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 (Christiantheology)—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 RonnieGideon, Yonatan, and Michal Pablo, Samia, and Shiri 78 *Contents *Preview 13 *The Protagonists 19 *Endorsements 21 *Personal Introduction 25 *Timeline 28 *Acknowledgments 29B – Jewish-Gentile Relations in the Jesus movement01 *The Historical Background 3102 *The first years 4303 *Crisis in the Jesus movement 8704 *Supersession Theology 14105 *The Post-canonical era 18106 *Theology gone awry 20707 *Polemic in the New Testament 22508 *Scholarship 237 9C– Summaries and Afterthoughts09 *Recapitulation 25310 *The post Constantine era 27911 *The responsibility for Jesus' death 28912 *Consequences 30113 *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 whichmeta-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 ormodels; the traditional thesis, the competition thesis of Simon,1 and the thesis suggested in thismonograph, 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 inJewish-Gentile relations within the Jesus movement. It suggests that the Jewish-Christian sagaoriginates in later misperceptions about this conflict among followers of Jesus with varying degrees ofJewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations. Therefore, and contrary to traditional interpretations, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were notparticipants in this struggle. They were the subjects of a debate, (mostly) among Gentile believers - aboutwhat 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 controversyabout 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 producedby 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, theyreflect an internal conflict with opponents advocating Gnostic or Pagan affinities, not a conflict withPaganism or Gnosticism. Therefore, the anti-Jewish, anti-Pagan, and anti-Gnostic biases of the canonicaland authoritative texts are the result of complex and layered trajectories, and should be understood toreflect, for the most part, debates within the Jesus movement—not struggles with external religiouscommunities.The texts that were eventually canonized were written during the embryonic stages of belief in Jesus, aperiod of tensions between believers with pro- and anti-Jewish inclinations and affiliations. This tragiccoincidence embedded a footprint of anti-Jewish sentiment in the canonical lore of the victorious factionand in the hearts and minds of believers. The fact that the crisis in the Jesus movement lasted at least fourcenturies, and that the Judeo-Gentile dimension is only one dimension of this crucible is obscured sincemost 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 theJudeo-Gentile dimension of the crisis.It is noteworthy, that throughout this survey, we will rely almost exclusively on texts preserved by theChristian tradition. This is due to the fact that, despite great efforts by many scholars, the search for theJewish side of these debates has yielded dismal results. Moreover, scholars have noted an enormousdisproportion in intensity and quantity—to the point of rendering insignificant, the few segments that havebeen identified as possible Jewish responses.2 The absence of a commensurate Jewish response, if Judaismunderstood itself to be the intended adversary, is difficult to explain. However, if the original crisis waswithin the Jesus movement, as suggested here, we should not expect a significant Jewish response (at thetime, debates within the Jesus movement would be unknown, inconsequential, and irrelevant to thoseoutside 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 andleading 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 earliestintegral New Testament documents available to us. Paul introduced to the Roman world monotheism, theconcept 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 thatmoderns call ‘individual consciousness and belief.’ Paul’s emphasis on belief was revolutionary. The notionthat what each individual believed was the arena where the drama of salvation unfolded must have beenexhilarating in a society where individual freedom, regardless of class, was very limited. Paul’s proclamationof a universal faith, and the insight that individual belief not only mattered but was ‘the’ essence of humanexistence (and the only measure for salvation) must have been an empowering message. Access to allthrough a simple declaration of faith made Paul’s strand of belief in Jesus popular among Pagans spiritualseekers. The excitement that this encounter caused among spiritual seekers in the Roman world is palpablein the extant texts.However, soon after the first successes of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, tensions arose as Gentileconverts to Paul’s form of belief in Jesus encountered Jesus’s disciples and first followers in the publicarena. Some, maybe most, of Jesus’s disciples and first followers seem to have conditioned fellowship onTorah 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 stagesof the clash that ensued; a Gentile challenge to the authority and to the legitimacy of Jesus’s disciples andfirst followers as the exclusive guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy, and the rejection of their corebeliefs 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 Gentileconverts to be full and rightful heirs of the promises of God to Israel. Paul defended jealously his positionagainst 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 todiscredit Jesus' Jewish followers (who for the most part seem to have demanded that Gentile followers ofJesus obey the Torah). Subsequently, in an effort to legitimize their rejection of the Torah and to challengethe leadership of the movement, Pauline believers developed a polemical arsenal whose original aim was todiscredit 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 thedescendants 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 sympathizersseems 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 andguidance. They needed a legitimating foundational discourse, a dissonance-reducing narrative. In the NewTestament, we can identify attempts by Pauline leaders to reassure the Gentile rank and file that they wererightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesusand 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 Jesusmovement, and standing on a still-evolving theology and a chaotic constituency - Pauline leaders andintellectuals seem to have gravitated toward a strategy built on the belittling of the disciples and on thedenigration of their beliefs and traditions. They also opted for the subversion and the appropriation ofelements, themes, and motifs quarried from their adversaries’ traditions and texts. Pauline leaders andintellectuals crafted their narratives from within this context of estrangement and vitriol vis-à-vis the Jewishfollowers 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 ofthe movement. In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and otherJudean sectarians, Pauline leaders found a ‘ready to deploy’ arsenal that could be used to demote the Jewishestablishment of the Jesus movement. By interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish traditions ofprophetic 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 leadersand intellectuals eventually crafted a strategy that was, in the long run, successful in de-Judaizing belief inJesus.Significantly, despite the eventual hegemonic status of the Paulines, that followed the fourth centurycouncil of Nicaea, the epic battle about Gentile attitudes toward Judaism, Paganism and Gnosticism didnot subside altogether, and did re-surface under various guises during the next centuries. The tensionsbetween believers with Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affiliations and inclinations were never fullyharmonized and remained latent at the core of the tradition. The footprints that these tensions left in thelore were never extricated either. Consequently, future Gentile believers in Jesus were to internalize deeplyambivalent attitudes toward Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism.Over time, the context of the gentile-Jewish crisis within the Jesus movement was lost and the originalpurpose of this rhetoric (to discredit adversaries demanding the observance of the Torah) gradually lost itsrelevance. 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 Jewishfollowers of Jesus, and to eradicate Judaizing tendencies among the folk. Given this trajectory and thePauline rejection of Jesus’ beliefs, the Church found it necessary and beneficial to obscure the Jewishorigins of Christianity and its implications - which remained veiled from the rank and file, until thetwentieth century.5 16Until the twentieth century, the polemical bent of the lore of early Gentile believers in Jesus wasunderstood, by most scholars and believers, to be the consequence of the Jewish rejection of Jesus, theirresponsibility for Jesus’ death, and the Jewish loss of God’s favor. By and large, Judaism was seen as alegalistic and morally inferior tradition that had forfeited its place as YHWH’s chosen. However, during thesecond half of the twentieth century, aided by the fortuitous findings at Qumran and Nag Hammadi, newparadigms 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 fromtraditional views on Jews and Judaism. The view that a proselytizing struggle between turn of the eraJudaism and early Christianity may have been the main generator of anti-Jewish attitudes among earlyGentile believers in Jesus seems to be espoused by many (the competitive thesis).6 Scholars that embracethis model often describe anti-Judaism as the consequence of excessive militancy by the more aggressiveand vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone awry.7A variant of this competitive thesis, or model, sees the attraction of some turn-of-the-era Gentiles toJudaism as the main generator of anti-Jewish sentiment among early Gentile believers. Under thisconstruct, attraction to Judaism infuriated Gentile leaders and intellectuals and fueled the polemical fervorthat 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 aboutwhat belief in Jesus was, or should be. The re-discovery of the diversity of the early Jesus movementrequires the retroactive legitimating of all interpretations of Jesus’ ministry. Therefore, we need internalizethe fact that all these believers understood themselves to be the only ‘true’ Christians and viewed theiradversaries’ beliefs as heretical, misguided, or inadequate. The implications of this early diversity and of there-placement of the origins of the Jewish-Christian saga within the Jesus movement, are the main themesof this monograph.Finally, it is important to reemphasize that this monograph focuses on one of the three polemic fronts thatimpacted and shaped the Pauline narrative and self-perception; the Jewish-Gentile crisis within the Jesusmovement. The debates and the polemic with believers with Pagan and Gnostic affiliations andinclinations are addressed only as they impact the main protagonists of this monograph; the Jewishfollowers of Jesus and the gentile followers of Paul. Furthermore, whereas the Jewish-Gentile crisisoriginates in processes that took place during the second half of the first century, and therefore impactedthe content of the canonical texts – the tensions between believers with Pagan and Gnostic affiliations andinclinations, and between different gentile interpretations of Jesus’ ministry originate in processes that tookplace from the early second century forward, and therefore had little impact on the content of the NewTestament. 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 ground8Groups of like-minded individuals coalesced into proto-factions and then into factions. The degree ofdoctrinal 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 seemsthat, 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 thoughthe affiliation, and the affinities, of individuals and communities to these groups were not always clear orunequivocal to the participants.The Jewish followers of Jesus9—Jesus’s disciples and first followers were Jesus’s chosen successors andthe original guardians and interpreters of his legacy. Their beliefs, customs, and traditions were grounded infirst-century Judaism. These messianic Jews seem to have venerated Jesus as an exalted human (did notproclaim the divinity of Jesus). Most seem to have rejected the many Gentile forms of belief in Jesus thatemerged following the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. 2 Alternativeidentifiers for the Jewish followers of Jesus: Jewish faction, founding fathers, descendants of the Jewishfounders, founding faction, Jerusalem faction.Marcionite believers in Jesus—called for the rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewishfollowers of Jesus. Marcion’s Jesus was a new and unprecedented figure that revealed a previouslyunknown deity of love and mercy. He viewed the God of the ‘Old Testament’ as an inferior deity, lackingin wisdom and justice. Marcionites considered themselves to be the true interpreters of Paul’s legacy, andshould be identified as such. Marcion made the earliest and most radical attempt to sever the link betweenGentile believers in Jesus and the founding faction. Contrary to the orthodox complex and ambivalentreject-but-appropriate approach to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers, Marcion advocated acomplete and radical rejection of the Jewish legacy and affiliation of the Jesus movement,10 and strived fora thorough de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus.The Pauline faction—The Gentile followers of Paul. Claimed to supersede (replace) the descendants ofJesus’s disciples and first followers as the ‘New Israel,’ as ‘God’s chosen’ and as the guardians of Jesus’slegacy. They struggled to define and articulate a theological compromise. Often identified by scholars asChristian, 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 thisfaction. Ignatius adds emphasis on unity and hierarchy to the foundations provided by Paul and by theauthor of Luke/Acts. Paul and Ignatius emphasized belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection (not his life andministry)12 and strove for a complex midway positioning13 —a cluster of themes associated with the factionI 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 withinthe 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 ofspiritual 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, analternative term has not emerged.15 In many Gnostic systems, the world is the creation of a lesser and evilGod (the Jewish God). Despair and pessimism are pronounced and permanent. The world is evil and thereis 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 ofPtolomey, Cerinthus, Valentius, and Basilides.16Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction—Often called Gentile Judaizers, these were Gentiles withvarying 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’ drewsome of the most vitriolic fire from Gentile leaders and literati who were incensed by their attraction to thebeliefs and traditions of the founding fathers.The implications of the emerging consensus about the diversity of early belief in Jesus will surfacethroughout the following chapters. However, as we are about to enter this journey, it is important toanticipate and emphasize one overriding implication of this proposition. Namely, that during the first fivecenturies 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, andascendancy inevitable. Each of these communities of believers in Jesus saw themselves as the only true andlegitimate 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 ascendancyof the Pauline faction and the hegemony of its dogma over the narrative. Thus, for almost two thousandyears, the strand of belief in Jesus that emerged ascendant (the Gentile followers of Paul) is the onlyversion 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 theearly Jesus movement by Palgrave, the academic division of Macmillan Publishers (2013). This version is bestsuited for readers interested in detailed and substantiated discussion and analysis. Expanded introductions,new material, reviews of historical context, content reconfiguration, new chapter structure, and enhancedbackground 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 NewTestament reflects debates between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus - not a polemic betweenChristians and Jews), and with the implications which he has drawn for Christian theology... May this bookfind a wide readership among people devoted to the cause of the healing of memories between Jews andChristians."—Peter C. Phan, Professor. Chair of Catholic Social Thought, Georgetown University; Presidentof the Catholic Theological Society of America‘Standing on a brilliant and insightful reconstruction of Paul, and on a quite shocking (but perhapscompelling) reading of Mark—the author offers a number of original and, in some cases, quite compellingtheoretical reconstructions of the context and purposes of early Christian texts... a work of sublime moralpassion.’—David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics and Director, Centerfor 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... Interestingand, in fact overwhelming... A timely and honest engagement of the Christian texts, authors, and scholarsby 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 inthe Jewish-Christian dialogue.... Scholars may disagree with a number of Bibliowicz' conclusions, as I dowith his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But even in disagreeing, scholars in the field ofJewish-Christian studies, will learn new ways of challenging and thinking about old presumptions."—Eugene J. Fisher, Distinguished Professor of Theology, Saint Leo University. Former staffperson for Catholic-Jewish relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Consultor to theVatican 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 ofBlessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology‘I very much appreciated the depth and scope of the scholarship, accompanied by the kind and humblespirit of the author…it may also prove to be one of the formidable and formative scholarly contributionsof 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 textsbearing on the question at hand. In so doing, he proposes an intriguing, compelling thesis. The bookshould 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 toignore 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 UniversiteitLeuven 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 thestudy of anti-Judaism in early Christianity.’—Joseph B. Tyson, Professor. Religious Studies, Southern Methodist University; author ofMarcion andLuke-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 convincinglythat the origins of Christian anti-Judaism are to be found among early non-Jewish followers of Jesus whowere in conflict with Jesus’s disciples and first followers... a must read.’—Tim Hegedus, Professor of New Testament, Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, Wilfrid LaurierUniversity, Canada‘Bibliowicz uses solid scholarship to engage large and difficult topics while managing to be balanced andclear... invites Christians to walk a deep journey toward truth... and suggests a compelling nuance that theconflicts in the early texts were between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus, not between Jews andChristians.’—David L. Coppola, Executive Director, Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, SacredHeart 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; authorof Mature Christianity in the 21st Century: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-JewishPolemic 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 bythe author.’—Dale C. Allison, Jr. Professor of New Testament, Princeton Theological Seminary; author ofConstructing 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).17The need to understand Christian attitudes toward Judaism has been with me for many years. Aftersearching in various directions, I stopped at the gates of Christian scripture. Without any foreknowledge orexpectations, I started reading the New Testament. The anti-Jewish bias of the texts surprised me. I did notreturn 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 NewTestament, Christian history, and Christian theology. Throughout these years, I have been deeply touchedand influenced by the encounter with Christian scholars and theologians. I have benefited from theirguidance and counsel, which was given with open hearts and open minds. During these years, I havelearned 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 theministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, I also encountered troubling and conflicting messages about theattitudes of early Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism and toward the Jewish people. I have alsolearned that pro-Jewish18 and anti-Jewish strands have cohabited in the traditions of believers in Jesus fromthe earliest years, and have wrestled since for their minds, hearts, and souls. In addition to the polemicalstrand that I encountered throughout the lore, I also encountered expressions, traces and echoes ofpositive views toward Jews and Judaism.For individual believers, Christianity is a religion of faith, love, grace, salvation, and redemption. Themajority of today’s believers in Jesus have no anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic inclinations. Most are unaware ofthe deep and pervasive presence of polemical attitudes in their theology, culture, and lore. ‘Most Christiansare 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 towardthem. For most, whose life in Christ is one of loving kindness and mercy, awakening to the anti-Jewishbent that permeates the canonical and authoritative lore is a troubling and disconcerting experience.20The presence of a polemical bias in the religious tradition that gave the world the inspiring and sublimewritings 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 - isdisconcerting. The abyss between the wholesomeness and the authenticity of individual belief and sixteenhundred 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 inwhich 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 andplace of the New Testament writers, and to capture the circumstances and the issues that the scribes, theeditors, and the compilers of the texts were trying to address, one needs to divest sixteen hundred years oftraditional interpretations and dogmas. To read the canonical texts as a first-century inhabitant of theRoman Empire would, we also need to divest deeply held beliefs, values, and sensibilities. Thesepreconditions are necessary to capture the events as they unfolded, without the formidable impact ofcenturies of retroactive editing and dogmatic indoctrination. Moreover, the destruction of the textualtraditions 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 shieldsthat 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 Jewsand toward Judaism. This emphasis should not obscure the fact that Jewish-Gentile relations within theJesus movement were but one facet of a protracted multilateral crisis that lasted at least four centuries, andthat followers of Jesus with varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, andinclinations 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 addressedand discussed only as they impact the subject at hand. My presentation of these complex topics is notexhaustive; 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 issuestouched upon here have been interpreted and understood in different and differing ways by qualifiedscholars and theologians, which I am not.I invite Christian readers to attempt to read this book from a Jewish perspective, to explore the NewTestament and the authoritative texts anew. I present my work with great trepidation, with anapprehension born out of the tension between my affinity with religious belief and my quest to decipherthe origins and evolution of the polemical strand. This affinity permeates and informs my life-long interestin the religions experience and its mystical manifestations. The task of re-reading the New Testament in anew light requires substantial effort. The evidence and the clues that sustain my conclusions emergegradually and slowly throughout the monograph. I hope that readers will find this rendition of my journeyedifying. Despite many unanswered questions the ongoing quest has been rewarding, the conclusionssurprising. 26Furthermore, this work is not a religious statement, nor is it a statement about religion. Moreover, thesensitive and emotionally charged nature of the subject at hand may cause some readers to shut-off to thepresentation and to pre-categorize this book, or portions of it, in unintended ways. Some may find thejourney emotionally difficult. The reader should continuously keep in his or her mind that this is not acritique of the faith and beliefs of believers in Jesus, nor is it about their vast, rich, and empoweringreligious heritage.I was summoned to this task by dark and painful memories deeply etched in the Jewish consciousness, andby ever-present storms that cloud the Jewish horizon. In this quest, I have been nurtured by the deep andpowerful wells of the Jewish collective past. Throughout this journey, I found myself surprised again andagain by intense emotions, triggered by this experience, and reflected in an emotional under-pitch that I donot identify in my rational self. Twenty years after the beginning of this journey, the texts can stilloverwhelm 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 intheir impact on me: to my surprise, the more I immersed myself in the material, the more I becamedesensitized to the anti-Jewish content. It seems that with time, one becomes accustomed to heavy dosagesof rhetoric; it becomes an almost nonexistent background noise. It would appear that over-exposure toverbal violence leads to numbness to it.Any attempt at channeling the chaos, the diversity, and the uncertainty of the first centuries of belief inJesus into a structured narrative will fail to fully encompass the underlying complexity. Furthermore, theenigmas, the dissonances, and the inconsistencies that we encounter in the texts before us - require aharmonizing narrative that must go beyond the evidence. Therefore, it was necessary to sketch on thiscanvass 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 thesuggested socio-theological trajectory, many discrepancies and difficulties, many mystifying puzzles andpreviously disconnected phenomena, yield new meanings and interpretations. Whether the proposedalternative, which builds on the work of many scholars and theologians, is deemed to better fit theevidence 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 JudgesBCE 1000–922 Davidic monarchy (‘J’ writer of Pentateuch)BCE 850–720 Elijah, Jezebel, and Ahab, Amos, HoseaBCE 850–720 Assyrian conquest of Northern Kingdom (Israel)BCE 718–688 HezekiahBCE 700 First IsaiahBCE 640–609 Josiah (Deuteronomic reform)BCE 625–595 JeremiahBCE 597 First deportation (Babylon)BCE 587 Nebuchadnezzar conquers JerusalemBCE 587–538 Ezekiel and Second IsaiahBCE 465–424 Ezra and NehemiahBCE 63 Romans conquer JudeaBCE 4? Jesus’s birthCE 26–36 Pilate in JudeaCE 30? Jesus’s crucifixionCE 42? Paul’s mission beginsCE 37–41 Emperor CaligulaCE 54–68 Emperor NeroCE 50–60 Paul’s Epistles (New Testament)CE 65–70 Gospel of Mark (New Testament)CE 70 Destruction of the Jerusalem TempleCE 69–79 Emperor VespasianCE 80–90? Matthew, Luke/Acts (New Testament)CE 81–96 Emperor DomitianCE 95–105? John, The Book of Revelation (New Testament)CE 80–135 The Epistle of BarnabasCE 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 TrajanCE 100–160 Justin the MartyrCE 100–170 MarcionCE 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 destroyedCE 190 Melito of SardisCE 260–340 EusebiusCE 300–375 AthanasiusCE 303–312 The ‘Great Persecution’CE 306–337 Emperor ConstantineCE 325 Council of NicaeaCE 379–395 Theodosius Emperor (the Empire is Christianized) 29 *AcknowledgmentsScholars and lifelong students of the Jewish-Christian saga that read, commented, and criticized drafts ofthis monograph: Reverend Dr. Phillip W. Tolliday, and Professors D. Fiensy and W. B. Tatum whosupported and encouraged, despite a rather crude first draft. Professor N. Beck whose wise guidancehelped me navigate difficult waters and whose encouragement and empathy made this journey a uniqueexperience. 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 monographand 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. Specialacknowledgment 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. Friendsthat read the early drafts and contributed comments and much appreciated encouragement: HannaBibliowicz, 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), andtheir spouses (Shiri, Samia, and Pablo) who were supportive throughout, read, and made valuableobservations.The views presented in this book are the sole responsibility of the author. The readers’ support was agracious 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 theAventine 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 ofthe Gentiles—The Gentile followers of Jesus), on the left side (stern and unwelcoming) representsthe 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 BelieversHistorical background+Mesopotamia and Egypt are the birthplaces of the great civilizations of the ancient Middle East. The epicstruggle between the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians was fought, mostly, in the territory of the bufferpeoples: the nations that populated the lands West of the Jordan river and the territories south of theAnatolian peninsula. Judea was a small tribal kingdom occupying the hill country between the sea plainsand the Jordan River, in the no-where-land between these two formidable civilizations. The Israelites werea secondary player in the area’s struggles for ascendancy. Despite being a small nation, the Israelite myth ofexclusivity and covenant with YHWH22 seems to have contributed to a Judean sense of purpose anddestiny, and forged them into impressive fighters. This myth may have been instrumental in making thissmall 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 forgingof 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 tribalcoalition he inherited from his father. Solomon also alienated the religious establishment by building altarsto foreign Gods (2 Kings 23:4-14), and alienated the Northern tribes by fortifying the southern border ofthe 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 wasconquered and subdued by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. Judea fell to the Babylonians on 587 BCE. Theconsequences of the fall of Judah were momentous: 23“This political situation raised religious questions: Why did God allow the Jews to be subjugated byGentiles? Why didn’t God protect his people? Why do the Gentiles but not the Jews deserve temporalpower? … How should the Jews relate to the state? Should they support it, oppose it, or adopt a neutralstance? 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 theirrebellion 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 tobelieve 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, Jeremiahtransferred to his own day the prophetic interpretation of the fall of Samaria enunciated by Isaiahgenerations 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 ofimmutable fate. God, who controls the destiny of nations and empires, has for undisclosed reasons decidedthat Babylon shall rise and that Judea and other states shall fall (Jer. 27:2-8). The dominion granted theBabylonians was only temporary; after a predetermined amount of time, whether the three generations ofJeremiah 27 or the ‘seventy years’ of Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10, the Babylonian empire will fall and/or theJews 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 howmuch was added by later disciples and editors, is not easy to determine, but, whatever their origin, theseideas had an enormous impact on subsequent Jewish thought and practice…The prophecies of Jeremiahalso provide the ideological context for the political behavior of the Jews in antiquity (and, indeed, ofmedieval and modern times as well). When Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylonia in 539 BCEand issued his edict permitting the Jews to return home and rebuild their temple (Ezra 1:1-4), many Jewschose to remain... Of all the nations exiled from their lands by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, only theJews returned to their homeland to rebuild their ancestral temple. For these Jews, the redemption promisedby Jeremiah was to consist of repatriation and the renewal of the temple cult; perhaps many of them alsohoped for a restoration of the kingship and political independence, but they were to be disappointed.” 24Following the fall of Babylonia, the Judeans became Persian vassals until the conquest of the area byAlexander of Macedonia. Judeans regained their independence under the Hasmonean dynasty (143-63BCE). In 63 BCE Pompey led the Roman armies that conquered Judea. During the early years of theRoman conquest (63 BCE-66 CE) Judea was governed by local rulers subservient to Rome or by directRoman Rule. First century Judeans yearned for a Messiah, a descendant of King David, who would bringabout deliverance from foreign oppression. Using modern terminology, we may describe this as anationalistic yearning, not a religious one.25 However, the Roman appointed religious establishment ofJudea, aware of Roman might (and subservient to it) opposed any attempt to challenge the Romanoccupation 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) werecommitted to high religious and ethical standards.28 They opposed the Roman occupation, but did notactively promote subversive activities. Theologically, the Pharisees advocated reliance on oral traditions tointerpret the Hebrew Scriptures. The Pharisees, the socio-theological descendants of the Hasidim of theMaccabean era, are at the epicenter of the rhetoric and invective of the New Testament but are minor andsecondary figures in Jewish history, literature and lore. We find that ‘in the whole of Talmudic literature nota single sage is designated as a Pharisee, and the word appears only in some isolated usages.’29Sadducees - The Sadducees (Hebrew: Zadokim)30 were the party associated with the Judean religiousaristocracy. According to tradition, they were entitled to the office of the High Priest. Their collaborationwith the Romans earned them the animosity of the people. Theologically, they were strict literalists. Theywere considered theological and social conservatives.31 Some modern scholars distinguish betweenSadducees who acquiesced with the foreign occupation and Zadokites (who opposed the ruling priestlyfamilies 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, 1Enoch and The Apocalypse of Abraham.33 Most scholars identify the community that produced the DeadSea Scrolls at Qumran as the Essenes mentioned by Flavius Josephus.34 Apocalyptics believed that animminent ‘end of times’ was near, and would bring deliverance from the current age of evil. Some of thesegroups developed dualistic and alienated views of reality.Subversive militants - Zealots, Sicarii, and uncompromising nationalists (called by Josephus Flavious ‘TheFourth Philosophy’). Groups that fought to expel the Roman occupation and were instrumental in ignitingtwo major, costly, and failed revolutions (70 & 135 CE).35 These groups considered paying tribute to aforeign ruler a major sin. This category may include fringe elements of the previous groups that advocatedarmed resistance.The people – The vast majority of the inhabitants of first century Judea (the ‘silent majority’) did notbelong to the groups enumerated above. Most were rural peasants with mundane concerns, conservativebeliefs, and traditionalist inclinations and life-styles.Given the scarcity of reliable sources, the characteristics and demographics of these groups, their respectivetheologies, relative influence and inter-relationships, are the subject of inconclusive debates. We areadvised against drawing far-reaching conclusions from the conflicting and incomplete evidence wepossess.36 It seems that the Pharisees and the Sadducees are best characterized as educated elites.37Apocalyptics were, mostly, religious enthusiasts that had a variety of religious predispositions andinclinations – and were not a socio-political group. They may have recruited most of their members amongthe poor and the marginalized, and among religious charismatics and enthusiasts. Whether first centuryJudaism 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 emphasizehomogeneity and continuity.Politics and the Hebrew Scriptures - The Hebrew Scriptures provide us a window into the Israelitemythical past going back 4500-4000 years. In the Torah39 we can trace the evolution of the Judeanunderstanding of creation and of the divine realm. We can detect a trajectory from archaic mythicalanthropomorphism (Genesis), to YHWH as a henotheistic warrior God (Judges, Kings) and lastly to themonotheistic God of the later prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah). Jahwism40 and monotheism were gradual andhard-fought processes.The Torah (Pentateuch- the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is a complex and layered corpus thatseems to preserve the footprints of various schools, and many authors, compilers, and editors. The Torahunderwent 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 andothers). 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 theHouse of David. E, D and P appear to originate in contending priestly groups vying for religiousascendancy. E, the Elohist, seems to originate in the northern kingdom of Israel. D contains most ofDeuteronomy. Most agree that P, the Priestly Law, is a late and post exilic addition. While the hypothesishas been criticized and challenged, it continues to be the main framework for academic discussions on thecomposite nature and origins of the Torah (Pentateuch). Thus, the Pentateuch42 is the depository oflayered and intertwined accounts of the early annals of the Israelite people, and of the legitimating lore ofthe Davidic Dynasty.The Priestly Law (the P source of DH) seems to reflect the victory of the Aaronid priestly clan (claimedMoses’ 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 atransformation under priestly control. The Pentateuch was, most probably, given its final editorial andtextual form under Ezra, an Aaronid priest.The Priestly Law reflects tree phenomena: the end of the monarchy, the end of the prophesy, and thereversal of the rise of the Mushite priests from Shilo (descendants from Moses) to preeminence duringthe last decades preceding the exile (Josiah’s reign onward). The Aaronids returned to power under thePersian patronage bestowed upon Ezra. From Ezra onward, the Davidic dynasty and the Mushite priestsof Shilo (the priestly group associated with Samuel, Abiathar and the prophet Jeremiah) the probableoriginators of the Deuteronomist components of the Pentateuch - mysteriously and unceremoniouslydisappear from Jewish history. In terms of dynastic politics, whereas the Aaronids rose to preeminenceduring 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 theAaronids. The Aaronids, exiled (with most of the aristocracy) to Babylon, were back in favor when thePersians 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. Manysects flourished. Persecution of sectarians was rare. Striving for Torah43 observance was not a vehicle forsalvation; it was a lifestyle conducive to living in accordance to the ancestral covenant with YHWH. Torahobservance was conducive to God’s favor in this world, not to salvation in the afterlife. This period isconsidered by most Jewish scholars as the crucible of the emergence of the priestly mindset of SecondTemple Judaism.Monotheism, intolerance and religious polemic – Polytheistic cultures were, for the most part, tolerant ofdiversity. The concept that ‘many paths lead to the divine’ resonates in the polytheistic mind, but has nofull parallel in monotheism. Monotheism tends to breed exclusivity. Exclusivity breeds intolerance.Monotheistic religions are prone to intolerance and are often harnessed to legitimate established politicalpower. The increase in intolerance that seems to be associated with monotheism and the atrocities thathave been committed in the name of ‘God’ by followers of monotheistic faiths are sobering. Christianityand Islam, the two universal and worldwide contenders that embrace Ethical Monotheism,44 had fromearly-on worldwide claims and goals and did become persecutory. In Judaism, all righteous people enjoygood standing before God, regardless of origin or belief (the Noachide laws -Genesis 9: 1-6). This earlyuniversalistic stand and Judaism’s early henotheism may have contributed to its milder militancy and itsweaker proselytizing zeal.45 Minority status, self-criticism and Torah observance may have also contributedto weaker persecutory impulses.Among today’s religions, only Islam was from its inception fully and unequivocally monotheistic. A closereading 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 archeologicalevidence, support an evolutionary view of the Jewish understanding of the divine. Polytheistic vestiges andresidues 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 ethicalarticulations, and accounts of past religious and political struggles. They also include rhetoric directed atthe nation’s enemies.Indeed, the Torah contains passages that are disturbing to modern sensibilities and ethics.46 N. Beck’spresentation of this type of polemic in the Hebrew Scriptures:47‘In the Hebrew Scriptures polemic includes subtle degradation of Babylonian and Egyptian celestial andterrestrial deities (the greater light, the lesser light, the stars, and the sea monsters) in the Priestly creationaccount, 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 withtheir gateway-to-heaven towers at the summits of their ziggurats. Anti-Egyptian polemic is inherent inIsrael’s basic confession of faith that Adonai delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage. Polemic against thenearer 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 sexualperversions (Gen. 9:20-27). The serpent, a phallic symbol within the Canaanite fertility cults, is the agentfor the seduction of Eve (Gen. 3). In the Jahwistic creation account there may be skillfully subtle polemicagainst fertility cult practices of intercourse with animals when it is recorded that among all the cattle, thebirds of the air, and the beasts of the field there was not found a helper fit for the man; instead, the LordGod 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 theIsraelites, in the Jacob story in Gen. 31 the use of such objects was put down when Rachel was said to havestolen her father’s household deities, placed them in the camel’s saddle in her tent, and sat upon them. Sherefused to get up while her father searched the tent for them, claiming that she was in the midst of hermenstrual cycle, thus covering them with her uncleanness. Within the Shechemite Dodecalogue, in theDecalogue in Exod. 20 and Deut 5, and elsewhere, there are the well-known prohibitions against makinggraven images in the form of any figure, male or female, of any beast, bird, reptile, or fish. Beyond thisthere are vitriolic denunciations of the various Baal cults and their worship practices. To cite only oneexample, in Deut. 12:1-3, 29-31, it is commanded that the places where the people whom the Israeliteswould dispossess had served their gods upon the high mountains and the hills and under every green treemust all be destroyed. The Canaanite altars must be torn down, their pillars dashed into pieces, and theirAsherim burned. The graven images of their gods must be cut down and the name of their holy onesdestroyed. It is said that these antecedents of the Israelites have done every abominable thing, evenburning 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 outof, and in opposition to the local fertility and weather deities whose worship was widespread in agriculturalCanaan. Certainly, the political conquest of the land was no easy task, as the records in Judges and 1Samuel indicate, and the religious conquest of the agricultural deities was an equally long and frustratingstruggle.As a result of the extensive military achievements of David and the establishment of the empire, largenumbers of non-Israelites were brought into the nation and into the royal court. Elijah, a few generationslater, is said to have felt that he alone remained as one who would speak for Adonai; he had to bereassured that Adonai would leave seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed to Baal and kissed him (1Kings 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’sreform, vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the hosts of heaven were brought out of the templeof Adonai and burned outside Jerusalem. The priests were deposed whom the kings of Judah had ordainedto burn incense to Baal, to the sun and the moon, the constellations, and all the hosts of the heavens, andJosiah 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 inIsa. 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, mostgraphically in the Bel and the Dragon additions to Daniel.’Fortunately, the consequences of these ancient inflammatory remarks are now buried in the archives of ourlore and did not have a significant impact on Jewish hearts and minds. These archaic vestiges do notdisturb us due to the fact that most of the peoples and nations involved are long gone, the issues at centerstage have changed, and Judaism did not develop a sustained persecutory bent. Confusion arises when wedo not differentiate between core theological statements, and tribal and military exhortations that are oftenadversarial, confrontational, and derogatory toward other tribes and nations.Non-Israelites and the Torah - King Hammurabi’s law code (Babylonia 1795-1750 BCE) is the earliestextant Law code and the first known attempt to recruit the divine realm to edify and control the king’ssubjects. It is the oldest effort to inculcate good behavior through the agency of religion. The biblicalNoachide code (Genesis 9:1-6) stands on Hammurabi’s law and reflects the core theological stand ofJudaism toward non-Jews. According to biblical Judaism, non-Israelites can be ‘right in the eyes of God’ bybeing righteous. Maimonides, probably the foremost Jewish philosopher of the early Middle Ages, did stateunequivocally that everyone who accepts the Noachide commandments and observes them carefully is oneof the righteous of the nations of the world, and has a share in the world to come.48 In Judaism, there is norequirement 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 tothe Judean tribal myth, God promised protection and favor in return for keeping his commands. Rightbehavior was paramount to Israelites and was considered a necessary precursor and enabler of ethics. Rightbelief, in the later Christian sense, was not a central tenet of first century Judaism. Thus, an individual’splace in God’s plan was a consequence a person’s being a member of the group, an Israelite in goodstanding.49 It may be said that there is no individual quest for salvation in the Jewish literature of the firstcenturies of the Common Era. First century Judaism did not focus on salvation of the soul. It did focus onserving God by complying with his commands.50The 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 ofJudah was the largest and most influential of the twelve Israelite tribes. The mindset of the Judeanmonarchic period was heroic, mythical and sensual. The Pentateuch contains the legitimating myth of thisdynasty. 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 forany Judean King. In fact, it is the longest for any biblical figure. However, the court scribe that wascommissioned to write a foundational account of the dynasty may have been too forceful in his zeal toplease his employers: he did cast ‘God’ as extending a promise of eternal rule to the Davidic dynasty, apromise that was not kept. Nonetheless, God’s promise to David (II Samuel 7 and Psalm 89) may be oneof the most successful Acts of political self-promotion in history. It did legitimize, and thus facilitate, 400years 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 leaveshistory 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 thesecond attempt to revitalize Judea following the failure of the Davidic scions to do so. Ezra was the pivotalfigure in the transition from the monarchic era to the priestly domination of the nation that lasted until thefailed revolution of 70 CE. Under Ezra’s stewardship the authoritative scriptures were apparently editedand rendered ‘priestly friendly.’ Most variants of the Documentary Hypothesis attribute the final editing ofthe Pentateuch, including the insertion of the priestly code, to Ezra and/or his followers. The goal was tosolidify the religious power of his priestly clan, the Aaronids, who emerged victorious after centuries ofinfighting with the Mushite priestly clan from Shiloh. Priestly scribes made certain that scripture instructedthe nation that most kings ‘did bad on the eyes of the Lord,’ and stifled any attempt to criticize priestlyrule. Whereas the return from exile is traditionally understood as the birth of Judaism, it was in fact a shiftfrom a monarchic to a priestly mindset. For many, this shift marks the transformation of the Israelites into‘Jews.’52Since time immemorial political and religious elites seem to have had the ‘inside track’ on ‘God’s’ wishes. Itis not surprising, therefore, that the groups that controlled the nation left their footprints in the lore, andare 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 seemsthat ‘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 theTemple (a point of contention between Mushites and Aaronids) and gave the Aaronids exclusivity over thetemple, 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 thinkthat 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 thepriestly ascendancy. During the monarchic period prophets were often ‘on the record’ chastising the kinginto compliance with the ‘ways of the Lord,’ and into protecting the weak and the poor. According toJudean tradition, God’s wishes and God’s guidance to his people were communicated through the nation’sprophets. However, when the religious elites took control of the nation’s destiny, the charismatic andmaverick nature of prophecy was seen as a threat to the religious establishment that supported it in thepast, 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 ismonopolized by the priestly establishment and prophecy ‘ceases’ with the writings of Haggai, Zechariahand 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 ofsovereignty under the Hasmoneans, nationalistic yearnings were suppressed. The priestly hold on thenation’s soul was strengthened by inserting a cycle of sinfulness and deliverance into the Pentateuch, andinto the nation’s psyche. Sin and guilt became tools to solidify the priestly grip over the nation and quellnationalistic and messianic yearnings. The priestly mindset is one of submission, of resignation, to thefutility of attempting to recover national sovereignty.54The post-priestly mindset - As the priestly preeminence winds down following the destruction of TheTemple (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 literaturesurface in the period preceding the turn of the era, and may signal the surrender of the Judeans to theharsh reality of foreign conquest and the turn away from reality to the esoteric, the hidden and thefantastic. Although the origins of Jewish mysticism56 are shrouded in mystery and are the subject ofinconclusive debates, it seems that as foreign oppression is perceived as unchallengeable, the fantastic andthe 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, Judeannational life was curtailed by foreign conquest. Revelation and end-of-times literature (Daniel, Qumranetc.) may have been forerunners of the esoteric and fantastic imagery that will flourish in early Merkava andHeichalot mysticism. Esoteric mysticism may have also functioned as a sublimation mechanism thatalleviated subjugation and suffering.57 Traditionalists see Jewish esoteric mysticism originating and evolvingparallel to normative exoteric Jewish culture. Others think that Jewish mysticism may have evolved fromvisionary and eschatological lore.58As time passed and the unacceptable reality of conquest persisted, the process of withdrawal fromengagement with the mundane intensified. When reality becomes hopeless and unjust, when God’s justiceand mercy tarry, and when despair permeates every facet of life - individuals and communities developcoping mechanisms. In these circumstances the phenomena of apocalyptic, eschatological, messianic andmystic literature may have functioned as dissonance reduction mechanisms. The rise of mystical disciplinesmay reflect increasing disillusionment with, and disengagement from, reality – offering a world beyond thecontrol of foreign oppressors. A world of spiritual freedom and mystical escapism. These theologicaloutlooks reflect yearnings from within a world lacking justice, balance, harmony or hope. With thedestruction of the second Temple came the demise of the Judean priesthood. Apocalyptic and mysticalstrands, 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 Romansthat started circa 164 BCE when Judas Maccabeus,60 leader of the Judean revolt, sent an embassy to Rometo secure an alliance against the Greeks. A steady increase in the status of Judaism characterized the nextthree 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 tocommerce and culture. Jews comprised approximately 6-8% of the empire’s population, althoughestimates vary. They were a significant minority, numbering four to six million out of a population ofapproximately 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.62At the time of Jesus’ ministry, the Jews of the Roman Empire were a respected and privileged minoritywhose influence was enhanced by a relatively high level of literacy. The Jews were granted a number ofunusual concessions by the Romans (the right to observe the Sabbath, to refuse military service, and tosubstitute prayers for the emperor in place of participation in the imperial cult). They were freed frommilitary service by Julius Caesar – who was also supportive of Jewish life in the Diaspora. This tolerantattitude was emulated by the rulers of the provinces. Julius Caesar's enmity toward Pompey, who hadconquered Jerusalem and defiled the Holy of Holies, enhanced his status among the Jews. His restorationof the unity of Judea, his deference toward the high priest Hyrcanus II, and his benevolent attitude madehim very popular with the Jewish masses.Under the Romans, the Jews were relatively secure—the adherents of a tradition of laudable antiquity, highmorality and considerable intellectual appeal. They were an accepted part of the landscape, viewed withcuriosity and respect and with occasional suspicion and antipathy.63 It seems that their idiosyncrasies, andexalted 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 whowere fierce and proud nationalists. The Jews were the only people in the Near Eastern provinces to stageseveral full-scale national uprisings against the Romans. They rebelled twice in attempts to regainindependence (two major wars in 66-73 and 133-136 CE, in addition to uprisings in Alexandria andCyrene).These attempts, fueled by fundamentalist fervor, proved misguided. They exacted a heavy toll andexhausted the Judean nation. The intensity of these wars, xenophobia and Jewish prerogatives64 andidiosyncrasies, were at the root of anti-Jewish feelings in some segments of Roman society.65 Theseconfrontations did cause temporary erosions in the status of the Jews in the empire. However, thesereversals were temporary and did not have permanent or sustained impact. Remarkably, despite theirrebelliousness 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 generallyreinstated67 and continued until Theodosius I (379-395 CE) made Christianity the official religion of theEmpire.68The descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers (the founding faction of the Jesus movement) wouldbe indistinguishable from ‘regular’ Jewish communities. They were Jewish in their self-perception and intheir individual and collective behavior and would be viewed as Jews by the Roman authorities – andwould have paid the ‘Jewish tax’ (Fiscus Judaicus). Being Jews, they would be exempt from sacrificing tothe 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 Jesusbearing 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 societycould believe in any Deity they wanted, including Jesus. Belief was a private matter of no interest to theRoman authorities. Roman cohesion was based on obedience to authority and on public pledges of loyaltyto the state - epitomized by symbolical sacrifices to the Roman Gods.69 Contrary to later misperceptions, atfirst, Romans did not oppose belief in Jesus. Rather, Romans persecuted whoever refused to pledge loyaltyto Roman authority, to the inclusion of those believers in Jesus that refused to sacrifice to the RomanGods (the equivalent of an oath of allegiance).Furthermore, during the second and third centuries the Paulines developed an exclusivist theologicalunderstanding of their religious commitment to Jesus that put them on a collision course with Romanculture. In antiquity, appeasement of the Gods through sacrifices was a universally recognized practicethat guaranteed the proper functioning of the universe. The Pagan masses were predisposed to attributedrought, floods, earthquakes and all sorts of calamities to the refusal to honor the imperial Gods. Whencalamity struck, the populace would blame and attack Christians as instigators of divine wrath due to theirrefusal to sacrifice to the Roman Gods. Mob violence was further exacerbated by a variety ofmisperceptions, superstitions and stereotypes about Christians that took hold among the commonpeople.70Moreover, at the dawn of the second century, the Jesus movement entered a period of extreme religiousfervor and militancy, internal conflict, flux and chaos. The Pauline focus on Jesus’ death nurtured a cultureof ‘Imitatio Christi’ that engendered a subculture of fascination with martyrdom.71 This mindsetpredisposed some Paulines to ideological intransigence that resulted in their becoming the targets of adisproportionate share of Roman persecution. It is noteworthy that although Pauline orthodoxy haspromoted the belief that the refusal to sacrifice was widespread among most believers in Jesus - not allbelievers in Jesus were uniformly committed, militant and exclusivist. From the epistles of Ignatius andPolycarp we know that many Gentile believers became crypto-Christians. Others obtained forgedcertificates of compliance. Most seem to have complied with the edict.The demographics of Christian martyrdom are unknown, but human nature and the extant accounts, seemto suggest that most believers in Jesus opted for accommodation. 47 Although the vast majority ofbelievers in Jesus seem to have compromised with Roman authority and culture (sacrifice to the RomanGods, payment of taxes, submission to authority, acquiescence with slavery, individual property andwealth) some did frame their stance in absolute terms, triggering persecution.72To the exclusion of the Jews, Roman emperors demanded that all citizens and inhabitants of the empiremake 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 submissionto authority was baffling to the Romans. The refusal to perform a sacrifice to the emperor, a symbolicalmanifestation of submission to imperial authority, was seen by the Romans as an act of politicalsubversion. At first, Romans did not require Christians to recant their beliefs. Their aim was to disciplinewhoever 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 thetraditional 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 asdefiant and subversive, and after three official persecutions failed to quell what the Romans considered tobe 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 theRoman side, was not belief in Jesus. It was the refusal to acknowledge imperial authority. ‘The polytheisticworldview of the Romans did not incline them to understand a refusal to worship, even symbolically, thestate gods.’73 Wilson concluded that eventually, ‘Christians’ (i.e. Pauline believers) would have beensuspected of conspiracy and disloyalty. Per Wilson, Christianity appeared as a movement that promoteddisruption of the established order and dangerous social tendencies. The prejudice became so instinctivethat eventually, mere confession of the name Christian could be sufficient grounds for execution.74 PerZetterholm, the Jesus-believing Gentiles of Antioch found themselves in the peculiar position of having topublicly identify themselves as Jews subject to the tax to avoid prosecution for neglect of the cult.75 Theauthor of Revelation seems to imply that those ‘that say they are Jews but are not’ (Rev 2:9 and 3:9) aredoing 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 twocenturies 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 allegianceto the emperor. The fate of Marcionite and Gnostic believers in Jesus is opaque to us. Gnostic theologyand 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 thatPaulines experienced with the Roman authorities. I doubt that they would have chosen martyrdom toavoid an ‘external’ vow or pledge. Thus, it is possible that the Jewish followers of Jesus and Gnosticbelievers may have avoided persecution altogether and that Paulines and (maybe) Marcionites bore thebrunt of it. The communities of the descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers, beingindistinguishable 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 SummaryIntroduction+The legacies of towering founders anchor the great religious traditions of the world. Most of the greatreligious 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 ofleadership and teaching enabled them to develop and articulate a comprehensive vision and to inculcate intheir followers a solid understanding of their legacy. Upon their death, their followers had a path to followand 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 factthat his followers seem to have been unprepared for his death. Jesus’s death seems to have plunged hisdisciples and followers into a crisis that may have contributed to the theological and doctrinal anarchy thatfollowed. 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 havecontributed to the emergence of differing Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.78In Judaism, with the probable exception of Qumran, messianic movements have come undone upon theleader’s death. Thus, continuation of the Jesus movement required the articulation of a vision of Jesus’s lifeand ministry that would support continuity. Lacking an authoritative pattern to follow, some may have leftthe 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 toformulate 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 NewTestament. The canonical Gospels, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, Barnabas, the Gnostic Gospelsof Mary, Thomas, and Phillip, the Gospel of the Truth, the Apocryphon of John, and the Dialogue of theSavior, 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. Attemptingto make sense of the pre-Synoptic period is an excursion fraught by low visibility and unpredictableground. Of special interest to our pursuit is whether the anti-Judaic bent of the canonical texts hadantecedents in the pre-synoptic era. The pre-Synoptic phase of the Passion narratives is the arena where wemay find important indications that may clarify the emergence of the ‘Jewish responsibility’ libel.79 Whetherthese attitudes were held by the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or grew mostly amongnon-Jews, is critical to our attempts to understand the emergence of anti-Judaic attitudes among earlyGentile believers.If the Passion narratives originate in one of several pre-Gospel traditions, the rhetoric against the Jewishfollowers of Jesus can be assigned to a unique and concrete situation (one community, one faction, one setof circumstances). On the other hand, if the canonical Passion narratives originate from a wide spectrumof pre-Gospel traditions or from a single but widespread tradition, the anti-Jewish strand would haveemerged out of a wider foundation, and a wider consensus. If the former is supported, we have onetradition 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 characterizedreligious clashes during the first centuries of the era; there is considerable evidence that turn-of-the-erareligious disputes were intense and vitriolic. Debates were often rancorous. ‘Bashing the competition’ wasthe norm. Misrepresenting the opposition was unexceptional. Moreover, as we try to understand the spiritof the age, we must separate our analysis of the author’s original intent from its subordination to servicelater agendas. Furthermore, we need underline that, for the most part, religious texts were deployed toproselytize —not to inform. They were authored to shape the beliefs and attitudes of believers, rather thanto 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 PaulIntroduction+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 documentsavailable 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. Paulis 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 byacademics to interpret and to harmonize Paul’s seemingly dissonant theological statements. These effortshave produced a bewildering labyrinth of arguments and counter-arguments. Incursions into this minefieldare demanding. The superstore of Paul interpretation offers a wide array of choices. Each creedal,theological, and denominational predisposition has its team of favorite scholars.80I do not attempt to present a comprehensive study of Paul’s theology, personality, thought, or deeds. Myinterest centers on the controversial, polemical, and rhetorical Paul - the originator of the anti-Jewishstrand, according to traditional scholarship. Whether this role is in substantial harmony or dissonance withPaul’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 tohis people and caused great suffering. Paul’s relationship with, and attitudes toward, Judaism are complexmatters 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 tosignal ambivalence and antagonism.82 According to Gager,83 any reader of Paul has to address two separatesets 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 andincompatibility 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 explicitand comprehensive theological summary that would enable us to navigate his seemingly conflictingconjectural statements. The closest we have, to a possible theological summary, may be the Epistle to theRomans.84One’s conclusions on the complex questions that surround Paul’s legacy will depend on one’s assessmentof the reliability of the sources available to us. Students of Paul must address the tensions and theinconsistencies between the two main early sources of information about his ministry: The Acts/Lukerendition and Paul’s Epistles. Scholars also differ on Acts’ agenda. Was Acts written to present an historicalaccount, as implied? Or was it crafted to portray followers of Jesus as loyal to Rome, to mitigate Rome’spersecution, to exonerate Rome from responsibility for Jesus’s death, to oppose Marcion or to legitimatePaul by presenting him as respectful of authority and hierarchy?85Traditional scholarship has emphasized Acts as a guide to decoding Paul, and has read Paul as supportiveand suggestive of anti-Judaism. Modern scholarship attempts to understand Paul through his own writingsand 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 and2 Corinthians and Galatians were all written within a very short period.86 Thessalonians seems to be fromseveral years earlier, and Philippians is somewhat difficult to date. Sanders, reflecting mainstreamscholarship, concludes that since most discussions of Paul inevitably focus on the letters first mentioned, itmust be recalled that they represent Paul at a crucial moment in his history—with difficulties in hispreviously evangelized churches breaking out just as he was hoping to complete the collection forJerusalem and press on to the west—and these circumstances forced him into a critical examination of hisgospel and the restatement of it vis- à -vis seriously competing views.87To assess Paul’s contribution to anti-Jewish attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus, we need toaddress 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 PaulMany traditionalists (Bousset, Harnack, Holtzmann, Morgan, Reitzenstein, and others) supported anunderstanding 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 modernscholarship, 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 dominantcomponent of Paul’s background and thinking.88W. D. Davis pioneered the shift of emphasis from antithetical to consonant and derivative. Daviesemphasized Paul’s close relation to Rabbinic Judaism and concluded that we cannot too strongly insist thatfor Paul the acceptance of the Gospel was not the rejection of Judaism nor the discovery of a new religionwholly antithetical to it (as his polemics might lead us to assume). Rather, per Davies, Paul advocates therecognition of the advent of the true and final form of Judaism, in other words, the advent of theMessianic age of Jewish expectations.89During 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. Myunderstanding of the theological foundations visible in Paul’s Epistles is as follows:Judaism —Judaism contributed monotheism (one omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God), ateleological view of history (history unfolds toward a destination and reveals God’s purposes) and ascriptural 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 theQumran community, may have had a strong influence on Pauline tenets and may have contributedelements that were attributed by earlier research to non-Jewish sources. Dead Sea Scrolls research has alsocontributed to the growing understanding that Paul’s dualism may have originated from Jewish sectarianlore. Paul’s vision of the world as a battleground between dualistic forces (good and evil, soul and flesh, sinand righteousness, light and darkness) may have originated in Jewish sectarian-eschatological-dualistictheologies, to the inclusion of the Two Ways tradition.91Gnosticism —Gnosticism is a modern designation for a variety of spiritual trends that flourished duringthe first centuries of the Common Era (Hermetica, Valentians, Mandaeans, and Manichaeans). Accordingto 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 ofa disobedient angel or demiurge. The demiurge seeks to hold humans in ignorance of their true identity - insleepiness and intoxication. A divine messenger will come and awaken humans and free them from thebonds of ignorance by bringing true knowledge.93 Harnack and others since, see some features of Paul’stheology as deriving from Gnosticism.94Mystery Religions —the cults of Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Attis, Dyonisus, Adonis, Demeter, and others areknown 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 religiousgroups given that their members held their rituals and beliefs in secret. As the Jewish grounding of Paul hasbeen increasingly acknowledged, the emphasis on this source seems to have weakened.95 The MysteryReligions have been a preferred source for the sacrifice of the savior as a vehicle for atonement andsalvation, for the negative view of the flesh and of sex, and for a pervasive and overwhelming sense ofsinfulness and deprivation. (Sandon, the official god of Tarsus, Paul’s birthplace, is a suffering andresurrecting savior God).Overall, Paul’s theological synthesis is unique and powerful—so much so, that Jesus would not haverecognized it.96 Paul’s integration of Jewish and non-Jewish influences is a personal synthesis reinforced bya claim to revelation (Gal. 1:11–17; 2 Cor. 12:1–6; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). Paul’s extraordinary theologicalsynthesis seems to reflect his personal cultural background, and may be substantially dependent onQumran theology.97Paul’s emphasis on salvation by ‘faith alone’ was an intrepid attempt to introduce the ethical core ofJudaism 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 ofpersonal experiences and exposures, it is nonetheless a remarkable accomplishment.The Controversial PaulPaul was a charismatic religious visionary deeply convinced of the centrality of Jesus’s death andresurrection as the pivotal event of human history. This belief overrode all else. Paul’s sense of mission anduniqueness was centered in his claim to superior standing over the disciples and was grounded on hisexperience of direct revelation from Jesus (Gal. 1:11–12). Unfortunately, Paul left us sketchy descriptionsof the revelation he experienced and of his meetings in Jerusalem. On these crucial events, we are almostwholly dependent on the author of Acts. Although sympathetic to Paul, Acts seems to deny him the statushe 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, Paulsubmits to the authority of James.99 He is submissive and subservient and does not claim authority of anytype. In Acts, James is the undisputed leader and Paul submits to his authority.100 Paul is also a surprisinglycandid and self-professed master of theological gymnastics. He displays an approach to proselytizing that isunparalleled 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 orRomans) as the pivotal and defining text. This approach understates the contradictions that surface whenall the Pauline texts are compared. Paul, the center of gravity of the New Testament is difficult to pindown. Attempts to salvage a consistent Paul have intensified in recent decades. Some assign theinconsistencies and contradictions in Paul to his contingent target audiences; others point to his rhetoricaltechnique.102Paul and the Jewish Followers of Jesus103The New Testament texts and later orthodoxy attempt to convey recognition of Paul and his mission (andby inference of his theology) by James and the disciples—while understating the ambivalence andopposition he seems to have faced.104 Paul’s relationship with the ‘founding fathers’ seems to have beendifficult, complex, and turbulent. I explore these relationships further in the chapter dedicated to theEpistle of James.105 Furthermore, Paul claims pre-eminence over the founding fathers on the basis ofrevelation, 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 Epistleof 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 relateto each other. James’ cryptic statement, if historical, left many unanswered questions as to fellowshipbetween Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. Whether James bestowed upon Paul’s mission toGentiles believers equal standing to the Torah observant mission to the Jews, and whether (and under whatcircumstances) fellowship between the parties was allowed – are open questions.107 Chances are that wewill never know what James’s intentions were.According to Acts, during the period between the first and second meetings with James, Paul breachedJames’s blessing by promoting attitudes toward the Torah and toward Judaism that would be unacceptableto followers of Jesus of Jewish origin. Paul’s anti-Law hyperbole, even if used only while addressingGentile audiences, was detrimental to the status of the Torah and would be anathema to Jesus and thedisciples. If Paul’s claim that the Law (the Torah) was to be considered replaced by belief in Jesus’s deathand resurrection (Gal. 3:10, 11; 6:15; Rom. 3:20; 9:31) was proclaimed to audiences containing Jewishbelievers, 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 activitiesto 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 thattensions between Paul and the Jewish leaders of the Jesus movement escalated due to the fact that he hadnot 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 theargument that Paul’s rhetoric can be explained and justified on the grounds that his audiences wereGentile, as some modern scholars contend.It took years before gossip became rumor, and rumor became suspicion. Eventually, Paul had to answerthe accusations leveled against him that he was luring Jews away from Judaism; of targeting Jewishcommunities 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, butseems to have transgressed his directives.Corroboration of James’s position about Torah observance and works may have been preserved in theEpistle 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’sambivalent proclamations on Torah observance and Judaism. I speculate that James, an upholder of theLaw, would have had no room for Paul’s ambivalent messages about Torah observance, even whileaddressing Gentile audiences. We can summarize the position of James, as reflected in Acts and James, asfollows: 1. James blessed Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. 2. Gentiles don’t need to keep the Torah.109 TheTorah was not abrogated, superseded, or changed in any way.110Although 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 ofLuke/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 anembarrassing situation in the best possible light. Paul was accused of undermining the status of the Torahand of the founding faction (as the authoritative leaders of the movement)—while evangelizing under therespectability bestowed upon him by James’s blessing. Paul, claimant to independent and superior statusbefore Christ, was confronted about his theological acrobatics.The Acts rendition of this episode is laconic: Paul was to undergo a public ceremony designed todemonstrate his unequivocal adherence to the Torah. the charges are presented and James orders toconduct 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 castPaul as a Torah-observant Jew111 and subordinates Paul to James, inheritor of Jesus’s leadership. Accordingto 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 frompeople that were out to kill him.We can only guess why the guidelines set by James were breached. We have indications that they may havecollapsed at both ends: whereas ‘some from James’ may have caused a split in the Antiochene communityby 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 addressingGentile audiences (Gal 3: 10-11, Gal 6:15, Rom 3:20, Rom 9:31, 2 Cor 3: 14-15) exacerbating tensionsbetween Jews and Gentiles. It would appear that, if historical, James’s blessing of the mission to theGentiles was unclear and/or dysfunctional. It seems that James’s directive disintegrated upon impact withreality on the ground.112The Acts RenditionThe Act accounts are cryptic and focused on vesting Paul’s ministry with the approval of James. It remainsunclear whether James granted non-Jews equal standing in the covenant, or just applied the Noachide Lawsto the specific circumstances at hand. We must assume that Paul traveled twice to Jerusalem in search ofsomething more than a partial reiteration of the Noachide Laws, which do not require James’ confirmationand cover all humans. We do not know whether Paul and James debated his understanding of Jesus’slegacy, his rejection of Judaism as it pertains to Gentiles, the possible emergence of two parallel butincompatible communities, or his claim to higher standing based on direct revelation from Jesus—a claimhe seems to have made while addressing Gentiles. We may never know whether Acts’ rendition of James’sblessing 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 notviable. It is possible that the Acts version of the events, two dispensations—one to the Jews and one to theGentiles—could be a posterior Pauline expansion of James’s application of the Noachide Laws to thespecific circumstances at hand. Be it as it may, Paul’s later statements and the tensions between Jews andGentiles in the Jesus movement would appear to signal that Paul may have heard more than James said.113Paul, Faith, and the Law+Paul put emphasis on a series of dualistic pairs that have been central in apologetics since, and are adistortion 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 > SupersedesPaul’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 andpromotes good and compassionate behavior.114 Paul’s dramatic juxtaposition of faith and the Law, of beliefand works, and of spirit and flesh is heavily influenced by Gnostic and Jewish sectarian dualism.115 Itcarries the Gnostic seal of infatuation with sin and a negative attitude toward the body (flesh) as theincarcerator of the spirit. These illusory juxtapositions were successful with Gentile audiences that had noprior knowledge of what the Torah, or Judaism, actually were. With time, the Gentile followers of Paulbecame infused with high doses of anti-Law rhetoric and the Law became a major emotional ‘red flag,’ acentral ‘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 voidamong some believers that inferred that rejection of the Law implied rejection of moral behavior. It wouldappear 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 Paulwho often calls upon his congregations to behave ethically, and to restrain deviant behavior. [+pg 59]Paul in Modern ScholarshipTraditional interpretations of Paul’s writings are on the defensive following path breaking works byscholars such as K. Stendahl, W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, P. Gaston, and J. Gager who stand on earliercalls against traditional readings by G. F. Moore, James Parkes, and T. Herford. Moreover, traditionalscholarship reads Paul as anti-Jewish, stresses Paul’s confrontation with Judaism and has attempted, by allpossible means, to present a consistent Paul. The shift away from traditional readings of Paul116 has gainedmomentum 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 fromone religion to another, in this case from Judaism to Christianity. As a result of this conversion, hepreached against the Jewish Law, against Judaism, and against Israel. The content of this negative teachingwas that the Law, the old covenant with Israel, was no longer the path to salvation, for Jews or forGentiles. 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 soundunderstanding of ancient Judaism. The radical antithesis between Judaism and Christianity is represented asa decisive transition from religious particularism to religious universalism. Accordingly, Paul transcendedJudaism.Gager articulates Paul’s unintended origination of the polemical strand and his centuries-long status as thefountainhead 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.117Pivots in scholarship emerge gradually. Most originate in changes in focus and emphasis. Krister Stendahlstands at such an historical juncture. A shift of emphasis by Stendahl (1964) and E. P. Sander’s attack onthe view of Judaism as work-righteousness (1977) questioned the traditional Christian understanding ofJudaism. Sanders argued that Judaism cannot be understood or defined by reading Paul. Sanders alsorepudiated 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.’118Stendahl, 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.119In other words, Stendahl challenged the focus of Paul scholarship by giving to Paul’s letters a conjecturalstatus. This ‘revised and new Paul’ may be labeled ‘non-anti-Judaic.’120 According to Stendhal, we shouldnot 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’santi-Law and anti-Judaic statements are to be read within the context of his fierce battle against thoseamong the Jewish founders and their Gentile sympathizers who opposed a separate dispensation for theGentiles. 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 andthe 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.’125A commendable, and recent, attempt to present balanced views on the traditional and new perspectives isto 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 sooffer a useful summary.For the most part, Luther’s Paul (the traditional Paul) is now seen as embarrassing and as immaterial to thetrue 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 Testamentstudies—and inevitably in the Christian self-understanding. Since Paul is the theological foundation of theNew 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 comprehensiveand systematic articulation of his views— setting off the emergence of radically divergent interpretations ofhis 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, whowanted to mold himself to fit all audiences, got a fitting legacy: every denomination and faction has itsPauline 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 themselvesfrom the traditional paradigm altogether. In addition, whether Paul was obscure but consistent or clear buterratic 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 onthe 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 modernsensibilities. 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 thetexts on the literal reader remains largely unchanged. Unfortunately, the revised Paul is difficult to articulateand 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 theliteral Paul that people encounter when reading the New Testament.128My 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 withinthe 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 unknownand unappreciated component of the human cognitive and religious experience. Individual belief was of noconcern to the Roman authorities, religious or secular. The focal point of Roman life, culture, and religionwere 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 tomoderns, were part of philosophy, not of religion.St. Augustine is considered by many to be the first existentialist of the Western tradition for his earlyinvestigation of inner consciousness. However, after studying Paul, I consider him to be the true precursorof the Western exploration of individual religious introspection.131 Paul’s emphasis on individual beliefmust have been novel and empowering. Moreover, by gravitating to the Gentile world, Paul became one ofthe great trans-cultural figures.By distilling the Jewish message to its essence and by choosing belief as the delivery vehicle, Paul designedone of the most effective campaigns in the history of theological trans-cultural ideological transfers.132 ‘SolaFide’ (by belief alone), Paul’s doctrinal battle cry, turned out to be the perfect channel, the perfect vehiclefor the penetration of the Roman cultural and psychological defenses for it ‘delivered’ the essence ofJudaism 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 theRoman cultural and emotional defenses, without activating the defense mechanisms that protect sacredtenets. Paul’s emphasis on belief must have been revolutionary. The notion that the beliefs of everyindividual were the arena where the drama of salvation unfolded must have been exhilarating in a societywhere individual freedom, regardless of class, was very limited. Furthermore, the idea that individual beliefnot only mattered, but was ‘the’ essence of human existence and the only measure for salvation, must havebeen 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 theRomans 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 thePagan masses to righteousness.133 Similar to the Muslim, Hindu, and Parsee religions, first-century Judaismwas a wide-ranging worldview of prescriptions and regulations that governed the totality of individual andcommunity life.134 Although (mostly) respectful of Judaism and intrigued by it, most Romans would notembrace it.My reading emphasizes Paul’s confrontation with fellow Jewish followers of Jesus and their Gentilesympathizers. What incenses Paul is the opposition of some among the founding fathers to his de-Judaizedinterpretation 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 traditionalview (Paul’s theology as grounded in his theological confrontation with establishment Judaism),135 I see theintegrity of the Jesus movement and its fidelity to Torah as the central issues at stake.136 Since Paul wasexpecting an imminent second coming (Rom. 8:18) it seems that his ministry was not aimed at the creationof a new religion. Nonetheless, in retrospect, we can see that Paul’s ministry was the beginning of a newreligion 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’sconfrontation was with the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement,137 not with ‘external’ Jews.138It seems to me that what Gentile followers of Paul did or did not do would be of no interest to mainstreamfirst-century Jews – unless Paul acted against Torah observance among Jews, or attempted to lure Jewsaway 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 inextreme circumstances, that is, when individuals violated sacred boundaries. Paul’s words and activitiessuggest that he did attempt to lure Jews and God fearers139 away from Judaism. We have noted that Jewsand Jewish followers of Jesus accused Paul of luring Jews away from the Torah, and we learn from Paul’sletters and from Acts that Paul proselytized to Jews (Rom. 7:1–5; Gal. 4:21–29; 1 Cor. 9:20–22; Acts 18:4and 21:21).140 Paul’s evangelizing among Jews would be perceived as threatening Jewish identity andintegrity. This behavior would have led him to conflict with Jews everywhere. Furthermore, Paul’s attackson Torah observance and on Judaism while addressing mixed audiences may have become commonknowledge, 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 asrhetorical techniques or as limited to Gentile audiences. A ‘non-anti-Jewish’ Paul may fit modernsensibilities and minds, but may have little in common with the first-century charismatic and exclusivistPaul.142 Moreover, and unfortunately, since literal readings of Paul tend to yield an anti-Jewish Paul, thearguments that support the revised Paul may feel counterintuitive, complex, and inaccessible to layaudiences.The existence of a relatively good relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership, as portrayed byActs (J. B. Lightfoot, Köstenberger, Schnabel, and Bauckham), is countered by the argument that the Actsrendition is an attempt to cover up the tensions (The Tubingen school— Bauer, Robinson, Koester, andDunn)143 as indicated in (Acts 15:1; 21:20–21; Gal 2:11–14; 5:1–12). Due to the circumstantial nature of hisEpistles, each student of Paul has to assign to this extraordinary figure a center of gravity, a defining focalcenter. 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 tosee maturity, thoughtfulness, and reflection.We have seen that the supporters of the ‘revised’ Paul contend that the traditional understanding of Paul asanti-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 thePauline 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 hisimmediate followers to be one of ambivalence toward Jesus’s disciples, toward Torah observance, andtoward Judaism. Both factions of Pauline followers (Paulines and Marcionites) were very close to Paul intime, location, and predisposition. It is interesting that they, who probably knew him best, considered himthe apostle of the rejection of Judaism. How far can the leader’s ideas be from those espoused by hisimmediate and most fervent followers? Was Paul misunderstood and misinterpreted by his immediatetheological descendants, as put forward by supporters of a non-anti-Jewish Paul? Whether a trueinterpretation of Paul’s thinking or not, we will see that as the confrontation with the Jewish faction and itsGentile sympathizers unfolds, anti-Judaic sentiment became endemic among Paul’s followers. Paul'simmediate successors, and maybe some of his contemporaries, used his epistles to discredit Jesus' Jewishfollowers (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 themovement, Pauline believers will develop a polemical arsenal whose original aim was to discredit theJewish followers of Jesus.My understanding of Paul emphasizes a conflict with the Jerusalem leadership over his interpretation ofJesus’s legacy, his marginal standing among them, the rejection of his claims to direct revelation and toauthority (if aware of them) and his luring of Jews away from the Law.145 I am inclined to think that thefounding 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 firstfollowers. Paul was a visionary that was driven by great emotional stamina, militancy, enthusiasm, and adeep personal yearning for recognition and legitimacy. Overall, to me, Paul comes out high on theologicalcreativity and synthesis, high on polemical skills, problematic on consistency, ambivalent in his attitudestoward the Torah.146Paul is the most intriguing persona in the New Testament, a theological thinker, an enigmatic itinerantvisionary, a grassroots organizer, and a turf nurturer and protector. Paul’s trajectory, from a rather extremeand 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, andexplosive. Paul was a theological and rhetorical innovator and acrobat, as well as the dominant, mostengaging and enigmatic character of the New Testament.147 [+pg 68] 61 The New Testament and QumranThe Qumranites,148 similar to other Judean sectarians,149 saw themselves as the only lawful holders of thecovenant 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 thoseoutside 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 ofdarkness, the army of Satan’ (CD 1.1). The Pharisees (the arch-villains of Matthew) may be amongQumran’s opponents. In Pesher Nahum, ‘Those who seek smooth things’ (those who advocate lenientinterpretations 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 SeaScrolls (from Cave 4) have been published, showcasing strong predestinarian, dualistic, and mysticalthemes 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 understandingand 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 eschatologicalfulfillment and anticipation (IQpHab, IQSa, 1QM), it was distinct from the former in a strict application ofpurity rules and discipline.152I Enoch and Jubilees provide us additional windows into the worldview of Jewish sectarian communities. IEnoch scourges fellow Jews and presents the world in sharp binary contrasts: ‘sinners/irreverent’ on oneside, ‘righteous/pious’ on the other (1.1, 7–9; 5.6–7). Daniel and I Enoch contributed to the substantialapocalyptic literature that we encounter in the late Second Temple period and had a definitive impact onmessianic imagery among Jews (the son of man - a primordial being who would preside over a finalJudgment 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. ‘TwoWays’ is the designation given by scholars to a worldview that surfaced during the two centuries prior tothe turn of the era and that, for the first time in Jewish history, saw this world as a battleground betweenthe forces of good and evil. The Two Ways theology resonates with the Gnostic understanding of thisworld as dominated by evil and suffering; the creation of an evil God. It also resonates with Zoroastriandualism 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 theTwo Ways material. The juxtaposition of ‘good—evil,’ ‘us—them,’ ‘sons of light—sons of darkness,’ whichwe encounter among some Gentile believers in Jesus, may have originated in the sectarian-separatistposture of the descendants of the Jewish founders and in the Two Ways mindset developed by Judeansectarians, most notably at Qumran.154Dead Sea Scrolls research has yielded insights that we may harness in our excursion to identify the culturaland religious traditions and antecedents that the New Testament authors may have used to fashion theiraccounts of Jesus’s ministry. Knohl155 argues the intriguing possibility that Jesus knew himself to be theMessiah, and expected to be rejected, killed, and resurrected—based on the antecedent of the messiahfrom Qumran. Moreover, in Qumeran’s Self-Glorification Hymn we see a combination of divine or angelicstatus, and of suffering, not previously known outside the Jesus story. The author describes himself in theimage of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, an imagery that was later emulated-incorporated-appropriatedby early Gentile believers in Jesus.156Overall, I see strong similarities, parallels, and resonances between the texts found in Qumran and theearliest strata of the New Testament, pointing to a significant connection whose observable elements willsurface throughout our inquiry. This understanding of the affinities between some New Testament textsand the Judean sectarian milieu diverges somewhat from the consensus among scholars.157 The currentconsensus seems to be moving away from dependence and tends to tone down the importance ofcontinuity.A minority of New Testament scholars see significant affinity between Paul’s theology and the QumranDead 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, andJohn the Evangelist, Paul, and the authors of some NT Epistles based themselves on the theologicalachievements of this stratum.159The 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.164i. 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.165k. 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.166l. 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 Paulinebelievers in Jesus, mostly recent converts from Paganism, developed on their own the typologicalinterpretation of a religious tradition alien to them. Consequently, the use of typology is one of thestrongest indications that Pauline believers emulated-appropriated a number of Qumran traditions andpeculiarities. The emulation of this exegetical idiosyncrasy by early Gentile believers in Jesus is one of manyhints that Judean sectarian lore, views, and traditions migrated to a Gentile setting (most probably) throughthe 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, weshould be cautious about its interpretation. The availability of large numbers of Qumran texts, comparedto other sectarian communities, may cause us to overstate this connection. Rather, we should contemplatethe 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 broaderphenomenon). It seems to be the case that the Qumran sect and the pre-Gentile Jesus movement werecontemporaneous 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 numerousand too substantial to be set aside, and point to a significant and important connection. Although none ofthe similarities and parallels would be (by itself) conclusive proof of a nexus, their cumulative impactshould tilt the balance toward the view that Pauline believers in Jesus inherited-appropriated manyQumran-like peculiarities. Since we do not have any indication of direct contact between Gentile believersin Jesus and Qumran, we must assume that Jesus’s disciples and first followers (who were Jewish sectarianswith, plausibly, significant affinities and similarities with Qumran) are the most likely agents of themigration 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 JamesIntroduction+During the last decades, the epistle of James has attracted considerable scholarly interest. A bibliographyof several hundred articles and monographs is now available to those interested in this short butenigmatic, and challenging text. The increased interest stems from a surge in the quest for the historicalJames,173 his beliefs, his role within the Jesus movement, and the study of his relationships and viewsvis-à-vis those of the other central figures of early Jesus movement; Jesus, Paul and Peter. The Jamesrevival is also associated with the growing awareness about the Jewish grounding of the epistle and ofthe early Jesus movement.174 As Christian scholarship and theology have gravitated to a morecomfortable embrace of the Jewish grounding of the early Jesus movement,175 and of the diversity ofearly 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 earlieststrata 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 50CE.)176 and the M (the unique material associated with the author of Matthew),177 are among the traces ofthe founding fathers of the Jesus movement that survived the Pauline hegemony over the shaping of thecanon. 