Jewish origin of Christianity
Christianity began as a sect of late Second Temple Judaism.[1]
Leonard George writes:
Within a few decades of Jesus' death, the Christian movement split into two factions: the followers of Paul, who believed that Christianity was a new religion completely separate from Judaism; and the Jewish Christians, who held that Christians should continue to adhere to the traditional religious practices of the Jews. The Pauline party developed into orthodox Catholicism. A group of Jewish Christians, who became known as the Ebionites, survived as a heresy. There were two schools of thought within the Ebionite movement. One group, known as the Nazarenes, claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, born of a virgin. [...]
The doctrinal position of the Ebionites overlapped the beliefs of the Jews and orthodox Christians, and caused them to be condemned by both. In turn, the Ebionites regarded the Jews as unenlightened and damned Paul as the first Christian heretic. The sect proclaimed that most of the scriptures the Catholics revered were not authentic. [...][2]
Jewish Christians
The term "Early Jewish Christians" is often used in discussing the Early History of Christianity, see also Early Christianity. Jesus, his Twelve Apostles, the Elders, his family, and essentially all of his early followers were Jewish or Jewish Proselytes. Hence the 3,000 converts on Pentecost (Sivan 6), following the death of Jesus (Nisan 14 or 15), described in Acts of the Apostles 2, were all Jews and Proselytes. Samaritans were not Jewish (Judean), but are still identified with the tribes of Israel and also numbered among the early followers, as is the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8)[3]. Traditionally the Roman Centurion Cornelius is considered the first Gentile convert[4], as recorded in Acts 10, albeit he too is a "God-fearer" proselyte who participated in a Jewish synagogue. The major division prior to that time was between Hellenistic and non-Hellenistic Jews or Koine Greek (Acts 6) and Aramaic (Acts 1:19) speakers. The conversion and acceptance of the Gentile Cornelius can be described in terms of the Judaic teaching which describes strangers becoming part of the community (Isaiah 56:3–7). Acts does not use the term "Jewish Christians", rather those led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the Pillars of the Church, were called followers of "The Way".[5] Later groups, or perhaps the same group by different names[citation needed], were the Ebionites and Elkasites.
The "Christian" appellation was first applied to the followers after Paul of Tarsus started preaching at Antioch (Acts 11:25–26). Paul made explicit the division between those who were circumcised and those who were not circumcised in his Epistle to the Galatians 2:7-9:
- "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NRSV)
These terms (circumcised/uncircumcised) are generally interpreted to mean Jews and Greeks, who were predominant; however they are an oversimplification as 1st century Iudaea Province also had some Jews who no longer circumcised (sometimes called Hellenized Jews), and some Greeks (called Proselytes or Judaizers) and others such as Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Arabs who did. See also Abrahamic religion.
Jesus is frequently called the "Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23; Mark 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 24:19; John 18:5; 18:7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8. Named after him, the followers of Paul are the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5, Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 9:1).
The Council of Jerusalem, according to Acts 15, determined that circumcision was not required of Gentile converts, only avoidance of "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" (KJV, Acts 15:20). The basis for these prohibitions is unclear, Acts 15:21 states only: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day", the implication being that they are based on the Law of Moses, some consider them to be the Noahide Laws. Also unclear is whether this meant that this Law in some way applied to them or merely that the requirements were imposed to facilitate common participation in the Christian community by Gentiles who would be in constant relation with the Jewish Christians who would be constantly reminded of their obligation to follow the Law. See also Biblical law in Christianity and Expounding of the Law.
The early Jewish Christians included those who believed non-Jews must become Jews and adopt Jewish customs. They were derogatively called Judaizers, and even Paul used this term[6] against Jesus's student Peter in public according to Young's Literal Translation of Gal 2:14:
But when I saw that they are not walking uprightly to the truth of the good news, I said to Peter before all, `If thou, being a Jew, in the manner of the nations dost live, and not in the manner of the Jews, how the nations dost thou compel to Judaize?
However, Barnabas, Paul's partner up till then, sided with Peter (Gal 2:13, Acts 15:39–40). Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers: The Incident at Antioch claims: "St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke." however, L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity[7] claims: "The blowup with Peter was a total failure of political bravado, and Paul soon left Antioch as persona non grata, never again to return." See also Pauline Christianity. Scholar James D. G. Dunn has proposed that Peter was the bridge-man (i.e. the pontifex maximus) between the two other "prominent leading figures" of early Christianity: Paul and James the Just.[8]
According to Eusebius' History of the Church 4.5.3-4: the first 15 Bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision".
Circumcision controversy
A common interpretation of the circumcision controversy of the New Testament was, that it was over the issue of whether Gentiles could enter the Church directly or ought to first convert to Judaism. However, the Halakha of Rabbinic Judaism was still under development at this time, as the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Jesus notes: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakha was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." This controversy was fought largely between opposing groups of Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish. According to this interpretation, those who felt that conversion to Judaism was a prerequisite for Church membership were eventually condemned by Paul as "Judaizing teachers".
