Monday, June 28, 2004
Jewish Christians
Interesting article (in Italian) by Andrzej Strus of the Salesian Pontifical University on Jewish Christians.
He says we can identify two periods, separated by the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. In the first period, the Christian faith was very much connected to its Jewish roots.
See for example the attitude of Paul, minister of the Gentiles and still linked to the synagogue (Acts 9:20; 13:14) and to exterior signs (e.g. the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3). On the other hand, in Philippians 3 he speaks of circumcision as "mutilation".
The date of 70 CE seems to me a handy but at least partly artificial periodization here. According to Eusebius (HE III,5.3), the Christians were commanded to leave Jerusalem before the war (so also Epiphanius). They would have gone to Pella. Stevenson dates this to c.66. This episode is then used to justify the destruction of the Temple (because it was as if "holy men had utterly deserted both the royal metropolis of the Jews itself and the whole land of Judaea" -- implicit ref. to Gen 18:33ff, Abraham intercession for Sodom). This reference to the "whole land of Judaea" seems not applicable to this period and rather reminds me of Hadrian's edict (dated 135), expelling all Jews from Judaea.
On the likeness of the flight to Pella, see Did Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella?. From the conclusion:
The Jewish attitute toward the new Church can be seen in this anathema, included by 85 CE in the synagogue liturgy:
Although Pharisees do not often appear in a good light in the Gospel (cf. Matt 23), Pharisees beliefs are not shown as always ostile to Christian thought: see example of Paul defending belief in the resurrection of the dead in front of the Sanhedrin against Sadducees in Acts 23. For an extra-biblical example, see later on James' martyrdom.
On the conversion of Jerusalem "priests" to the Christian faith see Acts 6. Chadwick contrasts this passage with the attitude of the Qumran community toward the Jerusalem temple. I am not sure this is so relevant. On contrasts on relationships with Gentiles within and without the Church see Acts 6-7.
It is perhaps interesting to note how little is known about the fate of the "mother-church in Judaea". Not much (if we exclude medieval tales) remains about the fate of the Apostles, and what remains seems to focus outside of Palestine (pointing to a rapid decline of Jewish Christianity).
Categories: Church_History
He says we can identify two periods, separated by the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. In the first period, the Christian faith was very much connected to its Jewish roots.
See for example the attitude of Paul, minister of the Gentiles and still linked to the synagogue (Acts 9:20; 13:14) and to exterior signs (e.g. the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3). On the other hand, in Philippians 3 he speaks of circumcision as "mutilation".
The date of 70 CE seems to me a handy but at least partly artificial periodization here. According to Eusebius (HE III,5.3), the Christians were commanded to leave Jerusalem before the war (so also Epiphanius). They would have gone to Pella. Stevenson dates this to c.66. This episode is then used to justify the destruction of the Temple (because it was as if "holy men had utterly deserted both the royal metropolis of the Jews itself and the whole land of Judaea" -- implicit ref. to Gen 18:33ff, Abraham intercession for Sodom). This reference to the "whole land of Judaea" seems not applicable to this period and rather reminds me of Hadrian's edict (dated 135), expelling all Jews from Judaea.
On the likeness of the flight to Pella, see Did Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella?. From the conclusion:
Some [Christians] remained in the Pella-Decapolis region and formed the nucleus of both the orthodox and heretical Christians found there in following centuries. Others returned not only to Jerusalem, to their old area on the southwest hill. Those who returned brought with them a bridge between the original Jewish Christian community and the predominantly Gentile church which had arisen by the beginning of the second century.Some scholars believe there are possible NT references to this flight: Mark 13:14; Mark 16:7 (but Pella is in the Decapolis, east of the Jordan, not in Galilee); Matthew 10:23; Luke 21:20 (this has apparently not much to do with the flight per se); Rev 12:6.
The Jewish attitute toward the new Church can be seen in this anathema, included by 85 CE in the synagogue liturgy:
May the Nazarenes and the heretics be suddenly destroyed and removed from the Book of Life.Anyway, that Jewish roots are affirmed in the early Church, there is little doubt. In Matthew's Gospel, Christ is the new Moses and the expected Messiah. Note that the Ebionites, Irenaeus tells us, "use the Gospel according to Matthew only".
Although Pharisees do not often appear in a good light in the Gospel (cf. Matt 23), Pharisees beliefs are not shown as always ostile to Christian thought: see example of Paul defending belief in the resurrection of the dead in front of the Sanhedrin against Sadducees in Acts 23. For an extra-biblical example, see later on James' martyrdom.
On the conversion of Jerusalem "priests" to the Christian faith see Acts 6. Chadwick contrasts this passage with the attitude of the Qumran community toward the Jerusalem temple. I am not sure this is so relevant. On contrasts on relationships with Gentiles within and without the Church see Acts 6-7.
It is perhaps interesting to note how little is known about the fate of the "mother-church in Judaea". Not much (if we exclude medieval tales) remains about the fate of the Apostles, and what remains seems to focus outside of Palestine (pointing to a rapid decline of Jewish Christianity).
- According to Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus, c. 185-195), John died in Ephesus; he traditionally lived with Mary (John 19:27). According to Eusebius, he spent 18 months on the island of Patmos (Dodecanese, 37 miles SW of Miletus), having been sent there by Domitian (debatable, was perhaps Nero) in 95 CE.
- Philip had four daughters (Acts 21:9). According to Polycrates, he died at Hierapolis (Pamukkale), Phrygia (although Polycrates speaks of only 2 daughters).
- The case of James is quite complex. Josephus (Ant. XX,9,1) says that he was stoned to death under the high priest Ananus in 62 CE. Josephus says Ananus was a Sadducee, and that the rigidity of the sect was at least part of the reason why James was condemned (keep in mind that Josephus was a Pharisee). This condemnation was apparently not shared by "those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and accurate in legal matters". It seems fair to say that the death of James was an important blow to the Jerusalem church and to Jewish Christianity at large. What emerges in the NT is at least the authority of James in the early church: see for example the way he speaks in Acts 15 and the passage from Gal at the next bullet. Eusebius seems also clear in putting James (and not Peter) at the head of the Jerusalem church (cf. HE II.1.2), and so does the author of the Gospel of Thomas (Thomas 12).
- Peter suffered martyrdom most likely in Rome under Nero (cf. 1 Clement and Ignatius to the Romans). His relationship with both James and Paul is not crystal clear (for example, cf the strong opposition between Paul and Peter in Gal 2:11ff). See also the role of James there.
Categories: Church_History