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 Jesusmovement. The Jewishness of James’ epistle seems now obvious, given that ‘the essence of the Judaismof 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 earlierwriters, and is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon.179 The epistle was canonized following itsinclusion in Athanasius’s suggested canon (367 ce). The Pseudo-Clementine traditions that emphasizethe 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 thecanonization 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 wouldbe unacceptable, unless it was believed to have been authored by Jesus’ brother. Third, we have someevidence that constituencies with affinities to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers remainedinfluential throughout the fourth century (Pro-Jewish and pro-Torah texts and sources in the NewTestament: Q, the M material in Matthew, and James. Outside the NT: The Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature)181At the time of canonization literacy was minimal, access to the texts was limited, and the perceiveddanger of inclusion was low. Therefore, we may tentatively conclude that the inclusion of thisproblematic 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 itsexclusion.Until the 20th century, the epistle was shunned by many early theologians and scholars182 due to itsadvocacy 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 andsidelined it to an appendix due to its non-Pauline orientation.184 For many centuries, Athanasius strategyof incorporate-but-subvert problematic traditions proved successful: James’ divergence from orthodoxydid not cause major problems to the Church and for the most part, until modern times, the epistle wasrelegated to benign disregard. ‘Modern scholarly study of James has also been overshadowed, until quiterecently, by a strong tendency to read James in the light of Paul, leading not only to depreciation ofJames by scholars with strongly Pauline theological predilections, but also to a serious failure toappreciate the distinctive characteristics and qualities of James's letter in their own right.’185 Although theepistle of James derives its legitimacy from the founders and is vested with the authority of James, wemust 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 epistleand the historical James in a more accurate historical context; the early and Jewish grounding of theJesus movement.186 During the last decades, the epistle has been subjected to a variety of inquiries andnew methodologies and has been read from multiple perspectives, yielding an appreciation for itshistorical, theological and sociological importance. Since the 1960s, rhetorical criticism, textual-redactioncriticism, 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 fromemphasis 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.187Outside 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,190texts not focused on Jesus’ death and resurrection that either advocate, or seem to advocate, Torahobservance.In addition to earlier works, students of James now benefit from a growing number of quality individualand collaborative commentaries published during the 21st century. Among the latest individual works wefind Popkes (2001), Hartin (2004); Blomberg and Kamell (2008), McCartney (2009), McKnight (2011),Painter and deSilva (2015), and Allison (2015). Noteworthy recent collaborative surveys include ChiltonB., and J. Neusner The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and his Mission (2001), Chilton Bruce & Evans CraigThe Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005), Webb, Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. Reading Jameswith New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James (2007), and van de Sandt, Huub andZangenberg, eds. Matthew, James, and Didache (2008).Jewish-Gentile fellowship+Jewish-Christian fellowship within the Jesus movement is a complex issue that surfaces in variousconfigurations throughout this survey. As we move forward in time, and engage the texts before us inapproximate chronological sequence, we will follow the evolution and the manifestations of thisrelationship. Our discussion here will focus on two events: The crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal2:11-14, 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 wasannexed by Rome and made the capital of the province of Syria. It became the third largest city of theRoman Empire in size and importance (after Rome and Alexandria). The city was the headquarters of theRoman garrison in Syria, whose principal duty was the defense of the empire’s eastern border from Persianattacks. Antioch was also one of the earliest centers of belief in Jesus; it was there that followers of Jesuswere 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 whileothers went to Antioch (to which refugees from earlier persecution had fled, and where they hadestablished a significant community (Acts 11:19-20) which, at first, was Torah observant and accepted theleadership of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem (Acts 11:28)192 It is commonly assumed that whenthese refugees arrived to Antioch they brought with them their lore; a collection of sayings of Jesus thatwas 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 inJames and Matthew. According to Streeter193 the M tradition originated in Jerusalem, and reflects theauthority of James who is a strong advocate of the Law (the righteousness of believers must exceed therighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees). The Q document is believed to be, by most scholars, the oldestmaterial of the tradition, is extant in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and is usually dated about 50 CE. Q’sexistence has been inferred. No actual Q document, in full or in part, has survived. Q is mostly a collectionof Jesus’s sayings. It is unclear where the Q tradition originated though it was used by Mark and Matthewand 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 andthe affinity between these communities, we should assume that the lore of the communities of followers ofJesus 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)196was experiencing the impact of a large influx of non-Jewish converts. It seems that the majority of thesePagan converts where of Pauline affiliation and inclination, but it is plausible that other forms of Gentilebelief in Jesus were also represented at Antioch. Painter posits that the missions to the Gentiles and to theJews at Antioch were divided into six factions. The factions of the circumcision mission broadly fit thedescription 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 somedegree of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. Historically, most scholars have agreedthat the issue at the core of the incident at Antioch was table fellowship:197 In Gal 2:12 Paul writes aboutPeter’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 fellowshipepisode where about ritual or moral purity, and whether the underlying dislocations where mostlytheological or socio-ethnic. Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles was understood bytraditional scholarship to be due to the incompatibility of Jewish food traditions with Gentile eatingpractices. Recently, moral impurity claims have been the focus of several studies, an emphasis that seems tohave gained the center stage. Claims of moral impurity may have surfaced due to Gentile participation insacrifices 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 moralimpurity is the issue and is concerned about the purity status of Gentile believers in Jesus (Gal. 2:14-17 and1 Cor. 6:11).199Given that avoidance of idolatry,200 and of the foods associated with Pagan sacrifices, was a central demandof 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 paramountimportance for the men from James, but it is important because it was thought to protect Jews from thecontaminating influence of the idolatry and immorality thought to pervade Gentile society. Ignoring theboundary 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 purifiedworshippers of the God of Israel, intimate contact between Jews and non-Jews still constituted a threat tothe 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 haveconcluded 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 themoral 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 issustainable, the participation of some Gentile believers in Jesus in Pagan sacrifices would have violatedJames’ directive.If emissaries from James appeared in Antioch requiring circumcision of non-Jews (Gal 2:12)206 it wouldhave contradicted the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)207 as traditionally understood. However, ademand requiring circumcision of non-Jews as a condition for table fellowship may reflect James’ positionon this subject – and may be seen as a clarification of the decree. Some scholars see the demand asreflective of a reversal of James’ previous position, or as reflective of the existence of a conservative factionamong the Jewish followers of Jesus that opposed the decree and required Torah observance from non-Jews.208Implementation of James’ stricter guidelines as to table fellowship would have led to Jewish-Gentilesegregation at Antioch. It seems that estrangement between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus didindeed fester and intensify, feeding rancor and animosity - although visibility as to the aftermath of thisevent is low. Whether the incident at Antioch was historical or symbolic, we have little evidence about itsimpact on Antioch’s community. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume an escalation of tensions betweenGentile and Jewish followers of Jesus from that point forward. It is noteworthy that the resentment thatmust have accompanied the estrangement between Gentile followers of Paul and the founding faction atAntioch (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 observantmission.209 We know, however, that the influx of Gentile converts will gradually lead to a growing Gentilemajority and to Pauline ascendance in the city during the second century,210 and to the first Gentile bishopthere (Ignatius). This incident has been understood as a turning point in relations between Jewish andGentile believers at Antioch. The crisis in Antioch has attracted much scholarly attention due to the factthat it exemplifies and encapsulates the core issues behind the estrangement between the Jewish followersof Jesus and the Gentile followers of Paul. According to Pauline orthodoxy, this crisis also reflects andepitomizes 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 Paulinetheology has erected on it. If historical, Peter’s table fellowship with Gentiles may reflect a moreaccommodating and flexible personal attitude toward Gentiles, rather than a rigorous and thought-troughtheology 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 Jamesand Paul, has been cast by orthodoxy as the embodiment of the via media, the compromise creedchampioned 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 councilbetween Paul and the leaders of the Jesus movement was whether Gentiles had to observe the mandates ofthe Torah. In Acts 15: 28-29 James responds to Paul’s request to legitimize his mission to the Gentiles byimplying 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 inthe Jesus movement, and we must question whether James intended that compliance with theseminimalistic requirements would suffice for Gentile membership in the New Israel, the new people ofGod.212 Unfortunately, the meaning and implications of ‘If you keep yourselves from these, you will dowell.’ was left open to interpretation. It seems to me that for James, full Torah observance was arequirement 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 ofminimal ethical behavior guidelines for all non-Jews, whether Pagans or Gentile believers in Jesus – butwould not confer membership in God’s people.Furthermore, and unfortunately, we do not have anywhere in the New Testament a reliable clarification ofJames’ 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 GentileChristians (and can discuss the law and the relationship of faith and works with no reference to thecontroversies around these topics that the conversion of Gentiles to the Christian message provoked)’213The discrepancies regarding the first visit have the most far-reaching consequences.214 Whether Jamesbestowed 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 openquestions that were not addressed by Acts. ‘That Paul does not harken back to the accord in the debatewith 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 hehad 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-keepingparty coexisted with some degree of fellowship.217 At first, Gentiles may have joined the Torah observantsynagogues of the Jewish followers of Jesus, but due to increasing alienation between Jews and Gentileswithin the Jesus camp – they seem to have seceded amidst great resentment, and established separate andnon-Torah observant communities. Whether historical or symbolic, Peter’s withdrawal from tablefellowship with Gentiles did become emblematic of the parting of the ways between Jewish and Gentilefollowers of Jesus, and the subject of a vast literature. Belief in Jesus outside of Judea was becomingincreasingly Gentile, and the Jewish faction gradually became a minority at Antioch. [+pg 79]The historical JamesJames seems to have enjoyed great authority among the Jewish followers of Jesus. The James mostbelievers are acquainted with emerges out of Gal. 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:7 and Acts 12, 15, 21. However, we haveuseful accounts about James in Josephus, Eusebius, Origen, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypses ofJames, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Pseudo-Clementine literature - most of whom cast him asrighteous and as the undisputed leader of the Jewish camp.218 His influence is central and palpable inJerusalem and in Antioch, despite the fact that he did not minister at Antioch. Although we are dependenton sources dominated by the Pauline perspective, the role and influence of James overshadow all others atAntioch. Sources outside the ‘mainstream’ show that James remained the single most powerful figureamong the Jewish followers of Jesus.219 To the proto-orthodox, intent on de-Judaizing belief in Jesus anduncomfortable with James’ demand for strict Torah observance, it was important to limit his role tolegitimizing Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.220Other than the Epistle of James, we do have a few pro-Jewish and pro-Torah observance segments in theNew Testament (Mostly the Q source in Mark and the M material in Matthew). These seem to be, for themost part, appropriations and incorporations of the lore of the Jewish founders into texts authored oredited by Gentile believers. Whereas segments, that are supportive of the character, traditions and beliefsof the Jewish founders, should be considered appropriations of the identity and lore of the Jewish factionby the emerging Pauline majority – James is unique in the canon by its explicit and wholehearted supportof Torah-observance. Not only is this text a unique view into the milieu of the Jewish founders - itsinclusion in the canon signals that as canonization begun (fourth century onward) Torah observanceamong 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 theperiod after the Jewish War. Following the Jewish War, and the decimation of the communities of believersin Jesus that accompanied it,221 the Torah observant traditions associated with Peter and James lost groundand 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 2011Although 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 groundingin the early and pre-Gentile Jesus movement (and its affinity to the Q and M materials, its resonance withthe Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature) are increasingly acknowledged by a growing number ofscholars. Although these linkages are indications of a common, earlier and pre-Gentile layer, the epistolarygreeting common in Pauline circles, and possible parallels with 1 Peter and the Shepherd of Hermes224 mayreflect later incorporation-appropriation into the Pauline corpus. If the epistle of James is a second centurytext originating in a community with affinities to the traditions emanating from the Jewish followers ofJesus, it may reflect their need to respond to the Pauline advocacy of non-Torah observance amongGentiles.However, if the existence of textual echoes between James, Paul and later Gentile authors,225 a minorityview among current scholars, gains ground – a Gentile audience or a substantial Gentile layer in theevolution of the text may have to be posited. This evolutionary trajectory would be strengthened by thefact that the epistle’s Greek seems ornate and learned226 and its theology is alleged by some to echo Paulinethemes and imagery.227 If this scenario gains the upper hand, it may indicate that a Gentile author wasattempting to be inclusive toward the Jewish faction and/or was attempting to fashion a text that wouldstrengthen the Pauline claim to continuity with Jesus’ Jewish followers.Major themes, addressees, and contextMartin Dibelius’s 1921 commentary on the Letter of James was very influential for well over half acentury.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. Intwentieth century scholarship, the wisdom character of James was front and center. Recently, a possibleeschatological background has received growing attention. Fine-tuning our understanding of the co-existence, symbiosis, and relationship between these elements is now a main concern.230Recent 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 Mostamong recent scholars, including Hartin, Allison, McKnight,232 Bauckham,233 and Painter argue that theintended 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 independentChristian communities each with its own theologies and understandings’ and identifies James’ audienceas a community with an eschatological outlook.234The addressees seem to be Jewish followers of Jesus, although it is plausible to claim that the epistlehopes to include Jewish non-believers in Jesus in its audience. Overall, to the exclusion of this reflectionof the mission to the Jews, nothing in the epistle requires us to expand the horizon or the intendedaddressees of James’ epistle beyond a Jewish milieu. Some, including Dibelius, Cargal, and Wall see ‘thetwelve tribes of the Dispersion’ (1:1) in the opening of the epistle as metaphorical and therefore opensomewhat 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 inAllison: 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.235Much has been written about the main intent behind the authorship of this peculiar text. It seems to methat whereas the canonical text would appeal to Jewish audiences and to Gentile sympathizers with thefounding faction, we can postulate that audiences affiliated with the Pauline mission would beunreceptive 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 theearliest layer of the text. Proto-James seems to reflect a group of Jewish believers in Jesus still engaged inthe mission to the Jews, and attempting to battle those advocating non-observance of the Torah. 74James and JesusUncompromising ethical demands, Torah observance, and radical anti-establishment and anti-wealth arestrikingly common to both, the teaching of Jesus (the M material in Matthew) and the Epistle of James.236It seems that James follows Jesus’ ethical concerns. In M, the Sermon on the Mount, and the narrative ofthe rich young ruler, the teaching of Jesus assumes the obligation of charity.237 However, although theepistle is acknowledged by most as echoing Jesus,238 it has little to say about the historical Jesus, includingabout his death and resurrection.239The 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 TheDidache and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. James mentions the forgiveness of sins (5:15) but doesnot mention Jesus' atoning death, a clear indication that the context is not Pauline. Overall, James seems tofit the early, and Jewish, strata of belief in Jesus alongside Q and M.240 ‘The evidence of the Gospelssuggests that James, in limiting his active role in mission to the Jews, was consistent with the practice ofJesus…’241James and PeterPetrine theology242 is a Pauline construct that stands on texts attributed to Peter and James243 and emergedduring the second century. The Petrine texts may have been authored to legitimize the Gentile followers ofPaul as the authoritative leaders of belief in Jesus. As the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus becameincreasingly 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 aquasi-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.245During 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 theambivalent attitude of Luke/Acts toward Paul, and persistent rumors about tensions between him and thePillars, Peter’s more accommodating attitude toward Gentiles was harnessed and converted into a Paulineconstruct that advocated the supremacy of the Gentile mission to the Gentiles – facilitating thetransformation 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 onwhich the Church’s theology was built (Petrine theology) is to be found in the fact that Mark, writing a fewdecades earlier, aimed his choosiest polemical arrows at Peter. Indeed, throughout his gospel, and in linewith 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 arrowsand 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 isalways 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 hadenjoyed before that time. The other left that world for the Graeco-Roman world and thus becomes part ofthe stream that would be the leading influence in the church in the successive decades and centuries.’246Contrasting and comparing James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter is a fruitful exercise that sheds light on thetransformation of Peter into an advocate of a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles and into therock on which the Catholic Church chose to stand. The authors of 1 Peter and 2 Peter, in the footsteps ofLuke-Acts, seem to have wanted belief in Jesus to be Pauline – but wished to distance themselves from thecontroversial Paul. It seems that placing Peter as the cornerstone of the Catholic Church was considered asafer and more conservative move.James and PaulThe crisis at Antioch - Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14Paul's visits to Jerusalem - Gal 1:18-20 and Acts 9:26-30, Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-29Recent scholarship seems to have gravitated toward the view that the epistle of James reflects the views ofthe 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 attestedthroughout and is showcased by the incident at Antioch (Acts 15:1,5 and Gal 2:11-14), the Apostolicdecree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and James’ command to Paul to undergo the ceremony accompanying theNazirite vow Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-19, 28-29.247 The majority of recent scholarship describe therelationship as adversarial, including Popkes,248 Edgar,249 Painter,250 Jackson-McCabe.251 A minority see it ascompatible – Mitchell,252 McKnight.253 Chilton’s remarks on this matter are insightful and yield a differentperspective: ‘Where Paul divided the Scripture against itself in order to maintain the integrity of a singlefellowship of Jews and Gentiles, James insisted upon the integrity of Scripture, even at the cost ofseparating Christians from one another.’254Jas 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, andpredispositions have weighed-in on the debate about this segment. As anticipated in the introduction tothis 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 amongGentiles. 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 ofPaul’s Law-free mission to the Gentiles – as seen from the perspective of the Jewish-founders, and aresponse 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).262The Jewish followers of Jesus had to fight two fronts simultaneously: they defended the messiahship ofJesus vis-à-vis fellow Jews, and advocated Torah observance vis-à-vis fellow believers in Jesus. Paul’sfollowers 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 thelaw than mainstream Judaism. However, we must keep in mind that the six antitheses of Matt 5:21-48advocate 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’ followersare 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 exaltbelief 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 suggestany relaxation of the demands of the law. Matthew may be going beyond, not going against, the biblicallaws.’263 ‘No doubt James takes for granted his readers' observance of the whole law, while focusing hisattention on its moral demands. There is no reason why a Palestinian Jew should not do this, especiallyif he were a disciple of Jesus, who also seems to have foregrounded the moral aspects of the Torahwithout 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 besummarized as follows: (1) Israel differs from non-Israelites because Israel possesses the Torah and thenon-Israelites do not; (2) because they do not possess the Torah, non-Israelites worship idols instead ofGod; and (3) therefore God rejects non-Israelites and identifies with Israel. Non-Israelites deprivedthemselves of the Torah because they rejected it, and, showing the precision of justice, they rejected theTorah 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.265James and Works - Throughout the ages, mainstream Judaism has considered all the requirements ofTorah observance as mandatory. Opinions diverged on implementation and actual execution varied, butthere 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 rejectionof works and deeds. Given the Pauline traditional view of Judaism as legalistic and sinful, Judaism wasoften presented as divested of ethics and good deeds. In Pauline theology, the term ‘works’ has beendivested of ethical grounding, is part of the terminology deployed to characterize Judaism as legalistic, andis 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, demonstratesitself through practice and manifestation. For James, claims about belief are empty, unless they are alivein 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 ofJesus in the first century. However,traditional scholarship has tended to obscure the existence of an active mission to the Jews, attempted toveil 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 significantmission to the Jews existed beyond Jesus’ ministry. Recent scholarship has started to open the flood gateson this subject. Although the devastation of the Judean strongholds of the Jewish faction during JewishWar 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 wellinto the fourth century273 emerges from significant affinities and resonances between James, Q, the Mmaterial in Matthew, the Didache, the Pharisaic believers of Acts 15:1, 5, the Jewish followers of Jesus inJustin, Ignatius’ Jewish antagonists, Justin’s Jewish followers of Jesus, the Gospel of the Ebionites, andJewish 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 emanatesfrom traditions associated with the historical James who was part of an active mission to the Jews, andaims 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.’274Given that the effort to legitimize Paul’s non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles is central to thecanonical corpus,275 we should be cautious about Acts’ renditions regarding the meetings in Jerusalem andthe nature and details of James’ blessing of a non-Torah observant mission to the Gentiles. The author ofLuke/Acts, while crafting a narrative that would legitimize the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movement, thedemotion of the founding fathers as the custodians of Jesus legacy, and the Pauline ascendancy - needed atransitional 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 andfashioned an apologetic persona that personifies the demotion and replacement of the Jewish followers ofJesus 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 leaderaffirming Torah observance, the Jewishness of belief in Jesus, and the preeminence of the Jewish followersof Jesus within the Jesus movement - to the Pauline view of a law-free mission as the true fulfillment andexpression of Jesus’ ministry (Gal 2:15-21). In Pauline theology and lore, ‘Petrine Christianity’ is the vehiclethat smooths and ushers-in the transition from Jesus’ and James’ Torah observance, to Paul’s non-Torahobservant mission. ‘James’ … ‘strategy was to preserve the mission to his own people. History proved hisworst fears concerning the Pauline mission to be correct. The mission to the nations ensured the ultimatefailure of the circumcision mission.’276 80 A Growing Tension+Most Gentile believers in Jesus were inhabitants of the Roman Empire and were culturally and ethnicallydiverse. Creedal confusion, organizational chaos, ceremonial improvisation, and religious experimentationwere rampant.277 Therefore, it is not surprising that differing accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus werewritten 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 ofthe descendants of the founding fathers, they began using Jesus’s life story, parables, epistles, homilies, andsermons to address questions and issues of concern to their rank and file, and to provide guidance to theirbeleaguered 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 thePauline 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 theirclaim as rightful believers in Jesus. However, lacking the means to impose an outcome, the internal strugglewithin the Jesus movement lingered through two–three centuries of impasse and slow attrition. The battleabout ‘what belief in Jesus should be’ deteriorated into a long-drawn-out struggle in which the weapons ofchoice seem to have been defamation and bitter and derogatory vitriol. The canonical Gospels wereauthored 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 ofa superior understanding of Jesus’s ministry vis- à -vis that of the founders, the casting of the disciples asnot 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 sustainingpolemical tools seem to signal to Gentile converts that opposition to the imposition of the beliefs andtraditions 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 appearingirreverent toward the founding fathers and to Jesus’s religious beliefs. In pursuit of these goals theygradually gravitated toward a strategy that had two components: to insert a wedge between Jesus and hisdisciples and first followers, and to build on the aversion of most Gentiles to the beliefs and traditions ofthe founders.The Synoptics gave their communities, beleaguered by dissent and self-doubt, a legitimating narrative: TheJewish 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.’ Asproven by their scriptures, the Jews were sinful and had lost God’s favor. Consequently, the descendants ofthe 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, thatin their quest to de-Judaize the Jesus movement, Pauline believers subverted-emulated-appropriated theanti-Jewish-establishment traditions, attitudes, and rhetoric of the founding fathers toward the Jewishmainstream, 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’sdisciples and first followers, who were (at the time) the establishment of the Jesus movement and theauthoritative 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 Jesusmovement. In other words, the ‘Jews’ of the canonical Gospels seem to reflect the fusion and confusion oftwo types of Jews, the antagonists of two distinct struggles. In the most ancient strata, the protagonists arethe 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 Jesusand their antagonists are the founding faction and their Gentile sympathizers. The earlier stratum reflectsthe debate among Jews about who Jesus was (messiah or not).278 The later one reflects the debate amongGentile believers about ‘what belief in Jesus ought to be (Jewish, Pauline, Marcionite, or Gnostic), andabout who Jesus was (human, divine, or both).In the canonical texts, we find corroborating hints that a challenge to the legitimacy of the descendants ofJesus’s disciples and first followers, the original guardians of his legacy, was brewing up. The main cluesthat 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 thefounding fathers. This throve of anti-Jewish-establishment lore will become a tool to sever the influence ofthe founding faction and to de-Judaize belief in Jesus. By appropriating and by de-contextualizing theJudean 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 believersembedded 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’sterminology (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, stillrages—but the balance is tilting toward the latter. Jesus’s ministry was the common ground, but the viewthat 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),281Jesus’s sayings and teachings (the Jewish followers of Jesus, Q, M, and some Gnostic communities)282 andesoteric and secret knowledge (Gnostic believers in Jesus). Scholars have also classified early Gentilebelievers in Jesus according to their affiliation to either of two broad and somewhat mutually exclusiveJesus traditions:The ‘life tradition’ is an academic term applied to traditions about Jesus’s life and ministry. This traditionwas centered on Jesus’s teachings and sayings and had a strong anti-establishment bent that would alienatethe Roman elites. The life tradition is reflected in the gospel of Thomas, Q, M, James, the opponents ofPaul 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 andresurrection. 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. TheCross tradition deemphasized ‘Jesus the social critic’283 and emphasized ‘Jesus the divine being’ and thusopened the door for the successful introduction of the new faith to the Roman elites. This traditiondominates most of the New Testament texts.Hypotheses about pre-Gospel passion traditions284 are crucial for our search for they can shed light onJewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, as we encounter them in the canonical texts. For ourpurposes, the relevant questions at the pre-Synoptic level can be phrased in several ways: were polemicalfeelings central to all pre-Synoptic Gentile communities? Are the anti-Judaic arguments, themes, andimagery 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? Ifwidely 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 themeor 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 ismostly 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 factionalorigin. The work of these scholars supports the view that the canonical passion narratives emerged as partof a legacy that was not an intrinsic and constitutive theme for all believers in Jesus. The growing recognitionthat anti-Jewish themes were central for some (but were not universally authoritative for all) early believersin 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 originatein 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 ‘Jewishresponsibility 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 factionalorigin. 85 The First Years - Summary+Turn-of-the-era Jewish theological battles were occasionally bitter but they were also mostly harmless. Thepitch could be intense, but we have almost no examples of violence between Jewish sectarians and theJewish mainstream. In line with other Jewish sectarians, the Jewish followers of Jesus would haveconsidered 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’sfavor. The Qumran community and the communities that produced other Judean sectarian texts may havebeen 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, acharacteristic 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 ourunderstanding of the attitudes of Gentile believers in Jesus toward Judaism. Probable parallels between thelore of the early Jesus movement and the lore of Jewish sectarians provide us a new perspective on theearly anti-Judaic polemic we encounter in the New Testament. Many themes, motifs, traits, and imagerytraditionally 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 followersdenigrating fellow Jews. As our train stops at the midway stations scattered along our path, we willeavesdrop on debates, mostly among Gentile believers. We will hear them vilify ‘the Jews’ (their Jewishopponents within the Jesus movement) with ever-increasing viciousness. At the later stations of our voyagewe will hear Gentiles denigrating all Jews. 86Chapter 3 *Crisis in the Jesus movement Introduction Mark Matthew Luke/Acts John Revelation Summary A personal noteIntroduction+When a scribe or community leader sat down to write an account of Jesus’s ministry, he had goals andalternatives. 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’ specificcontext. The understanding that factional agendas and the specific circumstances of the author(s) andeditor(s) underpin the writing of the texts available to us is increasingly accepted by New Testamentscholars. Early communities of Gentile believers, challenged by theological confusion, estrangement fromthe descendants of the founding fathers, disarray, and growing Roman persecution needed reassurance andguidance.Each of the four canonical gospels presents to us a different rendition of Jesus’ ministry, and they reflectdiffering emphases and theology. These renditions of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth becamecanonical some three hundred years after their authorship. The full canon first emerges in a list compiledby Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (ca. 367 ce). The earliest extant identification of the four canonicalgospels as authoritative, is by Irenaeus (c 180 ce).285 These texts were written at a time when anti-Christiansentiment 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 thetime 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 andsecessionist communities. Most communities seem to have emerged out of one of these pathways. Somecommunities may have experienced a layered or mixed trajectory. This distinction will be useful in ourattempts to understand the evolution of belief in Jesus. The suggested distinction between missionary andsecessionist trajectories will be fruitful in our attempts to decipher the curious coexistence of intenserhetoric against the character, traditions and beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus,286 in texts that seem toreflect significant Jewish influence and/or knowledge of Jewish traditions.Secessionist communities —during the decades following Jesus’s death, and in areas and towns wherethere was a presence of the Jewish faction, Gentile individuals or groups may have joined synagogues orcommunities of the descendants of the founding fathers. This would be a natural consequence of the swaythat the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would have exerted over recent converts. Someof these Gentiles may have integrated successfully with the host communities. Many, would have feltalienated in the Jewish milieu of these Jewish sectarian communities - rejected Judaism, seceded, andformed Gentile communities.These Gentile believers, that seceded from communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus would display themost strident and extreme ‘anti-Jewish’ bent. Their grievances, their anger, and their rancor would bepersonal and vindictive. These communities or individuals would incorporate, appropriate, and emulateelements of the identity and lore of the parent community (possible candidates: the community thatappropriated Q and incorporated it in Mark, the community that appropriated M and incorporated it inMatthew, the Gentile layer of John, and (possibly) Barnabas and Hebrews). The short-lived fellowshipbetween Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus that characterizes these communities may explain theexistence 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 theidentity, lore, beliefs, and traditions of the founding fathers into Gentile forms of belief in Jesus.287Thisseems to have been a smaller, but militant and influential, evolutionary track that produced some of themost resentful ‘anti-Jewish’ rhetoric.Missionary communities288—communities founded by early Pauline and Gnostic evangelists. Thistrajectory contributed the main thrust that propelled the growth of the Jesus movement. Thesecommunities would have little or no interaction with the Jerusalem faction during the embryonic stages ofcommunity formation. Members of missionary communities would have limited exposure to, or knowledgeof, Judaism. Tensions would have resulted from the encounter of these new converts with the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers, or their Gentile sympathizers, in the public arena. It is plausible thatmost members of these communities did not differentiate between followers of Jesus of Jewish origin andmainstream Jews, and may have understood the Pauline legacy as one of confrontation with, and negationof, Judaism. Compared to members of secessionist communities, their grievances and their vitriol towardthe 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 theexclusion of M), Luke/Acts, and Justin).Another source of knowledge about Judaism among Gentile believers would be Jews that converted toPaul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus. Reidar Hvalvik informs us that thirty percent of Paul’s immediatecircle 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 Jewishfollowers of Jesus. Given that we do not know the extent of their knowledge about Judaism, whether theseindividuals had a moderating, exacerbating, or no influence on the Jewish-Gentile relationship in the Jesusmovement is unclear.It seems that, for the most part, Jews and Gentiles did not enjoy a cordial fellowship within the Jesusmovement. For a while, some may have attempted full fellowship and may have coexisted in anasymmetrical 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 foundingfathers alien and yearned for recognition and legitimacy as rightful followers of Jesus—despite theirrejection of of the founding generation. On the other hand, members of the Jewish faction may haveremained ambivalent and equivocal about the many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced followingthe Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles, resulting in self-segregation, estrangement, and mountingtension.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-Torahbut anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of the Jewish founders, we have the rhetorical collage that weencounter 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 andthe confusion of these rhetorical layers in the hearts and minds of later Pauline believers may have becomean 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’ toaddress and identify the various ‘Jewish’ antagonists is present already in the gospel of John and inBarnabas, and may have been commonplace at the time,290 adding further confusion and ambivalence tothe mix. 89 Mark Introduction Delegitimizing the disciples ‘Their’ beliefs and traditions The responsibility for Jesus’s death My MarkIntroduction+Most modern scholars consider Mark to be the earliest canonical gospel.291 Some are opposed to themajority 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 thesynoptic 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 theGospel of Mark was heavily influenced by Paul has gained momentum in the recent decades.294 Despitenoted resonances, the synoptics (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) diverge widely in their interpretations ofJesus’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 anddespair (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 ata time when anti-Christian sentiment throughout the empire was rising. From Jesus’s death onward, for thenext three hundred years, Gentile believers in Jesus were considered by the Romans to be a seditious andpotentially rebellious sect. At the time of Mark’s authorship, the first Roman persecution may have alreadytaken place (Nero 64 ce).296At the time of authorship, Pauline communities seem to have experienced dissonance, anxiety, and doubtcaused by the estrangement from the descendants of the Jewish founders. Standing on Mark, the synoptictradition seems to shadow the embryonic stages of a Gentile challenge to the authority and to thelegitimacy of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the exclusive guardians andinterpreters 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 wouldaddress existential issues facing Gentile converts, and would reassure Pauline believers torn by theestrangement from the Jewish founders. Such text should:First, reassure believers that they were rightful believers in Jesus despite their rejection of the Jewish beliefsand 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 wouldsupport the proto-supersessionary297 impulses that were brewing-up among Paulines, and are echoed inMark’s narrative.Mark’s casting of Jesus as trespassing traditional Jewish markers, the denigration of the disciples and theircasting as misunderstanding Jesus’ messiaship, ministry, and legacy - addressed both concerns.298 Additionalsupport for the impetus behind the Markan storyline is to be found in the circumstances following theJewish War of 70 CE: the decimation of the Judean communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus during theJewish War created a vacuum, a window of opportunity, that enabled and facilitated the transition from theinitial Pauline yearning for recognition as rightful believers in Jesus, to the emergence of more assertiveclaims. Namely, the appropriation of the self-perception of the Jewish founders as the New Israel, the NewPeople of God – the embryonic stages of the supersessionary trajectory.Furthermore, the fact that Hebrews and Barnabas, the standard bearers and articulators of supersessiontheology, are roughly contemporaneous with Mark – may provide corroborative support for the existenceof a proto-supersessionary impetus among Pauline believers that may have impacted the authorship of thefirst Gospel. However, whereas Hebrews’ and Barnabas’ aims and agendas are easier to decipher, Mark’sunderwrite the narrative and must be speculated about.Indeed, Mark attempts to reassure the rank and file that they are rightful followers of Jesus despite theirrejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesus and by those chosen by him to be thecustodians of his legacy. He does so by denigrating the disciples and by casting Jesus as trespassingtraditions associated with his disciples and first followers – signaling that their beliefs and traditions can berejected. When reading Mark in the narrow context of our attempt to decipher the anti-Jewishphenomenon, and with the intent of identifying underlying and unstated agendas, we have grounds tosuspect that his narrative operates on three levels:First, he casts Jesus as violating purity law, dietary law, the temple, and the Sabbath—signaling to hiscommunity that they are rightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions ofthose chosen by him to be the guardians of his legacy. Second, Mark uses the gospel platform to denigratethe 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 disciplesand first followers. Third, Mark incorporates-appropriates and emulate elements of the identity and lore ofthe Jewish followers of Jesus (best exemplified by the appropriation of the Q source and of the HebrewScriptures)299 to legitimize his version of belief in Jesus. Fourth, he intensifies or invents a rumor about theinvolvement of the high priests, the scribes and the elders (14:53) as instigators of Jesus’s death. By castingJesus’s crucifixion as caused by a Jewish conspiracy, Mark exonerates the Romans and casts followers ofJesus as respectful of Roman authority. He may have done so, in an unsuccessful attempt to alleviateRoman 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 thefounding 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 sourcefor 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 theologicalancestors of those that are seen by Mark as his adversaries. Throughout the ancient middle-east denigrationof the ancestors of one’s opponents was common. In line with this tradition, the ancestors of Mark’sadversaries, Jesus’s closest associates and companions, ‘do not understand’ —implying that theirunderstanding of Jesus’s legacy is wrong (a stealth message that is of great interest to us). Hindsight derivedfrom our knowledge of what was to come helps us identify the belittling of Jesus’s disciples and firstfollowers as the first salvo in the confrontation between the Jewish faction and their Gentile sympathizerson 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’sdisciples and first followers as the exclusive guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy.300 The author ofMark implies that the Jewish followers of Jesus did not understand Jesus’s messiahship (they rejected Paul’sunderstanding of his ministry) and he denigrates them for that—a first sign of the upcoming debates aboutwho Jesus was, and about what belief in Jesus should be. Mark’s depictions of the disciples are complexand ambivalent, almost of two minds. On the one hand, they were Jesus’s chosen companions andsuccessors. 