBL 80 (1961), 261–268.
303
Recent scholarship on Gentiles in Mark: Gamel, Brian K., Salvation in a Sentence: Mark 15.39 as Markan Soteriology’, Journal of
Theological Interpretation 6 (2012) 65–78; Iverson, Kelly R., A Centurion’s ‘Confession’: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark
15:39 JBL 130 (2011) 329–50; Iverson, Kelly R. Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’s
Crumbs (2007); Johnson Earl S. Mark 15.39 and the So-Called Confession of the Roman Centurion Biblica 81.3 (2000) 406-413;
Shiner Whitney T. The Ambiguous Pronouncement of the Centurion and the Shrouding of Meaning in Mark Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 78 (2000) 3–22
304
See Robert A. Guelich (Mark 1:8–26, c1989, 361–362), R. P. Booth, ‘Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and Legal
History in Mark 7,’ JSNT Sup 13 (1986), 55–114; James G. D. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law (1990), 37–60.
305
See bibliography on the responsibility for Jesus’ death pg. 415.
306
Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000).
307
For the historical Pilate, see Helen Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (1998); and Warren Carter, Pontius Pilate:
Portraits of a Roman Governor (2003).
308
See Michael J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (1978), for a detailed discussion of this topic and for the peculiar
exclusion of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
309
Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010)

Matthew
310
On the Jewish followers of Jesus and Matthew: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) pg. 49-
59; Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007); Skarsaune Oskar The History of Jewish Believers in the Early Centuries
in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; Craig A. Evans Matthew: A
New Testament Jewish Gospel in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 242-
245; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish-Christian Gospels: Which and How Many? In Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in
Contemporary Perspective Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in Judaism (2006) 393-408; Hare Douglas R. A. How Jewish is the
Gospel of Matthew? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000) 264-77; Saldarini Anthony J. Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community
(1994). On the M material in Matthew: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material
(2015), Amy-Jill Levine The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi (2014), Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat and the
Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; On the M material: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: The
Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL
Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; Snodgrass Klyne R. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2008);
Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1997) 2:403-18;
Kingsbury Jack Dean The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in in Redaction-Criticism (1969); For a general bibliography on
the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415.
311
Probably written around 85–95 CE —Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community; and J. D. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?
(1995), 16.
312
Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 1.
313
Standing on Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 50, 55. Further reading in W. D. Davies and Dale
C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (1991), vol. 1, 32.
5.1 Flavious Josephus Antiquities XVII 2, 4 (41-5) reports on 6000 Pharisees during Herod’s reign.; Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees,
Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society (1988) 273, 277; ‘The level of animosity, unprecedented in Matthew, let alone the other
Gospels, strongly suggests that the scribes and Pharisees stand for contemporaries with whom the author is in conflict.’ Wilson,
Related Strangers, 50; The scribes and the Pharisees are the main Matthean enemies. Peter Tomson Jews and the New Testament
Authors (2001), 276; Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as Pharisaic
Intragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on the Pharisees in the NT: Marshall, Mary. The Portrayals of the
Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts (2015). Also Philip F. Esler Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible Historical
Interpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–59.
314
Flavious Josephus Antiquities XVII 2, 4 (41-5) reports on 6000 Pharisees during Herod‘s
reign.; Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society (1988)
273, 277; ―The level of animosity, unprecedented in Matthew, let alone the other Gospels,
strongly suggests that the scribes and Pharisees stand for contemporaries with whom the
author is in conflict. Wilson, Related Strangers, 50; The scribes and the Pharisees are the
main Matthean enemies. Peter Tomson Jews and the New Testament Authors (2001), 276;

349
Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community
History as Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on the
Pharisees in the NT: Marshall, Mary. The Portrayals of the Pharisees in the Gospels and Acts
(2015). Also Philip F. Esler Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible
Historical Interpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–59
315
Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994)
316
R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 388.
317
R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 28–30.
318
Recent scholarship: Brown, Jeannine K. Matthew (TTC) (2015); Evans, Craig A. Matthew (NCBC) (2012); Osborne, Grant
R. Matthew (ZECNT) (2010); Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. 2nd edition. (2009); David
Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds., Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (2008) Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 3 vols. (Hermeneia).
(2001-7).
319
My interpretation of Wayne Meeks, ed., Library of Early Christianity (1986), 110.
320
‘[T]he polemic corresponds to the established Jewish tradition of prophetic polemic against the political establishment in
Jerusalem, and the people who had been misled by their leaders.’ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 230.
321
For Markan-Matthean divergences, see Jesper Svartvik in Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries, David Sim and Boris
Repschinski, eds. (2008), Chapter 2.
322
On Matthew’s authorship, see Craig A. Evans Matthew: A New Testament Jewish Gospel in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early
centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 242-245; B. Przybylski in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Peter
Richardson and David Granskou, eds. (1986), vol. 1, 181– 200; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1988), vol. 1, 7–58; G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in
Matthew (1992), 131–139; Saldarini Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994) 7–10; and Wilson, Related Strangers,
46–56.
323
In this case from later to earlier, instead of the normal flow of authority from earlier to later traditions.
324
The term ‘proto-Matthean’ includes Q and textual traditions originating in the Jewish followers of Jesus that may have been
incorporated into Q and/or a proto-Matthean intermediate phase. See David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline
Christianity (1988), 578–590; and Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 170–171. For a detailed presentation of the theory of a Proto-
Matthew, see Malcom Lowe and David Flusser, ‘Evidence Corroborating a Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory,’ NTS 29
(1983), 25–47. Stendahl’s work is also supportive of a layered Matthew.
325
David Flusser and Malcom Lowe, A Modified Proto-Matthean Synoptic Theory NTS 29 (1983). On the M material in Matthew:
Kloppenborg John S Composing Matthew by Recomposing Q: The Composition of Matt 23–25.’ (2016); An Early Reader of Mark and
Q van Belle Gilbert and Verheyden Josef eds. Biblical Tools and Studies, vol. 21, 187–215 (2016); Stephenson Brooks Matthew's
Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Amy-Jill Levine The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi
(2014), Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; On the M
material: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parable
of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; Snodgrass Klyne R. Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2008); Robinson James M., Hoffmann Paul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. The
Critical Edition of Q (2000); Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint
Matthew (1997) 2:403-18; Kingsbury Jack Dean The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism (1969); For a
general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415.
326
A sample of relevant scholarship: Craig A. Evans Matthew: A New Testament Jewish Gospel in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early
centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 242-245; Meier John P. Law and History in Matthews Gospel (1976);
Overman Andrew J. Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (1990); Betz Hans
Dieter The Sermon on the Mount in The Future of Early Christianity (ed. Birger A. Pearson; 1991) 258-75; Saldarini Anthony J.
Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994); Luomanen Petri Entering the Kingdom of Heaven (1998) 86-90; Blanton Thomas R.
IV Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus' Teaching on the Torah JBL, Vol. 132, No. 2 (2013) 393-413.
327
For the Qumran messiah, The Teacher of Righteousness, as a precursor of the Jesus story—Knohl Israel, The Messiah before
Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000). For the impact of Psalms 2 on the Passion, see Crossan, Who Killed
Jesus?
328
Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (1977), for the Jesus-Moses connection.
329
Recent: Young S. Chae Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and
in the Gospel of Matthew (2006); Joel Willitts Matthews Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'the Lost Sheep of the House of
Israel' (2007); Reiser Marius Jesus and Judgment: The Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context (1997).
330
My elaboration of Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 196–197.
331
Pesher – see *

350
332
Ibid., 7–10. Implicit in Wilson, Related Strangers, 36–46. Amy-Jill Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean
Salvation History (2003), 71–89, argued for authorship by a Jewish follower of Jesus.
333
Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 7–10.
334
See Wilson, Related Strangers, 36–46. Similar conclusions in E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davis, Studying the Synoptic Gospels
(1989), 194.
335
R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 62. Recent: Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations:
Matthean Community History as Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict JBL 127, no. 1 (2008) 95-132.
336
Anthony J. Saldarini sees the Matthean text as a challenge to the Jewish establishment due to its refusal to embrace Jesus’s
ministry, not as a challenge to Judaism as such (Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 44). ‘The level of animosity, unprecedented
in Matthew, let alone the other Gospels, strongly suggests that the scribes and Pharisees stand for contemporaries with whom the
author is in conflict.’ Wilson, Related Strangers, 50.
337
Saldarini comments on Matthew’s views on the Gentiles: ‘Matthew may be implying that they have the potential to be members of
his group of believers in Jesus, but they are not yet members, nor does the narrative indicate that they will become so. Matthew may
have in mind the phenomenon of the gentiles sympathetic to the synagogue who were not Jews, but who were nevertheless not totally
other. Within the narrative, the gentile characters are secondary to members of Israel, and their story is partial and unfinished.’
Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 82. See Levine, Amy-Jill. The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Social
History. “Go Nowhere Among the Gentiles... ” (Matth 10.5b). Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 14. Lewiston/Lampeter:
Mellen (1988).
338
‘The very fact that in Matt (14:33) all the disciples once confessed Jesus as God’s Son makes their flight from Gethsemane more
reprehensible. Similarly, that in his personal confession Peter, the rock of faith, had hailed Jesus as ‘the Messiah, the Son of the living
God’ (16:16–18) heightens the irony of his denying Jesus at the very moment the high priest is adjuring Jesus by ‘the living God’ to
say if he is ‘the Messiah, the Son of God.’’ See Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 28–30. On the other hand, the Markan denigration
of the Torah-observant faction is also somewhat mitigated by the high praise of Peter (Matt. 16:17–19) and by the correction of the
slander that Jesus’s family thought he was insane. (See Mark 3:10.35 and 6:1.4 versus Matt. 13:53.58.)
339
Denigration of ancestors was a biblical staple (see pg. 57-9). See the denigration of Aaron by the Deuteronomist writer (most
probably member of the contending Mushite priestly clan) and of the ancestors of most of the Judean enemies (Moab, Edom, etc.).
Also N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1994), 57–
59. See also Robert Goldenberg, The Nations That Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes toward Other Religions (1997).
340
Contra Bauckham Richard Opposition from the Jewish Authorities in Jerusalem in James and the Jerusalem Community in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 75-81
341
The increased inclination to exonerate the Romans is showcased in the heightened emphasis on the ‘Jewish culpability,’ and in the
additions to the Markan story (Pilate’s wife [27:19] and the hand-washing scene of Pilate [27:24–25]).
342
Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 7–10; and Wilson, Related Strangers, 46–56, support continuity. J. P. Meier,
The Vision of Matthew (1979), 229–235; R. A. Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (1982), 134–174; L. Gaston, ‘The Messiah of Israel
and the Teacher of the Gentiles,’ Int. 29 (1975), 24–40; and Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew 1988, 481–503, support discontinuity.
343
In harmony with Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 170–171.
344
Allison Dale C. Jr. and Davies W. D. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1988-
1997) 1:7-58; McKnight Scot A Loyal Critic: Matthew's Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective in Anti-Semitism and Early
Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (1993) 55-79; Saldarini Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994); Evans
Craig A. The Jewish Christian Gospel Tradition - The Literary Heritage of Jewish Believers [Part Three] in Jewish believers in Jesus:
the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 242-3
345
On the continued Torah observance of Jewish Christians, see Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 114–174.
346
Socio-Historical perspectives on Luke-Acts: Keener Craig Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (2012-15); Bovon François Luke the
Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950-2005) (2006); Gasque Ward A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles
(1989); Arrington French The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (1988);Maddox Robert The Purpose
of Luke-Acts (1982)
347
A more complete engagement with the Knox-Tyson-Townsend view in segment ‘Marcion and Luke/Acts’ in pg. 173.
348
Recent: Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Luke (PNTC) (2015); France, R. T. Luke (TTC) (2013); Carroll, John T. Luke:
A Commentary (NTL) (2012). For a review of unconventional approaches to Luke interpretation, see Joel B. Green, ed., Methods for
Luke Methods in Biblical Interpretation (2010).
349
See R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 30–31; and Peter Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their
Relationship to Judaism (2001), 24,223.