The source of this interpretation is unknown; however, it appears related to Supersessionism or Hyperdispensationalism (see also New Perspective on Paul). In addition, modern Christians, such as Ethiopian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox still practice circumcision while not considering it a part of conversion to Judaism, nor do they consider themselves to be Jews or Jewish Christians. In 1st century Pharisaic Judaism there was controversy over the significance of circumcision, for example between Hillel the Elder and Shammai (see also Circumcision in the Bible #In rabbinic literature). Roman Catholicism condemned circumcision for its members in 1442, at the Council of Florence[1].
Christianity's break with Judaism
Early Christianity, which began within ancient Judaism, arose out of the Nazarene schism, dividing the followers of Jesus, the Nazarenes, from the Jewish majority, the Pharisees.
Christianity's break with Judaism continues to be the subject of scholarly debate. Some scholars argue that the rupture occurred early on as the result of a ‘high’ Christology. Others argue that the split happened much later and can be explained as the result of sociological issues (e.g. differences over temple and law).
For example, Walter Laqueur argues that the Nazarenes did not break with the religious laws and rituals of the ancient Hebrews. According to Laqueur, "this came only with the appearance of Paulus, who had not known Jesus. From this point on, Christianity was the new Israel."[9]
According to Jostein Ådna, the scholarly community uses a "road" metaphor to describe the break between Christianity and Judaism. In this metaphor, there is a specific point in time at which the two religions part company. Ådna writes that, "although few scholars today would argue that the bifurcation took place as the time of Jesus or Paul, it is still opinio communis to discuss the subject in terms of a split, a break or a separation and to date the purported parting of the ways to either 70 CE or 135 CE."[10]
Origins of Jewish-Christian conflict
Competition for adherents and other factors led to an intensification of Jewish-Christian conflict towards the end of the first century, although there is also evidence of continued Jewish-Christian interaction, including Christian participation in Sabbath worship, in some areas well beyond that. These conflicts had a negative impact on the writers of certain parts of the New Testament, especially the author of the Gospel of John which was compiled about this time. In several places John's gospel associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays. Other parts of John's gospel associate salvation with the Jews, and link darkness with the world in general. Like the other gospels, it makes many references to the Jewish scriptures.
Bar Kokhba Revolt
The Romans destroyed the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem in year 135 during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
Antisemitism in the New Testament
A number of Christian scholars have concluded that the root of antisemitism in the Christian community is ultimately found within the New Testament. Some Christian theologians such as Rosemary Ruether and A. Roy Eckardt claim that the entire New Testemant is antisemitic whereas others such as Gregory Baum claim that it is not antisemitic at all.
There are some verses in the New Testament that describe Jews in a positive way, attributing to them salvation John 4:22 or divine love (Romans 11:28) while many others can be and were much used by antisemites. The two harshest verses are those in which Jews prompt Jesus' crucifixion and say "His blood be on us, and on our children" Matthew 27:25 and when Jesus calls certain Pharisees "children of the devil" John 8:44.
Allegations of persecution by the Jews
The New Testament relates the Christian accounts of the Pharisee rejection of Jesus and accusations of the Pharisee responsibility for his crucifixion. The Acts of the Apostles depicts instances of early Christian persecution by the Sanhedrin, the Hebrew religious establishment of the time.[11] This theme plays an important part in a number of Christian doctrines ranging from the release of Christians from obeying the many strictures of the Old Testament Law (see Antinomianism) to the commandment to preach to all nations meaning to Gentiles as well as the Hebrew people (see Great Commission).
Reliable evidence of events accompanying the schism between the Pharisees and the Nazarenes is not available. Laqueur argues that hostility grew over the generations. By the Fourth century John Chrysostom was arguing that the Pharisees alone, not the Romans, were responsible for the murder of Christ. However, according to Laqueur: "Absolving Pilate from guilt may have been connected with the missionary activities of early Christianity in Rome and the desire not to antagonize those they want to convert."[12]
At least by the fourth century, the consensus amongst scholars is that persecution by Jews of Christians has been traditionally overstated; according to James Everett Seaver,
Much of Christian hatred toward the Jews was based on the popular misconception... that the Jews had been the active persecutors of Christians for many centuries... The... examination of the sources for fourth century Jewish history will show that the universal, tenacious, and malicious Jewish hatred of Christianity referred to by the church fathers and countless others has no existence in historical fact. The generalizations of patristic writers in support of the accusation have been wrongly interpreted from the fourth century to the present day. That individual Jews hated and reviled the Christians there can be no doubt, but there is no evidence that the Jews as a class hated and persecuted the Christians as a class during the early years of the fourth century.[13]
According to the New Testament, Jesus' death was demanded by the Pharisee Sanhedrin and Roman authorities acquiesced, carrying out a Roman sentence of crucifixion. The New Testament also records that the first martyr was Stephen, who was stoned by the Jews, Saul heartily agreeing (the man who later converted and was renamed "Paul.") The New Testament goes on to say that Paul was himself imprisoned on several occasions by the Roman authorities, stoned by Pharisees and left for dead on one occasion, and was eventually taken as a prisoner to Rome. Peter and others were also imprisoned, beatened and generally harassed. Because of severe persecution in Jerusalem, most of the Nazarenes were forced to leave. James was said to have been put to death around that time.