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 notunderstand’ (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 thedisciples via the ‘incomprehension’ motif, and via their alleged abandonment of Jesus during his arrest -has been, recently, the subject of intense scrutiny.301Contrary 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, thosethat 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 andridicule.302 The denigration and vilification of the ‘founding fathers’ of the movement is a peculiar motifthat 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 Markannarrative. At the time of authorship (ca. 60–80 ce) Paul’s mission to the Gentiles appears to have beensuccessful in attracting new Pagan sympathizers and recruits. However, shortly after conversion, these newrecruits must have realized that they had joined a beleaguered faction at odds with the ‘founding fathers’ ofthe movement.Yearning for recognition and for legitimacy as rightful believers in Jesus, some of these new convertswould be attracted to the Jewish faction. Most of these converts, however, seem to have remained loyal tothe Pauline perspective but needed a legitimating foundational discourse. Mark seems to address theGentile yearning for acknowledgement as rightful followers of Jesus - a theme that will take center stage inlater canonical and non-canonical texts.The earliest of the gospels addresses the issue of the inclusion of Gentiles implicitly, not explicitly andovertly. The juxtaposition of the disciples that deny and abandon Jesus at his moment of need with thecenturion that recognizes Jesus as the ‘son of god’ (15:39) may be a hint at the inclusion of Gentiles. TheGentile author/compiler of the final text may have also added other hints on the inclusion of Gentiles ingod’s plan: the magi (2:1–12), the centurion at the cross (27:54), the nations (28:16–20), the greatcommission (21:33–46; 24:14, 28:16–20) and possibly 15:21–28.303 Other than these debated hints of amission 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 possibleattestations (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 andJews in positions of authority. However, skeptical readers can detect a crisis of identity and of legitimacyamong Gentile believers in Jesus, as seen from a Pauline perspective. Mark’s critique of purity law, dietarylaw, the temple, and of Sabbath observance while acceptable commentaries, interpretations, and validdiscussion topics among Jews - became potentially malignant when harnessed by Gentiles to undermineopponents that were Jews. Indeed, along the way we shall encounter cumulative evidence that attacks byGentiles on external-establishment Judaism should be considered a later, distinct, derivative, and secondaryphenomenon. ‘Their’ beliefs and traditions+Mark seldom states unequivocal positions. Rather, the text seems to hint, imply, and subvert—a stancecharacteristic of those opposing established and revered authority. Mark casts Jesus as trespassing certainbehavioral 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 theviews of some among the Jewish faction. Although Mark stresses his agenda to the breaking point, we donot 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 asexplicitly 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 positioningand 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’sdepiction 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 thetemple.Mark’s anti-temple rhetoric resonates with the anti-temple rhetoric of Judean sectarians, and may be anemulation of an anti-temple stand originating in the Jewish followers of Jesus. This seems to be anothervariant in his attempt to justify the break with the beliefs and traditions of the founding generation. Byclaiming god’s judgment on the temple, Mark signals that it is no longer the cultic center and dwelling ofgod, undermining the claim of the Jewish followers of Jesus to being the New Israel, and god’s newchosen. Whether this points to the temple’s destruction in 70 CE or reflects the effort to undermineMark’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 fathersare of human origin and may be debated (2:23–28; 3:4), a position that would not be seen by Jews of thatperiod as a rejection of the Torah. Jesus’s rejection of ‘the traditions of the elders’ and his declaration thatall foods were clean (7:1–13) would be seen by contemporaneous Jews as a radical critique, but would notsignal to them Jesus’s dismissal of the Torah. Mark seems to target adversaries who are Torah-observantand who may have negated table fellowship to Gentiles. Mark’s logic seems to be that if Jesus is cast aseating with ‘toll collectors and sinners’ (2:13–17), eating with unwashed hands (7:1–23), and eating uncleanfoods (7:14–23),304 the demand of some among the descendants of the founding fathers that Gentilebelievers should adhere to their traditions is delegitimized.The evangelist’s message to believers experiencing the distress associated with the estrangement from thedescendants of the Jewish founders is: don’t pay attention to ‘their’ claims as to the inadequacy of our formof belief in Jesus. Jesus’s actions prove that they are wrong. They misunderstand his ministry and hislegacy, 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 theinvolvement of some Judeans in Jesus’s death. This theme may have originated with him or may reflect anintensification or de-contextualization of traditions originating in the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of thedescendants of the founding fathers. We may never know which elements are incorporations orintensifications of pre-existing attitudes and which are original. It is plausible that following Jesus’s death, avariety 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 theJewish 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 apossible factional origin.Mark’s often contradictory and ambivalent positioning is noteworthy. Mark informs us that Jesus’s identityas 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 hiswork a seemingly contradictory claim. Namely, that Jesus’s death was not a consequence of Jesus’smessianic claims or of Roman charges of sedition, but the result of a conspiracy by wicked priests andscribes 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 noavail (15:9–10, 12–14). Pilate, a ruthless and notoriously cruel Roman prefect, is cast by Mark as indecisiveand subject to the influence of those ruled by him. The chief priests (11:18; 14:43, 53–65; 15:31–32) andthe 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 inJesus’s death.308 Mark’s casting of ‘the crowd’ as asking for Jesus’s crucifixion (15:12–14) implicates theJewish people too.Thus, Mark may have had multiple agendas in mind. By casting Jesus’s crucifixion as caused by a Jewishconspiracy, Mark may be attempting to signal to internal and external constituencies that Jesus’s followersare not a threat to Roman society. By emphasizing Jewish culpability, Mark was successful in deflating theRomans’ responsibility for Jesus’s death, an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate persecution. Mark may havealso aimed at addressing concerns among prospective converts, some of which would be reluctant to join asect 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 ofJesus’s ministry and legacy vis- à -vis the Jewish founding fathers. Articulated long before the end of themission to the Jews,309 the Markan ‘rejection’ of Jesus by ‘the Jews’ is an anachronism and one of the cluesto his unstated agendas. Thus, Mark’s casting of Jesus as rejected by the Jews may tell us more about theauthor’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 andtensions that afflicted the movement decades after Jesus’s death. It seems that tensions between Gentileand 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 trueand 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 firstfollowers—they do not understand the true meaning of Jesus’s ministry. Nor did their ancestors; thedisciples. 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 understandingof 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 ministrywas deliberately hidden. The disciples did not realize the true nature of his mission, ‘they did notunderstand.’ 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 guardiansof his heritage.What is it that the disciples, who shared Jesus’s ministry as well as his ethnicity, religion, and socio-culturalbackground, did not understand? what is it that Mark, who did not know Jesus and whose background andlife experience were alien to his, did know that his disciples did not? unfortunately, Mark does not presenthis ‘bonafides’; he does not disclose the source of his detailed knowledge of the events. It seems that whatthe 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 theauthority and to the legitimacy of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the soleguardians and interpreters of his legacy. As we progress we will accumulate corroborating clues on thiseffort, although (for the most part) during the canonical era it seems to have been put forward in impliedand veiled formats.Whether intended to open the door to Gentiles as rightful followers of Jesus or aimed at eroding theauthority 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 notunderstand Jesus’s ministry and abandoned him in his moment of need may emerge as a clever move toexplain to recent Gentile converts the conundrum posed by their rejection of the beliefs and traditionsespoused 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 threeMarkan 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-Judaizebelief in Jesus. Although Mark is the foundation of the synoptic edifice, he does not deploy the intenseanti-Judaic invective that we will encounter in later writers. Mark’s tone and demeanor are those of acommunity leader that attempts to craft a foundational account of Jesus ministry that may conferrecognition 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 Gentilesundergoing 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 audiencethat their being non-Torah observant does not impede their being rightful followers of Jesus. By castingJesus as defying traditional identity markers of Judaism, Mark signals that demands on Gentiles, by someamong the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers (to observe the Torah and to embrace aJewish 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 undercontrol. In Mark the Gentiles are not yet Yahweh’s new favorites and the Israelites are not yet an apostatepeople. 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 ofthese instances are derogatory of Judaism.It is not obvious whether Mark weighed alternative versions against specific goals. However, the intricacyand the delicate balancing of the apparent intended messages suggest, to me, thoughtful intent. As wemove forward in time, the main Markan themes will recur and resurface in varying guises and withincreasing passion all through the emerging tradition.To what extent Mark’s basic themes and story line, on which the gospels according to Matthew and Lukeelaborated, are historical renditions or are reflective of the confrontation between Jewish and non-Jewishfollowers of Jesus will be at the core of our quest. As we move forward, we will concentrate our attentionon those elements, motifs, and themes that seem to point to the concerns and the agendas of the authorsof the canonical texts. We will use these texts to attempt to figure out what brought about the compositionof this unique literature. 9798 Matthew Introduction Authorship and setting Matthew and Judaism A Gentile editor/compiler My MatthewIntroduction+By the end of the first century the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers310 may have become aminority in the Jesus movement and a problematic sect within Judaism. The emergence of Gentile formsof belief in Jesus, did challenge the status of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as theexclusive interpreters of his legacy.311 Among the synoptics, Matthew is both; the most anti-Judaic and themost knowledgeable about Jewish traditions.312 There is great urgency and an agonizing undertow in thegospel according to Matthew. Its location, at the beginning of the canon, induces and ushers-in a potentpolemical 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 synagoguesand 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).313Matthew’s polemic is mostly aimed at the Judean establishment, especially the Pharisees, but he also drawshis opponents’ followers into his polemic (10:12–15, 20–24; 26:57; 27:24– 25). The central role that thePharisees play as the archenemies in Matthew contrasts sharply with the rather minor role they play inJewish literature and may be indicative that they were polemical proxies.314 Saldarini suggests that the levelof animosity against the Pharisees in Matthew suggests that the scribes and Pharisees representcontemporaries with whom the author is in conflict.315 If the attacks on the Pharisees originate in the laterand gentile stratum of Matthew, an intriguing possibility would be that the Pharisees are substitutes thatallow the gentile author to indirectly attack the Jewish followers of Jesus (who, most probably, werePharisees). 99Overall, the emphasis is on increased polemical sentiment and on variation from Mark.316 Matthew tendsto bundle all ‘figures of authority’ and intimates a monolithic Jewish opposition to Jesus. Matthew alsobroadens the blame: ‘all the people’ take the responsibility for condemning Jesus to death. Compared toMark, there is increased and widened malevolence in Matthew’s depiction of the Jews: ‘you brood ofvipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouthspeaks’ (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 alsopart of Matthew’s intensification of the anti-Jewish rhetoric.317 In the parable of the weeds the Jews aredemonized: ‘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 settingThe canonical Matthew is unusual among the synoptic gospels in that it contains an odd mixture of themesand emphases that do not fit later orthodox views. Stendhal, probing the similarity between the Matthew’sand Qumran’s use of scripture, concluded that the gospel of Matthew was the product of a school.318Echoing this conclusion ‘a consensus that the Matthew community went through several stages ofinteraction with the Jewish communities close to it, and that these stages have left fossils in the strata oftradition and redaction may be in place.’319Matthew’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 Torahobservance 5:17–20, 22:35–40, and 23:2–3), anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric (attacks on Judean figuresof 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 Gentileascendancy 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 havesupported Aramaic as the original language of the earliest layers. Was Matthew authored within onecommunity that underwent change and transformation? or, did a later Gentile community incorporateearlier traditions originating among the Jewish founders and containing pro-Torah observance elements? ifthe canonical Matthew is an integral text authored by a community of Jewish followers of Jesus, how doesa text authored by Gentile believers (Mark) become authoritative to descendants of the Jewish founders, anapparent reversal in the flow of theological legitimacy?323 Those that argue for a proto-Matthew324 textauthored by a community of Jewish followers of Jesus that was appropriated by a later and Gentilecommunity, provide a plausible explanation for this Matthean authorship enigma.Ferdinand Christian Baur (1847) first proposed the existence of a proto-Matthew. Flusser, somewhat in thewake of Bauer, has claimed a non-Greek original, a proto-Matthew (The Q and M materials)325 Moreimportantly, he claimed that the non-Greek sections of the text do not contain anti-Judaic elements andthat the polemical sections are all of later, and Greek, origin. In proto-Matthew, the new people of god arethe 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 rhetoricis reflective of a strident dispute among Jews about Jesus messiahship, a legitimate and recurring questionthat 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 havebeen molded on pre-existent traditions (the Gilgamesh epic, the legend of Sargon of Akkad, Israelitetraditions,327 and the Moses story in the Pentateuch, respectively). Using the authoritative texts ofpreceding cultures as templates to fashion new religious narratives is an ancient technique deployed to vestcontemporaneous 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. InMatthew, 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 rootedin Jewish traditions.330 In the New Testament, proto-Matthew seems to be among the earliest originatorsof 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 intheir quest to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and will take center stage in Barnabas and in the epistle to theHebrews. In proto-Matthew, followers of Jesus are cast as perfect Jews, Jesus as the most Jewish ofpreachers: 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 Torahobservance 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 inMatthew may be true expressions of Jesus’s views, on the grounds that they go counter to the polemicaltendency otherwise apparent in the canonical gospels. It is plausible that these verses represented old andrevered traditions that could not be easily erased; a Jewish Proto-Matthew. It seems that wherever thecontext 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 theJesus movement (Jesus the messiah, son of Abraham and david [1:1–17; 5:17–20; 21:33–46) or Jesus thenew 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 integraltext, Matthew’s discussions of Jewish law, customs, and practices fit within the acceptable range of debatesin first-century Judaism. Saldarini’s Matthew defends his positions with sophisticated argumentscomprehensible to a Jewish community, and he sees himself as an authoritative teacher of an existingtradition, not as the spokesperson for a new religion.333 Those supportive of an integral and coherentMatthew face the need to harmonize the text’s dissonant messages about the disciples, and aboutJudaism.334 Saldarini’s integral text comes at the cost of assigning Jewish authorship to segments thatdenigrate 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 theJewish people. This positioning, I assume, would be unacceptable to any Jew, to the inclusion of thedescendants of the Jewish founders.Although the canonical Matthew may feel anti-Jewish to a twenty-first-century literal reader, significantportions seem to originate among the Jewish followers of Jesus (The Q and M materials) and may reflecttheir sectarian posturing toward the Judean establishment. The seemingly contradictory juxtaposition ofpro-Jewish and anti-Jewish establishment elements may indicate a situation where the exaltation of Torahobservance 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 addressan audience of followers of Jesus of Jewish origin, and would be aimed at segregating the community fromestablishment Judaism, while calling for strict Torah observance. Several enigmatic passages that may fitthis 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. Membersare told to find solace in Jesus’s anticipation of their circumstances. The writer’s message to the addresseesseems to be: Jesus foretold your suffering; this is all part of the divine plan. You cannot go back. Ifnecessary, you must leave your community, your family, and your past.336 The estrangement reflected inthese verses may be reflective of either of two distinct schisms; the earlier separation between the Jewishfollowers of Jesus and the Jewish mainstream, or a later failed fellowship between Jewish and Gentilefollowers 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 orindividual Judean figures of authority, when Israel is deemed sinful and unrepentant, when Israel isthreatened with the loss of god’s favor—we have a good chance that we are looking at residues of amilitant 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 groupand 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 ofhypocrisy 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 thecommunity’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 tothe 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 latersuperssesional and/or Pauline connotations or resonances), would be a Qumran-like sectarian text thatshould 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/compilerScholars differ on the socio-theological background that brought about the creation of a canonical text inwhich 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 allJews to recognize Jesus as the messiah of the Jewish tradition, the Gentile editor/compiler of the canonicaltext 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 possiblechoices. His selection of ingredients and their proportions provide us some clues as to his mindset andintentions. By incorporating the proto-Matthean diatribe against establishment-Judaism without clarifyingits original context, the author/compiler of the canonical text created a particular mix that, when read as anintegral 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 tomarginalize the descendants of the founding fathers. From the same quarry: the forfeiture of nationalprivilege (21:43), a staple Judean sectarian warning against mainstream Judaism, was subverted to claim theunqualified loss of god’s favor by the Jewish people.As the chastisements of Jewish sectarians against establishment-Judaism were appropriated-incorporatedby Gentiles intent on de-Judaizing belief in Jesus, they became tools in the delegitimizing of the Jewishfaction. Whether intended or accidental, the incorporation of the piercing anti-Jewish-establishmentrhetoric of proto-Matthew into the final text created a polemical climate that could not but weaken thefounding 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 thestance 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 aboutthe perception of a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ These phenomena will be at the center ofour journey and will preoccupy us throughout. Although crafted in the context of a Gentile challenge tothe establishment of the Jesus movement, the canonical text was to be read by later believers from within aPauline -orthodox mindset and was interpreted throughout the centuries as sanctioning and sanctifyinganti-Jewish attitudes. The Pauline orientation of most of the texts included in the New Testament, anddogmatic reading, did camouflage and mitigate the non-Pauline outlook of proto-Matthew. Obviously, theGentile editor/compiler that incorporated-appropriated the proto-Matthean anti-Jewish-establishmentrhetoric 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 originallyJewish and that, originally, Gentile forms of belief in Jesus represented an anti-establishment elementwithin the Jesus movement. The editor/compiler of the Matthean canonical text is part of the synopticsequence that argues, in a subtle and almost veiled manner, against the imposition of the beliefs andtraditions of the founding fathers on Gentile converts as a precondition to being considered rightfulfollowers of Jesus.The pro-Torah segments in Matthew, and in the epistle of James, provide us unique access to the mindsetof the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The survival of these pro-Torah and anti-Paulineelements may indicate that proto-Matthew and proto-James had become authoritative before the Paulinecanon was formalized, and could not be rejected, nor fully re-edited to comply with the Pauline emergingnarrative. 104These characteristics seem to corroborate that proto-Matthew migrated from a community of Jewishfollowers of Jesus to a community of Gentile believers. A Gentile group that incorporated pre-existingmaterials, to the inclusion of Mark, proto-Matthew, and the Q source, may have compiled the canonicalMatthew. 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 theTorah who would embrace the disparagement of his beliefs and traditions, the disparagement of hisbiological and theological ancestors, the exoneration of the Romans, and the culpability of all Jews—anunlikely combination.342 Furthermore, under what circumstances would the descendants of the foundingfathers, who saw themselves as the keepers and inheritors of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, incorporateelements from Mark—a later, adversarial, and Gentile interpretation of Jesus’s legacy? The implausibility ofthis counter-gravitational flow seems to support the existence of a Jewish proto-Matthew that wasincorporated by a later Gentile community into its lore.343 This conclusion is contrary to the majority viewthat seems to advocate an integral text by a Jewish follower of Jesus.344If the canonical Matthew is the product of the incorporation of a proto-Matthew by a later and Gentilecommunity of believers in Jesus, it may be the earliest instance of the appropriation of the heritage of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers into Gentile dominated traditions, a trend that willintensify thereafter. A layered Matthew would explain the odd coexistence of Pauline-Markan hallmarkswith pro-Torah themes and motifs, including some of the most enigmatic thematic textures and some ofthe more baffling verses of the New Testament. 105The incorporation of the anti-Jewish-establishment invective of the Jewish founders may reflect an attemptto carry forward a complex agenda that argues for the recognition of a de-Judaized form of belief in Jesusas 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 incursgod’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 ofgod’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 beliefin Jesus and the demotion of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers from their status as theguardians of his legacy: The disciples that ‘did not understand’ (therefore the Jewish followers of Jesuscannot understand Jesus’s legacy) the Jewish loss of god’s favor (therefore the founding faction cannotclaim to be the new people of god) and the ‘Jewish’ responsibility for Jesus’s death (an expansion of theMarkan culprits to include all Jews).The destiny of the proto-Matthean Jewish followers of Jesus was tragic and ironic. The proto-Mattheancommunity found itself estranged from Judaism, and from Gentile believers. Two–three generations afterJesus’ death, it found itself at the epicenter of a religious struggle that engulfed the Jesus movement for thenext two hundred years. At the end of this strife - their identity, and lore sequestered, and their Torahvilified and ‘superseded,’ they will become marginal, isolated, and inconsequential. This outcome isMachiavellian: some among the descendants of the Jewish founders, whose beliefs were the closest tothose of Jesus and his disciples, may have been lured away from Judaism by the Matthean promise to fulfillthe Torah. However, within a generation or two, Gentile followers of Paul will oppose, denigrate, andeventually marginalize and demote, the Jewish followers of Jesus on the grounds that the beliefs andtradition espoused by them and by Jesus were heretical.345 106 Luke/Acts Introduction Marcion and Luke/Acts Respectability and legitimacy My Luke/ActsIntroduction+ 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 ofbelief 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 betweenGentiles converts and the descendants of the founding fathers, during the first decades of the secondcentury a multilateral socio-theological confrontation engulfed the Jesus movement.346 Most scholars haveconcluded that the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were authored during the decades following thedestruction of the temple (70 CE). A minority347 supports authorship during the first decades of thesecond century.348 Thus, if the later date is embraced, the protagonists impacting the author’s world wouldinclude not only the Jewish faction, their Gentile sympathizers, and the Paulines - but Marcionites andGnostics too.The status of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the guardians and interpreters ofJesus’s legacy seems to have been a central, although unstated but implied, concern for Luke/Acts. Lukecontinues the Markan framing of the events as ‘the rejection of Jesus by the Jews’ at a time when themission to the Jews was ongoing and followers of Jesus of Jewish origin were active among fellow Jews. Atthe time, a definitive end of the mission to the Jews was still in the future, an outcome unknown to theprotagonists. Therefore, exploring this peculiar framing of the events may shed light on the author’sagenda. 107The framing of the events in the synoptic gospels as ‘the rejection of Jesus by the Jews’ became aningrained misperception among later believers due to the fact that the mission to the Jews did eventuallydie out, and due to the effort to veil the Jewish grounding of the founding generation, and obscure thedrive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus. Similar to the other synoptics, the Luke/Acts narrative puts forward, innarrative form, the claim of Gentiles to the guardianship of Jesus’s legacy. The author of Luke/Actsrefined the Markan myth of origins: he hands over the mantle of leadership and of legitimacy (from thedescendants of the Jewish founders) to the Pauline faction - without calling attention to this shift, or to itsconsequences.The Roman maxims of order, hierarchy, continuity, antiquity, and legitimacy are catered to. The disciplesand Jesus’s followers, subtly denigrated by Mark and Matthew, enjoy ‘slightly better press.’349 Luke/Actsgive us non-Jewish believers in Jesus as the rightful heirs of Jesus’s ministry and legacy and a submissiveand Roman-friendly Jesus movement. Paul’s maverick and controversial ministry is legitimized by castingPaul as submissive to James’s authority. The Luke/Acts narrative signals the pivot of ‘Christianity’ (i.e., thePauline 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 identifysegments in Luke/Acts that seem to reflect non-anti-Judaic attitudes toward the Pharisees and toward theJewish people. Given the Roman veneration for legitimacy, hierarchy, ancestry, and antiquity - the betterattitude toward Judaism, that some scholars detect in Luke/Acts, may be part of a self-servingpresentation: 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 foundingfathers is embedded in a claim to harmony with Jewish traditions.352 However, Luke’s ‘continuity’ withJudaism353 is no continuity at all. The descendants of the founders are offered the olive branch ofcontinuity with the requirement of self-negation. The improvement is therefore illusory; it disguises aprofound negation, deployed in a more refined manner. That said, in Luke/Acts the Pauline rejection ofJudaism (i.e., worldview of the descendants of the Jewish founders) does not come from the gut. Whereasthe author of the canonical Matthew fashioned an intense and resentful text, the Lukan author is seeminglydeliberate and cerebral—less visceral.354Luke/Acts also broadens the scope of the polemical theme: ‘Jews’ had tried to kill Jesus prior to hiscrucifixion (4:28–29). Scribes, elders, and Pharisees conspired against Jesus all along (6:7, 11, and 9).355 theenemies of Jesus are satanic (10:18–19). Contrary to Mark and Matthew, the people who arrest Jesus areJewish (22:52–53). Pilate declares Jesus innocent three times, and three times ‘the Jews’ insist on hisexecution. [+pg 113] 108Marcion and Luke/ActsBoth, the Paulines and the Marcionites, attempted to erode and discredit the legitimacy of the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers as the exclusive custodians of Jesus’s legacy. However, whereas thePaulines supported appropriation-supersession, Marcionites supported rejection-separation. Marcionunderstood 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 thelegacy of the founding faction,356 and strived for a thorough de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus. It seems thatMarcion embodied a formidable challenge to those who opposed his theology and practices. Hisopponents 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 toaddress the Marcionite threat. John Knox’s analysis suggests that the Acts rendition of Paul was aimed atsaving the Pauline legacy from Marcion’s appeal.358 Per Knox, Paul’s letters are supportive of Marcion’stheology and they do suggest, as Marcion claimed, that Paul understood himself to be the only apostle, andwas completely autonomous from the group in Jerusalem. Knox also suggests that the Luke/Acts authormay have reached the conclusion that unless provided with a proper commentary (Acts), Paul’s letterswould lead readers to Marcion’s camp.Knox maintained that to accept Paul and at the same time repudiate Marcion ‘meant to affirm with allpossible vigor that the apostle to the Gentiles, far from being independent of the twelve, hadacknowledged their authority, had been gladly accredited by them, and had worked obediently and loyallyunder their direction.’ Furthermore, since Paul’s letters gave only negligible support to this view, ‘somebook which, without reducing or disparaging Paul, subordinated him to the twelve was obviouslyrequired.’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 inLuke/Acts. Townsend provided further support to the Knox-Tyson-Townsend view by pointing out thatonly after 170 CE we find definite citations and allusions to Luke/ Acts, that there is no conclusiveconfirmation that Luke/Acts was written in the first century, and that citations and allusions to the gospelof Luke do not require us to date the canonical text before 120–125 CE.360 If the Knox-Tyson-Townsendview is correct, the author(s) of Luke/Acts may have reacted to Marcion’s growing success by fashioning anarrative that does not seem to address the Marcionites opposition overtly. Instead, it showcases the Lukanoutlook 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 onthe 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 fashionedstrategies that attempted to circumvent and avoid direct textual confrontation with their adversaries. Itwould appear that as the Marcionites threat emerged, the Pauline faction employed the strategy they hadbeing 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, andadversaries are dealt with by disregarding them. It is noteworthy that the Lukan account is showcased asthe only legitimate and authoritative version of Jesus’ ministry, despite the fact that the decline of theMarcionites, the Gnostics, and of the mission to the Jews were centuries away and unknown to theparticipants.Somewhat surprisingly, my suspicions about the modus operandi of the Pauline faction in its confrontationwith 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 Jerusalemleadership 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 largedegree, 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. Theyconcluded that The Acts of the Apostles dates from the second century, that it’s author constructed itsstory to fit ideological goals, and that Acts must be considered non-historical - unless proven otherwise inspecific situations.362Thus, 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 edifiesand informs the faithful but also aims at a larger horizon. Luke/Acts is an effort by a highly-educatedindividual 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 isdeflated364 and Jesus’s death can be cast as due to a Jewish scheme, Gentile believers in Jesus would nolonger 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 tensionsbetween the needs of internal and external constituencies yield texts that seem to be both: more lenienttoward Judaism (catering to the Roman expectation for respect of religion, antiquity, authority, andhierarchy) and more polemical (reflecting the growing militancy of the non-Jewish majority against thedescendants of the Jewish founders).The author’s craft is notable; he walks a difficult line between continuity and discontinuity, and betweenreverence and rejection of authority. In the Lukan narrative, we can detect mismatched needs andexpectations. On the one hand, some among Luke’s constituency seem to yearn for recognition from theJerusalem leadership as rightful believers in Jesus, while on a collision course with them. Other elements inhis constituency seem to be critical of any affront to tradition, authority, or hierarchy and therefore of anyaffront to the Jewish leadership. Whereas some believers expected continuity, discipline, and respecttoward the Jewish leadership of the movement, others anguished for the opposite message: the validity ofdiscontinuity and rejection. The resulting inconsistency has been observed and noted by scholars,365 butnot 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 addressingthe needs of conservative elements within his audience by complying with entry requirements to theRoman religious marketplace. In the Roman mind novelty was suspect. Continuity, antiquity, andlegitimacy were the gateway, a precondition, to social acceptance.Acts is concerned with the reputation of Paul.366 Submission to hierarchy being a Roman must, thismaverick individualist is cast as a compliant team player. The author fashioned a submissive and disciplinedPaul to fit the expectations of a Roman audience that venerated tradition and ancestry, valued disciplineand submission to authority. Thus, despite difficulties in the relationship between Paul and the pillars, theLukan Paul emerges as a ‘team player,’ a controversial visionary that is, nonetheless, embraced by theleaders of the movement.We do not know whether any Romans in positions of authority ever read the Lukan apologia. Luke’sefforts 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.367Claiming messianic status was an affront to Roman authority. The response to messianic claims of any sortwas execution. Luke does not hide the fact that the charges are sedition (19:38; 23:2, 11, and 38). To theRomans authorities of the first century, Gentile believers were an unusual and mistrusted lot: non-Jews thatclaimed 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) theestrangement from the founding fathers, and the Roman veneration for antiquity, legitimacy, hierarchy, andauthority. 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 ofJesus’s disciples and first followers). It would appear that the author of Luke/Acts crafted a new telling ofthe short history of belief in Jesus to address a complex reality that included theological and factional strifewithin the Jesus movement, and growing Roman persecution. Casting Paul as a law-abiding Jew368 and as asubmissive member of the hierarchy presided by James is a tactical masterstroke in a narrative thatnavigates 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 thetime of authorship, the Lukan apologia was a claim - not a reality (the protracted struggle amongcontending 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 newguardians 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/Actsare dominated by a Pauline agenda, at a time when the descendants of the Jewish founders were stillrecognized by many as the true keepers and inheritors of Jesus’s legacy. Luke/Acts hints that Paulines arethe legitimate inheritors and custodians of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, at the time that their campaignagainst 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, toLuke’s audience, that those embracing his interpretation of Paul’s legacy are the legitimate inheritors ofJesus’s ministry. Luke/Acts provided a curtain of legitimacy behind which the proto-orthodox push forcompromise, unity, and ascendancy took place. These texts attempt a compromise between continuity anddiscontinuity 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 toPauline 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 ofauthorship: internal dissent among Gentile believers, growing estrangement from the founding fathers, andincreasing Roman persecution. It anticipates and hopes for a reality that did materialize only generationslater. Luke/Acts insinuates a consensual, and almost idyllic transfer of legitimacy, authority, andguardianship from the descendants of the Jewish founders to the Gentile followers of Paul.369 Indeed, aliteral-traditional reading of the Lukan narrative does not make the reader aware of the existential crisisbetween Jewish and Gentile factions, nor of the existence of conflicting and incompatible Gentileinterpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy.Furthermore, a critical reading exposes an apparent contradiction: while the Pauline faction is engaged inan ‘all-out’ assault on Jesus’s disciples and first followers and while conducting a smear campaign againsttheir doctrinal children and grandchildren, Luke/Acts embraces the tribulations of the early Jewishfollowers 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 ConclusionsIntroduction+In John, we find the most explicit declarations on the divinity of Jesus in the canonical gospels; the closestintimations of Jesus’s divinity (John has the ‘highest’ Christology). In John’s gospel, we encounter theloftiest, most elaborate, and most inspirational exaltations of Jesus in the New Testament: ‘if Jesus ispainfully human for Mark, he is serenely transcendental for John.’370 When read literally, John’s gospel isalso the most anti-Jewish gospel.371 This tragic co-occurrence has amplified the impact of John’s polemicalbent: 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.’ 48Standing on Martyn,372 there is a consensus that identifies two dramas that were fused into one by theauthor(s)/editor(s): Jesus’s conflict with the ‘Jewish authorities’ and the conflict of the Johannines withdiffering 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 lastdecade of the first century, and that the gospel and the Johannine epistles were part of the literary corpusof 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 figuresof authority (the scribes, the chief priests, and the Pharisees), the ‘ioudaioi’ are the utmost opponents inJohn, 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 originallyapplied only to Judeans, but gradually became the identifier for all post-biblical Israelites. The term ioudaioiemerges 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 firstindividual to be called a Jew (Hebrew: ‫ יֵהוּדֹ י‬Yehudi, Greek: Ἰουδαῖοι, transliteration: ioudaioi) in thescriptures 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. InJohn, we encounter the term ioudaioi seventy times, most often in negative connotation. This compareswith five times in Matthew, six times in Mark, and five times in Luke. In addition, we encounter often theimplied denigration of the ‘ioudaioi.’The emergence of the ioudaioi as a derogatory identifier for the adversaries of the Johannines may haveoriginated in internal labeling and ‘name calling.’ Per Wilson, Dio Cassius, writing at the turn of the secondand third centuries, says: ‘this title ‘ioudaioi’ is also borne by other persons who, although they are of otherethnicity, live by their laws.’375 This is also the meaning implied by Epictetus.376 J. D. Cohen informs usthat 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 withthem. It appears that at the time of John’s authorship the term would mean ‘Judeans and their Gentilesympathizers.’377 De Jounge and De Ruyter378 have concluded that in John, the ioudaioi are Christians ofnon-Johannine persuasion. De Jounge claims that John uses the term ioudaioi to aim at a group ofChristians whom he perceives as under strong influence of ‘Judaism.’I agree, but we can go further. Using the terminology advocated here, the intended adversaries behindJohn’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 opponentswithin 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, andunfortunately, 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 peopleJohn 12:9, 11—these peopleJohn 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45—their friendsJohn 18:31; 19:7—theyJohn 18:36—my enemiesJohn 18:38—Jesus’s accusersJohn 4:9 and probably 4:22—JesusJohn 4:29—salvation is from the JewsJohn 8:31; 11:45; 12:11—believers in JesusJohn 8:39–44—children of the devilFurthermore, per some scholars, up to half of the incidences of ioudaioi in John are best translated as ‘theJewish authorities.’ Urban c. Von Wahlde380 studied ten previous studies on the subject and found that theyagreed 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 referto 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 inJesus (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 itsuniform, 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 producedthe multiple meaning of the name Jew that is so confusing, and which, when read synchronically, is soutterly contradictory.’381A large number of attempts to explain this phenomenon382 has not yielded a consensus. Recognition of themultivalent character of the term ioudaioi in John is now a majority view that is, unfortunately, notproperly 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, somepeople, the descendants of the Jewish founders, differing Johannines, differing Gentiles) in John may alsoindicate that confusion regarding the historical ministry of Jesus was common, and that the second or thirdgenerations after Jesus’s death already had fogged and imprecise views of who the ioudaioi were. Thus, theuse of the multivalent ioudaioi in a dissonant and incoherent manner agglomerates and blurs adversariesacross generations (Jesus’s life is used to stage later conflicts). According to Culpepper, John makes ‘aconnection between ‘the Jews’ who condemned Jesus and Jews known to the Christian community at alater time. By means of this transfer of hostility, effected by the two levels of meaning Martyn found in theGospel, 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 Jewishauthorities, 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 seemsto reflect a transition from the implied and tentative belittling of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples andfirst followers that we encountered in Paul and in the synoptics, to the more self-assured and vitriolic toneagainst the ioudaioi in the generations to come. This acceleration in the polemical trajectory reflects anunderlying socio-theological reality that is not unique to John:384 at the dawn of the second century severalGentile 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 havecontributed more than any other text to the saturation of the hearts and minds of later believers withpolemical sentiment.385Indeed, it seems that at the dawn of the second century a tidal wave of anti- ‘ioudaioi’ sentiment andincitement 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 theinfluence of John due to the fact that the gospel of John was favored by Gnostics, and was not embracedby the Pauline leadership until the fourth century.386 Therefore, the explanation for the transition (from thesecond century forward) to ‘the Jews’ as the ultimate adversaries requires a different perspective, a turningpoint of wider scope.As we move forward, we will try to answer the following questions: what triggered (and what was thepurpose of) the widespread and multivalent use of ‘ioudaioi’? what caused the crescendo of anti-ioudaioisentiment 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 textAs we turn our attention to the evolution of the Johannine text, we may start by pointing out that thereseems to be a tentative consensus among scholars that the canonical text took shape through stages orphases,387 although the details and characteristics of the trajectory are debated.388 Brown identified sevengroups 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 foundationalanalyses on which the current consensus stands, may be summarized as follows:391Phase one — the pre-gospel community: the original group were Jewish followers of Jesus. They includeddisciples 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, thenewcomers may have inspired some among the founding faction to embrace a Christology unacceptable toJudaism. This group ‘had been expelled from the synagogues (9:22; 16:2) because of what they wereclaiming about Jesus.’392 117Phase two—the writing of the gospel: the gospel was written following the expulsion of the pre-gospelbelievers from a host synagogue. At the time the gospel was written (ca. Ad 90) ‘the expulsion from thesynagogues is now past, but persecution (16:2–3) continues, and there are deep scars in the Johanninepsyche regarding the ‘Jews.’ the insistence on a ‘high’ Christology (made all the more intense by thestruggles with the ‘Jews’) affects the community’s relations with the other Christian groups...’393Phase three: the writing of the epistles occurs in now alienated Johannine communities, presumably ca. Ad100 (i John 2:19) ... The struggle is between two groups of Johannines who are interpreting the gospel inopposite ways in matters of Christology, ethics, and eschatology... The secessionists are having the greaternumerical success (i John 4:5) and the author is trying to bolster his adherents against further inroads byfalse 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 explainswhy the fourth gospel, which they continued to revere, is cited earlier and more frequently by heterodoxbelievers than by proto-orthodox ones. During the next decades, adherents of the author of I John mayhave gradually merged with what Ignatius of Antioch calls ‘the Church Catholic,’ as exhibited by theeventual acceptance of Johannine Christology among the Paulines. The use of the epistles as a guide tointerpret 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 inmainstream synagogues. It seems to me that, like other Judean sectarians, Jesus’s followers would haveworshiped in their own synagogues, where Jesus would be exalted, not in ordinary synagogues whereJesus’s messiahship was rejected. Whereas Brown, and Martyn see Jewish followers of Jesus seceding froma community of mainstream Jews accompanied by a group of Gentiles that had joined that community, Isee in the gospel two layers and two secessions.I position the Gentile Johannines as joining, and later seceding from, a community of Jewish followers ofJesus:3951. First secession-estrangement: establishment of communities of Jewish followers of Jesus followingJesus’s death, or very soon thereafter.2. First layer — the proto-Johnnines: a community of followers of Jesus that understands itself to be partof Judaism. The polemic is vis- à -vis mainstream Judaism. Whether Jesus was the messiah—a disputeamong 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 kindof messiah Jesus was would have surfaced. This debate would have taken place between members of thefounding 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 theproto-Johannines and would oppose the imposition of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers onGentiles. They secede and create a community that gravitates toward a Pauline Christology. In this secondsecession-estrangement, a proto-Johannine text may have transited from the Jewish milieu of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, to a non-Jewish setting.3974. Second layer — the Johannine: a community of Gentile believers authors the gospel of John andincorporates 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 inneed to reduce the emotional and theological dissonance caused by the estrangement from the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers, engenders the high emotional pitch of the anti-ioudaioi vitriol inJohn (9:22; 12:42; 16:2).For the Jewish proto-Johannines, the adversaries are the high priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees - theJudean establishment from which they would have self-segregated-seceded. For the Gentile Johannines themain intended antagonists targeted by the deployment of the ioudaioi curtain seem to be the Jewish factionand its Gentile sympathizers; the establishment from which they found themselves estranged. Thus, despitethe deployment of the multivalent term ioudaioi we can say: first, the negative use of the term ischaracteristic 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. Anintriguing exception is 4:9 where it seems to apply to Jesus.399Using the template suggested by Brown as a benchmark, the alternative scenario outlined earlier may beexpanded as follows:Layer one — first secession-expulsion and the traditions of proto-John: discussions about whether Jesuswas 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 andviewed Jesus as a human. This layer contains the strident rhetoric (1:11, 35–51; 17:14–16)400 characteristicof Jewish sectarian posturing against establishment Judaism and is similar to the hyperbole of other Jewishsectarians (Qumran, Enoch, jubilees etc.). The first secession-expulsion-estrangement may have taken placesometime circa 80 CE. Similar to most Jewish sectarians, the proto-Johannines would have formedcommunities and synagogues of their own. A dualistic juxtaposition of diametrically opposed sides wascharacteristic of turn-of-the-era Jewish sectarian rhetoric against the Jewish establishment. Befitting Jewishanti-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 areaccused 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 Gentilebelievers. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers may also be behind the ioudaioi that aresupportive 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, ofGentiles and Jews in the Jesus movement seems to have been unsuccessful throughout. First, the Jewishmilieu 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 Gentileinterpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy would be considered inadequate and lacking by most of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers—most of whom seem to have conditioned fellowshipon strict Torah observance.This second stratum seems to originate in seceding Gentile believers and targets the Jewish leadership ofthe movement, and their Gentile sympathizers. Here Gentile secessionists deploy against the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers a variant of the sectarian invective originally deployed by thefounding fathers against fellow Jews.It is clear that at the time of the gospel’s writing, estrangement or secession-expulsion had already takenplace (9:22; 16:2). When we add the belittling of the disciples (6:60–66) and the attitude of the canonicaltext toward the Jewish faction (8:30–59), we are on relatively strong ground to argue that the communitythat gave us the final version of John was demographically Gentile. I concur401 that when claims to thedivinity of Jesus appear, the estrangement from a synagogue has apparently occurred. However, contrary tomost interpretations, I posit that the estrangement-expulsion that incenses the author(s)/editor(s) of thesecond 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, theioudaioi and their traditions and institutions are not ‘us’ or ‘ours’ but ‘they’ and ‘theirs’ reflecting hisGentile 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 Jesuswas divine or not (5:18; 10:33; 16:2).402 The debates about the divinity/humanity of Jesus are omnipresentin the second layer of the gospel and in the epistles. The main conflict in the second Johannine layer isChristological. 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 DoceticGentiles403 that believed that Jesus was only divine - his human form being an illusion. Although there isnot a clear articulation of a proto-Nicaean stand in the gospel, we may infer the Johannine position asstanding 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 fourthgospel’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 compromisecreed forged by the Paulines during the second and third centuries.There is also a proto-supersessionary405 element in the second layer. The Johannine supersessionaryattitude toward the ioudaioi is implicit in the claim that the Johannine understanding of Jesus’s life andlegacy 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 theJohannine 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 Jewishfollowers of Jesus, while they were engaged in a derogatory campaign against them—that is, mounting anassault on their authority and legitimacy. Is it possible that two–three generations after Jesus lifetimeGentile believers had already forgotten that the original followers of Jesus where the great-grandfathers oftheir adversaries in the present? Were internal and external Jews already fused and confused in the mindsand hearts of Gentile believers?Layer three— the Johannine epistles tell us of a third secession. This time the debate was about the natureand 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, ishinted at (1:14, 18 and 19:34–35).406 The Johannine epistles reflect the Johannine struggle with differingGentile believers in Jesus. Neither the ioudaioi nor Israel are mentioned specifically in the Johannineepistles.407Contrary to the central role they play in the gospel, written one or two generations prior, the ioudaioi arenot the main adversaries in the epistles. A group of differing Gentiles seems to be the target of the wrathof the author(s). I follow Brown’s analysis of the epistles as reflecting the other facet of the Johanninestruggle, this time against those that rejected Jesus’s humanity and claimed his unequivocal divinity. Thestruggle of the Pauline faction against the refusal of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followersto embrace Jesus’s divinity and against the refusal of Docetists, and Gnostics of all kinds to embraceJesus’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 differingGentiles, not ‘the Jews.’408EstrangementWhen the author(s)/editors(s) of the canonical John criticize or downplay the disciples, they seem to beattempting to explain, and justify, to their audience the estrangement from the heritage of the Jewishfounders (not their estrangement from mainstream Judaism). By John’s time, the theological dissonanceand the emotional distress caused by the estrangement from the leaders of the movement were existentialmatters for Gentile believers. The tensions between the parties seem to have become an open and resentfulconfrontation. The implied denigration and criticism of the disciples that characterized the synoptics wasno 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 isthat 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 ioudaioithat infuriate them: The Jewish followers of Jesus. They seem to be the establishment in the communityfrom which the Gentile Johannines have seceded, and in the movement as a whole. They are the ones thatconsidered the Johannine’ beliefs inadequate and lacking. They were, and will remain thereafter, a threatagainst 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 ofJesus’s disciples and first followers (not from ‘Judaism’). Multiple clues, themes, and motifs (some alreadyembryonic 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 ofabuse 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 areunderstood as targeting the Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Church, the Pauline term used to describethe Apostolic Synagogue (the Jewish followers of Jesus), may have surfaced to bypass and obscure theJewish grounding of the founders of the Jesus movement.4122. The upstaging of the Jewish followers of Jesus by the Johannines, one of the most explicit and directcorroborations we have for the argument that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers werean 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 apeculiar oddity; it is reflective of a Johannine challenge to the descendants of the Jewish founders. Thesegments cited here are unique in the canon in that the estrangement between the descendants of Jesus’sdisciples 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 theirclaims about Jesus would be unacceptable to ‘the twelve.’ The Johannines were aware that their beliefs, asreflected in 6:41–60, were unacceptable to the Jewish leadership, and they enlist Peter to defend theirposition. The casting of ‘after this many of his (Jesus) disciples drew back and no longer went about withhim’ is designed to enhance the claim that the disciples ‘abandoned’ Jesus. By casting those that did notagree with their theology as ‘not understanding,’ ‘denying’ or ‘abandoning’ Jesus, the Johannines (andGentiles elsewhere in the canon) successfully obscured their opposition to the legacy of those chosen byJesus 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 thegospel is about Jesus’s divinity. When the author of the canonical John states: ‘making himself equal withgod’ (5:18), and makes him god ‘you, being a man, make yourself god’ (10:33), he may be presenting to hisaudience, in narrative form, the ‘higher’ Christology of the Johannines as against the ‘low’ Christology ofthe Jerusalem faction. 123The divinity of Jesus was an argument between the Johannines and the Jewish sectarians from which theyhad seceded, or by whom they had been rejected—not with ‘establishment Judaism.’’ debates aboutwhether Jesus was closer to the divine savior of the Pagan and Zoroastrian heritage or to the humanmessiah of the Jewish tradition—would have taken place between followers of Jesus of Jewish and Paganorigin. ‘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 deificationof the Johannine Jesus.’414References to ‘people who believe but fear to confess’ (John 7:12–13; 9:22; 12:42; 16:2; 19:3) seem tocastigate Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus. From a Johannine perspective, they areseen as hypocrites that know in their hearts that they are wrong about Jesus’s divinity, but remain attachedto the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders. This Johannine perspective attempts to negate thatsome 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 aconsequence of what socio-theological context, did an anti-Jewish flood burst at the threshold of thesecond century and became an polemical deluge? It seems that at the dawn of the second century a strongundertow was sweeping many Gentile believers in an anti-Jewish direction. As we transit into the secondcentury, we will encounter this phenomenon throughout the literature of that period. We have alreadynoted that this peculiar shift is too sweeping, and too broad, to be assigned to John’s influence due to thefact 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 thecentral and pivotal crisis of the second and third centuries: the eruption onto the surface of a multilateralstruggle about identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy that was brewing in the hearts and minds of believersand followers of Jesus since the emergence of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. Thisprotracted and inconclusive conflict will dominate the second and third centuries, and will fade awaygradually during the fourth and fifth. In John, we encounter in embryonic form some of the protagoniststhat will take part in the debates of the next three centuries: the descendants of the Jewish founders andtheir 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 seemedapparent that the group conflicts and social patterns that were formative for the Johannine writings mighthave theological meaning not only for the Johannine community itself but also for modern readers.’416from my perspective,Rensberger is headed in the right direction, but he does not harvest the full bounty of his insight due to thePauline 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 representsa later sectarian offensive by Gentile Johannines against orthodoxy—this time the orthodoxy of the Jewishfounders 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’spolemic does not seem to reflect a dispute with traditional Jews. Rather, it seems to reflect a controversywith followers of Jesus of Jewish origin or with their Gentile sympathizers, who maintain a differentChristological understanding from John’s own group.418Current dilemmas+Many attempts have been made to understand John’s anti-ioudaioi invective. However, most scholars havenot fully freed themselves from the Pauline narrative and the conflict between the Johannines and Judaismremains the consensus background for the fourth gospel.419 The Roman context of the Gospel has alsocome center stage.420 During the last decades, scholars have attempted a variety of strategies to deflate thetheological 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.424Many 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 Johanninecommunity and ‘the Jews’ in the wake of the ‘expulsion from the synagogue.’425 J. L. Martyn argued thatthe expulsion from the synagogue of those who confess Jesus to be the Christ is related to the insertion ofa curse against heretics into the twelfth benediction of the Amidah, a central daily prayer.426 The argumentwas that the inclusion of this curse, known as Birkat Haminim,427 was intended to expose Jewish followersof Jesus and to force a decision on their part – triggering secession. Reinhardt428 surveyed the proponentsof this view429 as well as the growing number that oppose the basic premises of this position (that is, theconnection between the Johannine expulsion-secession and the Birkat Haminim). The benediction seemsto 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.’430The 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.’432My John+It is widely acknowledged that the writers of the canonical gospels used the setting of Jesus’s ministry toconvey to their audiences’ socio-theological messages about their own circumstances and tribulations.433Like the other canonical gospels, the setting in John is Jesus’s lifetime, but issues and arguments relevantand contemporary to the author(s)/editor(s) and to their audiences permeate the text. Thus, not altogetherdissimilar from the situation in the synoptics, there is a growing consensus that the experiences of theJohannine Jesus, and the expulsion from ‘the synagogue,’ reflect the tribulations of the Johanninecommunity, rather than those of the historical Jesus.Despite its multivalent meaning, ‘The evangelist uses the category of ‘the Jews’ (ioudaioi) as a watershedterm 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 againstwhich the (Gentile) Johannines defined themselves. Our overriding concern is to understand why, and dueto what circumstances, they did come to stand in front of a mirror, why was it a ‘Jewish’ mirror, and whythey saw the reflections that they did. The multivalent ioudaioi phantom may have allowed the Gentileleadership to drive a wedge between followers of Jesus of Jewish origin and the rank and file of the Jesusmovement, without appearing irreverent toward the founding fathers.Moreover, older traditions that originated among the founding faction were claimed and incorporated byGentiles that may have been affiliated with their synagogues at first, but at a later stage establishedcommunities of their own. Such spin-offs would display the double-layered ‘anti-Jewish’ anger that weencounter in John: rhetoric by Jewish sectarians against the Jewish establishment intertwined with rhetoricby Gentiles against the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement. Furthermore, the later translation ofioudaioi to ‘Jews,’ exacerbated the consequences of the deployment of the term in John by erasing themultiple meanings of the original term. Whether intentional or unintended, this ‘bundling’ by the Gentileliterati and ideologues (of orthodox Jews, Jewish followers of Jesus, Gentile sympathizers with the Jewishfaction, Gentile sympathizers with orthodox Judaism, and differing Gentile believers)435 into themultivalent ioudaioi, and its univalent translation in ‘the Jews’ eventually fostered a militant, intense, andundifferentiated antagonism against all Jews.In John, we witness a variant of a phenomenon we already encountered in Matthew: the migration ofJudean anti-Jewish-establishment hyperbole to the hearts and minds of Gentiles where, unrestrained by themitigating and restraining effect of kinship, it metastases and becomes virulent. The theologian PeterTomson reached similar conclusions when he stated that in John, an internal polemic against fellow-Jews istransposed 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 coexistenceof pro-Jewish segments as ‘salvation is from the ioudaioi’ (4:22) that may have originated in the Jewishproto-John, with the polemical intensity of the second layer. Beck, Tomson, and Townsend reached similarconclusions on this subject. In their view, the gospel’s relatively pro-Jewish elements seem to belong to theearlier stages of its development, while the more polemical aspects would have entered the text with laterediting,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 ofJohn reflects a shift toward the divinity of Jesus, a development that would be anathema to the Jewishfollowers of Jesus. This may be an indication that whereas the canonical Matthew may reflect yearnings forcontinuity vis- à -vis the legacy of the Jewish founders, the Gentile Johannines seem to have rejected suchcontinuity—propelling them toward the threshold of appropriation and supersession.438Our ability to recapture the original context, the intended audience, and the identity of the adversaries iscompromised by the fact that the two layers (proto-Johannine and Johannine) are now inexorablyintertwined in the canonical text. I suggest that the Johaninnes are Gentiles that seceded from a communityof Jewish followers of Jesus, laid claim to their lore, and made them into the targets of their ire. Thisphenomenon will shadow not only our discussion of John, but of the next two centuries. In my view, thewide consensus about the secession of the Johaninnes from ‘the synagogue’ is reflective of a widemisconception of great consequence, obscures a complex trajectory, and distorts our understanding of thefirst 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 estrangementfrom 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 countedon 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 thesouls of believers.439 Throughout history John has been used to legitimate, nurture, enable, and facilitateanti-Semitism. Beck, and others, have noted that because the members of the Johannine communityexpressed 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, especiallybecause the distinction has not been made during the past nineteen centuries.440Given the content, it is no surprise that so many acts of violence and discrimination were inspired by theperceived anti-Jewish message of John.441 With the probable exception of Matthew 27:24–25, no other texthas incited more polemical hatred and violence than this sublime, but disturbing, rendition of Jesus’s lifeand death. The anti-Jewish motif in John epitomizes the dilemma of modern believers: should sacred lorecontain and legitimate denigration, vilification, and hatred of Jews and of Judaism - even if these attitudesoriginate in misreading, mistranslation, misperception, and misinterpretation of the original intent andcontext? 129 Revelation Introduction The adversaries ConclusionsIntroduction+From the reformation to modernity, the book of Revelation has captured the imagination and theemotional allegiance of countless believers. Favored by enthusiasts, the text’s fascination with violence andsuffering has been viewed with suspicion by those concerned with the impact of fiery and extreme imageryon 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 apocalyptictraditions, and the Greek in this document contains more Hebraisms than any other New Testamentwriting442 - hinting that John and Revelation had been influenced by Judaism, whether directly or throughthe 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 itsmain 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 lettersto believers in Jesus in Smyrna and Philadelphia, have bewildered scholars for centuries. Traditionalscholarship has read Revelation 2:9–10 and 3:9 as targeting local Jews, instructing us that the communityreflected in the apocalypse of John struggled with ‘Jews’ ca. 80–100 CE. These verses target those ‘who saythat they are Jews and are not’ during the last decades of the first century. As it pertains to our survey, ourmain question is whether these segments originated among early Jewish followers of Jesus (where audienceand adversaries are Jews), in an internal debate within the Jesus movement (where both parties arefollowers of Jesus),444 or in Jewish-Christian inter-religious tensions.445Thus, whether Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 represent a Jewish sectarian view of mainstream Judaism, a Gentileview of Judaism or an internal struggle within the Jesus movement is the question before us. There are fourtheoretical 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 inJesus 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 argumentsput 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 associatethe adversaries with persecution and imprisonment447 of Gentile believers, an accusation later voicedagainst ‘the Jews.’Gentile sympathizers with Judaism - per current scholarship, Paul provides evidence for the existence ofGentile sympathizers with Judaism in the same geographical area, a few decades prior to Revelation’sauthorship.448 This evidence would be supportive of the identification of Revelation’s immediateadversaries as Gentile Judaizes. Indeed, the author of Revelation seems to deploy the term ‘Jew’ in thesame 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 andPhiladelphia—are claiming to be Jewish but are not. Therefore, John’s vitriol may be aimed at Gentileswho falsely claimed to be Jews and followed a Jewish lifestyle.449It has also been suggested that some Gentile believers in Asia Minor were identifying themselves as Jews toescape 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 Jesuswould avoid the fate that some were experiencing at the hands of the Romans. Therefore, if Gentilesympathizers with Judaism are in view in Revelation, a further motive for Judaizing may be operative here:fear of persecution by the Romans.450Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish followers of Jesus - those who (in the author’s eyes) falsely claimed tobe Jews could, of course, have been Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction, some of which may haveconverted to Judaism.451 As noted in our discussion of the gospel of John, this argument is strengthened bythe observation that the leap from Gentile belief in Jesus to establishment Judaism452 is too great to beassumed, especially when synagogues of descendants of the Jewish founders (where Jesus would be exaltedand venerated instead of rejected) would be a more obvious and more emphatic place of worship forGentile believers.Therefore, contrary to the current consensus, Gentile believers would be attracted to the synagogues of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers because they were perceived by many to be the trueguardians of his legacy, not on account of Gentile attraction to Judaism. That Gentile sympathizers withthe Jewish faction are involved may be supported by Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians, atapproximately 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 foundingfathers, these accusations would not reflect a struggle between Jews and Christians. Rather, they point to aconflict among Gentile followers of Jesus, one side favoring a strong Jewish affiliation, the other calling forrejection of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. In this case, the main motivating factorbehind worship at the synagogue would be fellowship with the descendants of the founding fathers, notattraction 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 bethose 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 fathersamong his congregants. A neo-traditionalist reading of Revelation may be plausible if we assume that theanti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric that characterized the posturing of Jewish sectarians toward the Jewishmainstream could be operative here. If we assume that an earlier version of Revelation originated in acommunity of Jewish followers of Jesus, 2:9–10 and 3:9 may be read as ‘Qumran-like’ classical Jewishsectarian posturing toward mainstream Jews, who may be seen by the pro-Johannine author as unworthyand false Jews.453Conclusions+Although ‘… no critical interpreter of Revelation … doubts that it was intended as an all-out attack onimperial Rome,’454 Revelation is cryptic and enigmatic and does not yield the identity of its secondaryadversaries. My inclination for setting Revelation’s authorship within the Jesus movement stems from thefact 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,’ italso rallies against believers in Jesus with Pagan inclinations and affiliations in the letter to believers inPergamum (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 thedescendants 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 Jesuswith varying degrees of Jewish and Pagan affinities, affiliations, and inclinations—pointing to a debatewithin the Jesus movement. Therefore, the debate would not be with Paganism or Judaism. Rather, thedebate seems to be about Paganism and Judaism. It seems to me that we can detect an external enemy (theRomans)455 and internal foes (the descendants if the Jewish founders and differing Gentiles). I am inclinedto think that at this early stage, and for most of the texts presented in this section, the underlying anddefining socio-theological process is a struggle about identity, authority, and legitimacy between theJerusalem faction and the Gentile forms of belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnosticmissions 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-subvertedand turned against them, as the establishment group within the Jesus movement. The text reflects a periodof significant flux and lack of theological consolidation. As it pertains to our goal of tracking the evolutionof Jewish-Gentile relations in the Jesus movement, whether the religious opponents are ‘Jews,’ Jewishbelievers in Jesus, or Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - the historical context does not favor aconflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’Similar to the situation we encountered in John, Revelation seems to reflect the emotional, theological, andsocial consequences of the estrangement of Gentiles from the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and firstfollowers. 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 furthercorroborating 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 ofJewish-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-appropriatethe anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric of Jewish sectarians? why and how did anti-Judaism emerge as acornerstone of Pauline belief in Jesus? why did Gentile believers in Jesus embrace the fate of the Jewishfollowers of Jesus as their own, while engaged in a campaign to erode their status as the custodians ofJesus’ legacy?Furthermore, why does the anti-Judaic ire increase as the distance (in time, geography and culturalbackground) between the author and the events grow? why is it that as we transit from Mark to laterauthors, the claims about the responsibility regarding Jesus’ death widen and ultimately include all ‘theJewish people’? why does the canonical anti-Judaic bent pale in comparison to what is to come in thesecond century? if the Jewish responsibility for Jesus death’ was a known fact - why this crescendo? whythe 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 anunderlying crisis; it is a barometer by which we can gauge the intensity of the emotions associated with theestrangement between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. At the dawn of the second centurytensions in the Jesus movement between the ‘founding fathers’ and most Gentile believers had beenbrewing for decades, did reach a boiling point, and did erupt in a burst of unrestrained anti-Jewishsentiment.I have come to suspect that there might be a symbiotic relationship between several phenomena thatdominate the later decades of the first century (the Jewish war, the destruction of the temple, thedecimation of the communities of the Jewish faction in Judea during that war, and the gradual transitionfrom the initial tensions between Jews and non-Jews within the Jesus movement - to a more overt andintense struggle). These events seem to be correlated. It seems to me, that the vacuum of leadership, and ofauthority, created by the decimation (during the Jewish War) of the communities of the Jewish followers ofJesus may have opened a window of opportunity for the non-Jewish majority. As the strongholds of theJewish 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 competingproto-theologies, gospels, and embryonic organizational structures, gained ground – and put forwardincreasingly assertive claims. 134Gentile believers, facing a crisis of identity and legitimacy vis-à-vis the Jewish faction, needed a legitimizingnarrative that would acknowledge them as rightful believers in Jesus. The authorship of Gentileinterpretations of Jesus’ ministry and legacy seems to address this yearning and seem to parallel theeruption onto the surface of the tensions that had been brewing up between the Jewish faction and theGentile followers of Paul since the 50s of the first century. As time passes, attitudes become increasinglystrident and differentiated. Trends and themes that were tentative in the first century become explicit anddominant as the confrontation among the feuding interpretations of belief in Jesus unfolds. Furthermore, itis noteworthy that, due to the Pauline control over final editing and canonization, the authoritative texts donot 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 provokedstrong polemical reactions from ecclesiastical leaders who, through their criticism of Jews and Jewishcustoms, sought to dissuade members of their congregations from such behavior.456 It seems that Paulineleaders concluded that if the addressees are to be motivated to remain faithful to their interpretation ofJesus’s legacy, they must be persuaded that their views are true and superior vis- à -vis those of thedescendants of the founding fathers, which stood on Judaism. As texts containing the rhetoric and thepolemic accompanying these conflicts became increasingly authoritative, anti-Jewish attitudes wereexacerbated, 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, thatmost Gentile believers felt toward the traditions and customs of the Jewish followers of Jesus (Torahobservance, the covenant, the law, circumcision and dietary customs) emerged as the centerpiece of thePauline drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and to demote the descendants of the founding fathers of theJesus movement. The intense focus on these idiosyncrasies seems to indicate that they were considered (bythe 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 seemsto 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 legitimacyas the authoritative guardians and custodians of Jesus’ legacy could not be challenged, the Pauline leadersand literati gravitated toward the deployment of those wedge issues that seemed most promising andeffective in severing the attraction that their adversaries exerted over the rank and file. This attack by proxybecame an ingrained tradition and was eventually successful.Furthermore, we do know that sometime during the second half of the first century some Gentile believersin Jesus started to think, perceive, and express themselves as Jewish anti-establishment sectarians. Aroundthis time, Pauline believers began emulating-appropriating the anti-establishment rhetoric of Judeansectarians, 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 openquestions 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 theHebrew Scriptures to validate Qumran’s narrative, ideology, and theology. From Qumran forward, thismethod of harnessing the Hebrew Scriptures to justify sectarian, messianic, and eschatological claims wasavailable to sectarian and apocalyptic Jews - who used it to delegitimize their Jewish adversaries, and toclaim 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 convertsfrom 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 eschatologicalreferences in the Hebrew Scriptures did gravitate to the Pauline repertoire through the agency of theJewish followers of Jesus, or through other Jewish sectarians, possibly Qumran. Indeed, like other Judeansectarians, 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 conflictwith, 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 – andturned them against them. Thus, they used typology to ground the Pauline strand of belief in Jesus on theauthority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and they emulated the posturing of Judean sectarians toward theJewish mainstream in their anti-establishment drive within the Jesus movement. This suggested trajectorybecame central to Pauline identity, and gradually gave birth to supersession theology (the subject of thenext chapter).Furthermore, we seem to stand on solid ground if we assume that the appropriation-incorporation of textsin 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; 2Thess. 1:7; 4:14; cf. 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14-1 5)458 may have originated among the Jewish followers ofJesus. A similar phenomenon seems to have occurred with other messianic and eschatological references inthe Hebrew scriptures: the main Pesher texts in Qumran are of the prophetic and messianic segments inHabakkuk, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, and the book of Psalms, which are also popular typological textsin the New Testament.Facing an uphill, vitriolic, and rancorous struggle for legitimacy against Jewish opponents within the Jesusmovement, and standing on a still-evolving theology and a chaotic constituency - Pauline leaders andintellectuals 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 ofelements, themes, and motifs quarried from their adversaries’ traditions and texts. Pauline leaders andintellectuals crafted their narratives from within this context of estrangement and vitriol vis-à-vis the Jewishfollowers 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 ofthe movement. In the anti-Jewish-establishment traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus and otherJudean sectarians, Pauline leaders found a ‘ready to deploy’ arsenal that could be used to demote the Jewishestablishment of the Jesus movement. By interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish traditions ofprophetic 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 leadersand intellectuals eventually crafted a strategy that was, in the long run, successful in de-Judaizing belief inJesus.This rhetorical arsenal, would have been deployed by the Jewish founders against mainstream Judaism, andmigrated to the texts, lips, and souls of Pauline believers. This migration would have occurred as Paulinesescalated their posturing vis-à-vis the Jewish leadership of the Jesus movement, and moved from the initialdemand to be acknowledged as rightful believers in Jesus, to the destitution and substitution (thesupersession-replacement) of the Jewish founders as the keepers of Jesus’ legacy. However, contrary toJudean sectarians who used this rhetoric to reform Judaism, Paulines wanted to eradicate Judaism from theJesus movement. This more militant outlook, inclined them to de-contextualize, expand, and intensify theappropriated polemic – propelling them towards extreme supersessionary claims. As Pauline theologiansincorporated Jewish sectarian, messianic, eschatological, salvation, and judgement passages in the HebrewScriptures to claim the legitimacy and authenticity of the Pauline narrative - a cyclical and self-fulfillingsequence was created. The Pauline worldview, mindset, and predispositions were reinforced when believersencountered them in the sacred Jewish literature— the source from which they were appropriated in thefirst place.A growing number of scholars support the view that the reaction of ecclesiastical leaders to this situationwas 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 fathersenjoyed was the existential threat that incensed the Pauline leadership and fueled resentful and viciousattacks on them, and on their beliefs and traditions. I suggest that, rather than active ‘Jewish’ proselytizing, affinity to Judaism within the Jesus movementoriginates in the influence that the Jewish faction and its Gentile sympathizers exerted over the Gentilerank and file. This influence originates in the status of the founding faction as the acknowledgeddescendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers, and the original custodians and interpreters of hisheritage and legacy. This affinity persisted even though their customs and traditions were major stumblingblocks for most Gentiles. 137The growing tensions between the Jewish minority and its sympathizers on one side and the non-Jewishmajority on the other - were the gateway to the multilateral confrontation of the second and thirdcenturies. The Jewish facet of this multilateral confrontation is the focus of this monograph and may havebeen the central arena of the struggle. However, to maintain a proper perspective on the events unfoldingbefore us, we need to remember that the strife among the various strands of Gentile belief in Jesus was noless intense, nor less visceral.Eventually, the struggle against the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers had to be erasedfrom the collective memory of the movement. Misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and loss of contextalso contributed to transforming this conflict against internal opponents that were Jews, into a struggleagainst external Judaism—thereby shielding the emerging orthodoxy from the embarrassing implications ofthe de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus and of the demotion and delegitimizing of the descendants of thosechosen 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 adversarieswere the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and therefore the presumptive custodians ofhis legacy) and framing the debate around beliefs and traditions that most Gentiles found strange andidiosyncratic, early Pauline intellectuals crafted a strategy that eventually led to a growing alienation ofGentile believers from the founding faction. This tactical positioning helps us understand the Paulinechoice of emphases, themes, motifs, and rhetorical ploys.Later writers will expand on this foundation by attacking a wide range of institutions, beliefs, and traditionsassociated with the founding fathers (Torah observance, the temple, the covenant, circumcision, anddietary laws being the ‘wedge issues’ of preference). However, one peculiar tactic will remain constantthroughout the efforts to demote the founding faction; they are seldom acknowledged as the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers and they are seldom attacked explicitly and frontally—although, fromnuance 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 ofcontext, will be projected, misinterpreted, and misrepresented as a conflict with Judaism—obscuring thetheologically awkward demotion and marginalizing of the descendants of those chosen by Jesus to be thecustodians of his legacy.Written from the perspective of the de-Judaizing camp, the literature of the next centuries is often highlyabusive to Jewish sensibilities. Despite the slowly growing realization that the descendants of the foundingfathers persisted in their embrace of Judaism, and despite the growing awareness about the existence andimportance of Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction, adherence to the beliefs of the foundingfathers 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 adrive 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 thefounding fathers is tantamount to apostasy from belief in Jesus is dominant throughout the tradition. Thisis a peculiar argument given that, at the time, the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’s legacy championeddiscontinuity (apostasy) from the beliefs and traditions embraced by Jesus and by those chosen by him tobe the guardians of his legacy. Therefore, and contrary to most presentations, attraction to the beliefs andtraditions of the founding fathers among Gentiles should be seen as affinity to things ‘as they were,’ asopposition to change—rather than a relapse or apostasy. Furthermore, reading traditional scholarship onegets the impression that the choice was between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’ However, at the time, thechoice for recent converts was between nascent Gentile forms of belief in Jesus and the beliefs andtraditions 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 areport 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 thehistorical downstream (John, Hebrews, the church fathers, and other second- and third-centuryauthoritative texts). I soon realized that Paul and the synoptics were only the preamble, the foundation, ofwhat was to come.As I reached the periphery of the original range, I realized that the project was incomplete, that the issueshad not been fully engaged and had not been brought to proper closure. Gradually, I came to therealization that I had surveyed the first floor of a towering edifice. Without yet having an understanding ora conceptual map of where I was going, I crossed the gateway into the second century, and the secondphase 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; Icould neither process it, nor write about it. Somehow, my verbal skills were inadequate to cope with theever-increasing escalation.After many months of stalemate, I gradually realized what had happened: I had exhausted my emotionaland expressive range. I had no conceptual space, no cognitive range, to accommodate the next phase ofvirulence. 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 doyou use to describe further denigration? Eventually, I had to recalibrate and tone down my descriptions ofthe invective of the previous phase, to create cognitive space for the more intense and virulent literature ofthe 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, notthe beginning, of a process. This next phase would not have come about without the foundation providedby the texts we have already surveyed. Strangely, we are both—fortunate and unfortunate. We arefortunate that most of the texts that were eventually canonized belong to the earlier phase, and that mostof the texts that were authored during the second century did not become part of the New Testament. Weare also unfortunate: the texts that were eventually canonized were written during the embryonic stages ofbelief 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 thevictorious 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-Gentiledimension 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 notincluded 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 AfterthoughtsIntroduction+The crisis in the Jesus movement arose due to the rejection, by most Gentiles, of the beliefs and traditionsespoused by Jesus, and his first followers. This rejection gave rise to counter claims (among Jewishfollowers 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 Paulinebelievers gradually gravitated to the view that their interpretation of belief in Jesus replaced and supersededthe beliefs and traditions embraced by Jesus and by his first followers. The appropriation, by Paulinebelievers, of the identity and lore of the Jewish founders, and the Pauline rejection of their beliefs andtraditions (both embryonic in the Gospels and expanded upon by the authors of Hebrews, Barnabas, andJustin) reach their most extreme articulation in supersession theology.460Supersession theology seems to have emerged to address, and counter, doubts about the legitimacy ofGentiles as rightful believers in Jesus. Although the original concerns, horizon, and adversaries of thePauline 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 thesupersession-replacement of Judaism. 