351
350
D. Tiede, in J. B. Tyson, Luke-Acts and the Jewish People (1988), 21–34; Dunn, Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.
D. 70 to 135 (1989), 149–151; Israel R. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts (1990); Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 389–
390; Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors, 214.
351
J. T. Sanders, The Jews in Luke-Acts (1987), 39–42 and 296–299; Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God. A New look at Luke-
Acts (1972), 62–64; J. B. Tyson, Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (1992), 158–180; Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and
Christians (1995), 57–58.
352
See Tyson, Luke-Acts and the Jewish People, 130.
353
Ibid., 129.
354
Similar view in Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in The New Testament? (1978), 73.
355
The scribes and the Pharisees are the main Matthean enemies. Peter Tomson, Jews and the New Testament Authors (2001), 276.
Michael J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (1978), claims that the ‘scribes’ originate from Mark and that neither know
who they truly are. Recent: Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as
Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict JBL 127, no. 1 (2008) 95-132.
356
Stephen G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 2 (1986), 48; and D. P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and
Its Role in Theology (1976), 112–146.
357
John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (1942); and ‘Marcion and the Synoptic Problem,’ in Jesus, the Gospels and the
Church, E. P. Sanders, ed. (1987), 25–31; Joseph Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts (2006).
358
John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (1942).
359
Standing on Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 78–79; and Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, 117–119).
360
Townsend, ‘The Date of Luke-Acts,’ in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar, Charles H.
Talbert, ed. (1984), 47–62; Andrew Gregory, ‘The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the
Second Century,’ WUNT 2:169 (2003); Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 11.
361
Acts as a Pauline apologia: For those who favor an apologia pro Paulo, see esp. Robert L. Brawley, ‘Paul in Acts: Lucan Apology
and Conciliation,’ in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. Charles H. Talbert; New York:
Crossroad, 1984), 129–47; Abraham J. Malherbe, ‘‘Not in a Corner’: Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26,’ SecCent 5 (1986):
197–208; John T. Carroll, ‘Literary and Social Dimensions of Luke’s Apology for Paul,’ in SBL 1988 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 27;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 106–18; John Clayton Lentz Jr., Luke’s Portrait of Paul (SNTSMS 77; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993); James A. Kelhoffer, ‘The Gradual Disclosure of Paul’s Violence against Christians; Smith Dennis S. and
Tyson Joseph B. eds. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (2013). On using Acts for the historical reconstruction
of early Christianity, see the discussions in David E. Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (1987) 77–157; the essays
by Darryl W. Palmer, Loveday C. A. Alexander, and Brian S. Rosner in vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting ed.
Bruce W. Winter (1993) 1–82; Witherington Ben ed. History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (1996); Loveday Alexander
Mapping Early Christianity: Acts and the Shape of Early Church History Int 57 (2003) 163–73; Rothschild Clare K. Luke–Acts and
the Rhetoric of History (2004); Gregory Andre Acts and Christian Beginnings: A Review Essay Journal for the Study of the New
Testament (September 2016) 39: 97-115.
362
Smith Dennis S. and Tyson Joseph B. eds. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (2013)
363
See pg. 173.
364
Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? (2000), 85.
365
‘Luke-Acts is one of the most pro-Jewish and one of the most anti-Jewish writings in the New Testament.’ L. Gaston in Anti-
Judaism in Early Christianity, Peter Richardson and David Granskou, eds. (1986), vol. 1, 127–153; and Wilson, Related Strangers,
64–65. For discussions of this range: Wilson, Related Strangers, 56–71, esp. 57; and Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 389–390. Also
Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in The New Testament? 73); and N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the
Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1994), 207.
366
Standing on Wilson, Related Strangers, 64–65.
367
On the origins of the genre, see A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (2011).
368
Acts 16:1–3; 21:18–28; 23:5; 24:14–15, 17–18; 25:8, 10; 26:4–8, 22.
369
Similar view in Patrick J. Hartin, James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth (2004), 135–140. On Luke’s literary creativity:
Nielsen Jesper Tang and Müller Mogens eds. Luke’s Literary Creativity (2016)

John
370
J. D. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus (1995), 20–25.
371
Joseph Stiassny, Development of the Christians’ Self-understanding in the Second Part of the First Century, Immanuel 1 (1972),
32–34; Rosemary R. R., Faith and Fratricide (1974), 16; Eldon J. Epp, Anti-Semitism and the Popularity of the Fourth Gospel in
Christianity (1975), 35–57; Barrett C. K. The Gospel of John and Judaism (1975), 71; Meeks W. ‘Am I a Jew? Johannine Christianity
and Judaism,’ in Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco-Roman Cults, J. Neusner, ed. (1975), 172; Reginald Fuller, ‘The Jews’ in th

352
Fourth Gospel,’ Dialog 16 (1977), 31–37; S. Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (1978), 119; J. Townsend, ‘The Gospel
of John and the Jews,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, A. Davies, ed. (1979), 60, 72–97; John Koenig, Jews and
Christians in Dialogue: New Testament Foundations (1979), 131, 137; J. E. Leibig, ‘John and The Jews: Theological Anti-Semitism
in the Fourth Gospel,’ JES (1983), 224; Clark M. Williamson and R. J. Allen, Interpreting Difficult Texts (1989), 48–55; N. A. Beck,
Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1994); Reinhartz Adele
Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (2001) 51–53
Levieils X. Juifs et Grecs dans la communauté johannique Biblica 82.1 (2001): 51-78; Peter Tomson, Jews and the New Testament
Authors (2001), 401–404; 199–241; Henk Jan De Jonge The ‘Jews’ in the Gospel of John in: R. Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt & F.
Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds). Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (2001) 240-259; Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and
Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (2001), 42, 109; Lars Kierspel, The Jews and the
World in the Fourth Gospel (2006); R. Alan Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and
Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 81.
372
J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1979).
373
The Descendants of Jesus’s disciples and followers considered Jesus an exalted human, not a divine being.
374
On this originating sequence: Cohen Shaye The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (1999); Freyne
Sean Behind the Names: Samaritans, Ioudaioi, Galileans in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity (2000);
Esler Philip Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (2003) 19–76; Schwartz Daniel R. ‘Judaean’ or
‘Jew’? How Should We Translate IOUDAIOS in Josephus?’ in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (2007) 3-27; Mason Steve
Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 457–
512; Harvey Graham The True Israel: Uses of the names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature
(2001); Runesson Anders Inventing Christian Identity: Paul, Ignatius, and Theodosius I. (2008) 59-92 in Exploring Early Christian
Identity Holmberg Bengt ed. (2008)
375
See Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 147–163.
376
Gill Christopher, ed., The Discourses of Epictetus (1995).
377
S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, c1999 70–73. Similar views in D. Rensberger,
in Anti Judaism and the Gospels, William R. Farmer, ed. (1999), 123.
378
De Jounge, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 121 and Chapter 6,
standing on B. W. J. de Ruyter.
379
James R. Mueller, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, Evans Ed and Hagner, eds. (1993), 257, who points to W. Bauer
(Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. R. Kraft and G. Krodel [1971], H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament,
vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity [1982], and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–
78), the earliest to identify this phenomenon.
380
U. C. von Wahlde, ‘The Johannine ‘Jews’: A Critical Survey,’ NTS 28 (1982), 33–60.
381
Tomson, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and
Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 198.
382
Among them: James H. Charlesworth, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer,
Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 257–259, advocates ‘some Judean
leaders’ for 5:1, 16; 7:1; 9:22; 11:54; 18:36; 19:38; 20:19. Others on the multivalency of the term: von Wahlde, ‘The Johannine
‘Jews,’’ 33–60; M. Lowe, ‘Who Were the ‘Ioudaioi,’’ NovTIS (1976), 101–130, 106–107); J. Ashton, ‘The Identity and Function of
the ‘Ioudaioi’ in the Fourth Gospel,’ NovT27 (1983), 40–75, 55–57; R. A. Culpepper, ‘The Gospel of John as a Threat to Jewish-
Christian Relations,’ in Overcoming Fear between Jews and Christians-Shared Ground among Jews and Christians 3, J. H.
Charlesworth with F. X. Blisard and J. L. Gorham, eds. (1993), 21–43, 27; J. C. O’Neill, ‘‘The Jews’ in the Fourth Gospel,’ IBS 18
(1996), 58–74, for an overview of the subject. U. C. von Wahlde, The Jews’ in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research (2000),
30–55; Charlesworth, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 254–255;
Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of John in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.
383
Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 66.
384
Besides Brown and Martyn, I would point the following influential works that touch on the socio-historical context of Carroll K. L.
John, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogue,’ BJRL 40 (1957); W. A. Meek, ‘The Man from
Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,’ JBL 91 (1972); and B. J. Malina, ‘The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective,’ Center for
Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Colloquy 48; R. A. Culpepper and C. Clifton Black, Exploring the Gospel
of John (1996); and Paul N. Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (2011).
385
Reinhartz Adele Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (2001) 51–53.
386
Peter Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism (2001), 401–404; Hill Charles E. John and
‘the Gnostics in The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. (2004) 205-293.

353
387
J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1968), 90–121; J. T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents,
Deviants (1993), 44–48; Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (1979), 292–316; Tomson, Jesus and the New
Testament Authors, 401–404; Tomson, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville,
198– 199. For a theological, historical, and literary analysis of John’s riddles, see Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel.
Recent: Meye Thompson, Marianne. John: A Commentary (2015); Kanagaraj, Jay J. John (NCCS) (2012); Michaels, J. Ramsey. The
Gospel of John (NICNT, rev.) (2010).
388
Culpepper Alan R. and Anderson Paul N. eds. Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles (2014);
Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (1994), 83–85. A three-stage transition is also supported by others including J. T.
Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants (1993), 44–48; and Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors, 401–404.
389
Seven groups of protagonists have been identified by Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 59–91: the world, the Jews,
the adherents of John the Baptist, Crypto-Christians, the Jewish Christian Churches of inadequate faith, the apostolic churches, and the
Johannines. See Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of John in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.
390
Carroll K. L. John, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Exclusion of Christians from the Synagogue,’ BJRL 40 (1957)
391
Follows my summary of R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (1966) The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 22–25.
392
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 13; Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of
John in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.
393
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 23
394
Docetism: Jesus was only divine; his physical appearance was an illusion.
See James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (1990), 296–305.
395
More on the Jewish followers of Jesus and John: U. C. von Wahlde, The Jews’ in the Gospel of John: Fifteen Years of Research
(2000), 30–55; Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of John in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.
396
Similar argument in Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants
44–48; and H. J. De Jonge, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer,
Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 121–122, 139–140.
397
Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors, 329, 401–404); similar transitions in Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 83–85; and
Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants, 44–48.
398
R. T. Fortna, The Gospel of Signs (1970), 32 note 6. See the next segment for more on the evolution of the text.
399
A. Reinhartz, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 220.
400
See Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.
401
Urban C. von Wahlde, The Earliest Version of John’s Gospel: Recovering the Gospel of Signs (1989), 34–43, 162–164; Sanders,
Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants.
402
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel.
403
The intra-Gentile debate surfaced a bit later and is a main subject of the Johannine Epistles. Docetic: Jesus was only divine; his
human presence was an illusion.
404
David Rensberger, in What Is John? Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, F. F. Segovia, ed. (1996), 146.
405
See chapter 10 on supersession theology.
406
A. J. Mattill, ‘Johannine Communities behind the ‘Fourth Gospel: Georg
Richter’s Analysis,’’ TS 38 (1977), 294–315.
407
Recently, Culpepper R.A. and Anderson Paul N. eds. Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, ed.
SBL (2014)
408
Standing on Beck, Mature Christianity, 310.
409
Same argument in Rensberger, in What Is John? Segovia, 141–142.
410
Support for this assessment in H. Koester and J. M. Robinson, Trajectories
through Early Christianity (1971), 115; W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the People
of Israel,’ NTS 24 (1977), 4–39; G. Strecker, ‘On the Problem of Jewish
Christianity,’ appendix to Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 241–245.
411
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 82–83.
412
Amy-Jill Levine The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (2006).
413
My summary of Beck, Mature Christianity, 311.
414
Standing on Beck, Mature Christianity, 297.
415
Rensberger’s sources: D. Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (1988), 27–28; Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven
in Johannine Sectarianism,’ 44–72; B. J. Malina, The Gospel of John in Sodolinguistic Perspective (1985); J. Neusner, ed.,
Christianity, Judaism, and Other Graeco-Roman Cults (1975), 2:1–23; J. H. Elliot, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis

354
of 1 Peter (1981), 73–78. Strands of early Christianity as sectarians: R. Scroggs, The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian
Movement. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, 4 vols., SJLA 12.
416
Rensberger, in What Is John? Segovia, 139–142; and Rensberger, in Anti Judaism and the Gospels, Farmer, 150, 152, 154,
concludes that John reflects a dissident and marginalized community confronting an orthodoxy or a majority view.
417
Rensberger, in What Is John? Segovia, 139–142.
418
See H. J. De Jonge, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 121–140.
419
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel; Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple; R. Kysar, ‘The Gospel of
John in Current Research,’ RSR9 (1983), 316; W. A. Meeks, in ‘To See Ourselves as Others See Us’: Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ in
Late Antiquity, J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs, eds. (1985), 94; G. M. Smiga, Pain and Polemic: Anti-Judaism in the Gospels (1992),
137; Beck, Mature Christianity, 288; David Rensberger and Adele Reinhartz, in What Is John? Segovia. Sanders, Schismatics,
Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants, 44–48.
420
Cassidy Richard J. John’s Gospel in New Perspective: Christology and the Realities of Roman Power (1992); Carter Warren John:
Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2006); Reed David Rethinking John’s Social Setting: Hidden Transcript, Anti-language, and the
Negotiations of the Empire (2006) 101; Carter Warren John and Empire: Initial Explorations (2008); Thatcher Tom Greater than
Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (2009). Skinner Christopher W. John’s Gospel and the Roman Imperial
Context: An Evaluation of Recent Proposals in Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies, ed.
McKnight Scot and Modica Joseph B. (2013) 116–29
421
For a survey of these issues, see Bieringer and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, 63.
422
Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, 29.
423
Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 67.
424
Gerd Luedemannn, The Unholy in Holy Scripture (1997), 110–120.
425
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2d ed.; and R. Kysar, ‘The Gospel of John in Current Research,’ RSR9 (1983),
316.
426
Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, 2d ed., 50–62. Since, Martyn has modified his views in harmony with the
emerging consensus.
427
Langer Ruth Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (2012) 16–39; Kinzig Wolfram The Condemnation of the
Nosrim in the Birkat Haminim in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 482-
488; Horbury William Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (1998) 67-110, 240-43; Daniel Boyarin Justin Martyr Invents
Judaism CH 70 (2001) 427–61; Horbury William Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation in Tolerance and
Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity ed. G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa (1998) 296-317; van der Horst, Hellenism;
Mimouni Simon C. Les Nazoreens: Recherche etymologique et historique.’ Revue biblique 105 (1998) 161-88, 212-15; A. Reinhartz
The Johannine Community: A Reappraisal in ‘What Is John?’ edited by Fernando F. Segovia (1996 –1998); Mimouni Simon C. La
'Birkat ha-mininVm: Une priere juive contre les judeochretiens RSR 71 (1997) 275-98; van der Horst Pieter W. The Birkat ha-minim
in Recent Research ExpTim 105 (1993-1994) 363-68; van der Horst Hellenism—Judaism—Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction
(1994) 99-111; Joubert S. J. A Bone of Contention in Recent Scholarship: The 'Birkat HaMinim' and the Separation of Church and
Synagogue in the First Century AD. Neotestamentica 27 (1993) 351-62; Mimouni Simon C. Pour une definition nouvelle du judeo-
christianisme ancient New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 161-86; Thornton Timothy C. G. Christian Understanding of the Birkath Ha-
Minim in the Eastern Roman Empire JTS NS 38 (1987) 419-31; Schiffman Lawrence Η. Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic
Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism (1985) 56-61; Katz S. T. Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.
E.: A Reconsideration JBL 103 (1984), 43–76, 74; Horbury William The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian
Controversy JTS NS 33 (1982) 19-61; Schalom Ben-Chorin, Betendes Judentum: Kimelman, Reuven Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack
of Evidence for an AntiChristian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity in Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by E. P.
Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson. Vol. 2 of Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (1981) 226-44, 391-403; J. Townsend,
‘The Gospel of John—Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations Christianity, A. Davies, ed.
(1979), 72–97
428
A. Reinhartz The Johannine Community: A Reappraisal in ‘What Is John?’ edited by Fernando F. Segovia (1996 –1998)
429
J. Townsend, ‘The Gospel of John—Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations Christianity,
A. Davies, ed. (1979), 72–97
87; C. K. Barnett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed. (1978), 361;
John Painter, John 9, John, Witness and Theologian (1975), 38; R. Culpepper,
Exploring the Gospel of John (1996), 280–282.
430
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 41–42.
431
Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, 200, 32–33.
432
Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 82.

355
433
Similar views in Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 41.
434
Standing on De Jounge, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville,
134 and Chapter 6.
435
These differing Gentile believers in Jesus may be De Jonge’s ‘Christian contemporaries who did not accept all, or perhaps only a
portion, of John’s Christology.’ De Jonge, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-
Vanneuville, 134. See also Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of John in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237
436
Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors, 407.
437
Townsend, ‘The Gospel of John,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations
Christianity, Davies, 72–97, 87. Similar views in Tomson, in Anti-Judaism
and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville,
198–199; and Beck, Mature Christianity, 296.
438
G. Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (2000), 11.
439
See Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel; E. J. Epp, ‘Anti-Semitism and the Popularity of the Fourth Gospel in
Christianity,’ CCARJ /22 (1975), 35–57; Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-
Vanneuville, 81; Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism, 71; Meeks, ‘Am I a Jew?’ Neusner, 172; Bieringer, Pollefeyt, and
Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel 4.
440
Standing on Beck, Mature Christianity, 306–307.
441
Charlesworth, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt,
and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 248; and Luedemannn, The Unholy in Holy
Scripture, 94–95, 110.

Revelation
442
Consonant views in Peter J. Tomson, If This Be from Heaven: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to
Judaism (2001), 362, 365, 366. Recent: Aune David E. The Apocalypse of John and Palestinian Jewish Apocalyptic Neotestamentica
40.1 (2006) 1-33; Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Book of Revelation in Jewish believers in Jesus:
the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 237-241; Gorman, Michael J. Reading Revelation Responsibly
(2011) O Koester, Craig R. Revelation (AB, rev.) (2014); Duvall, J. Scott. Revelation (TTC) (2014)
443
On Revelation and the Roman Empire: Moore Stephen D. What Is, What Was, and What May Yet Be in Untold tales from the Book
of Revelation : sex and gender, empire and ecology Moore Stephen D. ed. SBL 79 (2014); DeSilva David A., The Strategic Arousal of
Emotion in John’s Visions of Roman Imperialism: A Rhetorical-Critical Investigation of Revelation 4-22 Neotestamentica 42.1 (2008)
1-34; Biguzzi Giancarlo Is the Babylon of Revelation Rome or Jerusalem? Biblica 87.3 (2006) 372-386; Carey Greg Revelation and
Empire: Symptoms of Resistance in Barr David L. The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (2006);
De Jonge Henk Jan The Function of Religious Polemics: The Case of the Revelation of John Versus the Imperial Cult in Hettema T.
L.& van der Kooij A. eds. Religious Polemics in Context (2005) 276-290; van Henten J. W. Dragon myth and imperial ideology in
Revelation 12-13. in Barr David L. ed. The reality of apocalypse: rhetoric and politics in the Book of Revelation. (2006) 181-203;
Gordon Zerbe Revelation’s Exposé of Two Cities: Babylon and New Jerusalem Direction 32.1 (2003) 46-70; Aune David E.
Revelation 1 7-22 (1998), Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment [2nd ed.; Minneapolis:
Fortress, (1998); Rossing Barbara R. The Choice between Two Cities: Whore, Bride, and Empire in the Apocalypse (1999) 77-82.
444
The earliest were B. M. Newman Jr., Rediscovering the Book of Revelation (1968), 30; and J. M. Robinson and H. Koester,
Trajectories through Early Christianity (1971), 114–157. See more updated views in John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism
(1985), 131; Lloyd Gaston, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, S. G. Wilson, ed. (1986), 42–43; Stephen G. Wilson, Related
Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 163; Murray Michele, Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 78.
445
For the view that the adversaries are mainstream Jews, see D. M. Smith, ‘Judaism and the Gospel of John,’ in Jews and Christians:
Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, J. H. Charlesworth, ed. (1990), 88–89; and Yarbro A. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The
Power of the Apocalypse (1984), 85–87.
446
See Duff Paul The ‘Synagogue of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of John
in Barr David L. The Reality of Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation (2006)
447
Standing on Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 147, 162–3
448
Gal. 2:14, 3; 5:2–12; 6:12, 15; and Magn. 8:1–2; 9:1; 10:3, and Phld. 6:1.
Segment stands on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 78–79.
449
See Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 131; Gaston, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 42–43; Wilson, Related Strangers,
163; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 78.
450
Indebted to Wilson, Related Strangers, 147–163; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 78.

356
451
Justin refers to others as being more active in persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus than the Jews (Dial. 122). Wilson, Related
Strangers, 163.
452
For differing views, see Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 131; Gaston, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 42–43; Wilson,
Related Strangers, 163; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 78.
453
On Revelation and the Jewish Followers of Jesus: Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Book of
Revelation in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.
454
Moore Stephen D. What Is, What Was, and What May Yet Be in Untold tales from the Book of Revelation: sex and gender, empire
and ecology Moore Stephen D. ed. SBL 79 (2014) 6.
455
The beast (Nero), the seven hills that surround Rome, and 666 or 676 (the
numerological equivalents of the two ways Nero’s name is written in Hebrew).

Summary
456
About Gentile Judaizers (Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus), see Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, 131;
Gaston, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 42–43; Wilson, Related Strangers, 163; and Murray Playing a Jewish Game, 78–79—
although most of these analyses cast the context as inter-religious.
457
For recent survey of typological examples see Evans Craig A. and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds., ’What Does the Scripture Say?’:
Studies in the Function of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity (2013)
458
Examples from Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 134

06- chapter 06 - Supersession

459
On the supersessionary message of Hebrews see bibliography and: Attridge, H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews (1989) 228; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews NIGTC (1993) 413, 417; Johnson Luke T. The New
Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas The
Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Salevao Iutisone Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and
Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe JSNTSup 219 (2002)192–195; See also Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 179; Hagner,
Hebrews, 124; Homer A. Kent The New Covenant and the Church GTJ 6 (1985) 295; Walters J. R. The Rhetorical Arrangement of
Hebrews As 7/51 (1996) 59–70; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (2000) 287. Kim L. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism,
Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism? (2006)
460
For Pauline authorship of Hebrews: Allen David L. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010); Rothschild Clare K. Hebrews as
Pseudepigraphon (2009)

Hebrews
461
For scholars that have articulated a somewhat positive interpretation of Hebrews’ supersessionism: D. A. Hagner, ‘A Positive
Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,’ SEA 69 (2004), 14; Donald G. Bloesch, ‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Supersessionism
and the Biblical Witness (1989), 139, 140.
462
Wilson, Related Strangers, 110; Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews (1991), 1.
463
Recent scholarship on Hebrews’ theology: Moore Nicholas J. Christ as ‘The One Who Entered His Rest’: The Christological
Reading of Hebrews 4.10 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.4 (2014); Dyer B.R. The epistle to The Hebrews in recent
research: studies on the author's identity, his use of The Old Testament, and Theology (2013) 104-31; Richardson, C.A. Pioneer and
Perfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2012); Matera Frank The Theology of
the Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 189-209; McCruden
Kevin B. The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the
Hebrews (2011) 209-231; Greer Rowan The Jesus of Hebrews and the Christ of Chalcedon in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B.
Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 231-251; Moffitt, D.M. Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (2011); Whitlark Jason A. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the
Ancient Mediterranean World (2010); Bauckham Richard The divinity of Jesus Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Bauckham, R.,
D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); Webster John One who
is Son: theological reflections on the exordium to the Epistle to the Hebrews in Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N.
MacDonald, eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); Holmes Stephen R. Death in the afternoon: Hebrews,
sacrifice, and soteriology in Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and
Christian Theology (2009); McCruden, K.B. Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2008);
Gelardini, G. Hebrews, An Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: its Function, its Basis, its Theological Interpretation In
Gelardini, Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, (2005) 107-127; Isaacs, M. E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73 (1992)