The New Testament & other Christian texts depict the early Christians as being persecuted by the Israelite establishment for their heterodox beliefs. Since no single authority dictated Jewish belief and practice, it is difficult to ascertain whether this alleged persecution was local in nature or a coordinated policy across all of Judaism.
This account of persecution is part of a general theme of a polemic against the Jews that starts with the Pharisee rejection of Jesus's ministry and continues on with his trial before the High Priest, his crucifixion, and the Pharisees' refusal to accept him as the Jewish Messiah. This theme plays an important part in a number of Christian doctrines ranging from the release of Christians from obeying the many strictures of the Old Testament Law (see Christian view of the Law) to the commandment to preach to all nations (meaning to Gentiles as well as Jews; see the Great Commission).
Although Christian doctrine to this day attests to the veracity of these accounts of persecution as documented in the New Testament and the writings of the Church Fathers, modern scholars have questioned the historical accuracy of these accounts[14] (see also Acts of the Apostles: Historicity). Historians consider this anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament and Patristic writings to be the basis of the antisemitism associated with Christianity at different periods in its history.
- ^ Acts 24:5, 24:14, 28:22, see also Jewish Encyclopedia: Christianity in its relation to Judaism: Early Christianity a Jewish Sect
- ^ George, Leonard (1995). Crimes of Perception: An Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. New York: Paragon House.
- ^ Ethiopian royalty considers itself of the Tribe of Judah, tracing its roots to Menelik I, son of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Cornelius: "The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the Early Church. The gates of the Church, within which thus far only those who were circumcised and observed the Law of Moses had been admitted, were now thrown open to the uncircumcised Gentiles without the obligation of submitting to the Jewish ceremonial laws."
- ^ Acts 9:2, 18:25–26, 19:9–23, 24:14–22, see also Didache#The Two Ways
- ^ Strong's G2450 Ιουδαϊζω
- ^ HarperSanFrancisco (November 30, 2004), ISBN 0-06-052655-6, p.170
- ^ The Canon Debate, McDonald & Sanders editors, 2002, chapter 32, page 577, by James D. G. Dunn: "For Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man (pontifex maximus!) who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity. James the brother of Jesus and Paul, the two other most prominent leading figures in first-century Christianity, were too much identified with their respective "brands" of Christianity, at least in the eyes of Christians at the opposite ends of this particular spectrum. But Peter, as shown particularly by the Antioch episode in Gal 2, had both a care to hold firm to his Jewish heritage, which Paul lacked, and an openness to the demands of developing Christianity, which James lacked. John might have served as such a figure of the center holding together the extremes, but if the writings linked with his name are at all indicative of his own stance he was too much of an individualist to provide such a rallying point. Others could link the developing new religion more firmly to its founding events and to Jesus himself. But none of them, including the rest of the twelve, seem to have played any role of continuing significance for the whole sweep of Christianity—though James the brother of John might have proved an exception had he been spared." [Italics original]
- ^ Walter Laqueur (2006): The Changing Face of Antisemitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530429-2. p.45
- ^ Ådna, Jostein (2005). "Formation of the Early Church". Mohr Siebeck. ISBN 3161485610.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Acts 4:1–22, 5:17–42, 6:8–7:60, 22:30–23:22
- ^ Walter Laqueur (2006): The Changing Face of Antisemitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530429-2. p.46-48
- ^ The Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire (300-428) by James Everett Seaver. University of Kansas Publications, 1952. Humanistic Studies, No. 30
- ^ For example, see Catholic Encyclopedia: Acts of the Apostles: OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY: "Nevertheless this well-proved truth has been contradicted. Baur, Schwanbeck, De Wette, Davidson, Mayerhoff, Schleiermacher, Bleek, Krenkel, and others have opposed the authenticity of the Acts. An objection is drawn from the discrepancy between Acts ix, 19-28 and Gal., i, 17, 19. In the Epistle to the Galatians, i, 17, 18, St. Paul declares that, immediately after his conversion, he went away into Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas." In Acts no mention is made of St. Paul's journey into Arabia; and the journey to Jerusalem is placed immediately after the notice of Paul's preaching in the synagogues. Hilgenfeld, Wendt, Weizäcker, Weiss, and others allege here a contradiction between the writer of the Acts and St. Paul." Note that the Catholic Encyclopedia considers the authenticity of Acts to be a "well-proved truth" but nonetheless notes that other scholars disagree. See also Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of Saint Luke: Saint Luke's Accuracy: "Very few writers have ever had their accuracy put to such a severe test as St. Luke, on account of the wide field covered by his writings, and the consequent liability (humanly speaking) of making mistakes; and on account of the fierce attacks to which he has been subjected..."