141Arguments, originally deployed by Jewish sectarians against the Judean establishment (you have lost God’sfavor, we are God’s new chosen, we are the New Israel, we embody a new covenant, the Temple and thepriesthood 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 thatPauline believers in Jesus are the New People of God, the New Israel, and the sole inheritors of YHWH’scovenant with Israel. Supersession was couched in extreme and unequivocal terms that included thereplacement of Judaism, by ‘Christianity’ (Pauline belief in Jesus) in all things religious and ethical - atheological claim of grave and tragic consequences.461Furthermore, in the ancient world, a ‘new religion’ was an oxymoron; a combination of contradictorywords. To the ancients, religions had to be archaic. Veneration and respect required antiquity. Thus, theprimary supersessionary impetus, that originated in the challenge to the Jewish leadership of the Jesusmovement, was reinforced by the need to provide the respectability associated with antiquity. Alegitimizing 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 fillthat void. However, for the Paulines, incorporation-participation in the heritage of their adversaries wasnot deemed appropriate. Their militant and exclusivist mindset drove them to claim the appropriation ofthe identity of their opponents, and the supersession of their beliefs and traditions. Gradually, this mindsetdrove them further; to claim the dispossession of the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel, and thePeople of God.As we are about to engage Hebrews and Barnabas, the standard bearers and explicit articulators ofsupersession theology,462 it is important to reiterate that a supersessionary impetus has accompanied usfrom 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 aseparate chapter that engages supersession theology should not imply that the texts we have reviewed sofar are free from supersessionist echoes: some of Paul’s immediate successors read his letters as supportiveof supersession, and the supersessionist drumbeat is embryonic in Mark’s Disciples that ‘did notunderstand,’ and abandoned Jesus in his moment of need. 142 Hebrews Introduction Addressees and Context Theology Priesthood Covenant Sacrifice Hebrews and the Jewish Scriptures My HebrewsIntroduction+The author of Hebrews is viewed by many scholars as the foremost theologian of the New Testament,463second only to Paul – requiring a central place in this monograph. The author’s Greek is widely praised asthe most elegant in the NT. Among the canonical texts the author’s language skills are unsurpassedindicating 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 waningenthusiasm.464 Although admittedly simplistic and introductory, scholars may be divided into those that arecritical 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).465Among contemporary approaches, socio-rhetorical models seem to have great promise for they emphasizethe 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 toHebrews, the rhetoric of the author is seen as aimed at subverting the parent group and strengthening thenorms and values of the new belief structure. In Hebrews, and throughout the tradition, the frameworkbeing subverted is the belief system of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and thecountercultural 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 aunique window into events ‘on the ground’ a couple of decades after Paul. The author of Hebrews, roughlycontemporary with the Gospels’ authors, offers us a distinct view of the Jesus movement during thesecond half of the first century. Whereas the Gospels were authored as foundational narratives of Jesus’sministry and therefore tend to insinuate and veil their agendas, Hebrews offers us a more explicit reflectionof the tensions that accompanied the ‘push-and shove’ of theology in the making. Hebrews is viewed bymany as the standard bearer and theologian of supersession theology. Supersession, the view that Paulinebelievers replaced the founding fathers of the Jesus movement as the New Israel and were God´s newchosen, is present in many canonical and authoritative texts.Furthermore, Supersession theology asserted that the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders weresuperseded, replaced, and declared irrelevant by Paul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus. However, in mostof 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 theirattacks on the descendants of the founding fathers, the authors of Hebrews and Barnabas offer usunfiltered views of the friction ‘in the trenches’ between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement. Theauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, following in the footsteps of Paul, argued that Jewish Law, thecornerstone of the beliefs and traditions of the descendants of the founding fathers, had played a legitimaterole in the past but was superseded by a new covenant (cf. Rom. 7:1–6; Gal. 3:23–25; Heb. 8, 10).468However, Hebrews also goes beyond Paul and seems to attempt a more complex, nuanced, and openlyadversarial definition of the Jewish-Gentile relationship.Hebrews is the earliest canonical text to engage openly and explicitly the battle against those that advocatedcontinuity 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 thesubject, it is important to note that at the time of authorship there was no consensus among Gentiles as towhat belief in Jesus was, or should be.Different in style and theological emphases, Hebrews and Barnabas allow us seemingly independentattestations on this struggle and on the birth of supersession theology.469 However, whereas Hebrewsoriginates in an educated mind and his theology and arguments are cerebral and clever, Barnabas originatesin a hyper-militant, idiosyncratic, and bizarre mind. Future believers, guided by the guardians of dogma andorthodoxy, and influenced by the polemical strand in their lore, will tend to read the text in anti-Jewishways. 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 futuregenerations. 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 centurywe can see the nascent stages of five groups that will vie for Jesus legacy, two of which (the Jewishfollowers 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 ContextHebrews has been traditionally seen as reflective of a breach with Judaism, even though there is nothing inthe epistle that necessitates the assertion that the author’s concerns, adversaries, audience, or horizon areoutside the Jesus movement.The vast majority of scholars, both traditional and current, adhere to the view that the author of Hebrewsjuxtaposes ‘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 cluesand hints (which we will discuss in some detail) seem to point to an internal debate about Judaism—not toa confrontation with it. I agree with Salevao’s deployment of a conflict model.471 However, whereasSalevao (in line with the consensus) sees a conflict between ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity,’ I see the author’suniverse and horizon as limited to the Jesus movement.Most scholars have concluded that Hebrews was written during the second half of the first century (60–90ce).472 The author writes with authority and seems to be a leader, probably one of the founders of thecommunity 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, theauthor 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 arecommonly identified as ‘Christian.’ However, it is noteworthy that at the time of authorship, the author’sadversaries considered themselves Christian too. Therefore, the use of this term to discuss this period isinappropriate and anachronistic. A minority of scholars acknowledges that the descendants of the foundinggeneration might be among the author’s antagonists.473 Speaking of the addressees, Lehne’s observation isamong the closest to my reading: ‘[T]heir faith is being threatened by a group (or groups) of conservativeJewish-Christians from within (or from without) their number.’474Scholars are also split on the core impulses driving Hebrews. The author seems concerned with a variety ofissues: 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 combinedweight of several factors, perhaps coupled with a disappointment over the delay of the Parousia475 may bethe 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 thesocio-theological impetus behind the polemical escalation seems to be the need to articulate a theologicalgrounding to justify to the rank and file the estrangement vis- à -vis the descendants of the foundinggeneration. This need took center stage as the communities founded by Pauline missionaries encountereddiffering 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 ‘Jewishquestion’ seems to have become a contentious and painful concern for second- and third-generationGentile believers in Jesus.Unfortunately, the author does not inform us as to the cultural-ethnic origin of the addressees. Nor do weknow if they were the majority or a minority in the community.477 Nonetheless, our identification of theaddressees 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 ofwords if the addressees were present or past Jewish followers of Jesus. This language and the view thatadherence to the beliefs of the founding fathers is apostasy (6:6) would be counterproductive if addressingJewish followers of Jesus or their Gentile sympathizers, but might have been useful in shoring upvacillating 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 foundingfathers of the Jesus movement reflects a yearning for continuity that stands on the natural attraction thatsome Gentile believers felt toward the beliefs and traditions associated with Jesus and his disciples. Thesetting seems to be a debate among Gentile believers in Jesus about continuity-discontinuity vis- à -vis thefounding fathers of their movement (9:11–14; 10:1–2; 13:9–10). The imminent danger seems to originatefrom 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 thedescendants of the founding fathers or Gentiles attracted to them.479Somewhat similar to the situation in Paul’s Galatians and I Corinthians,480 the community addressed by theauthor seems to be on the brink of apostasy from the author’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. In bothcases the danger seems to be the sway of the founding fathers. In both cases, the author uses a variety ofrhetorical 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 thissituation seems to have emerged as Pauline evangelists organized new communities and moved on. Sooneror later these new converts would have encountered believers that embraced differing interpretations ofJesus’s legacy and would have realized that they had been evangelized into a version of belief in Jesus atodds with the beliefs of Jesus’s disciples and first followers—a volatile situation that could ignite a varietyof outcomes.Most scholars advocate a recent separation from ‘the Synagogue.’481 However, I have argued elsewhere thataffiliation 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 assumedoption.TheologyHebrews clearly belongs to the earliest phase of the evolution of Pauline theology. It seems that prior toHebrews, the theology instilled to the community (2:3–4; 13:7–8) would have included the basic Paulinekerygma (1 Cor. 15.3) but probably not much more. Overall, Hebrews is an expansion of Paul, and nothingin 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 wasthe originator of the supersession of Judaism (the traditionalists) or was only defending the right of Gentilebelievers to reject the beliefs and the traditions of the founding fathers (the revised Paul)483 resurfaceswhen trying to interpret Hebrews.If we embrace the ‘traditional Paul,’ and read Hebrews as derivative of it, the anti-Jewish strand in Hebrewswould target Judaism. However, if we embrace the ‘revised Paul,’ and read Hebrews as derivative of it, thepolemical strand in Hebrews would target the descendants of the founding fathers and their Gentilesympathizers. Hebrews, following Paul’s Colossians, sees Jesus as God’s adopted son and does not claimincarnation. The Christology of Hebrews is eclectic. The multiplicity and seemingly indiscriminateaccumulation of titles and attributes bestowed on Jesus cannot but reflect anxiety about legitimacy. Suchanxiety is often visible in groups challenging established authority484 - in this case the authority of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The author’s claim that his form of belief in Jesusoriginated from Jesus himself (2:3), would be opposed by the Pillars and by their descendants (the author’sopponents).By the time of authorship, the critique (by Judean sectarians) of the Temple, the priesthood, and thecovenant was not a novelty, and stood on established anti-Jewish-establishment traditions. The polemic inHebrews 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 themfrom their position as the authoritative custodians of Jesus’s legacy. The main argument of Hebrews standson 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 theauthor’s strand of belief in Jesus; that justify the rejection (by Gentiles) of the beliefs and traditions of thefounding fathers, and the replacement of the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel, as the People ofGod.Priesthood485The Hebrew Scriptures, last edited by the priestly class following the return from the Babylonian exile, giveus 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 scionsof venerable and legitimate priestly families either assume the position of High Priests, were coerced intocooperating with the conquerors, or were silenced by other means. I have already noted that high priestswere, 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 hatedopportunists that collected taxes and ruled the provinces on behalf of foreign oppressors.488 By Jesus’slifetime, the decline in the legitimacy of the priesthood was widely acknowledged and a staple of Jewishanti-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 buildson 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 concerningany successors. The biblical story is somewhat of a dead end and (consequently) there were no limitationson where Melchizedek speculation could go - an opening used by Qumran and, later, by the author ofHebrews.490Per the author of Hebrews, Melchizedek (a marginal biblical character)491 founded an unprecedented, andotherwise unknown, non-Levitical priestly line - and placed Jesus as its inheritor and its culmination. Theauthor used Genesis 14:18–20 to claim that Melchizedek antecedes Abraham, making him into asuperseding figure ‘Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of daysnor 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 Genesis14:18–20, there are some interesting antecedents. The most probable influence on Hebrews might beQumran’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).492IQMelchizedek, discovered at Qumran Cave 11,493 asserts that the coming judgment is to be performed bya representative of God who is called Melchizedek.494Some scholars argue that there is no direct link between IQMelchizedek and Hebrews, despite that in bothwritings the Melchizedek figure has comparable eschatological functions and despite Hebrews’ otherechoes and resonances with Qumran, which will be discussed in each segment of this chapter. Attridgeconcludes that ‘[t]he inspiration for Hebrews’ treatment of Melchizedek probably derives from one oranother of these speculative trends.’495 Wilson is more definitive: ‘We can conclude without doubt thatJewish speculation provides the immediate context for these chapters, and yet there is no precise parallel tothe 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’sindependent 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 linkedto the ‘Son of God’ motif and his priesthood is eternal (7:3). On this foundation, the author develops hisargument in tight progression: since Melchizedek receives the tithe, blesses Abraham, and lives eternally, heis superior to Abraham (7:4–5, 6, and 8). This opening of chapter 7 points to the author’s purpose: he iscreating a pathway, a bypass, to argue the supremacy of his brand of belief in Jesus over that of his Jewishopponents within the Jesus movement (That stands on Abraham).The Melchizedek move allows the author to claim that his newly created priesthood is superior to theLevitical priesthood that stands on the Abrahamic tradition. If Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, andthe Melchizedek newly created priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood - the tradition thatemanates from him is superior to the traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus. The author proceeds withhis reconfiguration-supersession: ‘The Levitical line is useless (10:2–10), and annulled. The hereditaryprinciple 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).’497Some two thousand years after the establishment of the Israelite priesthood, the author argues for theexistence of a previously unknown ‘legitimacy bypass’ that supersedes a venerated religious traditionspanning many generations. The author attempts to undermine allegiance to the descendants of thefounding fathers by belittling the priesthood associated with them and by replacing it with a new, andsuperior, one.The rationale for the battering of the Levitical priesthood seems to have been that if the Leviticalpriesthood is superseded, those that the priesthood serves are diminished. The argument seems to be thatif the beliefs of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers stand on the legitimacy and sanctityof the (now) superseded Levitical priesthood, the author’s beliefs (that stand on the priesthood ofMelchizedek) are superior.498The author also seems to have believed that priestly status was required to designate Jesus’s death as anatoning sacrifice for all sins and for all times. ‘Hebrews has to argue that Jesus is a priest, because accordingto the Law only a priest may offer sacrifice.’499 To that effect the author bypasses the traditional priesthoodand makes Jesus a priest per his enhanced order of Melchizedek (7:17). The author questions the priestlyinstitutions of the dominant group (the descendants of the disciples and their followers) and argues for thesuperiority of a previously unknown priesthood that has two high priests over a span of some twothousand years - Melchizedek and Jesus.Lastly, the author seems unaware of a fundamental contradiction between his theological construct andbelief in Jesus as the messiah. According to biblical tradition, the messiah must be a descendant of KingDavid, necessitating the New Testament’s casting of Jesus as Judah’s descendant (7:4) and his birth inBethlehem.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 theauthor seeks, Jesus may be either the messiah or a priest in the order of Melchizedek – but not both.CovenantNew covenant rhetoric and a decontextualized interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31–34 are used by the authorto dissuade congregants from fellowship with the Jewish opponents and to infuse greater commitment tohis interpretation of belief in Jesus. The understanding that the community is living in the last days may bedriving and exacerbating the author’s pitch and choice of words. The eschatological context is central, andseems to inspire and intensify the boldness of his claims.501 Whereas the author’s attack on the Leviticalpriesthood targets the institutions and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus, the author’s negation ofthe 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 hadantecedents among Judean sectarians, the assault on the Israelite covenant is a radical and sweepingclaim—a far-reaching move to supersede-appropriate the identity of his opponents and to delegitimizethem.502The author ‘demonstrates’ to its readers that the new covenant is better than the ‘old.’503 The first covenantis declared ‘imperfect’ (8:7–8a) and the imperfection is ‘proven’ (8:8b-12). The argument is framed by aself-referential argument: ‘For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasionfor a second’ (8:7). Throughout the text we encounter a pattern of ‘correspondence, contrast andsuperiority.’504 Despite the fact that the author focuses his rhetorical fire on institutions and traditions, healso aims at the people: ‘For he (God) finds fault with them when he says...’ (8:8). Hebrews 8:1–13 is partof the author’s argument against the exclusivity of the beliefs and traditions of the founding group as themeans 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 firstattempt 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 thesuperiority of his understanding of Jesus’s legacy against ‘their’ interpretation of it. With this foray into thecore of Jewish identity, the author’s theological rhetoric became a transgression of the most sacred identitymarkers of Judaism. With this theological move, the author articulates the foundation of identityannihilation theology, the gravest derivative of supersession-replacement theology.The Hebrew scriptures use ‘new covenant’ rhetoric506 to inspire and edify the nation following the people’sfailings. Judean sectarians often argued for the need to renew the people’s commitment to its covenantwith 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 bestunderstood as calls for the reinvigoration of the people’s commitment to the covenant, not as the negationof the validity of the covenant between the Israelites and YHWH (as claimed by the author of Hebrewsand later Paulines). These were inclusive exhortations within the Jewish journey, far removed from calls bynon-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, Hebrewsas emphasizing replacement. The author’s quotation of Jeremiah 31:31 begins with an understanding thatthe 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 finalconsummation of all things is still in the future (4:9; 6:11; 10:26–30; 13:14).510The practice, by Pauline believers, of subverting biblical traditions to legitimate their interpretation of beliefin Jesus seems to originate in an emulation of Qumran’s Pesher exegetical method (using biblical citationsout of their historical context - a procedure that was rejected by establishment Judaism). EmulatingQumran’s practice of applying biblical prophecies to current events, Jeremiah’s prophetic exhortation torevitalize the Israelite commitment to the covenant is subverted to support the advent of a new covenantwith 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. Bydecontextualizing Jeremiah 31:31–34,511 the author suggests that God himself had called for thereplacement of the ‘old’ covenant and the advent of a new covenant with Pauline believers in Jesus - sixhundred 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). Bydeploying Jeremiah out of his historical and ethnic context, the author makes one of the most radicalpolemical 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 theelite of the Jesus movement. By faulting the Israelite covenant, the author attempts to convince his readersto reject any affiliation with the Jewish faction. By his ‘voiding’ of the ‘old’ covenant, the author isattempting to undermine his opponents’ legitimacy as the guardians of Jesus’s legacy, in the eyes of theGentile rank and file: if ‘their’ covenant with God is seen as superseded, ‘their’ beliefs and traditions cannotbe 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 theirbeliefs and traditions as the driving force of the Jesus movement. Hebrews seems to have been the first toarticulate 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 anecessary move for Gentiles that aimed at replacing the Jewish followers of Jesus as the New Israel and thePeople of God, but did not want follow Marcion in severing all links with the Jewish grounding of theJesus movement, and in building their theological edifice fully outside the Jewish religious narrative.SacrificeThe view that Jewish sacrificial traditions were ceremonial and lacked spiritual meaning is deeply embeddedin the Pauline lore and in the minds of Gentile believers since.512 However, contrary to these simplisticjuxtapositions, from early on, Israelites emphasized the need for devotion, pure intent, and atonementwhen giving offerings. Israelites were the first to develop a nuanced appreciation and critique of theirsacrificial traditions.The Israelite religion took shape in an era when sacrifices were seen as a necessary for proper cosmicmaintenance and for the servicing of the Gods. Per this view of the universe, the divine realm requiressacrificial offerings in exchange for victory, abundance, and fertility. Although standing on the archaicunderstanding that proper cosmic maintenance required sacrifices to the Gods, First and Second TempleIsraelites developed a complex awareness of the spirituality of the Levitical sacrifices.513 The understandingthat sacrifices were not believed to act ‘ex open operate,’ and were not a ceremonial act devoid of spiritualmeaning, has deep roots in biblical Judaism. Discomfort among Israelites with a mechanical view of thesacrificial 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 oldPalestinian tradition extending to the psalms and prophets which had condemned any belief in theautomatic efficacy of sacrifices, demanding in its place a ‘sacrifice of thanksgiving’ or deeds of mercy.’515The sacrificial traditions attracted considerable interest at Qumran too.516 However, the community did notbelieve the sacrificial cult was null and void. Rather, they believed that it would eventually be practicedproperly. The Qumranites claimed that the contemporaneous priesthood was illegitimate but hoped for alegitimate 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 tooriginate 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 sacrificialrituals, as elsewhere, the author of Hebrews seems to feed on Judean sectarian anti-establishment traditionsand rhetoric.The use of Psalm 39:7–9 (LXX, MT 40:6–8) in verses 10:5–7 to argue that the Levitical sacrifices havebeen invalidated and to ‘demonstrate’ that God himself acknowledged the shortcomings of the Leviticalsacrifices (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 ofJesus as substitution and annulment of the Levitical sacrificial tradition that atoned for sins would beunacceptable to Jews, to the inclusion of the Jewish followers of Jesus, who rejected human sacrifices,518but would resonate with believers with Pagan affiliations and inclinations.Hebrews and the Jewish ScripturesWe have seen that the use of the Hebrew Scriptures is prominent throughout the text (although the authorfollows the Greek Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew text).519 The author of Hebrews attempts to conferon his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy the authority of the ‘Old’ Testament (about 30 actual citations andover 70 allusions have been counted). The author of Hebrews attempts to legitimize his interpretation ofbelief in Jesus by using a variety of forward-looking passages in the scriptures of his opponents. AlthoughHebrews seems to appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures at every stage of his argument, his interpretations ofthe 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 clashbetween his interpretation of belief in Jesus and his opponents’, showcases the recurring phenomenon ofthe quarrying of Judean sectarian lore to argue anti-establishment claims within the Jesus movement. Theauthor appropriates-subverts the lore of his adversaries to ‘prove’ his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy (Psalm8:4–6, 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 inChapter 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 Psalm39:7–9 (LXX) to delegitimize the priestly institutions and traditions associated with his opponents withinthe Jesus movement. The author’s argument that God himself acknowledged the inadequacies of theLevitical 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 theologyand 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 ofbelief in Jesus.520 Throughout the ages, theologians, scholars and believers have seen themselves as thereplacement of the Israelites as the New Israel, as the New People of God. For the most part, thisincorporation-appropriation of identity and lore has been adversarial toward, and derogatory of, the Jewishpeople.As Christianity is attempting to move toward a more introspective, and self-critical phase, the triumphalistand 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 intoa 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-appropriationof Hebrew scripture and reject supersession theology, few acknowledge the derivative theologicalimplications of this rejection.Overall, the author’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures outside their historical and ethnic context to support hisdrive to de-Judaize belief in Jesus may have been favorably received by Gentiles who were superficiallyacquainted with these texts, but would not convince believers better versed in them—to the inclusion ofthe 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, beobsessed with the need to justify their rejection of beliefs and traditions alien to them, and to prove thesuperiority of their still-evolving belief structures over an established religious tradition of great antiquityand great prestige? What is the socio-theological context behind the author’s assault on the Leviticalpriesthood, on the covenant between the Israelites and their God, and on their sacrificial traditions? Whatcircumstances 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 supportthe shift from the Torah-observant Jewish followers of Jesus, to the Gentile followers of Paul. The Epistleto the Hebrews, roughly contemporaneous with the canonical Gospels, signals the forthcoming eruptiononto the surface of the overt phase of a centuries-long struggle within the Jesus movement. The defensivelanguage deployed in Hebrews indicates that a significant threat loomed over the legitimacy of the author’sbelief system. It seems that some members of the author’s community were attracted to the beliefs andtraditions of the founding faction. That attraction posed an existential threat to believers that advocatedPaul’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 transitionfrom the anti-Jewish-establishment polemic of the Jewish founders, to Pauline rhetoric against them. Bythe time Hebrews was written, the estrangement between Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus seems tohave 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, thearguments to ward off criticism due to lack of continuity with the religious worldview and traditionsembraced by Jesus and by those chosen by him as custodians of his legacy. The author and fellow Paulineleaders and intellectuals were anxious to provide Gentile believers a theological grounding that wouldreassure them that they were rightful believers in Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditionsof 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 asa community with a mixed composition. The current consensus seems to be that the author of Hebrewshad several concerns that included the danger of a relapse to Judaism among a group of converts to theauthor’s strand of belief in Jesus. However, there is little that points to the ethnic background of thereaders and some sayings fit a Gentile audience better than a Jewish one (e.g., 6:1; 9:14). Furthermore, theview that disrespectful and derogatory comments on Judaism would be used, or would be effective, topersuade the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers to sever their affiliation to their ancestraltraditions is beyond comprehension, and seems to stand on the continuing bondage to the Paulinehegemony over the discourse.Furthermore, even though the author’s arguments and knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures has impressedscholars, I suspect that he would fall short of convincing committed Jews—to the inclusion of thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. Gentile believers, ‘caught in the crossfire’ betweenthose advocating continuity with the beliefs and traditions of Jesus’s companions and those advocating aselective appropriation-supersession, could be the intended audience of this text. Although the text wouldunderwhelm readers with deep and intimate knowledge of the Jewish tradition, it may have impressedGentiles with little or no grounding in the Hebrew Scriptures. Hebrews’ polemical rhetoric would havebeen most effective on Gentiles that belonged to Pauline congregations, had limited knowledge aboutJudaism, and had concerns and anxieties about their estrangement from the descendants of the foundingfathers.The author argues implicitly and explicitly that Gentile converts need not embrace the beliefs andtraditions of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, apparently against a strong pressurefrom Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - that were inclined to do so. These Gentiles apparentlyfelt a natural attraction to those that, at the time of authorship, were known to be the custodians of Jesus’slegacy 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 insightoriginates 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 hisinterpretation of Jesus’s ministry. An intriguing but weak claim to authority and indirect access to thehistorical Jesus is made by the author when he states, ‘[H]ow shall we escape if we neglect such a greatsalvation? 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 theologicalpredecessors of the author of Hebrews was an eye witness to Jesus’s ministry, and that the descendants ofthose 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 geographicalarea, among Gentiles, or in the Jesus movement as a whole. At the time of authorship, Gentile believersespousing 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 stoodon the vast heritage of Judaism. The author exalts belief in Jesus but he does not deploy or elaborate acomprehensive theology about those beliefs. Rather, the author’s form of belief in Jesus seems to stand onthe 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 anappropriation-supersession journey. This trajectory will last a couple of hundred years and will transformthem from an ill-defined group lacking a coherent and comprehensive definition of what belief in Jesuswas 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 legitimatehis interpretation of Jesus’s ministry, while at the same time he claims the supersession and invalidation ofbeliefs and traditions based on it. This peculiar midway positioning will emerge during the second centuryas the proto-orthodox ‘Via Media’ and will require our attention and scrutiny. The tensions inherent in thecontinuity-discontinuity conundrum engendered by this positioning, and the appropriation-supersessionchoice, will embed in the tradition an ambivalent and resentful attitude toward the beliefs and traditions ofthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers.Whereas Gnostics and Marcionites will reject the lore of the founding generation, and will build newtheological edifices disconnected from the founders’ beliefs and traditions, the author of Hebrews stands atthe threshold of a journey into the maze of appropriation-supersession. The author’s views and argumentson these subjects are best seen as the deployment of Judean sectarian rhetorical staples against theestablishment he opposes, the Jewish elite within the Jesus movement. Hebrews harnesses and developspre-existing rhetorical themes and traditions originating in the Jewish sectarian milieu to claim thesuperiority 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.’522The terms of contrast vary considerably, but they all serve the same purpose: to assert the superiority ofthe author’s form of belief in Jesus over that of his opponents. In conclusion, little of Hebrews’ hyperboleabout the beliefs and traditions of his opponents is original. The most that can be said about the author’santi-Jewish creativity is that he was the first to apply pre-existing themes and motifs to the circumstancesof the Jesus movement. One theme, however, is elaborated well beyond its Judean roots; the priesthood ofJesus after the order of–10).523The author and supersession - Since the theological strand to which the author seems to have belongedchose 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 theologicalchoices led to the de-contextualization of the Hebrew Scriptures and their use as a platform to legitimizethe author’s understanding of Jesus’s legacy. The author of Hebrews, the main architect of the Paulineappropriation-supersession edifice, set the markers of the theological construct that was later to be thecentral anchor of ‘orthodoxy.’524The author’s strategy seems to have included three elements: (a) to accept the Jewish meta-narrative; (b) togut out most of its institutions, beliefs, and traditions; and (c) to appropriate the remaining shell to vest anon-Jewish edifice with legitimacy and antiquity.525 I have argued that the obsessive and systematicdenigration of the character, traditions and beliefs of the Jewish founding fathers seems to emerge out ofintense debates among Gentile believers in Jesus about the movements’ affiliation with Judaism. It isimportant to emphasize that this was one dimension of a multilateral confrontation among Gentilebelievers 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 followersare best seen as indicative of a rising tide of confusion, tension, and anxiety about identity and legitimacyamong Gentile believers. Hebrews and Barnabas reflect in their tone and pitch a transition to an overtconfrontation about the movements’ identity that burst into the surface, first against the beliefs of thefounding generation and later against differing Gentile interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy. TheJewish facet of this struggle looms large in the tradition due to the unfortunate fact that the foundingfathers 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 believerstoward Judaism throughout the ages.Hebrew’s strategy - Hebrews’ author may have been the earliest systematic articulator of the strategy thatdid 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 thenext two centuries as Pauline authors will target a number of Jewish symbols, traditions and institutions intheir 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 infull discontinuity from the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. Thus, paradoxically, although theauthor wished to sever the influence that his Jewish opponents had on his congregants, he also wanted tobestow on his interpretation of Jesus’s ministry the authority of their ancient and venerated traditions, andthe legitimacy intrinsic to their being the descendants of the founding fathers. Therefore, despite thewholesale battering of the character, traditions and beliefs of his adversaries, the author does not placehimself outside the Jewish universe altogether and attempts to remain within the umbrella of the Jewishnarrative. 157It is important to note that the author quarries his opponents’ sacred scriptures to supply all the necessarydefinitions and templates to which Jesus’s high priesthood and sacrifice must conform (Jesus as a Davidicdescendant, Jesus as a rightful priest, Jesus’s sacrifice as a rightful sacrifice, the author’s interpretation ofJesus ministry as emanating from the ‘Old’ Testament, the ‘Old’ Testament as anticipating the author’sinterpretation of Jesus ministry, etc.).Hebrew’s continuity-discontinuity conundrum, the positioning and argumentation of the author in relationto Jesus’ Jewish followers (how to sever the appeal of the founding fathers while at the same time claim tobe their theological heirs) required great linguistic, polemical, and rhetorical ability. To delegitimize thefounding fathers and at the same time claim to be their theological heirs, creates logical and theologicaldifficulties that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews tries to wrestle with. Since the author’sinterpretation of Jesus' ministry is not in harmony with the traditions on which he wants to base hislegitimacy, the author finds himself investing great effort in delegitimizing the theological narrative fromwhich he longs to derive his legitimacy.The impact of Hebrews - With Hebrews we are only midway in the ever-escalating polemical trajectory ofthe Pauline authoritative texts. Within a narrative of sanctified and authoritative anti-Jewish invective, theauthor of Hebrews is one of the central contributors for he provided a cerebral and elaborate theologicalplatform on which a forthcoming torrent of abuse fed. The author of Hebrews, in line with the emergingproto-orthodox modus operandi, opted for strengthening the case for the validity of his strand of belief inJesus by disparaging and abusing the beliefs and traditions of his opponents. It seems that the authorconcluded that if believers are to be motivated to remain faithful to his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy, theymust be persuaded that his views are true and superior vis- à -vis those of the descendants of the foundingfathers, which stood on Judaism.The tension between the wish to reject and the wish to appropriate-inherit, and the inherent inconsistencyand dissonance in building a new edifice on the denigration of Jewish beliefs and traditions, could not butembed 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’ andthe superiority of the ‘new,’ embedding and ingraining ambivalent attitudes toward Judaism in the heartsand souls of believers.Hebrews deploys with significant skill several themes, arguments, and motifs that provided the theologicalplatform that has been used since to denigrate, marginalize, and persecute Judaism—even though thisoutcome seems to have been unintended by the author. Given this background and the future trajectory ofJewish-Gentile relations, it is imperative to differentiate the author’s intent and circumstances from laterinterpretations of the text. However, and unfortunately, our re-placing of Hebrews’ horizon within theJesus movement does not alleviate its impact, nor does it change the fact that traditional readings of thetext have enabled, facilitated, and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes among Gentile believers in Jesusthroughout the centuries.526 158Hebrews has been embraced and acclaimed for almost two millennia as one of the theological anchors ofthe New Testament. The author of Hebrews was indeed clever and learned. His arguments, however, standon the de-contextualization and degradation of a tradition that at the time of authorship was already awidely appreciated and venerated religion.At this stage in our journey it is important to note that Hebrews is among the earliest proto-orthodox textswhere these phenomena are visible, and that we will encounter in the texts ahead of us a large variety ofelaborations of his theological platform and rhetorical tactics. We will also encounter the footprints ofdiffering Gentile interpretations of Jesus’s ministry and legacy, and differing Gentile approaches to thebeliefs 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 thebeliefs 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 theauthor’s choices will become increasingly clear. As we move into the second century and to our nextsection, we will see the internal conflict among differing interpretations of Jesus’s legacy explode andbecome an all-out confrontation. By the first decades of the second century, the subtle and seeminglyinconsequential denigration of the disciples in the canonical Gospels will have morphed into an overt andvicious attack on all things Jewish. Within that trajectory, Hebrews represents a halfway point between theimplied and developing tensions hinted at in the Gospels, and the extreme viciousness ahead - asrepresented by the texts of Melito, Chrysostom, and the Adversus Judaeos literature of the nextcenturies.527Pauline leaders and intellectuals will follow the pathway created by the author of Hebrews. The futureimpact of the deployment of supersession theology by later orthodoxy is hard to grasp. The horribleconsequences of a clever theological move by this first-century religious enthusiast eventually led to thenegation 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 ofbelievers, on their attitudes toward Jews and Judaism and on Jewish lives—some scholars emphasizeHebrews’ ‘continuity with Judaism.’ However, continuity with the caveats of appropriation-supersessionand identity annihilation is no continuity at all. Nonetheless, despite being deeply entrenched in the loreand in the hearts and minds of some believers, the denigration of cultural and theological ancestors is byno means essential, in theory or in the experience of other cultures. Communities can, and have, emergedfrom preceding cultures without carving their path with derogatory polemic and making it sacrosanct (TheRoman positive view of Greek culture, and the Buddhist positive relationship vis- à -vis Hinduism are themost notable).Modern Dilemmas - Post–World War II scholars have attempted to reduce the dissonance between theanti-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 polemicalimpact, rehabilitate its image, and accommodate modern sensibilities.528 The challenge is daunting. Somemodern interpreters have attempted to minimize the supersessionist and derogatory implications of theauthor’s statements by arguing that Hebrews’ negative theology functions as a foil for the writer’stheological 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 despiteHebrews 8:7 and 8:13, which seem to impede such efforts. Other scholars absolve the author ofsupersessionary intent vis- à -vis the Jewish people,530 while acknowledging his claim to the supersession ofJewish institutions and beliefs. This strategy seems to emerge out of a wish to neutralize the polemicalstrand embedded in the text, while salvaging its canonical status. The strategies vary but the aim issimilar—to rescue Hebrews from its association with supersession and anti-Judaism.531However, Hebrew’s derogatory parade is too wide ranging: Jewish atonement traditions are deemedsuperseded, sacrifices under the Law ‘cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper’ (9:9) since ‘the lawhas but a shadow of the good things to come’ (10:1), sacrifices that are repeated cannot have permanenteffect (10:2), the ceremonies of the Law are only ‘regulations for the body’ (9:10) and for ‘the purificationof the flesh’ (9.13), just to point out a few of the author’s ‘contributions.’ The author’s contrasts andderogatory 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 availableonly to those that persevere in the path advocated by him (4:14–16). The repertoire and the terms ofcontrast vary, but they serve the same purpose: to assert the superiority of the author’s strand of belief inJesus and the inferiority of those advocating a close affiliation with the beliefs and traditions of thefounding faction. In Hebrews, ‘[t]he contrast between first/second and old/new could in principle beneutral, an expression of temporal order that allows that both elements have intrinsic value. But in this caseit is not; their purpose is to elevate the new and denigrate the old.’532Afterthoughts - At a time when a cacophony of Gentile forms of belief in Jesus vied for the allegiance ofGentile believers, the addressees are being asked to choose between two forms of belief in Jesus—oneJewish and one Pauline. Overall, the combative demeanor of the epistle to the Hebrews does not reflectthe serene and thoughtful theology of a self-assured thinker. His defensive and resentful tone ischaracteristic of sectarian challenges to established authority. Hebrews reflects intense emotions originatingin 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 createda potent polemical legacy. Hebrews deploys a mostly self-referential argument about the inferiority of thebeliefs 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 ofthe 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 plausiblereality 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’sinterpretation of Jesus’s legacy championed discontinuity (apostasy) from the beliefs and traditionsembraced 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 debatebetween believers in Jesus with pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish affiliations and inclinations – the supersessionistphenomenon can be re-placed within the Jesus movement, is the consequence of militancy gone awry, andcould gradually loose its malevolency. 161 Barnabas Introduction Barnabas’ adversaries The Covenant The Temple Wedge Issues Barnabas and Qumran My BarnabasIntroduction+The Pauline and Gnostic success among non-Jews laid the ground for the downfall of the Jewishleadership of the Jesus movement. The weakening of the Jewish and Torah-observant leadership thatfollowed the devastation and the loss of life inflicted upon the communities of the Jewish followers ofJesus in Judea, during the failed uprisings of 70 and 135 CE further exacerbated this process. Barnabaslives and writes in the preamble to the forthcoming confrontation among competing forms of belief inJesus that will dominate the next two centuries, and whose Jewish-Gentile facet had been brewing sincePaul’s days and permeates the New Testament. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and others saw Barnabasas an important early text; it was considered authoritative by many, and was revered accordingly.533Barnabas and Hebrews are early variants in the transition to undifferentiated anti-Jewish polemic. They arethe earliest texts to embark on the transition from implied challenge to the Jewish elite, to its theologicalarticulation. They are considered by many to be the foundations of supersession theology.534 NewTestament writings are not used in Barnabas, neither explicitly nor tacitly, which would argue for an earlydate. The consensus is that the letter was written sometime between 70 and 170 CE535 with a majoritysupporting a date prior to the end of the first century. Whether the writer was Jewish or Gentile is stilldebated. Many scholars consider 16:5 an allusion to the destruction of the Temple, and date Barnabas tothe last decades of the first century. A minority advocates the post–Bar Kochba era (post 135 CE). Thehistorical evidence points to Nerva as the most likely to have supported this project (96–98 ce).536 We havenoted that Nerva’s reign may have ignited hopes for a Judean reconstruction and revival. Jewish hopes forthe 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 hisexegesis is rudimentary, many of his inflammatory ‘creations’ did resonate with believers whose exposureto, and knowledge of, Judaism was limited to the Pauline prism.Couched in crude Greek, Barnabas’s arguments are often clumsy, disconnected, and contradictory. ReadingBarnabas is a journey to a chaotic time through the eyes of a most peculiar mind. Barnabas’s idiosyncraticand occasionally bizarre views could be dismissed as inconsequential, if we could dismiss the fact that hisviews and arguments are foundational for future supersession theology, and if we could overlook the wideuse of his arguments by later apologists, theologians, and clergy.537Barnabas’s caricature of Judaism did become integral to the lore. Many of Barnabas’s arguments didbecome staples despite the fact that ‘the extent of his obsession, the radicalness of his claims, and thegeneral defensiveness and rancor of his tone would normally be thought to position the author of Barnabason the margins of Christian opinion.’538 Barnabas has a proto-Orthodox outlook, although somewhat of anidiosyncratic one. Barnabas places the ‘old’ Covenant, the Temple, and Jewish beliefs and customs (Torahobservance, dietary law, and circumcision) center stage. In Barnabas, Jewish ‘literal’ misunderstandings aresuperseded by new proto-orthodox ‘spiritual’ interpretations.Barnabas is viciously anti-Jewish and derogatory— an ‘honor’ it shares with Melito and Chrysostom. Someof Barnabas’s polemical rhetoric is widely acknowledged as fantastic, peculiar, bizarre, and internallyincoherent.539 In the most detailed analysis by a Jewish scholar, Alon540 suggests that Barnabas’s knowledgeof 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 withGematria.541Barnabas’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 Jesusand 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 theJews, establishment-Judaism, the Jewish faction, or their Gentile sympathizers. Later Pauline polemicalcore 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, theiridentity is obscured by loss of context, the orthodox narrative, and the fog of history. Who are ‘us’ andwho are ‘they’ is implied, not explicitly stated or clarified.543 ‘Us’ seems to apply to converts to the author’sform 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 theother texts of the period, is crucial for our understanding of the underlying crucible that brought about theemergence of the polemical strand. It may be that for some, or most, Gentile believers in Jesus theboundaries between the adversaries were blurred to start with.544 Furthermore, it is increasingly apparentthat it was not uncommon for early proto-orthodox writers to identify and characterize Jewish opponentswithin the Jesus movement as ‘Ioudaioi.’545 It is quite clear that Barnabas addresses behavior occurringamong Gentile believers within his own community. Furthermore, if we divest the Pauline-orthodoxhegemony over the discourse, there is nothing in the text that would indicate that the immediate targets areoutside 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, thatstands on Judaism, must be erroneous. For Barnabas, the true meaning of Israelite history is to beunderstood and deciphered by non-Jews. The exasperation of Barnabas, and of later proto-orthodoxbelievers, seems to reflect the influence that the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers exertedamong Gentile believers (not of the influence of, or attraction to, Judaism). According to Murray, Barnabasis also concerned with the possible recognition, by members of his congregation, of the validity of a jointcovenant (Bar. 3:6 and 4:6).546 Concern about the possible conversion of some of the members to Torahobservance (Bar. 3.6) is also present.547The 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 theappropriation-supersession phenomenon - with horrific consequences. [+pg 170]The CovenantA 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 thecommunity he addresses (Bar. 4:6; 13:1; and 14:1). Barnabas’s adversaries seem to favor a closer affiliationwith the traditions and beliefs of Jewish founding fathers. It is also possible that some members ofBarnabas’s community may have thought that the covenant belongs to both: the descendants of the Jewishfounders and to Gentile believers in Jesus, and therefore were not differentiating sufficiently between thetwo. Barnabas warns the addressees against being influenced by these individuals.549Barnabas argues that ‘they’ never ‘truly’ did possess the covenant (chp. 13 and 14). It was given, Barnabasdeclares, ‘but they were not worthy to receive it due to the fact of their sins’ (14.1). Barnabas’s uniquedoctrine 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 rejectsthe notion that the covenant could be shared. He argues that it never was ‘theirs’ and was always (in God’sintention) ‘ours.’ The Gentile followers of Paul became the ‘people of inheritance’ (14:4) and received thecovenant (14:5) and that was what God always intended.The TempleIt has been argued that the threat that the Temple might be rebuilt profoundly disturbs Barnabas’sconvictions about the meaning of recent historical events and is one reason for his particularly negativeaccount of the character, traditions and beliefs of his Jewish opponents.552 The growing emphasis on thedestruction of the Temple as signaling ‘their’ demise would be proven void by the rebuilding of theTemple, 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 Templebecame integral to the discourse.553 Most scholars seem to agree that Barnabas reflects fear among Gentilebelievers in Jesus about the impact of the rebuilding of the Temple. The prophecy in 16.3–4 should betaken in conjunction with that in 4.3–5, as indicating a peril that is about to break upon the church.554However, they disagree on the importance of this hope in fueling Barnabas’s furor against ‘them.’555Destruction 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 Templeis 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 madethem, as being a house of God’ (16.1).556Wedge Issues, Stumbling BlocksThe dietary traditions —According to Barnabas, the food laws were not intended for literal use, but forallegorical instruction regarding correct ethical behavior (Chapter 10).557 In the last verse of Chapter 10 hestates: ‘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 isforbidden refers to forms of sinful behavior. What is permitted supports the superior spiritual focus of theauthor’s form of belief in Jesus. It is only ‘them’ who cannot grasp or understand this, who insist that theseprohibitions refer to actual foods.558Barnabas disparages ‘them’ by suggesting that their incorrect understanding of the law originates in moraldeficiency559 ‘Moses received three doctrines concerning food and thus spoke of them in the Spirit; butthey received them as really referring to food, owing to the lust of their flesh’ (10:9). Some of the author’scontentions on Jewish dietary law are particularly bizarre. The segments on his opponents’ dietarytraditions 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. TheSabbath is understood as an eschatological parable (Chapter 15). The eschatological Sabbath replaces theweekly Sabbaths. This will occur after six thousand years (15:3–6) for in these present evil times theSabbath 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 understandcircumcision to indicate participation in the covenant with God and, hence, an integral part of beingfollowers of Jesus.561 However, for the author ‘they’ misinterpreted the commandment to circumcise byinterpreting it literally (Chapter 9) and ‘[h]e circumcised our hearing, so that we might hear the word andbelieve’ (9:4).The circumcision in which ‘they’ have placed their confidence has brought them nothing. What Godcommanded was not circumcision of the flesh: ‘They transgressed, due to the fact a wicked angelinstructed 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 literalobservance of the Torah, a staple of Jewish spirituality and of Jewish mysticism, are harnessed by Barnabasas 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 neversupposed to be interpreted literally. Therefore, those who lived according to the literal understanding ofthe law (i.e., the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers) were wrong. Per the author, Gentilebelievers in Jesus, who found the customs and traditions of the founding fathers attractive and practicedthem, were misguided and were being misled.564 He warns Gentile believers against becoming ‘shipwreckedby conversion’ (3:6).565The author’s thinking is shot through with powerful end-of-times convictions. The present age is an evilage, 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 andit was presumably either shared by his readers, or something he wished to inculcate in them. And, instriking similarity with Hebrews and John, it is suggested that some were dropping out of communalgatherings (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)566Barnabas and QumranBarnabas 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 religiousestablishment 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 Jesusmovement. In Barnabas, we find echoes of the anti-Jewish-establishment posturing and of the TwoWays’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 Judeansectarian worldviewthat 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 andbenign. The resentful, righteous, and militant posturing of Jewish sectariansis oftentimes intertwined and undistinguishable from the “Two Ways” material. Nonetheless, thedistinction 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 settingsthrough the agency of the descendants of the founding fathers—most probably through a group (orindividual) 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).571Barnabas seems to imitate Qumran and other Judean sectarians where the official Jewish cult is seen asdispleasing 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 onecovenant; (2) regards the covenant as containing the right laws if only interpreted correctly; and (3) isstrongly opposed to the idea that the covenant is anything other than the possession of those espousingthe author’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy. However, although the Qumran texts regularly speak of a ‘newcovenant’ (CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12; IQpHab 2:3f.), there does not seem to be a great disjunction between thisnew covenant and the covenant that it seems to replace. In Qumran, what is new in the ‘new covenant’ aresecret teachings, present in the law from eternity, but only revealed to the community through the teacherof righteousness (IQpHab 7:4f.), or in another formulation the Zadokite priests (see IQSb 3:24; IQS5:21f.).572My Barnabas+Some have argued that Barnabas is fighting Judaistic inclinations among his addressees. Others have drawnthe conclusion that Barnabas perceives Judaism itself as an actual threat. For many modern scholars, theauthor is reacting to the attractiveness of Judaism and answers are to be found in the conflict between thesynagogue and the Church.573 Traditionally, scholars have seen the purpose of Barnabas as bound up withJudaism, either directly or indirectly. That Jewish observances, the Temple, the covenant, and the Land arethe central themes of Barnabas’s polemical exegesis is widely recognized.574 During the last decades somescholars have begun to differentiate intended adversaries from literary or metaphorical ones and advocatean internal setting for these debates. Gentile Judaizers, Gentile sympathizers with Judaism, are increasinglyseen as the intended targets. Murray, in the footsteps of Wilson and others, suggests that the targets areChristian Judaizers.575However, Barnabas’ abusive treatment of Judaism reflects a struggle about identity, ascendancy, andlegitimacy within the Jesus movement. Judaism got dragged into the whirlwind as consequence of the factthat the movement was originally Jewish and that the shift to a Gentile majority led to a de-Judaizingthrust. Barnabas ‘turned the tables’ against the establishment of the Jesus movement and claimed thatGentiles that embraced his interpretation of Jesus’s legacy were the new holders of the covenant withYHWH; the New Israel. Judean sectarian traditions, prophetic chastisement, self-criticism, allegory, andmetaphor (most probably originating with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers) areturned against them. In Barnabas, and throughout the texts of early Gentile believers, attacks on Judaismby some and attraction to it by others, should be understood as symptoms of an identity crisis within theJesus movement.The scenario advocated here posits that Barnabas’ intended adversaries are Gentile sympathizers with thefounding faction. The author of the Epistle seems to be a Gentile that joined, and later seceded from, acommunity of Jewish followers of Jesus (and therefore had some exposure to Judaism). This profile couldfit this peculiar text and its many idiosyncrasies. Barnabas’s superficial acquaintance with Judaism and hiscrude argumentation signals that his intended audience was Gentile. In this setting, Judaism could be madeinto 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 theonly 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 thecovenant 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: Judaismmisinterpreted 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 ofthe Epistle of Barnabas criticizes Jewish interpretations of scripture and Jewish religious practices in orderto dissuade members of his community from attraction to the descendants of the founding fathers andfrom observing their customs. In Barnabas, the adversaries are not the Synoptic High Priests, Jewishauthorities, 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 thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers or their Gentile sympathizers—directly or through ‘theJews’ as a proxy, or as a derogative identifier. Barnabas’s outlook must be intimately linked to thebackground against which it was written: context-shaped theology.578Barnabas’s peculiar theological position, that the Jewish followers of Jesus misunderstood their own sacredtexts and that God’s covenant with ‘them’ was a temporary measure (9:4), seems to be reasonably fitted tothe erupting struggle within the Jesus movement and is an expansion of Mark’s disciples that did notunderstand. This position shadows the claim of the Pauline-Markan-Lukan faction that the legitimacy andthe leadership of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers was temporary and that theirunderstanding of Jesus’s ministry was mistaken. In reaction to what he perceived to be the excessiveinfluence that they exerted over members of his community, Barnabas targets the Jewish faction—whowere, 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, thedescendants of the Jewish founders, who lived according to the traditional Jewish understanding of theTorah, were wrong, and Gentile believers who found Jewish customs attractive and practiced them werebeing deceived.Barnabas’s anti-Judaism is proto-orthodox; it is the anti-Judaism inherent in appropriation-substitution, asdistinct from the anti-Judaism of rejection (Marcionites and Gnostics). The full measure of Barnabas’svitriol 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 himto death (5:11–12). In addition, misreading of God’s will, diabolical inspiration, and an endless array ofderogatory rhetoric are dispensed without the slightest restraint.Barnabas and Hebrew’s attempted to provide to Gentile followers of Paul a theological foundation toaddress the continuity-discontinuity conundrum vis-à-vis the founding faction: how to defend the yearningof Gentiles to be acknowledged as rightful believers in Jesus, while rejecting the beliefs and traditionsespoused 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 dideventually relegate it to the margins of canonicity. However, regardless of the identity of the immediate orintended adversaries, many elements of the author’s response to the attraction to Jewish beliefs andtraditions among his flock are offensive to Jews and, read literally, are anti-Jewish.579Overall, Barnabas’s tactic of choice is the erosion, through vilification and disparagement, of the highesteem that the beliefs, traditions, and institutions of the Jewish leadership had among some Gentilebelievers. Barnabas’s incorporation-appropriation of the identity and lore of the Jewish founders into aGentile narrative is one of the earliest and clearest instances of the supersessionary trajectory. Barnabas isalso one of the earliest, explicit, and crude attempts to Gentilize belief in Jesus by delegitimizing thecharacter, traditions and beliefs of the founders. This ambivalent and seemingly contradictory approach(incorporation-appropriation while superseding-gentilizing) to ‘the Jewish question,’ found in embryonicform in Paul and in the Synoptics, will be deployed during the next three hundred years against thedescendants 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 Jewishancestry and believers in Jesus of Pagan ancestry was a few generations old, and building up. Within acouple of generations after Jesus’s short ministry, the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles and thedescendants 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 thereligious ‘civil war’ that followed. The texts before us were authored during this period and reflect thefactionalism, confusion, anxiety, and heightened emotions that characterized the early phases of thisstruggle.Flanked on all sides of the theological spectrum, the Pauline faction opted for the midway between therejection of, and continuity with, the Jewish faction. Thus, given the proto-orthodox inclination toappropriate the identity and the lore of the Jewish founding fathers, the choice of the Israelites as YHWH’sbeloved 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 thePauline faction as God’s new favorites, YHWH had to be ‘freed’ from his particularistic commitment tothe Jewish people.It is probable that we will never know with certainty what Paul’s true attitude toward Judaism was. Weknow, however, that when Gentile believers needed a foundation for their rejection of the beliefs andtraditions of the Jewish founders of the Jesus movement, they found in Paul the theological and polemicalsupport they needed. Whether their interpretation was based on a true and correct understanding of Paul’sintent (the traditionalists) or on its distortion (the revisionists) is an open debate.Supersession theology has two main components: appropriation and replacement. Appropriation refers tothe 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 thePauline 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 hastwo derivatives of special interest to us: The Jewish loss of God’s favor and the supersession of Judaism inall things religious and ethical.Supersession theology is the theological articulation of the Pauline claim to the exclusive custody of Jesus’slegacy. The anchors of appropriation supersession theology (Hebrews, Barnabas, and Justin) built on theselective and early appropriation-incorporation of elements of the lore, traditions, and beliefs of the Jewishfounders, 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 thebeliefs and traditions of the founding fathers but rejected the core customs and traditions of Torahobservance, circumcision, and dietary law.The arguments and the language deployed by the Pauline faction against the establishment of the Jesusmovement emulate the language, the arguments, and the imagery that we encounter among Jewishsectarians and, we assume, would encounter among the Jewish followers of Jesus. From the second centuryforward, the Paulines will ‘turn the tables’ and will confront the descendants of the founding fathers withJewish-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 Paulinefaction emerged from this process thinking and feeling as a persecuted Jewish sect. Thus, the descendantsof Jesus’s disciples and first followers became the involuntary agents and facilitators in the transformationof non-Jewish believers into militant enthusiasts displaying a variety of Qumran-like sectarian rhetoric andcharacteristics. Although this theological ploy was originally aimed at the descendants of the foundingfathers, it eventually led to the disenfranchisement of Judaism. The tension between the rejection of corebeliefs and customs of the founding fathers and the wish to claim continuity with them, embedded a deepambivalence 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 favorand divine wrath. The loss of God’s favor, God’s wrath, and God’s chastisement are recurring motifs inmost 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 ponderedthe divine in search for answers to these existential questions. In many ancient civilizations, divine wrathand misfortune were understood as originating in non-compliance with the sacrifices and ceremoniesinstituted 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 ofthe 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 wasnecessary 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 Gentilebelievers in Jesus the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus via the ‘loss of God’s favor’ by all Jews, to theinclusion of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. The alleged Jewish ‘loss of God’sfavor,’ which sustains supersession theology, is an elaboration (by non-Jews) of a traditional Jewishsectarian 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 inclinationand predisposition for self-criticism and introspection that may have originated in the dialectic between themonarchy, the tribal structure, and the religious establishment. Prophets were an integral part of theIsraelite nation during the Davidic era and often served as an ethical, political, and religious counterbalanceto the monarchy and the religious establishment. Some prophets were political insiders; others were fromthe political fringes. Some prophets were part of the cultural elite; others were uneducated. Not all biblicalprophets were alike; some were subservient to the crown,581 while others confronted the monarchy and thepeople. Most demanded ethical conduct from both. The anti-establishment stance of the canonicalprophets, 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 bypriestly 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 notonly the tensions between secular and religious elites, but also a tradition of opposition to power anddespotism that originates in the pre-monarchical tribal setting.582 However, in ‘real-time’ it was impossibleto distinguish true prophecy from the many seers, fortune-tellers, political doomsayers, and false prophetsthat crowded the biblical marketplace of divination.583 At any given time, there were many ‘prophets,’ somesupporting 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 theLORD, 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 cameduring the second Temple period and was a retroactive exercise by scribes and religious functionariesaimed at furthering religious interests and agendas. It is no surprise that among the many prophets andseers active in the Israelite marketplace of divination, the Jewish canon favors prophets that challenged themonarchy and therefore laid the ground to legitimate the transition from the Davidic dynasty to priestlyrule.Ruether is correct when she claims that prophetic exhortation is significantly different from Christianclaims about Israel’s apostasy and forfeiture of God’s favor due to the emotional and national loyalties ofthe critics. The former are members of a group articulating an edifying call to the flock, the latter is anattempt to divest a nation of its identity and heritage.584 Evans probes further and concludes that in-houseprophetic criticism, no longer understood as a challenge from within the community of faith, wasunderstood as condemnation of a particular people outside of the faith—the people who had rejectedJesus, his apostles, and the church.585 Beck adds that the self-criticism that Judaism did permit made itvulnerable 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 polemicalstones originate, do reflect Jewish humility and the traditional Judean inclination to chastise and humblethe 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 tothe Gentile followers of Paul). This takeover of the Jewish scriptures became one of the most formidabletools 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 consequencesof a national calamity or defeat, it may be considered a benign effort to edify the nation, a call for renewedcommitment to Torah observance. Harnessing the nation’s suffering may be acceptable (although ethicallyquestionable) in the context of internal self-criticism. We have witnessed how these assertions graduallymorphed into claims to the supersession of ‘Judaism’ by ‘Christianity.’ Centuries later, the projection ontoJudaism of this rhetoric (originally aimed at the Jewish founders) did create an untenable situation for amilitant and exclusivist church aiming for worldwide ascendancy and claiming to exclusive status asYHWH’s chosen. The continuing existence of Judaism eventually became a threat to the church’slegitimacy 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 firstmerged, apparently in King Hammurabi’s law code (Babylonia 1795–1750 BCE). Under the construct ofethical monotheism, suffering and defeat are signs of God’s displeasure or the consequence of sinfulbehavior. National defeats or disasters are seen as retribution for sinfulness. Thus, unjustifiable evil andsuffering, in a world created by a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity, posit a daunting challengeto 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 displeasurecomes 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 timesimmemorial. Moreover, ethical monotheists tend to see victory as a sign of righteousness andpredestination, 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 doublejeopardy 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 thevictim 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 tribalorigins 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 ofevil. In Judaism, evil, suffering, and injustice are part of the complexity of reality. Thus, Jews canaccommodate evil without processing it into personal sin and guilt, avoiding the devastating effects thatthis internalization has on other ethical monotheists.When the Jewish God entered the Pauline pantheon he had been the traveling companion of the Judeannation for many generations (3,500 years according to Jewish scripture, some 1,500–2,000 years accordingto historical research). By the turn of the era, the Judean engagement of the divine realm already embodieda 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 gravitatetoward a fully benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. However, since an omnipotentand benevolent God is incompatible with the recurring suffering of the righteous and the fortune ofsinners, and evil cannot be attributed to God, Gentile believers must internalize evil by processing it intoindividual sin and guilt—theirs or their enemies’.Destruction of the Temple - The destruction of the Temple looms large in the canonical and in theauthoritative lore.589 The failed revolution of 70 CE and the destruction of the Temple became a centralpolemical tool in the demotion of the Jewish establishment of the Jesus movement. We have seen that, inaccordance with the ancient understanding of the divine impact on military affairs, opponents wouldinterpret 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 todelegitimize 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 asa trove in the propaganda war against them. In other words, the attempts to discredit, and disenfranchisethe Jewish followers of Jesus were ‘corroborated’ by God’s unequivocal rejection of the Jews - as illustratedby the destruction of the Temple. However, it seems that the impact and the implications of thedestruction of the Temple were not as dramatic, nor as definitive, as implied by the authoritative texts ofthe Pauline faction or by Christian theology since. The destruction of the Temple as the pivot of Jewishdecline, and as the turning point in Jewish-Christian relations, has been questioned by reevaluations thatdowngrade the impact of the Jewish War of 70 CE 12 and emphasize the devastation inflicted upon Judeaduring the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 CE.590Furthermore, although loss and decimation were great during the Jewish War, the Judeans had a longrecord of resiliency on which they could draw. The nation had rebounded from many reversals and theTemple had been rebuilt before.591 At the time, the destruction of the Temple would not signal anirreversible loss of God’s favor. Nor do Jewish sources support the Gentile claim that the loss of theTemple 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 notseen as a definitive blow to Judean national aspirations. Anti-Temple sentiment, and the belief that it wassacrilegious or had been defiled and desecrated, were rather common in first-century Judea.593 Manyconsidered the priesthood in power and its liturgy blasphemous.594 The decline in the status and in theprestige of the high priests (not rightful Zadokite priests but rather traitors, collaborators, and Romanappointees) fueled anti-Temple sentiment. The Temple, the priesthood, and the cult were the focus ofintense debates. Not all Jews were satisfied with the conduct of the Jerusalem cult, and many boycottedit.595Furthermore, the Temple, built by King Herod whose questionable Jewish ancestry was problematic tomany traditionalists, was considered by many to be sacrilegious and impure. In addition, Herod was aRoman vassal who had been imposed and sustained by the Roman conquerors. His pro-Roman orientationmade 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) furtheralienated most Judeans. In addition, the Qumranites, whose sacred texts are available to us in the Dead SeaScrolls, 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 onthis 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 theimpact 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 thecommunities of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Judea, Pauline believers stepped up their de-Judaizingeffort. However, it was only after the Judean defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion (135 CE) that the Paulinefaction 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 torecognize that the outcome of the Jewish War was final and God’s judgment irrevocable.598The Judean defeats (the Jewish War 66–74, the uprisings in Cyrene and Egypt in 115–117 ce, and the BarKochba revolt 132–135) became rhetorical ramps that facilitated the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movementand the assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish elite. With the Bar Kochba revolt, the slow decline of thedescendants of the Jewish founders accelerated, and the slow ascendancy of the Pauline faction wasenabled 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 turningpoint.In summary, Jewish defeats were seen by the Pauline faction as a reflection of God’s wrath and weredeemed to support and justify their claim to being the new guardians of Jesus’s legacy. The suffering of theJews, to the inclusion of the descendants of the founding fathers, was showcased as proof of their ‘loss ofGod’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 grewever larger: from yearnings for recognition as legitimate believers in Jesus, to claims to primacy within theJesus movement, to assertions about the supersession-replacement of the identity and lore of the Jewishfollowers 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 tounderwrite the canonical gospels. Barnabas and Hebrews deploy non-gospel literary vehicles to articulatetheological messages that are implicit and veiled in the gospels. The claim that ‘their’ understanding ofJesus’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 ‘therejection of Jesus by the Jews’ at a time when the mission to the Jews was ongoing and followers of Jesusof Jewish origin were active among fellow Jews. At the time, a definitive end of the mission to the Jews wasstill in the future, an outcome unknown to the protagonists. It is noteworthy that, at the time ofauthorship, 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 uncertainof its theological footing. The claim that non-Jews had the correct understanding of a national and religioustradition spanning, at the time, hundreds of generations—a religious tradition that enjoyed the respect andadmiration of the ancient world —was astonishing. These claims, put forward by recent converts stilluncertain of what their beliefs were, or should be—would be considered unfounded, extraordinary andodd by contemporaneous intellectuals and thinkers.The appropriation-supersession move by Pauline leaders and intellectuals seems to have emerged tocounter the arguments of their adversaries that Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew and that his beliefs andtraditions should be at the core of belief in Jesus. Since the Paulines rejected Judaism but did not want toreinvent 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 andleaders gravitated to the deployment of a variety of means to erode the status of the descendants of thefounding fathers (use of Jesus’s life story to denigrate the disciples, the subversion-appropriation of theanti-Jewish-establishment lore and rhetoric of the Jewish founders, the de-contextualizing of the HebrewScriptures and of Judean self-criticism). These authors emulated long-standing traditions of sectariancritique and rhetoric within Second Temple Judaism, by subverting-appropriating the lore of the foundingfaction. By ‘borrowing a page’ from their opponents’ anti-Jewish-establishment lore (or from other Jewishsectarians) the authors attack the Levitical priesthood, the Law, the validity of the Israelite covenant withYHWH, and the Temple sacrifices—all traditional targets of Judean sectarians and the subject of heateddebates among Second Temple Jews.By harvesting the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of Judean sectarians, these authors gathered an assortmentof ‘off-the-shelf’ rhetorical arrows that they could harness to argue for the demotion of the establishmentof the Jesus movement. This collection of polemical tools included arguments originally deployed byJewish 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 nolonger authoritative, etc.…). However, contrary to Judean sectarians who used this rhetoric to reformJudaism, proto-orthodox Gentiles wanted to eradicate Judaism from the Jesus movement. This inclinedthem to de-contextualize, expand, and intensify the appropriated polemic.The authors claim the identity, history, and legacy of the founding fathers by claiming that Gentilebelievers, of their particular persuasion, are the true heirs and the righteous inheritors of YHWH’spromises to the Israelites (a claim most probably put forward by their Jewish adversaries vis- à -vismainstream Judaism). The God of the Israelites is cast as declaring the end of the ‘old’ covenant and theinauguration of the new. Raiding and de-contextualizing Jewish sacred scripture to ‘prove’ the superiorityof the Pauline worldview became a trademark of the Pauline strand. However, whereas the rhetoric ofJudean sectarians was aimed at remedying the behavior of fellow Jews and allowed for a benign future forJudaism, Pauline rhetoric evolved to negate a future for their Jewish opponents. To them, eradicating thebeliefs and rituals of the Jewish faction became critical and existential. The selective appropriation of theJewish sacred scriptures, to champion their form of belief in Jesus, was one of the Pauline hallmarks andbecame 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 diddetect 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 thatwitnessed the emergence of the canonical Gospels and Acts. However, while the Gospels hint at asomewhat consensual and quasi-idyllic transition of leadership from the Jewish followers of Jesus to thePaulines, 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 explicitarticulations of supersession theology, were roughly contemporaneous with the canonical Gospels. Duringthe same period that the Gospel authors crafted their texts and incorporated subdued hints599 againstJesus’s disciples and first followers and their descendants, the authors of Hebrews and Barnabas craftedmore explicit and virulent challenges to their legitimacy and authority. Although this divergence in intensityand in degree of explicitness could be due to regional, personal, or factional differences - I am inclined toassociate them to the delivery platform (the genre) chosen by each author. It seems plausible that thedifferences in the intensity of the anti-Jewish invective between the canonical Gospels vis- à -vis Hebrewsand Barnabas reflect differences in genre and tactics, rather than in aims and ultimate purpose. Thus, theimplied criticism of the disciples and of their beliefs and traditions in the canonical Gospels may be due totheir being authored to function as foundational accounts of the Pauline strand, not as overt and explicitpolemical tools.First-century Gentiles, still evolving toward a clear understanding, definition, and consensus about whatJesus’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 aninternal hyper-enthusiastic debate about Judaism, its abusive tone and content would be inconsequentialand might be disregarded. Unfortunately, many of these arguments and rhetorical ploys became normativeamong later believers. They did become staple supersessionary views that did permeate homilies andsermons, and the hearts, minds, and souls of believers.With Hebrews and Barnabas we arrive at the final stage of a supersessionary process within the Jesusmovement, whose embryonic beginnings we detect in Mark and whose intermediate stages we highlight inthe 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 thelimbo of history, has implications which murderers will in time spell out.’600 The unintended consequencesof this unfortunate theological turn remain tragic beyond measure, but supersession theology no longerneeds be an insurmountable theological anchor. If supersession theology emerged to provide an ideologicalgrounding 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 SummaryIntroduction+Walter Bauer (1934) is credited with bringing to light the diversity and the complexity of the early Jesusmovement, a conclusion that emerged out of a survey of the texts and traditions found in the differentgeographical areas of the Roman Empire. Although his methods and some of his conclusions have beenquestioned, a growing group of modern scholars agree that the proto-orthodox were not the only strand ofbelief in Jesus at the dawn of the second century, and that the Jesus movement evolved from diversity touniformity, contrary to traditional accounts. Recent work and recent insights on the diversity of the earlyJesus movement have triggered a qualified rehabilitation of the work of Bauer,601 setting the stage for aconceptual 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 notgrounded 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 istheir silence on the matter of Jesus’s death and resurrection —the keystone of Paul’s missionaryproclamation. These deviations from the Pauline dogma signal that, to some believers, Jesus’s significancelay in his words and in his words alone.604 The existence of early non-Pauline Gentile understandings ofJesus’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 accessto a variety of Gnostic forms of belief in Jesus, undistorted by the orthodox filter. The traditionalperception of the adversaries of Paul and of the later opponents of the Pauline faction as heresies has givenway 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 Gnosticsfrom the label of heresy and their restoration as rightful believers in Jesus. All these findings challenge thetraditional dogma that early Gentile believers in Jesus were unanimous in making Jesus’s death andresurrection the fulcrum of faith.It seems that as the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles grew, Gentile believers harnessed culturalcurrents that predominated in their environment (Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism) to articulate theuniqueness of Jesus’s ministry and the purpose of his early death. Of the four factions or strands thatgradually emerged, three represented opposing and irreconcilable theological stands (the Jewish followersof Jesus, the Marcionites, and the Gnostics). A fourth faction, the Paulines, strived for unity and struggledto define and articulate a compromise that came to be known as the ‘Via Media.’ A multilateral strugglebetween these factions engulfed the Jesus movement well into the fourth century.Significantly, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were not participants in the second century religiouscrisis 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, theyreflect an internal conflict with followers of Jesus that advocated that belief in Jesus be Jewish, not aconflict 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 withPaganism or Gnosticism.Overall, the road ahead is not linear, nor homogeneous. Change seems to have been gradual and subject tolocal, 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 thespectrum is distinct. We may not know the exact timing of each shift, but we do know when we arebeyond each. The main strands that consolidate into factions during the second century had differenttheological centers of gravity (Torah-observance, Jesus’s sayings, secret knowledge, and Jesus’s death andresurrection) and varying degrees of affinity to the external forces without (Judaism, Paganism, mysteryreligions, Platonism, and Gnosticism).In the chapters, ahead we will survey the persistent, but declining, influence of the Jewish faction. Theperiod 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 characterizedby the intensification of the tensions between diverse, opposing, and incompatible interpretations ofJesus’s ministry and legacy. [+Pg 189] 182The Second-Century ProtagonistsAt the dawn of the second century, the Roman world was in civic, spiritual and religious turmoil. A varietyof cults and sects vied for the interest and affiliation of a large number of spiritual seekers. Somewhatsimilar to the context behind the emergence of the twentieth-century eclectic ‘New Age,’ the advent ofSecond Century Christianities605 reflected the theological disarray of the era and attracted large numbers ofconverts dissatisfied with the official Roman cult. The era that we are about to enter, the second and thirdcenturies, was a period of great religious excitement, enthusiasm, militancy, and fervor. Thesecircumstances give the second and third centuries their special flavor—an extraordinary religious intensityand 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 centurygoes 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 diversityoriginates in one strand, the Pauline-orthodox.The Jewish Followers of Jesus606 - After the devastation of their communities during the failed Judeanrevolutions (70 CE and 135 ce) and following the success of the Pauline and Gnostic missions to theGentiles, the descendants of the Jewish founders were under great pressure to renounce Judaism orrenounce Jesus.607 Caught between two worlds, they would be marginalized and coerced by their Jewishbrethren and by fellow followers of Jesus. They faced a two-front confrontation: against other Jews indefense of the messiahship of Jesus, and against Gentiles in defense of Judaism and in opposition to thedeification of Jesus. We must assume a full spectrum of outcomes, ranging from those that may havesevered their links with mainstream Judaism, to those that renounced Jesus. Gradually, those that remainedin 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, theDidache, and from their footprints and traces in Matthew, John, and Revelation. Additional insights haveemerged from studies of Q and the pre-Synoptic era, and from the writings of the Greek and LatinFathers.608 Scholars have also gained important insights by studying the Qumran, Enochic, and Jubeleantexts.609 Communities with varying affinities to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers areattested to in Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Origen, and in the Didache and the Pseudo-Clementineliterature. 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’sministry and the investiture of the Pauline faction as the legitimate heirs to Jesus’s ministry. Once the roleof the Jewish followers of Jesus as legitimating agents for the Pauline ascendancy and for the orthodoxmyth of origins is accomplished, they disappear from the historical record to resurface as marginal anddisenfranchised ‘heretics.’Overall, since most of our knowledge about the descendants of the Jewish founders stands on limited andoften tendentious sources (the writings of opponents, heresiologists and apologists) – our conclusionsmust be tentative at best. Significantly, despite the fact that some New Testament texts seem to build onthe heritage of the descendants of the Jewish founders, and that their existence and influence are palpablethroughout, 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 thecanonical and authoritative texts.As to the ‘parting of the ways’ between the Jewish followers of Jesus and the Jewish mainstream, mostscholars 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 bythe Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE) and thus ceased to have a presence in Judean life. Thereafter, small andisolated communities may have survived, but the Jesus movement ceased to be a factor in Jewish life. Thesecond ‘parting of the ways,’ the second estrangement, between Gentile and Jewish followers of Jesus isthe subject of this monograph, was gradual, and lasted four centuries.611The Pauline Faction -The Paulines were one of two factions that claimed Paul’s legacy. Their theologicalevolution 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 theologicallegacy was shaped by the views and mindsets of these leaders and thinkers. This is the theological chainthat 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 allsides. It attempted to hold the middle ground demarcated by the theological range created by thedescendants 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 paththrough a maze of contending arguments. The effort at holding the middle ground had broad appeal butwas burdened with ambivalences and unresolved ‘mysteries’—the tensions and unresolved dissonancesresulting 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, andmorph 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’screed 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 thedominant group and is therefore often labeled Christian, Christian orthodox, or orthodox. Central to thePauline success was the Christian community of the city of Rome. This community, large, rich, andinfluential, had a significant impact on the direction of belief in Jesus. Bauer (1934) first suggested thecentrality of the Christian community of Rome. Today, it seems appropriate to assign to this community asignificant 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 theGentile followers of Jesus and the Jewish faction. Contrary to the Pauline complex and often ambivalentreject-but-appropriate approach to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers, Marcion advocated acomplete and radical rejection of any affiliation with their legacy614 and strived for a thorough de-Judaizingof belief in Jesus. Marcion’s ecclesiastical organization lasted for several centuries and had an extensivenetwork of affiliated communities. His views were so successful, that several Church Fathers wrotetreatises against him including Tertullian who, in the early third century, wrote five volumes dedicated torefuting 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 toorthodoxy (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 Paulinemove 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 thefirst half of the second century.615 Marcion was a merchant who gained great influence through his wealthand 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 Scriptureand lore. Marcion’s rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers was complete andunqualified616 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 theJewish ‘baggage’ of the founding fathers, whether intrinsic to his worldview or directed at fending off theproto-orthodox attacks against him,617 could have reduced the rancor, resentment, and ambivalence thataccompanied the reject-but-appropriate trajectory of the Paulines. A clean rejection of the beliefs andtraditions of the founding faction also liberated the Marcionites from frequent charges leveled against thePaulines and their theological descendants. Most notably, that they claimed the Jewish heritage but failed tofollow through.618 Marcion’s outlook did not need the framework of the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’sdeath’ either. That event was ultimately the responsibility of the creator and of the principalities andpowers working under him (Marc. 3.24; 5.6). Moreover, the Jewish rejection of Jesus was reasonable sincehe was an alien and extraordinary figure who did not fit Jewish messianic expectations (Marc. 3, 6).619Marcion the most prominent Docetic620 theologian, incorporated some Gnostic themes and motifs, butseems to have stopped short of seeing creation as evil and corrupt.621 The Marcionite Jesus was a new andunprecedented figure that made known a previously unknown deity of love and mercy—in sharp contrastwith the God of the ‘Old Testament’ that was viewed by Marcion as a lesser deity, lacking in wisdom andjustice. Marcion addressed the quandary of the relationship of the new faith to Judaism, and the questionof the origins of evil and suffering in one bold move: his belief in two deities. This Gnostic elementallowed Marcion to see YHWH as a renegade creator of this evil world, and to embrace Jesus as the son ofthe supreme and benevolent God of the universe.622 By providing an alternative to the Jewish narrative ofthe founders, Marcionite and Gnostic believers framed the arena within which the compromise creed, thePauline Via Media, was to emerge. 