357
464
Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995). Recently, Koester Craig R. Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future
of Humanity in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 99-121 supports the view that the
community is facing difficulties and may be in decline.
465
Hebrews’ scholarship (not an exhaustive list – see all citations in this chapter): B. P. W. S Hunt, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews or
against the Hebrews?’ SE 2 (1964), 408; Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (1978), 121; Attridge, Harold W. The
Epistle to the Hebrews (1989); N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-
Jewish Polemic of the New Testament, 2d ed. (1994); Barnabas Lindars, ‘The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews,’ NTS 35 (1989), 392 n.
2; Robert W. Wall and William Lane, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, Craig Evans and Donald Hagner, eds. (2002), 199,
173; William Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991); Marie E. Isaacs, ‘Hebrews,’ in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context, J.
Barclay and J. Sweet, eds. (1996), 158; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1989), 9; Donald Hagner, Encountering the
Book of Hebrews (2002), 35–36; Luke Timothy Johnson, ‘The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient
Polemic,’ JBL 108 (1989), 423–424; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to
the Hebrews ‘ (2000), 263; Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (2001), 54; Clark M. Williamson, ‘Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?’ Int 57 (2003),
266–279. Recent: deSilva, D. A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (2000);
Allen, David L. Hebrews (2010); Cockerill, Gareth L. The Epistle to the Hebrews (2012)
466
Schenck Kenneth Hebrews as the Re-presentation of a Story: A Narrative Approach to Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden
Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 171-189; deSilva D.A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (2000); David A. deSilva Heb 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation TynBul 50 (1999)
33–57, 225–236; R. Alan Culpepper, Mapping the Textures of the New Testament Criticism: A Response to Socio-Rhetorical Criticism
JSNT 70 (1998), 73; Trotter Andrew H. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews (1997) 163–84 Stanley S. The Structure of Hebrews
from Three Perspectives TynBul 45: 245– 71 (1994)
467
Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1967).
468
Simon Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers (1986), 24–25.
469
On the supersessionary message of Hebrews: Attridge, H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (1989) 228; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews NIGTC (1993) 413, 417; Johnson Luke T. The New Testament's
Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas The Theology
of the Letter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Salevao Iutisone Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and
Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe JSNTSup 219 (2002)192–195; See also Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 179; Hagner,
Hebrews, 124; Homer A. Kent The New Covenant and the Church GTJ 6 (1985) 295; Walters J. R. The Rhetorical Arrangement of
Hebrews As 7/51 (1996) 59–70; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (2000) 287. Kim L. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism,
Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism? (2006)
470
Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) pg. 115-139; For a general bibliography on the Jewish
followers of Jesus see pg. 415
471
L. Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction and Maintenance of a Symbolic Universe (2002), 340.
472
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1964), xliii; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1989); Lane, Hebrews 1–8,
WBC 47a, Ixvi; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 21; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (1993), 33;
Craig R. Koester, Hebrews (2001), 54.
473
Wilson, Related Strangers, 117; and S. Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews (1990), 103–104, 115, acknowledge them as part of
the influences on the addressees.
474
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 94.
475
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 120–121.
476
Kim L. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Supersessionism? (2006)
477
Similar view in Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 15.
478
This is the majority view among scholars. See Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1977), 260;
Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 10–13; Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev ed. (1990), 155; James D. G. Dunn, The Partings
of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism (1990); Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 10–11; Ellingworth, The
Epistle to the Hebrews, 80; Wilson, Related Strangers, 127; Koester, Hebrews, 7.
479
Similar views in Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 94.
480
Recent contribution of essays is to be found in Cameron Ron and Miller Merrill P., eds. Redescribing Paul and the Corinthians
(2011)
481
Most scholars argue that the community in Hebrews had separated itself from establishment Judaism. See Johnson, ‘The New
Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander,’ 423–424; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 11; Pamela M. Eisenbaum, ‘The

358
Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context,’ SBLDS 156 (1997), 10; and Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter
to the Hebrews, 192–195. For a differing view, see Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a, cxxvii.
482
See Hagner, Hebrews, 9.
483
See discussion on the ‘revised Paul’
484
Standing on Wilson, Related Strangers, 17–118.
485
On Hebrews and priesthood: Nairne, A. The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1913); Sabourin, L.
Priesthood: A Comparative Study (1973); Anderson, D.R. The King-Priest of Psalm 110 in Hebrews. Studies in Biblical Literature
(2001); Jordaan, G.J.C. and P. Nel From Priest-King to King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews in: D.J. Human
and G.J. Steyn (eds), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception (2010): 229–40; Neyrey, Jerome H. S.J Jesus the Broker in Hebrews:
Insights from the Social Sciences in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 145-171;
Calaway, J.C. The Sabbath and the Sanctuary: Access to God in the Letter to the Hebrews and its Priestly Context (2013)
486
Exodus 28:1; Leviticus 21:10.
487
Exodus 28:1; Leviticus 1:5–7, 8:1–3; 21:1; Numbers 1:47–51; 3:5–9.
488
On the Greco-Roman context of Hebrews: Thompson James W. What Has Middle Platonism to Do with Hebrews? in Mason Eric
F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 31-35; Gray Patrick Hebrews among Greeks and Romans in
Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 13-31.
489
Malachi (1:6–2:9); Testament of Levi (T. Levi 14:5–8, 15:1–2; 16:1; 17:1, 18:1–3); 1 and 2 Maccabees (1 Mace. 2:23–27; 2 Mace.
4:24–25); Psalms of Salomon (Pss. Sol. 1:8, 2:3–4); Dead Sea Scrolls (CD 2.12–20, CD 4.18–19, and 5.6–8); IQpHab 8.8–13, IQpHab
9.4–5, 1QS 4.25.
490
On Melchizedek see Horton F.L. The Melchizedek Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1976); Cockerill G.L. Melchizedek or ‘King of Righteousness’?’ EvQ63 (1991) 305-312; Aschim A.
Melchizedek the Liberator: An Early Interpretation of Genesis 14? SBL 35 (1996) 243-258; Pearson B.A. Melchizedek in Early
Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism in Stone M.E. and Bergen T.A, eds. Biblical Figures outside the Bible M.E. (1998); Attridge,
H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1989 )176-202. 192-195; McNamara M.,
Melchizedek: Gen 14,17-20 in the Targums, in Rabbinic and Early Christian Literature Bib 81 (2000) 1-31; Nel From Priest-King to
King-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews in: D.J. Human and G.J. Steyn (eds), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in
Reception (2010): 229–40, Mason Eric F. Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews in
Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 53-77
491
Some Melchizedek speculation appears in the Qumran texts and in 2 Enoch and may have originated there. There is an equally
enigmatic resurfacing of
Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4.
492
See detailed analysis in Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 192–195.
493
G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (1975), 265–268.
494
Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 75.
495
Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 192–195.
496
Wilson, Related Strangers, 119.
497
Wilson, Related Strangers, 119.
498
Segment indebted to Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 75.
499
Ibid., 137.
500
Recently, Le Donne Anthony, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (2009).
501
On the eschatological context of Hebrews: Barrett C.K. The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews in The Background of the
New Testament and Its Eschatology, eds. W.D. Davies & D. Daube (1953) 363–93; Hurst L.D. Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the
Epistle to the Hebrews SBL Seminar Papers 23 (1984) 41–74; Silva M. Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews WTJ 39 (1976) 60–
71; Robinson W.C. Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A study in the Christian Doctrine of Hope Encounter 22 (1961) 37–51;
Carlston CE Eschatology and Repentance in the Epistle to the Hebrews JBL 78 (1959); Toussaint S.D. The eschatology of the
warning passages in the Book of Hebrews GTJ 3 (1982) 67-80; Sharp J.R. Philonism and the Eschatology of Hebrews: Another Look
EAJT 2 (1984) 289–298; MacRae G.W. Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews Semeia 12 (1978) 179–99;
Oberholtzer T.K. The warning passages in Hebrews: The eschatological salvation of Hebrews 1:5- 2:5 BSac 145 (1988) 83-97;
Anderson, C. P. Who are the Heirs of the New Age in the Epistle to the Hebrew in Apocalyptic and the New Testamen edited by J.
Marcus and M. L. Soards (1989) 55-257; Mackie, S. D. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2007); Mason
Eric F. Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden
Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 53-77.
502
For scholarship on covenant theology see: Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, John Fischer, ‘Covenant Fulfillment and Judaism
in Hebrews,’ ERT 13 (1989), 1–6; Robert W. Wall and William Lane, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig Evans and
Donald Hagner (1993), 180–181; Steven McKenzie, Covenant (2000), 118–121; Hays Richard Here We Have No Lasting City’: New

359
Covenantalism in Hebrews in The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, et al. (2009) 151-73;
Nanos, M. D. New or Renewed Covenantalism? A Response to Richard Hays in Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews (2009)
183-188; Williamson, ‘Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?’ 266–279; Hagner, ‘A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,’ 14–
18.
503
See Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a, 258; and Koester, Hebrews, 436.
504
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 22.
505
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 94; and C. Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux (1952) 13.
506
That is, Psalm 110:4; Jeremiah 31:31–35.
507
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 36.
508
Hebrews uses the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 31:31–34.
509
Standing on Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 227.
510
Standing on Koester, Hebrews, 385.
511
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 130–131; and W. D. Davies, ‘Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come,’ JBLMS
7 (1952), 21–28.
512
Recent scholarship on Hebrews and sacrifice: Holmes Stephen R. Death in the afternoon: Hebrews, sacrifice, and soteriology in
Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); Mitchell
Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle
to the Hebrews (2011) 251-269.
513
Psalms 26:6–7; 50:8–14; 51; 69:32; 107:22; 116:17; 119:108. See also Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 88–89;
W. Thompson, ‘Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice,’ JBL 98 (1979); and H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (1966); V.
Nikiprowetzky, ‘La spiritualisation des sacrifices et le culte sacrificiel au temple de Jerusalem chez Philon d’Alexandrie,’ Sem 17
(1967), 79.
514
Samuel 15:22; Amos 4:4; 5:21–27; Hosea 6:6; 8:11–13; 13:2; Isaiah 1:10–15; 43:23–25; 65:3–11; 66:2–4, 17; Jeremiah 6:20; 7:21–
24; 11:15; 19:5; 32:25; Habakkuk 1:16; Ezekiel 16:15–21; 23:36–39; Malachi 1:7–8; 3:8–9, Psalms 50:8–10; 51:16–17.
515
Thompson, Hebrews 9 and Hellenistic Concepts of Sacrifice, 567.
516
Robert A. Kugler, Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler (2000), 90.
517
Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 10.
518
See Aharon R. E. Agus, The Binding of Isaac and Messiah: Law, Martyrdom, and Deliverance in Early Rabbinic Religiosity
(1988).
519
Segment stands on Hagner, Hebrews, 14–15.
520
For recent scholarship on the incorporation-appropriation of the Hebrew Scriptures by Hebrews: Leschert, D.F. Hermeneutical
Foundations of Hebrews: A Study in the Validity of the Epistle’s Interpretation of Some Core Citations from the Psalms (1994);
Guthrie, G. Hebrews - Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research. CBR 1.2 (2003): 271-294. Wallace, D. The Use of
Psalms in the Shaping of a Text: Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:1 in Hebrews 1’, RestQ 45: 41–50 (2003); Johnson, L. T. The Scriptural
World of Hebrews Int 57 (2003): 237-250; Beale, G.K. and D.A. Carson Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
(2007); Polen Nehemia Leviticus and Hebrews ... and Leviticus in Bauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds.
The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); Susan E. Docherty The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews: A Case
Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (2009); Dirk J. Human and Gert Jacobus Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in
Reception (LHBOTS, 527; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010); Gelardini Gabriella Hebrews, Homiletics, and Liturgical Scripture
Interpretation in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011 )121-145; Moffitt David M. The
Interpretation of Scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews
(2011) 77-99; Ounsworth, R.J. Joshua Typology in the New Testament (2012); Whitfield, B.J. Joshua Traditions and the Argument of
Hebrews 3 and 4 (2013); Dyer B.R. The epistle to The Hebrews in recent research: studies on the author's identity, his use of The Old
Testament, and Theology (2013) 104-31.
521
Recent participants in the debate about Hebrew’s supersessionist impetus: Wedderburn A. J. M. Sawing off the Branches:
Theologizing Dangerously Ad Hebraeos JTS 56 (2005) 393-414; Kim L. Polemic in the Book of Hebrews: Anti-Judaism, Anti-
Semitism, Supersessionism? (2006); Hays Richard Here We Have No Lasting City’: New Covenantalism in Hebrews in The Epistle to
the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, et al. (2009) 151-73; Nanos, M. D. New or Renewed Covenantalism? A
Response to Richard Hays in Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews (2009) 183-188; Skarsaune, O. ‘Does the Letter to the
Hebrews Articulate a Supersessionist Theology? A Response to Richard Hays.’ In Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews,
(2009); Mitchell Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B.
Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 251-269.
522
Wilson, Related Strangers, 120. Similar views in Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 117.
523
Standing on Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 1. See more on this subject on p. 120.

360
524
Contra Mitchell Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise’: Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin
B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 251-269 and many others that reject this position.
525
On the other hand, Schäfer Peter The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (2012) argues that rabbinic
Judaism reappropriated Jewish ideas that were first usurped by Christianity.
526
Similar conclusion in Mitchell Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise’: Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and
McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 251-269
527
On the Adversus Judaeos literature – See bibliography in pg. 415. Also Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans and Christian Identity
Formation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 in Black, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and
Its Social World (2014); Van Nuffelen, Peter Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons for
John’s Deposition Adamantius 19 (2013b) 138-55; Côté, Dominique Le problème de l’identité religieuse dans la Syrie du IVe siècle.
Le cas des Pseudo-Clémentines et de l’Adversus Judaeos de saint Jean Chrysostom in Mimouni Simon C. et Pouderon Bernard eds.
La croisée des chemins revisitée. Quand l’Église et la Synagogue se sont-elles distinguées? (2012) 339-70; Lahey Lawrence Evidence
for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640; David Satran in Contra Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G.
Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Stroumsa Guy G. Contra Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996)
8–10
528
See John Fischer, ‘Covenant Fulfillment and Judaism in Hebrews,’ ERT 13 (1989), 1–6; Robert W. Wall and William Lane, in
Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig Evans and Donald Hagner (1993), 180–181; Steven McKenzie, Covenant (2000),
118–121; Williamson, ‘Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?’ 266–279; Hagner, ‘A Positive Theology of Judaism from the New Testament,’
14–18. Critical views of the Epistle: Beck, Mature Christianity;
Wilson, Related Strangers; Williamson, ‘Anti-Judaism in Hebrews?’ 270.
529
Donald G. Bloesch, describing this worldview, writes, ‘Christianity represents not the annulment of the heritage of Israel but its
fulfillment even in the midst of negation’ (‘All Israel Will Be Saved’ 139).
530
Hagner, Hebrews, 109. See also Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
381–382; Gordon, Hebrews, 27–28; Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 258; Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 125; Johnson, ‘The New
Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander,’ 423–424; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 11; Eisenbaum, ‘The Jewish Heroes
of Christian History,’ 10; Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews, 192–195. Contrary views in Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC
47a, 185.
531
Recent surveys of the debates and challenges surrounding Hebrews’ theology: Laansma Jon C. Hebrews: Yesterday, Today, and
Future: An Illustrative Survey, Diagnosis, Prescription pp. 1-32; Attridge Harold W. Hebrews and the History of its Interpretation: A
Biblical Scholar’s Response pp. 202-12; Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews: A Book for Today—A Biblical Scholar’s Response pp. 213-24
in Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier eds. Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation
(2012).
532
Wilson, Related Strangers, 121.

Barnabas
533
My summary of Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 2, 248, and 256; Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The
Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67. Recent: Paget Carleton
James Barnabas and the Outsiders: Jews and Their World in the Epistle of Barnabas in Mark Grundeken and Joseph Verheyden eds.
Early Christian Communities Between Ideal and Reality (2015)
534
J. C. Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas (1994), 2; and Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 110–142,
Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second
Century (1996)
among many
535
Simon Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers (1986), 23.
536
For full discussion, see P. Richardson and M. B. Shukster, ‘Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis,’ JTS n. S. 34 (1983), 32–55;
Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 51; Wilson, Related Strangers, 34–37 and 132–133.
537
Standing on Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 2, 260–262.
538
Wilson, Related Strangers, 139.
539
See Barnabas’ ‘explanations’ on the origins of Jewish food laws and customs 10.1–12.
Also Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 2, 72.
540
G. Alon, ‘Halacha in the Epistle of Barnabas,’ Tarbiz 12 (1940), 20–41.
541
Jewish numerology, i.e., the use of numbers as a mystical vehicle.

361
542
Follows my condensation of Wilson, Related Strangers, 128–129; Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 56; Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder,
and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.20; and Tugwell, The
Apostolic Fathers, 23.
543
Wilson, Related Strangers, 137; and Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 9.
544
See discussion on missionary and secessionist communities on p. 146-8.
545
James R. Mueller, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, Evans Ed and Hagner (1993), 257, points to W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History
and Literature of Early Christianity (1982); and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, as the
earliest to identify this phenomenon.
546
Wilson, Related Strangers, 137; and Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 54.
547
Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 51.
548
Per Wilson, Related Strangers, 136.
549
My elaboration of Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 59; and Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 58.
550
My summary of Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 28–33.
551
Wilson, Related Strangers, 137–138); Reidar Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant (1996), 147–148); and Murray,
Playing a Jewish Game, 52.
552
My rewording of Wilson, Related Strangers, 9–10
553
My rewording of Wilson, Related Strangers, 9–10.
554
Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 40–41.
555
For further reading, see Richardson and Shukste, ‘Barnabas, Nerva, and the
Yavnean Rabbis,’ 37; Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 69–70; Wilson, Related
Strangers, 9–10; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 47.
556
See further discussion in chapter 10.
557
Ibid., 57.
558
My elaboration of Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 57; and Wilson, Related Strangers, 130.
559
See Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 57.
560
Summary of Wilson, Related Strangers, 130.
561
Same argument in Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant, 99; and Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 56, regarding
Judaism, not the Jewish followers of Jesus.
562
Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 36.
563
For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415; Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus
Movement (2013) pg. 139-151; Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and
Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67
564
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 58.
565
My condensation of Wilson’s thematic introduction (Related Strangers, 128 and 130). In parenthesis: my modification.
566
J. B. Lightfoot, trans., The Epistle of Barnabas: http://www.earlychristian writings.com.
567
Summary is informed by Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas and Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The
Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67
568
Anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric is the designation I have used throughout to encapsulate various types and manifestations of
Jewish sectarian posturing against the Jewish mainstream-establishment, to the inclusion of the ‘Two Ways’ imagery. We have
already noted that the ‘Two Ways’ theme is the label given by scholars to a Judean sectarian worldview that sees this world as the
battleground between the forces of good and evil. This is contrary to the traditional Israelite view that creation was good and benign.
569
for more on this topic see G. W. Nickelsburg 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (2001), 454–459.
570
On secessionist communities, see pg. 146-8. Evil is ‘everywhere’ (2:1; 4:1; 9:4, 13)
571
Lehne, The New Covenant in Hebrews, 22
572
My condensation of Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 197–199.
573
Nicholas R. M. De Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third Century Palestine (1976); Wayne
A. Meeks and Robert L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Anlioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (1978), 27; J. R.
Donahue, Jewish-Christian Controversy in the Second Century: Justin Martyr (1973), 254; M. Simon, Versus Israel-Jews and
Christians in the Roman Empire (1986), xii; Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly
Consensus (1997). 46. G. Strecker, in W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971),
262; John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (1985), 115 and 132; Wilken, John Chrisostom and the Jews (1983); Lloyd Gaston,
‘Retrospect,’ in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Stephen G. Wilson, ed. (1986), 166); Studies in Christianity and Judaism,
S. G. Wilson, ed. (1986), 33–44; Judith M. Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity (2003); Murray, Playing a
Jewish Game, 2.

362
574
Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 69–70
575
Murray, Playing a Jewish Game.
576
My fusion of Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 38; and Paget, The Epistle of
Barnabas, 52, 69–70.
577
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 54.
578
Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 185.
579
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 52–53.

Supersession
580
There are traces and insinuations of the term ‘New Israel’ in Matthew, Hebrews, and in the Pauline letters but the unequivocal and
overt claim to the designation ‘New Israel’ does not occur in any of the New Testament documents. I assume the use of this
designation, or similar and equivalent ones, by the Jewish followers of Jesus.
581
The prophet Nahum being the most subservient.
582
More on this subject in Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time
of Jesus (1985), Chapter 1.
583
See Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs.
584
R. R. Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism
(1974), 90–91.
585
Standing on Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner, Anti-Semitism and Early
Christianity (1993), 9–17.
586
N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the
Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1985), 11–13.
587
Standing on Robert Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews (1983), 133.
588
The supremacy of one God—during the last two thousand years Judaism has evolved away from its tribal crucible toward a
universalistic and monotheistic outlook, while still partially anchored in its ancestral (henotheistic) tribal origins. Lawrence Schiffman,
Who was a Jew? (1985); and Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010).
589
For a summary evaluation of the impact of 70 and 135 ce, see Stephen G.
Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 3–5.
590
See P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (1969), 33–38; L. H. Schiffman, Who Was a Jew? (1985), 75–78; M. Simon,
Versus Israel (1986), 3–65; J. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways (1991), 230, 245; Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 150–151,
163; and Wilson, Related Strangers, 4–5, 8–11, and 285–288.
591
Wilson, Related Strangers, 4–5.
592
Standing on Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 150–151.
593
George Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity,
Continuity and Transformation (2003), 59, 116–117.
594
John T. Pawlikowski, Jesus and the Theology of Israel (1989), 66.
595
Nickelsburg, Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins, 59.
596
In James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), 235–253.
597
Houses of prayer are attested in the Diaspora since the third century BCE. Synagogues, gathering places where the Torah was read,
are widely attested in Judea from the late second century bc onward. Recent: Recently: Levine Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The
First Thousand Years 2nd ed. (2005); Runesson Anders, Binder Donald D., and Olsson Birger The Ancient Synagogue from Its
Origins to 200 CE in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 72 (2008)
598
Wilson, Related Strangers, 287.
599
The disciples that ‘did not understand,’ ‘abandoned,’ and ‘denied’ and the ‘hidden Messiah motif.’
600
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 58.

07 – Chapter 7 – The Post Canonical Era

601
See more details in W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,
ed. R. Kraft and G. Krodel (1971).
602
See bibliography on the Jewish Followers of Jesus pg 415. R. E. Brown, ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but
Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity,’ CBQ 45 (January 1983) for early diversity.
603
See Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 165; and Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the
Faiths We Never Knew (2003) on this subject.
604
Summary of Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, introduction.

363
605
I first encountered the term in Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities. Recent: Grundeken Mark and Verheyden Joseph eds. Early
Christian Communities between Ideal and Reality (2015) 161-75
606
See bibliography in Pg. 415.
607
I build on B. J. Malina, Jewish-Christianity or Christian-Judaism: Toward a Hypothetical Definition (1976), 46–47. On ‘Jewish
Christianity,’ see H. J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (1969); G. Strecker, ‘On the Problem of Jewish Christianity,’ in Orthodoxy and
Heresy in Earliest Christianity, by W. Bauer, trans. R. A. Kraft and G. Kroedel, eds. (1971), 241–285; A. Kraft, ‘In search of ‘Jewish
Christianity’ and its Theology: Problems of Definition and
Methodology,’ Recherches de Sciences Religieuse 60 (1972), 81–96 ; A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-
Christian Sects (1973) ; A. F. J. Klijn, ‘The Study of Jewish-Christianity,’ NTS (1973 –74), 419–426 ; J. D. Dunn, Unity and Diversity
in the New Testament (1977), 239–266 ; S. K. Riegel, ‘Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology,’ NTS 24 (1978), 411; R A.
Fritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the First Century Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (1988); R. E.
Van Voorst, The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community (1989); Gerd Ludemann, Opposition to
Paul in Jewish Christianity, trans. E. Boring (1989), 1–34. Updated views in O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers in
Jesus (2007); and Matt Jackson-Mccabe, ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007). See also Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the
Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987), 168; and J. T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants (1993), 58.
608
Skarsaune and Hvalvik, Jewish Believers in Jesus (2007). Also Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered:
Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (2007); Evans Craig A. The Literary Heritage of Jewish Believers in Jewish believers in Jesus:
the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 241-278
609
See Boccaccini Gabriele Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism (1998);
Jackson David R. Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars (2004)
610
Skarsaune Oskar The Ebionites in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007)
419-463; Kinzig Wolfram The Nazoraeans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries
eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen in Jewish believers
in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 361-373; Knox John The Origin of the Ebionites in The
Image of the JudaeoChristians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-
81
611
On the parting of the ways debate: Segal Alan F. Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (1986);
Neusner Jacob Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (1991). Dunn James D.G ed. The Parting of the Ways Between
Christianity and Judaism (1992); Wilson, Stephen G Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 70–170 C. E. (1995); Porter Stanley E.
and Pearson Brooke W.R. Why the Split? Christians and Jews by the Fourth Century in Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and
Judaism 1 (2000) 82–119; Meeks Wayne A. Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the
Jewish Communities in Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays Hilton Allen R. and Snyder Gregory h. (2002) 115–23; Becker
Adam and Annette Reed Yoshiko eds. The Ways that never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages
(2003); Fredriksen Paula What Parting of the Ways? in The Ways that Never Parted, (2003); Lieu Judith, Neither Jew nor Greek? in
The Ways that never Parted (2003); Zetterholm Magnus The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the
Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003); Boyarin Daniel Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (2004);
Reinhartz Adele A Fork in the Road or a Multi-Lane Highway? pages 278–329 in Henderson Ian and Oegema Gerbern eds. The
Changing Face of Judaism: Christianity and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (2006) 278-329; Jossa Giorgo Jews or
Christians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity (2006); Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed., Jewish Christianity
Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (2007); Heemstra Marius The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways
(2010); Cohen, Shaye JD. The ways that parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013), Bibliowicz Abel M.
Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 151-167; Gager J.G. Who Did What to Whom? Physical Violence between
Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity in A most reliable witness edited by Harvey Susan Ashbrook, DesRosiers Nathaniel, Lander
Shira L., Pastis Jacqueline Z. and Ullucci Daniel (2015)
612
For an updated guide to the subject, see Hans-Josef Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-
Roman Religion (2003).
613
Scholarship abounds with references to the contribution of Christian
self-definition to anti-Judaism. See detailed discussions in R. R. Ruether, Faith
and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (1974), 181; and in
Lloyd Gaston, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity vol. 2 Stephen G. Wilson ed. (1986) 164.
614
Wilson, Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, 48; and D. P. Efroymson, Tertullian’s Anti-Judaism and Its Role in Theology
(1976), 112–146.
615
Joseph Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts (2006), 26–31.
616
Similar view in Wilson, Related Strangers, 214–215. Recent: Lieu Judith Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (2015)

364
617
According to Tertullian, Marcion was ‘forced to form an alliance with the Jewish error and construct for himself an argument from
it’ (Adv. Marc. 6.2; cf. 23.1) also Judith M. Lieu, Image and Reality (1996), 264.
618
See discussion in Lieu, Image and Reality, 269–270.
619
Indebted to Wilson, Related Strangers, 216; and Lieu, Image and Reality, 264.
620
Rejected the humanity of Christ. Jesus’ humanity was an illusion.
621
See Wilson, Related Strangers, 216. Also Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 102; and Miriam Taylor, Anti-Judaism
and Early Christian Identity (1995), 171.
622
This segment feeds on Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, 171.
36. See John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (1985), 189.
623
See Michael Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism (1996), Christoph Markschies Gnosis
An Introduction (2003) for general discussions of the topic.
624
On the Gnostic impact on early Christianity, see Christoph Markschies Gnosis An Introduction (2003), Klaick Hans-Josef, The
Religious Context of Early Christianity (2000), part VI. On cross-influence between Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism, see Alan
F. Segal, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Wilson, 133–162.
625
Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (1958), 31–46. Gnosticism impacte Judaism too. Kabbalah was to G. Sholem ‘Jewish
Gnosticism.’ Others support the Jewish origins of Gnosticism. B. Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (1980); Elaine Pagels, The
Gnostic Gospels (1943); and Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (1987).
626
Wilson, Related Strangers, 204. See also G. A. Strousma, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology, Nag Hammadi Studies, No.
24 (1997).
627
See Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 31–46; Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism; Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels; and Kurt, Gnosis.
628
See Origen, Evagrius of Pontus, and others. Mystical and Gnostic affinities brought about Origen’s condemnation as a heretic by
the second council of Constantinople (ce 553).
629
Similar views in David Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds., Matthew and His
Christian Contemporaries (2008), 7
630
Lieu, Image and Reality, 264–265.
631
Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: Historical Introduction (2007).
632
On the Pesher exegetical method, see pg. 113, 210-211
633
Supersession theology is sometimes referred to as substitution or replacement theology (see chapter 10).

Ignatius
634
Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. (1996) 54. Eusebius places the martyrdom of
Ignatius in the reign of Trajan (98–117).
635
Simon Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers (1986), 105. Recently: On Ignatius’ ministry: Maier Harry O. Paul, Ignatius and
Thirdspace: A Socio-geographic Exploration in The Apostolic Fathers and Paul, Pauline and Patristics Scholars in Debate ed. Todd
D. Still and David E. Wilhite (2016) 162-180); Sullivan F. A. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the
Early Church (2001) 103–25; Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Ignatius- in
Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510; Smith Carl B. Ministry,
Martyrdom,and Other Mysteries: Pauline Influence on Ignatius of Antioch in Paul and the Second Century ed. Michael F. Bird and
Joseph R. Dodson, LNTS 412 (2011) 57–69
636
Interesting analysis of the de-Judaizing thrust of Ignatius’s ministry in David Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds., Matthew and His
Christian Contemporaries (2008), Chapter 8
637
On the Jewish followers of Jesus in Ignatius: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) pg. 167-
173; Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature - Ignatius in Jewish believers in Jesus:
the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510; Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568
in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581; Lieu Judith M. Christian
Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 252–53; For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg.
415.
638
Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. (1996) 55. Recently: Lotz John-Paul
Ignatius and Concord: The Background and Use of the Language of Concord in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch Patristic Studies 8
(2007); Brent Allen Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: A Study of an Early Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture
(2006) 254–311; Harry O. Maier, The Politics and Rhetoric of Discord and Concordin Ignatius and Paul in The New Testament and
the Apostolic Fathers: Vol. 2 Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers ed. Andrew F. Gregoryand
Christopher M. Tuckett (2005) 307–24

365
639
P. J. Donahue, Jewish Christianity in the Letters of Ignatius (1978), 87, identifies the ‘heretics’ Ignatius is fighting against as
‘Christian Jews’; Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Ignatius- in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510
640
My elaboration of Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 105.
641
My rewording Michele Murray’s presentation in Playing a Jewish Game (2004).
642
Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Ignatius- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the
early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510
643
Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 147–165.
644
J. B. Lightfoot, trans., Ignatius, the Epistle to the Philadelphians, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com.
645
J. B. Lightfoot, trans., Ignatius, the Epistle to the Philadelphians, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com.
646
J. T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants (1993), 197.
647
Standing on Wilson, Related Strangers, 219–220; and Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 104–106.
648
Similar views in Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 90–91.
649
Ignatius here resonates with Barnabas who took similar positions.
650
Believers that rejected the humanity of Jesus. To Docetists Jesus was divine, his humanity being an illusion.
651
On rhetorical strategy see Michael Isacson, To Each Their Own Letter: Structure, Themes, & Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of
Ignatius of Antioch (2004).
652
Wilson, Related Strangers, 117.
653
Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 106–107, 114–115; Wilson, Related Strangers, 117; Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder, and Louis D.
Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. (1996) 64–66.

Justin
654
. J. D. Crossan, The Cross That Spoke (1988), 66
655
My elaboration of Murray Michele’s summary, Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 96. See also Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish
Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Justin- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and
Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 510-514
656
On the Jewish followers of Jesus in Justin: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) pg. 173-
179; Lahey Lawrence Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century in Jewish believers in
Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Sources in
Justin in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 380-419, 510-516; For a
general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415.
657
A Jewish audience is suggested by T. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the
Mosaic Law (1975), 35–44.
658
See Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 165–167; and Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 96.
659
Wilson, Related Strangers, 165–167.
660
The embryonic stages of the doctrines that will eventually be known as
‘Christian Orthodoxy.’ Similar views in P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic
Church (1969), 9–13; and Wilson, Related Strangers, 269–270.
661
Citations per Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community
(1994), 22–23.
662
Wilson, Related Strangers, 269–270.
663
See Miriam Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995), 170–172.
664
Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 95–96. On the Jewish followers of Jesus in Justyn see also Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for
Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Justin- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune
Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 510-514.
665
Wilson, Related Strangers, 277.
666
Somewhat similar in Wilson, Related Strangers, 98–99.
667
For a recent survey of scholarship on this subject, see Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 141–148. See G. Strecker, in W. Bauer,
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971), 262; John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism
(1983), 115 and 132; Robert Wilken, John Chrisostom and the Jews (1983); Lloyd Gaston, ‘Retrospect,’ in Anti-Judaism in Early
Christianity, Vol. 2, Wilson, ed. (1986), 166; L Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilson, ed. (1986), 33–44; Judith M. Lieu,
Neither Jew Nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity, (2003); Murray, Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 2; Skarsaune Oskar
Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Justin- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 510-514.
668
Same conclusion in Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 98–99.

366
669
Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 98–99.
670
Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. See also Wilson, Related Strangers, 268 and
274–278; Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and the Mosaic Law, 20–32; Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, 171; and D.
P. Efroymson, in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations Christianity, A. T. Davies and A. T. Ed, eds. (1979), 105.
671
Just to name the latest: H. Remus, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 2, Wilson, 69–80; W. Horbury, in Jews and
Christians: The Parting of the Ways A. D. 70 to 135, James D. G. Dunn, ed. (1992), 326–345; and J. T. Sanders, Schismatics,
Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants (1993), 50–55; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 91.
672
Wilson, Related Strangers, 260.
673
For discussion of the anti-Judaism of the Dialogue, see Wilson, Related Strangers, 265–274; and H. Remus, in Anti-Judaism in
Early Christianity, S. G. Wilson, ed. (1986), vol. 2, 74–80.
674
G. Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (1989), vol. 1, esp. 1–17. See also B. Isaac, Judaea after A. D. 70 (1984); E.
M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (1976), 327–371.
675
Wilson Stephen G. (Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 1995, 9-10, 286-289) in the footsteps of Dunn James D.G (The Parting
of the Ways, 1991-230-65). Recently: Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus (Princeton University Press, 2012) 84 calls for nuance.
676
Bibliography: ‘Hadrian's Policy in Judea and the Bar Kochba Revolt: A Reassessment,’ in P. R. Davies and R. T. White, cds.
(Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, 1990, 281-303), Smallwood E. M. (The Jews under Roman Rule, 1976, 428-
80), E. Schurer (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C-A.D. 1.35), G. Vermes and F Millar (1973,
vol.1, 535-53), G. L. Bowersock (A Roman Perspective on the Bar Kochba War in W. S. Green, ed., Approaches to Ancient Judaism,
1980, vol.2. 131—41), B. Isaac and A. Oppenheimer (The Revolt of Bar Kochba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship,’ JJS 36, 1985,
33-60), G. Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (1989), vol. 1, esp. 1–17. See also B. Isaac, Judaea after A. D. 70
(1984), Wilson Stephen G. (Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 1995, 9-19). Also, see analysis in Dunn James D.G (The Parting
of the Ways, 1991-230-65), Dunn James D.G ed. (The Parting of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism,1992); Wilson Stephen
G. (Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 1995, 1-10); Peter Schäfer, ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on
the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome (2003).
677
Justin I Apol.31.6; Eusebius Hist. eccl.4.6.2
678
Wilson Stephen G. (Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 1995, 19). Alon G (The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age,
vol.2, 647-8) argues for continuing persecution.

08 – Chapter 8 - Theology gone awry

679
See bibliography on Adversus Judaeos literature Pg. 415.
680
‘Quartodecimanism’ refers to the practice of fixing the celebration of Passover for Christians on the fourteenth day of Nisan in the
Old Testament’s Hebrew Calendar. A controversy arose concerning whether it should instead be celebrated on one particular Sunday
each year, which is now the floating holiday that is commonly called Easter Sunday. Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers
in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – the Quartodecimans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar
and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 516-528
681
Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 106–107.
682
Further reading in Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, 97; Miriam Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian
Identity (1995), 58; Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 114.
683
A. Hansen, The Sitz im Leben of the Paschal Homily of Melito of Sardis (1968) 180; K. W. Noakes, Melito of Sardis and the Jews
(1975), 246; S. G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, 95–100; and David Satran in Contra Iudaeos, Ora Limor,
Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Diss. AbstrActs 29 (1969); Lahey Lawrence The Role of Contra
Iudaeos Literature in Christian-Jewish Interaction Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 620-637
684
Stephen Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (1986), vol. 2, 98; A. T. Kraabel, Judaism in Western Asia Minor (1968),
216–217.
685
Standing on Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 248; and Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game
(2004), 113.
686
Stroumsa Guy G. Contra Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996) 8–10, Wilson, Related
Strangers, 257.
687
From http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp
688
We may point out that the virulence of this disturbing text is somewhat similar in tone to the viciousness of protestant anti-Catholic
and of catholic anti-protestant polemic during the sixteenth century.
689
See Wilson, Related Strangers, 257.
690
Paraphrasing Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 116.

367
691
More in Wilson, Related Strangers, 254.

Chrysostom
692
Chrysostom: Golden-mouth.
693
This segment is my condensation and interpretation of Robert Wilken, John
Chrysostom and the Jews (1983), xv, 29–30, and 32.
694
Recent scholarship on Chrysostom: VanVeller Courtney John Chrysostom and the Troubling Jewishness of Paul in de Wet Chris
and Mayer Wendy eds. (Re)Visioning John Chrysostom: New Theories and Approaches (2016); Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans and
Christian Identity Formation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 in Black, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early
Christianity and Its Social World (2014); Rylaarsdam, David John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of his Theology
and Preaching (2014); Van Nuffelen, Peter Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons for
John’s Deposition Adamantius 19 (2013b) 138-55; Côté, Dominique Le problème de l’identité religieuse dans la Syrie du IVe siècle.
Le cas des Pseudo-Clémentines et de l’Adversus Judaeos de saint Jean Chrysostom in Mimouni Simon C. et Pouderon Bernard eds.
La croisée des chemins revisitée. Quand l’Église et la Synagogue se sont-elles distinguées? (2012) 339-70; Lahey Lawrence Evidence
for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds.
Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640 Mayer, Wendy The Homilies of St John Chrysostom – Provenance. Reshaping
the foundations, Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum (2005); Kelly, J.N.D. Golden Mouth. The Story of John
Chrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (1995); Liebeschuetz, Wolfgang The Fall of John Chrysostom Nottingham Medieval Studies
29: 1-31 (1985)
695
Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 124, 148–149; and Pieter W. Van Der Horst, in Christian-Jewish Relations through the
Centuries, Stanley E. Porter and Brook W. R. Pearson, eds. (2000), 228–229.
696
Segments from John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians, vol. 68 of Fathers of the Church, trans. Paul W.
Harkins (1979). See commentary on Antioch’s Gentile Judaizers in M. Simon, Versus Israel—Jews and Christians in the Roman
Empire (1986), 374.
697
John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies against the Jews, Patrologia Greaca, vol. 98. Internet History Sourcebooks Project, ed. Paul
Halsall, Fordham University:
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/index.asp.
698
Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 118.
699
Chrysostom, Eight Homilies against the Jews.
700
James Parkes, Anti-Semitism (1969), 153.
701
Simon, Versus Israel, 145.
702
My summary of Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995), 128; and Simon Tugwell, The Apostolic
Fathers, (1986), 23.
703
Chrysostom, Eight Homilies against the Jews.
704
On the Antiochean context of Chrysostom; Shepardson Christine Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the
Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy (2014); Sandwell, Isabella Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christians
in Antioch (2007); Fonrobert, Charlotte Jewish Christians, Judaizers, and anti-Judaism in Burrus Virginia ed. Late Ancient
Christianity: A People’s History of Christianity (2005); Mayer Wendy Who Came to Hear John Chrysostom Preach? Recovering a
Late Fourth Century Preacher’s Audience Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 73-87; van der Horst, Pieter Jews and
Christians in Antioch at the End of the Fourth Century in Stanley Porter and Brook Pearson eds. Christian-Jewish Relations through
the Centuries (2000) 228-38;
705
On the Jews of ancient Antioch, see C. H. Kraeling, ‘The Jewish Community at Antioch,’ JBL 51 (1932), 130–160; G. Downey, A
History of Antioch in Syria, from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (1961), 447–449.
706
On this subject, see Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 68.
707
Van Der Horst, in Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries, Porter and Brook, 233.
708
Similar views in Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 67.
709
Laird, Raymond John Chrysostom and the Anomoeans: Shaping an Antiochene Perspective on Christology in Mayer Wendy and
Bronwen Neil eds. Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (2013) 129-49
710
Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch
(2006).

Summary
711
Standing on Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 163–164.
712
On Adversus Judaeos bibliography see note in Pg. 415.
713
For a survey, see Edward Kessler, An Introduction to Jewish-Christian Relations (2010), Chapter 3.

368
01 – Chapter 1 – Polemic in the New Testament
714
See bibliography on Q and M pg. 415
715
Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries
eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 305-323; Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its
Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (2002); Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity:
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995)
716
N. Beck, Mature Christianity in the 21st Century (1994).
717
On present state of synoptics research: Burkett Delbert Rethinking the Gospel Sources: From Proto-Mark to Mark (2004); Burkett
Delbert The Unity and Plurality of Q (2009); Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Joseph eds. New
Studies in the Synoptic Problem BETL, vol. 239 (2011); Sim David Matthew and the Synoptic Problem Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew,
Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Joseph eds. New Studies in the Synoptic Problem BETL, vol. 239 (2011); Arnal William The
Synoptic Problem and the Historical Jesus NSSP (2011) 371-432; Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden
Jozef eds. New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (2011); Becker Eve-Marie and Runesson Anders eds. Mark and Matthew I and II:
Comparative Readings: Reception History, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Theology (2011, 2013). The papers in the first volume focus
on the two gospels in their first century settings. The papers in the second volume focus on the reception history of these two gospels;
Kloppenborg John S Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays WUNT, vol. 329 (2014); Goodacre Mark The Farrer Hypothesis and
Farrer Hypothesis Response in Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (eds.), The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (2016) 47-66 and 127-
38; Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer eds. The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (2016)
718
Readers may want to keep this list in mind, as a reference, as we proceed in this intricate journey.
719
Selection of verses found in Ed Evans and Donald Hagner, Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity (1993), 1–3.
03 Scholarship
720
The summary of quotes below is my rewording and reformulation of Klein, Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978)
721
Similar argument in Moore George F. (Christian Writers on Judaism, Harvard Theological Review XIV, 1921, 197)
722
The Torah – The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish tradition, the prescriptions and
commandments received by Moses, from God, at Mount Sinai. Often used to describe the totality of Jewish religious lore and
learning. The Law – The Pauline term for the Torah. Most often used in an adversarial way and derogatory way.
723
Klein, Charlotte. Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology, 1975)
724
E. Iohse Israel 15
725
Rudolf Bultmann Prophecy 74
726
Joachim Jeremias The Parables of Jesus (1963) 139
727
H. Schlier Die Zeit der Kirche (1976) 46
728
W. Grundmann Gestitchte
729
M. Dibelius Jesus 117
730
W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 372
731
Rudolf Bultmann Theology vol I, 21
732
A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (1921) 444
733
Martin Noth Laws 106
734
Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 282
735
Eduard Meyer Ursprung vol ii 429
736
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 241
737
Leonhard Goppelt Jesus, Paul and Judaism (1964) 93
738
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. /I, 82
739
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik, vol. ii/2 105
740
Gunther Schiwy Weg ins Neue Testament 78
741
J. Blank Vum Messias Zum Christus (1964) 306-308
742
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. ii/2, 513
743
Pierre Benoit Jesus and the Gospel vol. ii (1973)
744
M. Dibelius Jesus 109
745
Schürer Geschichte des judischen Volks imZeitalter, Jesu Christi (1890) 579
746
Eduard Meyer Ursprung, vol ii, 428
747
Eduard Meyer Ursprung, vol ii, 427
748
Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 283
749
Emil Schürer Geschichte des judischen Volks imZeitalter, Jesu Christi (1890) 569, 572
750
Leonhard Goppelt Jesus, Paul and Judaism (1964) 166

369
751
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 241
752
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. ii/2, 124
753
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 240
754
W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 136, 298
755
W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 409
756
A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (1921) 364
757
Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 364
758
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 242
759
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. /I, 79
760
Georg Fohrer Studien 49-50
761
Leonhard Goppelt Christologie and Ethic (1968) 187
762
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 243
763
H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 242
764
M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. Iv/2, 168)
765
Karl Rahner Spiritual Exercises (1967) 229-30
766
Leonhard Goppelt Christologie and Ethic (1968) 187
767
Moore George F. Christian Writers on Judaism, Harvard Theological Review XIV (1921) 197
768
The publication of The Jew and His Neighbour in 1929. See also (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue; a Study in the
Origins of Antisemitism (1961, 1969, 1974)
769
Herford, R. Travers Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903)
770
See bibliography on the responsibility for Jesus’ death pg. 415.
771
This discussion is not intended as an exhaustive presentation of the subject. It is rather a limited engagement of emerging
paradigms relevant to this monograph.
772
Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire is widely considered the foundational text. See also Taylor
Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 189-195 and Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 139-141
among many. For bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing see pg. 415
773
See pg.415 for bibliography on the lack of evidence for Jewish proselytizing.
774
Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986) 379
775
Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986) 367
776
On this subject: Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986) 135 and 166—213, Wilken R. L.
Judaism in Roman and Christian Society Journal of Religion (1967) 318, Gager J. The Origins of Antisemitism (1983) 134, 156,
Wilken Robert John Chrysostom and the Jews, 1983, 69), (Segal, pp. 84—155), Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian
Identity (1995) 189-195 and Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 139-141
777
See also Lightstone (1986) 129-32, EFroymson (1980) 25, Gager (1983) 20, Gager (1986) 104
778
Gager J. The Origins of Antisemitism (1983) 154
779
Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986) 117, 121. Also, my rewording of Taylor Miriam Anti-
Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 195
780
Munck J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959) 70, 89, 124. 130-4, Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 23-25 and Gager
J. The Origins of Antisemitism (1983) 112-18, 132
781
Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986)
782
Wilken R. L. Judaism in Roman and Christian Society Journal of Religion (1967) 313
783
E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 54-59
784
Klein Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978) 60
785
Gaston, Lloyd in Stephen G. Wilson, ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol.2 (1986) 163-174
786
Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 18
787
Gager John G. Reinventing Paul (2000) 32
788
Ruether, R.R. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism (1974) 241
789
Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 18
790
P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 236
791
Gager John G. Reinventing Paul (2000) 47
792
Fredriksen Paula From Jesus to Christ (1988) 107-8
793
Wyschogrod Michael The impact of dialogue with Christianity on my self-understanding as a Jew (1990)
794
E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 54
795
E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 54-59
796
Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 16

370
797
Fredriksen Paula From Jesus to Christ (1988) 104
798
Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 245-6
799
Dunn James D.G Christianity in the Making – Vol 1 - Jesus Remembered (2003) 88
800
Stephen Wilson, ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity Vol. 2 (1986) 101, Kraabel Melito the Bishop and the Synagogue at Sardis:
Text and Context in D.G. Mitten, J.G. Pedlen, J.A. Scott, eds. Studies Presented to George MA Hanfminn 197, 81, n. 25 per Taylor
Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 55
801
Wilken Robert (Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 1971, 36-37), Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman
empire (1986) 140. Similar critique in Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 124

09- Chapter 9 - Recapitulation

802
In this subsection, we will concentrate on Mark, John, Barnabas, and Justin despite the fact that this theme reverberated throughout
the lore. Mark, acknowledged by most as the Gospel on which the anti-Jewish strand stands, is of special interest to us.
803
See N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1994),
57–59.
804
The struggle between the Mushite and Aaronid priestly clans, the tensions between the tribal and monarchical power structures and
between the monarchy and the religious establishment.
805
Philistines, Amalek, Edom, Moab.
806
Similar arguments in Kelber Werner, The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983), 130–131; and Lindsey P. Pherigo, ‘The Gospel
According to Mark,’ in The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1971), 644.
807
In the context of the motifs enumerated later, the choice of Judas as the disciple that would betray Jesus, and the convenient fact
that his name resonates with Iudaeos (‘Jews’) cease to be a coincidence and are suspect of being another of many hints at the
tendentious nature of the narrative.

Projection onto Judaism

808
Amy-Jill Levine The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (2006).
809
Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Kraft and Krodel; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2:
History and Literature of Early Christianity; and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, 5.
810
Eusebius’s penchant for pandering was identified early and was accused of ‘being more intent on the rhetorical finish of his
composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts.’ See Socrates Scholasticus’s Historia
Ecclesiastica.
811
L. T. Johnson, The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic (1989), 419–441. Also See
Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-Andre’ Turcotte, eds., Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), section 2, for a discussion of
rhetorical techniques and their effectiveness. Also: Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, eds., The Rhetorical Interpretation of
Scripture (1999); G. N. Stanton, Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic (1985).

About Judaizing
812
See Michele Murray’s Playing a Jewish Game (2004) for an updated and detailed study on Gentile Judaizing.
813
Ibid., 40–41.
814
Ibid., 118–119.
815
For a survey of scholarship on this subject, see ibid., 141–148. See G. Strecker, in Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest
Christianity, Kraft and Krodel, 262; John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (1983), 115 and 132; Robert Wilken, John
Chrisostom and the Jews (1983); Lloyd Gaston, ‘Retrospect,’ in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, Stephen G. Wilson, ed.
(1986), 166; Studies in Christianity and Judaism, S. G. Wilson, ed., (1986), 33–44; Judith M. Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek?
Constructing Early Christianity (2003); Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 2.
816
From the perspective of non-Jewish believers in Jesus it may be said that Paul is defending his mission to the Gentiles. However,
from a Jewish perspective Paul’s ministry was aimed at de-Judaizing Gentile Belief in Jesus.
817
On the meager evidence for Jewish proselytizing: Paula Fredriksen ‘What Parting of the Ways?’ In The Ways that Never Parted,
(2003), 48–56; Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus (1995); Murray,
Playing a Jewish Game, 118–119; Martin Goodman, The Jews among Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire (1992), 53, 55,
70–71; T. Kraabel, The Roman Diaspora: Six questionable assumptions (1982), 451–452; David Rokeah, Jews, Pagans and
Christians in Conflict (1982), 32–44; and I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. V. Diaspora Setting (1996), 21–
47. For the opposite position: D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (1986), 83–228; L. H. Feldman, Jew and
Gentile in the Ancient World (1993), 288–415. Standing on Murray, Playing a Jewish Game, 118–119.

371
818
One of the earlies was M. Simon, Versus Israel-Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire, French ed. (1964), 356–393 esp. 383.
819
For support to the conclusion that Gentile believers in Jesus underwent a process of individuation-estrangement vis- à -vis the
descendants of Jesus’ disciples and followers, and not ‘Judaism,’ see chapter 7 in this volume.

An Elusive Response
820
For a recent survey, Peter Schäfer The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (2012); J. Lighthouse, in
Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. in Wilson Stephen G., ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 2. Separation and Polemic.’
Studies in Christianity and Judaism (2000) 106; On the absence of anti-Christian polemic in the foundational texts of Rabbinic
Judaism, see Eugene Fisher and L. Klenicki, eds., Root and Branches: Biblical Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity
(1987).
821
On the absence of anti-Christian polemic in the foundational texts of Rabbinic Judaism, see Eugene Fisher and L. Klenicki, eds.,
Root and Branches: Biblical Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity (1987).
822
J. Lighthouse, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. in Wilson Stephen G., ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 2.
Separation and Polemic.’ Studies in Christianity and Judaism (2000) 106
823
For scholarship on Birkhat Haminim see pg. 415.
824
Jewish followers of Jesus were often labeled as ‘Jews’ by Gentile opponents within the Jesus movement. See Bauer, Orthodoxy
and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Kraft and Krodel; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of
Early Christianity; and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, 5, as the earliest to identify this
phenomenon.
825
Justin, Dial. 16, 17, 32, 34, 117, 131, 133, 136, 137, Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.
4.21.3, Cf. Mart. Pol. 13.2, 17.2, and 18.1, which tells of the Jews’ complicity
in the death of Polycarp, Origen, Gen. Horn. 13.3.
826
For an advocate of this view see Philip S. Alexander Jewish Believers in Early Rabbinic Literature
(2d to 5th Centuries), in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) Chap. 21, 659-
710 who suggests that the early Rabbis developed an explicit strategy of not engaging Pauline or Jewish believers in Jesus.
827
27.1 Wilson, Related Strangers, 181.
828
Similar views in Wilken Robert John Chrisostom and the Jews, 1983, 72-73)
829
For bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing see pg. 415.
830
‘as long as the Judaizing movement continued, we may legitimately infer that proselytizing continued also…falling off of one,
entailed the gradual disappearance of the other’ Simon M. (Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire, 1996, 286)
831
Martin Goodman (The Jews among Pagans and Christians: In the Roman Empire, 1992, 53, 55, 70-71), McKnight, Scot (A Light
Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period 1991).
832
Contra Bauckham Richard Opposition from the Jewish Authorities in Jerusalem in James and the Jerusalem Community in the
History of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 75-81
28. For traces in the pseudo-Clementine literature of a ‘Jewish-Christian’ response, see Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle
for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003), 182–185.

What If?
833
See Bart Ehrman‘s insightful development of this theme as it applies to our subject. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for
Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003)
834
Joseph Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts (2006), 131.
835
See Wilson, Related Strangers, 219–220.
836
Similar views in Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts, 131.
837
Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, 62–63.

10 The Post Constantine era

838
For an updated guide to the subject: Klauck, Hans-Josef The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman
Religion (2003)
839
Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 167, 168
840
Further councils at Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) were required to iron-out basic inconsistencies and
paradoxes that originate in the fusion of incompatible theologies into the Via Media.
841
On the Jewish followers of Jesus during the post Constantine era: Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus
Movement (2013) pg. 167-179; Gager, John G. Did Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islam?’ in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews
and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Edited by A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (2003) 361-72; Mimouni, Simon
C Les elkasaites: etats des questions et des recherches in The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in the Ancient Jewish and Christian

372
Literature. Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 209-29; Tomson P. J. and Lambers-Petry D. The Image of the
Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (2003); Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the
History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71. Christian Apocrypha Series 2 (1995); Baumgarten, Albert I.
Literary Evidence for Jewish Christianity in the Galilee in The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lee I. Levine (1992) 39-50; Segal
Alan F. Jewish Christianity in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism Edited by W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (1987) 327-51; Klijn A. F.
J. Jewish Christianity in Egypt in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity Edited by B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring. Studies in Antiquity
and Christianity (1986) 161-75; Schoedel William R Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (1969); For a
general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415;
842
Sanders E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 236
843
Eugene Fisher in private correspondence 2017.
844
See Skarsaune Oskar The Ebionites in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar
(2007) 419-463; Kinzig Wolfram The Nazoraeans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik
Reidar (2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early
centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen in Jewish
believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 361-373; Knox John The Origin of the
Ebionites in The Image of the JudaeoChristians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-
Petry (2003) 162-81;
845
See Fredriksen Paula From Jesus to Christ (1988) 211-13
846
Standing on Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 99
847
For a rather benign view of the Contra Iudaeos literature see Lahey Lawrence The Role of Contra Iudaeos Literature in Christian-
Jewish Interaction Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 620-637. Earlier
scholarship: A. Hansen, The Sitz im Leben of the Paschal Homily of Melito of Sardis (1968) 180; K. W. Noakes, Melito of Sardis and
the Jews (1975), 246; S. G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, 95–100; and David Satran in Contra Iudaeos, Ora
Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Limor Ora, Maurice R. Hayoun, Guy G. Stroumsa eds. Contra
Iudaeos (1996)
848
Segment stands on Wilken Robert John Chrysostom and the Jews (1983) 128-129
849
J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus (1995) XII
850
Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 58, Stroumsa G.G. Contra ludaeos (1996) 18

11 The responsibility for Jesus’ death

851
A selection of scholarship: Crossan J. D. Who Killed Jesus (1957) 59; Fitzmyer J. A. Anti-Semitism and the Cry of 'All the People’
TS 26 (1965) 670-71; Crossan J. D. in G. G. O'Collins Anti-Semitism in the Gospel TS 26 (1965) 663-66; Kosmala H. His Blood on
Us and Our Children (The Background of Mat. 27, 24-25)’ ASTI 7 (1970) 94-126; Hare Douglas The Rejection of the Jews in
Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 22-25; Richardson Peter David Granskou, Stephen G. Wilson Anti-Judaism
in Early Christianity: Paul and the Gospels: Volume 1 (1986), Kingsbury J. D. Matthew as Star (1988) 56-57; P. L. Maier Who Killed
Jesus? Christianity Today 34/6 (1990) 16-19; Luedemannn, Gerd The Unholy in Holy Scripture (1997) 97-98; Allison Dale Jesus of
Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (1991); Brown Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah (1994). Yarbro Collins Adela and John J.
Collins King and Messiah as Son of God Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (2008);
Collins John J. The Scepter and the Star - Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2010); Simmonds Andrew Mark's and
Matthew's ‘Sub Rosa’ Message in the Scene of Pilate and the Crowd JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 733-754;
852
As understood by his followers, whether reflective or not of his intended message.
853
Goodman Martin The Ruling Class of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70 (1987); Cohen, Shaye J.
D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987)
854
See Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 174-5. Similar views in Dunn James D.G Christianity in the
Making – Vol 1 - Jesus Remembered (2003) 86 and 784, and Van Buren, Paul M. A Christian Theology of the People of Israel (1983)
244. Also J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus (1957) 59, Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 60-1, Luedemannn,
Gerd The Unholy in Holy Scripture (1997) 97-98. For the historical Pilate see Schiirer 1973: 383-7, Lemonon 1981.
855
Ruether R.R. Faith and Fraticide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism (1974)
856
For a conservative response to Ruether’s book see T.A. Indinopulos and R.B. Ward Is Christology inherently anti-Semitic? (1977)
196-214
857
Ruether R.R in Davies, A.T. Ed. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 248-256
858
Beck N.A.Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1994)
859
J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus (1957) 252
860
Hagner, D. A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (1984) 290
861
Lloyd Gaston Studies in Christianity and Judaism S.G. Wilson ed, (1986) 33

373
862
See Documents of Vatican II, ed. Austin P Flannery (1975) 741. Fisher Eugene J. The Church's Teaching on Supersessionism BAR
17 (1991) 58. Breidenthal Thomas Neighbor-Christology: Reconstructing Christianity Before Supersessionism Cross Currents 49,
(1999) 319 n.1
863
B. Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (1980); Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (1943). On cross-influence among Judaism,
Christianity, and Gnosticism, see Alan F. Segal, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, S. G. Wilson, ed. (1986), 133–162; Jonas Hans,
The Gnostic Religion (1958).

12-Consequences
864
Knohl Israel The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000)
865
http://global100.adl.org and http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/European_Attitudes_Survey_July_2007.pdf
866
Alternatively insert Austrian, Belgian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Rumanian, Yugoslavian, etc.…
868
See Gager John G. The origins of Antisemitism (1983) 82, Gager John G. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity (1985) 43. On the impact of Hellenism on turn of the century Judea see Smith Morton Palestinian Parties and Politics That
Shaped the Old Testament (1971) 56-81 and Collins John J. and Sterling Gregory R. eds., Hellenism in the Land of Israel (2001) 150-
160
869
For a short survey of scholarship on Antisemitism see Stroumsa G.G. Contra ludaeos (1996) 10-16
870
Luther Martin, Trans Martin H. Bertram On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) chap XI

13-The present and the future

871
Paradigmatic – see Kuhn Thomas The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970)
872
Schneiders Sandra M. Living Word or Dead(ly) Letter in Crowley Paul ed. (Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of
America 47,1988)
873
The subtitle to Beck Norman A. Mature Christianity in the 21st Century (1994)
874
Eugene Fisher in private correspondence 2017.
875
Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 46-7
876
Klein, Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1975) 10-11
877
Niebuhr Reinhold Jews after the war (1942)
878
Roy Eckardt Christians and Jews (1979)
879
Littell Frank H. The Crucifixion of the Jews (1975 & 1986)
880
Littell Frank H. The Crucifixion of the Jews (1975 & 1986)
881
For the abandonment of Christian supersessionism and the recognition of Judaism as a valid path to God, see Van Buren, Paul M.
According to the Scriptures (1998) 130-135
882
Van Buren, Paul M. Christ in Context (1988) 164
883
Norman A. Beck The New Testament: A New Translation and Redaction (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 2001) which is designed to
reduce or remove the anti-Jewish and sexist aspects of the New Testament.
884
Beck N.A. Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (1985) 285
885
Hagner D. A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (1984) 301-2
886
Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 46-7
887
R.R. Ruether in Davies A.T. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 230
888
Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 15
889
Gager John G. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (1985)
890
Paul M. van Buren Discerning the Way: A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality (1980) 48
891
Davies A.T. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) Introduction
892
Anti-Defamation League statement February 23, 2004.
893
Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 248
894
M. Simon, Versus Israel-Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire (1986)
895
For a recent call for ethically sensitive readings of the Gospels in Amy-Jill Levine in Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John
Dominic Crossan, eds., The Historical Jesus in Context (2006) 2, 9.
896
Gager John in Fisher Eugene Interwoven Destinies: Jews and Christians Through the Ages (1993)
897
E. Fisher in private correspondence 2017.

374
375