185Unencumbered by the intricate and ambivalent theological fine threading characteristic of the Pauline drivefor compromise, Marcion’s radical solution was attractive to many Gentiles and became a formidableobstacle to the proto-orthodox push for ascendancy.Gnostic Believers in Jesus - Gnosticism, a controversial designation, is a later term that surfaced toidentify 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 beencriticized. 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 andpermanent. The world is the creation of a lesser and evil God (the Jewish God). The world is permeated byevil and there is no hope for change. Salvation from this world is through secret knowledge taught by adivine 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 inJesus, competing with the founding faction and with the Paulines and the Marcionites for the future of theJesus movement.624 The origins of Gnosticism are shrouded in mystery and are hotly contested.625 ‘Themost influential current view is that Gnosticism arose among sectarian Jews on the outskirts of Judaism.’626Gnostic cosmogony is an intriguing alternative to the Jewish mainstream view of creation as the work of abenevolent deity. From Jewish sectarians that may have been its originators, Gnosticism may have derivedthe 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 theredeemer-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) andMenander, both from Samaria (north of Judea). Magnus was a charismatic figure with messianicaspirations. The Gnostic view of Judaism is mostly negative but does not yield the resentment-ambivalenceinherent in the proto-orthodox appropriate-delegitimize pathway. Whereas outright rejection does notcreate an emotional residue, the possessive impulse behind appropriation and supersession-replacementdoes. Interestingly, Gnosticism seems to have fomented two radically opposing extremes: libertinism andasceticism.The Gnostic library found at Nag Hammadi (1945) has been credited with deepening the conceptualrevolution initiated by Bauer. Thanks to the findings at Nag Hammadi, the magnitude of the sectarian andpolemical 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 ableto 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 theGnostic worldviews. 186Gnostic theological speculation and metaphorical imagery had great influence among many early thinkersand theologians with mystical inclinations, some of which attempted to harmonize the Pauline and theGnostic strands, in vain.628 Twelve- and thirteen-century Gnostics (Albigensians-Cathars, and SpanishKabbalists) 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, andPhillip—none of which are devoted to Jesus’s life story. In the Apocryphon of John, probably the mostphilosophical 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 peculiaritymay be due to the fact that most of these texts were written with specific audiences in mind, and theaudience knew the identity of the adversaries. Often, the enemy was within. The ‘enemy within’ would bethose members of Gentile communities that were drawn to the descendants of Jesus’s first followers or toGentile, 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 haveconverted to Judaism. Most seem to have embraced some of the beliefs and traditions of the foundingfathers of the movement, but did not convert. These Judaizing Gentile believers in Jesus drew some of themost bitter fire from Pauline leaders and literati, who were enraged by their attraction to the beliefs andtraditions 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 andfile, 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 multivalentterms ‘Ioudaioi,’ ‘Jew,’ and ‘Christian’ by the sources and by theologians, clergy, and scholars throughoutthe centuries - have contributed to the difficulties in deciphering, and discussing, this period.629The emergence of the Via Media+In the canonical and authoritative texts, we have a unique window into the birth of a religion, including thefascinating ‘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 amongthese factions became more visible. As Gentile believers in Jesus elaborated on Jesus’s life and death, andas they gradually transformed these accounts into a mature and non-Jewish religious outlook - theprotagonists of the second century started to emerge. These non-Jewish factions evolved through a processof confrontational dialectic vis- à -vis the Jewish faction and among themselves. Whereas the originalfollowers of Jesus were (and seem to have remained) Jews, and therefore had an established religiousworldview and lifestyle, the newer (non-Jewish) strands of belief in Jesus had to create a theological andcreedal grounding to stand on. 187It is important to internalize the fact that the ‘anti-Jewish’ universe that we have encountered emerged outof one of three fronts that the Pauline faction did maintain throughout their crusade for ascendancy andunity (against the Jewish faction and against Marcionite and Gnostic believers). Further corroborationabout 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 otheragainst Marcion) reflecting the fact that the Pauline confrontation with the descendants of the Jewishfounders paralleled and mirrored their confrontation with the Marcionites – and confirming the internalnature of the crisis. Indeed, in Tertullian’s works the same charges are often laid against either antagonist,with only minimal adaptation.630Fighting on these three fronts engendered a highly nuanced, and somewhat inconsistent, orthodox positionregarding a number of issues. When debating Gnostics, Paulines claimed that the Jewish scriptures are tobe read literally. When debating the descendants of the founding fathers or their Gentile sympathizers, theyclaimed that the Jewish scriptures are to be read figuratively-allegorically. When confronting Gnostics andMarcionites, they insisted on the supremacy of the Jewish God and of the Jewish heritage. Whenconfronting the Jewish faction, they emphasized the divinity of Jesus and the rejection of Jewish beliefsand traditions.631A detailed analysis of the table below brings to the surface the fact that the ‘Via Media,’ the creed thatemerged from the struggle about identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy within the Jesus movement - was acompromise, 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 DisregardNumber of gods One One/trinity Two SeveralAttitude to Jewish Positive Ambivalent Negative Ambivalent people negativePurpose of belief Serve God Salvation Salvation Release from evil by keeping the law worldRoad 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 creationThe 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 knowledgeThroughout 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 gainingthe upper hand. However, since a compromise required appropriating elements of the identity and of theheritage of the Jewish faction into the compromise creed, the Pauline identity markers were drawn insideJewish territory. This claim to Jewish ground placed them on a collision course with the Jewish faction andwould have caused frictions and intense antagonism within the Jesus movement. The forging of orthodoxyout of the matrix of the second century is also unique in that the emerging creed was not the original beliefsystem of the victorious party. Rather, the theology of the victorious party (the Pauline strand) was acompromise 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 thatalthough we can see crucial changes taking place, the participants were unaware of the nature, eventualscope, impact, and direction of the processes they were living through. John Gager, comparing Paul’s timeto Jerome’s, concluded that in both periods, and in between, the issue was the same—the legitimacy oforthodoxy. For whenever believers argued, in the name of the founding apostles, that Christianity couldnot claim to be the New Israel without also being Torah observant, the self-understanding of those whorepresented mainstream-orthodox Christianity must have seemed threatened.632Although the assimilation of the textual heritage of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followersby 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 ofthis evolution. They provide us some insight into how the sequence appropriation-supersession633 mayhave 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. Thisprotracted struggle reflects the fact that, until the fourth century, they did not have the tools, nor thelegitimacy, to impose their theological outlook and eradicate the traditions of their opponents. Lackinglegitimacy to attain ascendancy within the Jesus movement, first and second century Paulines deployed apeculiar mixture of militancy, exclusivism, ‘negative campaigning,’ coalition building, compromise, andaccommodation. This seemingly counterintuitive ‘militant compromise’ was successful in infusing thegrassroots 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 ofverbal abuse, marginalizing, and disenfranchisement. This limited arsenal, and the slow pace inherent inconsolidating a theological compromise, led to a protracted and inconclusive struggle where tempers oftenflared and resentment often reached the point of explosion. [+pg 194]The MysteriesBy crafting a compromise between contending interpretations of Jesus’ ministry and legacy, Paulinetheology emerged all inclusive, but ambivalent and burdened by the paradoxes inherent in holding themiddle ground between contrary theological positions 37: Jesus thus became fully human (the Jewishfollowers of Jesus) and fully divine (Marcion and Gnostics). The beliefs and traditions of the Jewishfounders were to be observed (the Jewish followers of Jesus) and rejected (Marcion and Gnostics). God isone (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 (theJewish followers of Jesus) but no longer (Marcion and Gnostics). 190Although these dualistic pairs help us internalize the implications of ‘compromise building,’ they do notfully clarify the complex and profound theological dilemmas they engender. We may showcase thecomplexity 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 believedthat Jesus was fully divine (Docetists). Other Gnostics believed that he was human, but had a divine sparkwithin and divine knowledge about how to free the soul from this evil world. Marcionites thought thatJesus was the emissary of the supreme God of the universe and that YHWH was the creator of this evilworld of pain and suffering. Still others thought that Jesus was born a human but had been chosen by Godto 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. Inbiblical Judaism YHWH is a warrior God, a just, severe, and wrathful deity. Evil and suffering are part ofreality. For the Gnostics, the world is a place of evil and suffering. Salvation is the escape from it. ForMarcion 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 aregood, evil and suffering must originate elsewhere. To exonerate God from the evil and suffering evident inthis world, human sinfulness had to be made into the root cause of all that had turned wrong. Thistheological compromise by the Pauline faction necessitated the internalizing of evil and suffering asindividual guilt and sin.Thus, some of the Christian ‘mysteries and paradoxes’ appear to be the result of the attempts to absorb thetheological variety that existed during the second century into a compromise creed. By maintainingelements of the theology of the contending factions, the predecessors of ‘orthodoxy,’ forged an appealing(although tension-ridden) theological compromise. This forging process embedded tensions anddissonances in the tradition. Centuries of theological work were required to craft harmonizing formulasthat would accommodate the diverse components of the Via Media. 191 Ignatius Introduction The Adversaries SummaryIntroduction+Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch, the hub of Roman Syria, at the dawn of the second century.634 It isspeculated 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 ofthem 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 affinitieswere not Jewish, was a triumph for the Gentiles in the Antiochene community635- a community that wouldhave been initially Law-observant. His ascent to the episcopate, probably during the first decade of thesecond 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 Gentilesympathizers.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 claimsthat his strand of belief in Jesus (‘Christianity’) should be the foundational faith, not the beliefs andtraditions of the founding fathers. Although the decline of the Jewish followers of Jesus as theacknowledged guardians of Jesus’ legacy was a reality by the mid second century, the influence of theJewish followers of Jesus was never fully eradicated.637Ignatius emphasized Jesus’s death and resurrection (not his life and ministry), advocated unity, churchauthority and hierarchy,638 and strove for the de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus639—a cluster of themesassociated with the Pauline faction. Insistence on unity and hierarchy, an Ignatian maxim, becamecharacteristic 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 unequivocalnegative tone toward the character, traditions and beliefs of the founding fathers. Tradition has praised thefigure 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,’ adevotional inclination to praise and seek suffering and martyrdom.Ignatius invites martyrdom, welcomes death, requests fellow believers in Rome not to intercede on hisbehalf (Rom. 2), and argues that martyrdom allows believers to attain unity with God (2.1– 2). In Romans4, he predicts and welcomes his death by wild beasts during the games at Rome - providing us with one ofthe 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 isastonishing, inhumane.Ignatius’s journey to martyrdom is odd in that it is cast, in the letters assigned to him, as a triumphantjourney 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 itfit the journey of a convict through the brutal pipeline that supplied victims for the spectacles at theRoman capital. The leisurely and almost regal transit of Ignatius through the cities of Asia Minor defieswhat we know about the inhumane conditions of the Roman penal apparatus. This leads me to speculatethat the letters were composed (or heavily edited) by a supporter or admirer, rather than by Ignatiushimself. [+pg 198]The AdversariesThroughout his letters, Ignatius champions the Pauline tenets against those insisting that true faith must beaffiliated with the traditions and customs of the Jewish founding fathers, and against Docetic believers thatrejected 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 andHebrews, 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 theirpresence over the scene. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers are being marginalized, butremain an ever-present shadow.As Paul, Hebrews, and Barnabas confronted the influence of the founding faction among Gentilebelievers, so did Ignatius of Antioch, decades later. Following an already established tradition, Ignatiusdoes not target the descendants of the founding fathers explicitly. Rather, his arrows are aimed at theirinfluence among their Gentile sympathizers. The immediate offenders are Gentile members of thecommunity 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 pioneeringwork 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 contendthat anti-Jewish polemic reflects the response of ecclesiastical leaders to attraction to Judaism and toadherence to Jewish customs by certain Gentiles within their own communities.641 Their analysis emergesfrom the meta-narrative that places emphasis on the conflict with, or attraction to, Judaism. I suggestthroughout that some Gentiles would be attracted to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followersdue to the fact that they were the original, and therefore authoritative, guardians of his legacy (not onaccount of an attraction Judaism).642 Attraction to Judaism should be viewed as the outcome, not thecause, 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 withthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, to some that eventually converted to Judaism. InWilson’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.643Wilson’s articulation of the context seems to indicate that the attraction to Judaism was the core issue atstake, an analysis I disagree with. To me, for the most part, attraction to Judaism was a consequence of theGentile yearning for recognition as rightful followers of Jesus. The descendants of the founding fathersexpected Torah observance from Gentile converts. Furthermore, Judaizing behavior was a naturalconsequence of the fact that the founding fathers were Jewish, and should not be seen as reflective ofattraction to Judaism per se. To most scholars, the segment ‘For if we continue to live until now accordingto Judaism we confess that we have not received grace’ (Magn. 8: l) is a reflection of the ‘conflict betweenJudaism and Christianity.’ To me, it is a reflection of Ignatius’ opposition to the influence of opponentswithin the Jesus movement, who were Jewish.The Letter to the Philadelphians – In the Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius’s opponents are Gentilebelievers in Jesus with varying degrees of affiliations and affinities with the descendants of Jesus’s disciplesand first followers. The danger that he warns against comes from within the Jesus movement—not fromwithout. In an enigmatic segment, a ‘mind-twister,’ we seem to have two gradations of adversaries, oneidentified 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 Judaismto 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 oneuncircumcised.’ Than to hear Gentiles advocate Judaism.In other words, Ignatius is fighting the influence of the descendants of the Jewish founders over theGentile rank and file by rejecting proselytizing by Gentiles that are promoting Torah observance orJudaizing behavior among fellow Gentiles. He seems to recognize (grudgingly) the existence and thelegitimacy of the Jewish faction, but rejects Gentiles that sympathize with them. In another crypticsegment, 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)645My interpretation:‘For I heard certain persons saying, what I do not find in the ‘Hebrew Scriptures,’ (The charters) I believeit not in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written (in the Hebrew Scriptures), they answered meThat 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 tobe 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 shouldgive up their Jewish ways.’646 It is also possible that Gentile sympathizers with the descendants of Jesus’sdisciples and first followers, who transgressed the boundaries between church and synagogue andsometimes defected permanently, blurred the distinction between the parties, causing confusion and a crisisof identity.647The Letter to the Magnesians - Ignatius’s zeal causes him to overreach and make seemingly bizarre andincoherent 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 foundingfaction, and their claim that belief in Jesus should be grounded in Judaism. It seems that in the secondsentence Ignatius attempted (ineptly) an early articulation of a claim put forward by future Paulinesthroughout the centuries. Namely, that the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders (‘Judaism’) werereplaced and superseded by Ignatius’ version of belief in Jesus (‘Christianity’), and that the main purpose ofJewish history and lore was to anticipate and announce the advent of the Pauline interpretation of Jesusministry.648 That seems to be the intent behind the seemingly incoherent argument ‘After all, Judaismbelieved in Christianity, not Christianity in Judaism.’649In 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 wouldunderstand the implied message: Pauline believers in Jesus are God’s New chosen. The Jewish faction, andJudaism, are no longer God’s people.On the other hand, in Trallians, Smyrnaeans, and Ephesians Ignatius battles adversaries that areDocetists650- highlighting the fact that Ignatius was fighting non-Pauline believers within the Jesusmovement, and pointing to the internal focus of his concerns. Ignatius, like Justin and Tertullian, isengaged in a debate about Judaism, not in a debate with Judaism. Overall, Ignatius letters seem tocorroborate our suspicion that his targets are Jews within the Jesus movement (not Judaism).651Ignatius – Summary+The unity of the church, on which Ignatius harps so much, is seen as an essential link in what we may callthe chain of ontological validation.652 Ignatius left all other forms of belief in Jesus outside the periphery ofinclusion, and made them into heretics. This protective barrier stood firm for almost two thousand yearsand is the precursor of Eusebius’s later myth about the Christian origins. Ignatius’s relentless insistence onunity 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 thehierarchical structure that claimed to originate in Jesus and flow through his disciples to the church.653With Ignatius, the Pauline drive to demote the Jewish faction enters its overt phase. For Ignatius and hisfollowers, 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 afuture projection onto normative Judaism. Although for Ignatius and for his followers the struggle forlegitimacy, 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 theJudeo-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 overJudaism onto normative Judaism. [+pg 202] 197 Justin The Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Appropriation and Supersession The Adversaries My JustinJustin was born, ca. 100 ce, of Pagan parents in Flavia Neapolis (Shechem) in Samaria. It seems that he wasconverted at Ephesus. He founded a school in Rome during the reign of Antoninus Pius, who ruled from138 to 161.654 He was more or less a contemporary of Marcion and his best-known opponent. After anextended and active ministry, Justin was tortured and executed under the Roman prefect Junius Rusticus(162–168).The Dialogue with Trypho the JewThe Dialogue teaches us that during the mid-second century, the debate about Judaism and about allegianceto the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers was still center stage. Even though Paul is nevermentioned or quoted, Justin clearly stands within the ‘Pauline’ tradition. However, compared to Paul andIgnatius, Justin is reluctantly tolerant toward Gentiles not committed to the Pauline understanding ofJesus’s legacy. The debate about Justin’s audience will not subside any time soon. Most modern scholarsallow for various possible target audiences and purposes. A number of possible constituencies have beenchampioned. The intended audience seems to be Gentiles that, Justin fears, may succumb to the lure of theJewish faction. Justin is aware that some Gentile believers were so attached to the descendants of thefounding fathers that they did eventually abandon ‘their faith in Christ.’ Some Gentiles strayed beyond thelimits 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 broadercontext of Justin’s context, ministry and literary work. Despite the fact that the Dialogue seems to be castas a debate with Judaism, Justin’s dominance over the ‘debate,’ the bias in favor of the author’s views, theweak arguments allowed to Thrypo, its obvious function as a rhetorical ploy - Justin’s other apologetictreatises, and the nuanced depictions of followers of Jesus enumerated above do not favor a scenariowhere 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 againstMarcion and against the influence of the Jewish faction suggesting that he saw himself holding the middleground between these two interpretations of Jesus’s legacy, that the context was internal, and that he wasnot concerned about the influence of external Judaism. Rather than a dialogue with Judaism, the text seemsto address a more immediate, existential, and internal concern: the sway that the founding fathers exertedover 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 andrudimentary in Jewish matters to address an audience that would include Jewish followers of Jesus orJews—as claimed by many.657 Although Justin is sufficiently informed about Judaism to present a crediblecase to a non-Jewish (and therefore less versed in Jewish lore) audience - his knowledge and arguments aretoo simplistic and stereotypical to be effective on a Jewish one. The Dialogue is a debate between a Paulineand 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 strugglewith the Jewish faction (Dial. 47:2–3). Justin is also unique in acknowledging the existence of a range, and avariety, of attitudes toward the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish founders. It seems that Justin viewedGentile believers, who observed Jewish customs, as misguided rather than as apostates (Dial. 47:2–4). Thatis, he considers them as ill-advised members of the church but members nonetheless, and deems themworthy of being saved (Dial. 47:4).658 Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction are personified in theDialogue by Trypho’s friends. They are described as ‘those wishing to become proselytes’ (23:3) and ‘thefearers of God’ (10:4). Of the defectors, he says vaguely that they abandoned their ‘Christian’ commitment‘for some reason or another.’659Later 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 embryonicin the Synoptics, seems to have become a persistent tradition: Paulines were true Christians, other believersin 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 inJesus despite rejecting the observance of central traditions associated with Jesus and with his earlyfollowers. Gradually, the frustration related to the non-realization of this yearning seems to have ledsecond and third generation Paulines to demand the exclusive guardianship of Jesus’ legacy, requiringsubstantial appropriation-incorporation of the identity and of the religious heritage of Jesus' Jewishfollowers. These Pauline scholars and community leaders concluded that they should affirm that Gentilebelievers could not reject the religious narrative of the Jewish founders (as argued by Marcion and most ofthe 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 astrategy 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 clearlyPauline and it did become a cornerstone of the emerging Pauline orthodoxy and the apological effortassociated with it.660 As it relates to the Jewish facet of Justin’s interests, many of the themes that willpopulate 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 systematicdeployments of the arguments for the replacement of ‘Judaism’ (the beliefs and traditions of the foundingfathers) by ‘Christianity’ (Pauline belief in Jesus) in a format accessible to all.662 We have encounteredearlier supersessionists (Barnabas and Hebrews) whose arguments resonate with Justin’s, but he fashionedthe first accessible argumentation of substance. ‘The law, explains Justin, has no permanent value, but wasgiven by God as a temporary measure to restrain the sinfulness of the Jews… the fact that this law wasinferior and is now obsolete reflects badly, not on the God who decreed it of old, but on the people forwhom it was decreed.’663 In other words, according to Justin, the Law, Torah observance, and Judaism, therocks on which the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers stand, are no rocks at all. [+pg 204] 200The AdversariesThe unique role that the descendants of the founding fathers and their Gentile sympathizers (GentileJudaizers) played in this saga has been recently re-discovered and re-cognized. Murray identified664 in Justinfour 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 theintended 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 synagoguesof the Jewish faction (where Jesus would be exalted) would be a more obvious and emphatic choice forworship 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 andChristians over Gentiles was an important context for the Dialogue cannot be convincingly demonstratedfrom the text…’665 nor from the context of authorship, it is plausible to assume that the synagogues andthe communities of the Jewish followers of Jesus are the setting where the Judaizing that concerns Justin isadvocated and promoted.Justin’s description of, and engagement with, different types and degrees of Gentile affiliations with theJewish faction is further indication that his concern was Judaism within, not without. Significantly, forJustin, Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish camp are dissidents, and may be saved, but all other Gentilenon-proto-orthodox believers (Gnostics and Marcionites) are heretics. Justin’s Dialogue is reflective of hisconcern to draw Gentile believers from the influence of the Jewish faction. Thus, Justin’s ultimateadversaries seem to be some among the Jewish faction who attract Gentile believers and ‘compel’ them toobserve Jewish practices.666 201My Justin+Why would Justin argue with ‘Jews’ whether or not Jewish customs and traditions should be embraced byGentile believers in Jesus—unless the Jews in question are the Jewish faction and the core contention isabout identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy within the Jesus movement? Traditional scholarship667 assertedthat Justin battles Gentiles attracted to Judaism. Traditionally, the texts of this period have been read asreflective of a ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’ I differ. In my view, the later externalization ofthe conflict obscures the fact that early Pauline believers were battling adversaries that were Jewish, notJudaism without. Justin is concerned about attraction to the descendants to the founding fathers—notattraction to Judaism per se. To me, at the time of authorship, the setting and the socio-theological contextseem 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 Gentilesympathizers, and follow the Jewish law. He accepts these Gentile Judaizers as legitimate members of theecclesiastical community.668 Justin’s position in this matter makes sense only if the Gentile sympathizersthat follow the Jewish law do so within fellowship with the Jewish followers of Jesus. The yearning forfellowship 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 toanti-Jewish attitudes among members of the early Church.669Reading Justin’s Dialogue in isolation tends to overemphasize the Jewish facet of his Apologetic efforts onbehalf 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 fathersand with differing Gentile believers.670 Justin’s concern with Jewish influences among his flock and withdiffering Gentile believers resonate with Ignatius’ and Tertullian’s. Justin’s and Tertullian’s apologiesagainst ‘the Jews’ and against Marcion reflect the fact that throughout the first three centuries the Paulineconfrontation with the descendants of the Jewish founders paralleled and mirrored confrontations withother 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 inthe previous chapters. As the crusade of the Pauline faction for ascendancy enters into high gear, so doesthe 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 toPauline 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 disadvantagehimself.’672 Compared to what is to come, Justin is relatively civil and urbane. His rejection and belittling ofthe character, traditions and beliefs of his opponents is persistent and sustained, but compared with hismore 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 andarticulate, fails his title and presents us with a tendentious and condescending document. The Dialogue isbest 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 itshorizon beyond the Jesus movement.As far as the reaction of mainstream Judaism is concerned, we can’t say much. It is probable that at somepoint 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 theemergence of a ‘conflict between Judaism and Christianity.’ However, that conflict would be aconsequence, a projection, of the internal strife within the Jesus movement - not an originating cause, asargued by most. 203 The Post-Canonical Era – Summary+Attempting to navigate through the first centuries of belief in Jesus is an endeavor fraught with lowvisibility and unstable ground – a daunting challenge exacerbated by the defenses that protect the bastionsof 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 theintent 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 addresseeswould know who the intended adversaries were, their identity is most often implied – rather than clearlystated. Furthermore, once we internalize, any think through, the fact that belief in Jesus arose out of aninternal struggle among believers with differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and dissonant inclinationsand affiliations - many otherwise mystifying puzzles, and previously elusive phenomena emerge from thefog 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 agreethat within 250 years of Jesus’s birth 10–15 percent of the population of the Roman Empire was affiliatedto 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 theprevious century gradually coalesced into proto-factions and then into factions. The degree of doctrinalcohesion of these groups is unknown and may have been minimal. The situation ‘on the ground’ was, mostprobably, characterized by great fluidity, variety, and instability. As attested by the texts surveyed in thismonograph, confusion and chaos were rampant. It appears that local variants and improvisation were therule. It seems that, at first, belief in Jesus was very much a local affair with some degree of coordinationamong 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 percentbasic literacy, 38 only 1–2 percent of the people could articulate and sustain an intellectual argument. Mostwere followers with daily and mundane concerns and interests and their allegiance was grounded on localaffiliations, on emotional inclinations, and on personal ties. It is probable that the founding faction, havinga 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 variantswithin Gnosticism are so diverse that the use of the term has been under attack. The Paulines, the fourthfaction, were characterized by great flux, anxiety, and confusion. The theological compromise theychampioned, 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) asgood and necessary. Unity, it was hoped, would weed out some of the more extreme variants and wouldbring some respectability and acceptance by Roman society.Throughout the ages, great symbolism was attached to the destruction of the Temple. Yet, the last decadesof the twentieth century witnessed a shift of interest and emphasis from the traditional focus on the JewishWar and the destruction of the temple (70 CE),674 to the impact of the Bar Kochba revolt (135 CE).675 TheJewish War had great impact on Pauline lore due to the fact that the Gospels, and most of the canonicaltexts, 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 Kochbarebellion was likely to have been more traumatic for Jewish-Christian relations.’676The view that Roman victory in the Jewish War of 70 CE did little to quell Judean nationalism and that thequest for Judean liberation continued throughout the period preceding the Bar Kochba uprising, is nowwidely accepted. The initial success of the Bar Kochba revolt was due to the fact that Roman occupationstrategy was based on a limited presence of military forces in the provinces, and on stationing the bulk oftheir forces in the regional capitals. As the insurgents gained the upper hand against the small Romangarrisons stationed in Judea, they misjudged and over-estimated their initial success, igniting a misguidedfrenzy of nationalistic and messianic fervor. However, once challenged, the Romans inflicted extraordinarydevastation 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 mostthe 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, hisdisparaging nickname in Jewish sources, was later repudiated as a false messiah due to the decimationbrought about by his liberation campaign. From Bar Kochba forward, the Jewish religious establishmentintensified its traditional opposition to any attempt to challenge the Roman occupation and to incitemessianic fervor. The breakdown in Jewish-Roman relations following the Bar Kochba rebellion seems tohave been severe, but brief.678The decimation of the strongholds of the Jewish followers in Judea during the revolt and the Romanretaliation may have accelerated the second ‘parting of the ways,’ between the remnant of the Jewishfollowers of Jewish and the growing Gentile majority. The emphasis is on ‘accelerated’ for there is nodoubt that the demographic shift toward a Gentile majority would have led, sooner or later, to aconfrontation about legitimacy, ascendancy and identity in the Jesus movement given that the movementwas becoming increasingly Gentile. The appointment of Gentile bishops in Jerusalem and Antiochepitomizes this demographic shift.Anticipating the chapters ahead, we may recapitulate that whereas the descendants of Jesus’s disciples andfirst 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 thesecond and third centuries, Gentile believers in Jesus will gradually achieve some theological definition andclarity - it may be said that for Gentile believers, identity, doctrine, and theology matured as a by-productof the struggle over legitimacy and ascendancy.As to our focus, the evolution of Jewish-Gentile relations, the period between the second to the fourthcentury may be described as an intermediate stage when anti-Jewish polemic becomes ingrained in thecultural fabric of Pauline communities and expands to multiple friction points. This is a transitional stagewhen undifferentiated anti-Jewish attitudes and expressions become prevalent as the result of persistentand increasingly authoritative anti-Judaic rhetoric. During this phase the internal conflict between thefounding 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 betheologically embarrassing. A scenario where the estrangement from the descendants of the Jewishfounding 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 obscuredand are neither obvious, nor plain to see. We would expect that the mere existence of these phenomenawould barely percolate through the protective membrane of dogma. Precisely the situation we encounter. 206Chapter 6 *Theology Gone Awry Introduction Melito Chrysostom SummaryIntroduction+Melito and Chrysostom, cherished and prominent leaders and theologians, wrote the extreme anti-Jewishtexts showcased in this chapter. These texts are part of a long list of virulent polemical texts authored byChristian leaders (Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos, Eusebius’ Evangelical Demonstration, Aphrahat’sHomilies, and Augustin’s Adversus Iudaeos - just to name the better known)679 that facilitated and enabledthe 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, arenot windows into marginal minds, nor the creation of fringe elements within Pauline thinking. Rather, thetexts 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-Jewishsentiment became endemic and extreme. It infected large segments of the clergy and laity during a periodthat will eventually span seventeen hundred years. These writers were the third and more virulent wave inthe confrontation, within the Jesus movement, between the Torah-observant followers of Jesus and theGentile followers of Paul. These texts did not appear on the scene unannounced; they were ushered-in bythe circumstances and by the texts authored during the first century. The gradual polemical turn amongPauline 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 andblunt.We will see that by Chrysostom’s lifetime (347–407 CE) the projection of the conflict onto Judaism, thatbecome 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 weencountered 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’ ofHebrews and Barnabas. 208 Melito Introduction Theology Deicide My MelitoIntroduction+Melito, c a. 120–185 ce, lived through the long reign of Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161–180 ce). We havenoted that, at the time, the Jesus movement was struggling with multilateral strife and multi-dimensionalchaos within. It was also facing growing and intensifying Roman persecution. Eusebius portrays Melito as aQuartodeciman680 ‘who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit’ (Hist. eccl. 5.24). Most of Melito’s writings havebeen lost, except for a fragment from his Apology, which was addressed to the emperor, and the PeriPascha681 —authored ca. 170 CE. As a Quatrodeciman, Melito would be suspect of ‘Judaizing,’ leading himto 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 andpolitical dimensions is firmly entrenched. 683Melito is clearly and unabashedly part of the third phase of our journey; his attack against Jews and againstJudaism is undifferentiated and unrestrained. The Peri Pascha (On Pascha) is an exercise in extremedemagoguery and unrestrained maliciousness embedded in mediocre argumentation and superb literaryskills. Regardless of who were the intended adversaries, the language deployed has all the characteristics oflater anti-Semitic incitement. Written during the second half of the second century, this text is the mostextreme rampage against Jews and against Judaism by a Gentile believer authored during the first twocenturies. 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 effortsto 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.684Wilson concludes that ‘no distinction is made between leaders and people, or between Palestinian andDiaspora Jews—as in some earlier writings, nor apparently between Jews of the past and the present. Thecrime is the crime of all Jews, past and present.’685 With Melito we are well into the third phase of theevolution of the anti-Jewish trajectory. 209Nothing can prepare the reader for the unrelenting denigration and incitement that permeate most of thislong homily (105 sections, 804 segments). Reading Melito’s Peri Pascha anticipates, and renders imitativeand derivative, the worst anti-Semitic literature of the Middle Ages and of the modern era. However, as weenter our time capsules and travel to the time, and to the circumstances that originated this text, we mustacknowledge that we know little about the impact that this text may have had at the time.686Deicide in the Peri Pascha+Melito, Bishop of Sardis and a church father, is the first Pauline writer to make an unambiguous accusationof deicide: the murder of God. The notion that ‘the Jews’ past, present, and future are responsible for thedeath 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 travestystretch back to the canonical Passion narratives that originated in pre-Synoptic strands or in Mark’screative mind - prior to Melito, no one had converted the implied or explicit accusations of responsibilityfor the death of Jesus into the ‘Jewish responsibility for the death of God.’ For Melito, ‘the Jews’ areculpable 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 wineand ate bread, but he vinegar and gall; you wore a happy smile, but he had a sadcountenance; you were full of joy, but he was full of trouble; you sang songs, but hewas judged; you issued the command, he was crucified; you danced, he was buried; youlay 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 Lordinto 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 nationsworshipped, and the uncircumcised admired, and the foreigners glorified, over whomPilate washed his hands. But as for you—you killed this one at the time of the greatfeast.94. Pay attention, all families of the nations, and observe! An extraordinary murder hastaken place in the center of Jerusalem, in the city devoted to God’s law, in the city ofthe Hebrews, in the city of the prophets, in the city thought of as just. And who hasbeen murdered? And who is the murderer? I am ashamed to give the answer, but giveit I must. For if this murder had taken place at night, or if he had been slain in a desertplace, it would be well to keep silent; but it was in the middle of the main street, eveninthe center of the city, while all were looking on, that the unjust murder of this justperson took place.96. The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed theheavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himselffirmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King ofIsrael has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.97. O frightful murder! O unheard of injustice! The Lord is disfigured and he is notdeemed 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 hidethe naked person hanging on the tree, darkening not the body of the Lord, but the eyesof men.99. Why was it like this, O Israel? You did not tremble for the Lord. You did not fearfor 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 yourgarments for your own who were murdered. You forsook the Lord; you were notfound by him. You dashed the Lord to the ground; you, too, were dashed to theground, 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 thePauline 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 thewritings of this second-century bishop, we must ask ourselves: since Melito is an example of a large literarycorpus of vicious anti-Jewish literature, do we know and understand the circumstances that would explainthe emergence of this kind of texts? What was the socio-theological and emotional context within whichthis type of incitement would be part of the religious services of a community of believers? Can we imaginecircumstances when a religious leader would read this kind of text to ‘edify’ his flock?688 What washappening 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 areindefensible 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 emergingedifice 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 thedescendants of the founding fathers) lost its value; it no longer served a function.690 For Melito, asexpressed in the Peri Pascha, God loved only ‘Christians’ (Pauline believers); the church now has thehonored position that once had belonged to ‘the Jews,’ the descendants of the Jewish founders.691My Melito+It is possible that by Melito’s time, the distinction between Judaism and the descendants of the foundingfathers had already faded. The fusion and the confusion of these two groups in the hearts and minds ofPauline believers may have already become deeply-rooted and entrenched. Although at the time ofauthorship the socio-theological background and the context do not yet support attacks on ‘externalJudaism,’ we are clearly crossing over into the inter-religious arena. In the Peri Pascha, the bias against thedescendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and their Gentile sympathizers is fully externalized andprojected onto ‘the Jews.’ It is unclear whether this blurring of identities, which has accompanied usthroughout, is intentional and conscious, an attempt to veil the theologically embarrassing demotion of thedescendants 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 theJesus movement to attacks on Judaism came about: deep resentment toward adversaries that were Jewishgradually morphed into vicious attacks on Jews and Judaism. We have witnessed that deep resentmenttowards adversaries who were Jews and a deep emotional ambivalence and theological dissonance relatedto the rejection of Jesus' religious beliefs - gradually morphed into a vicious polemic against the Jews andagainst Judaism. This oversimplification of the complex trajectory that we have explored, highlights animportant point: religiously sanctioned incitement can become integral to the cultural and emotional fabricof 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 centuryunrestrained 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, thefruits of the anti-Jewish strand. Some scholars have argued that Melito’s oratorical success may haveblurred his judgment, that his language skills facilitated contrasts and denunciations that were bolder thanhe might otherwise have created. Nonetheless, we cannot but see a pattern: Melito was part of a sequenceof 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 profounddismay and rage. 213 Chrysostom Introduction The Sermons The Context My ChrysostomIntroduction+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 theempress Eudoxia and the plots of Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria. His courage in the face ofpersecution and abuse, his devotion to his flock, and the nobility of his death quickly caught theimagination of Christians... the reverence bestowed on him as a saint of the church has obscured thememory of his earlier years when he was a presbyter in Antioch. John’s sermons are not only acompendium of many of the themes that emerged in the Christian anti-Jewish phenomenon, they have alsohad an enormous influence on later attitudes toward the Jews.693Chrysostom’s anti-Jewish homilies ‘not only marked an important moment in the Church’s polemicsagainst Judaism, but they seem to have exercised an influence which went far beyond any specific occasionor local situation.’694 John’s popularity as a preacher, his mastery of the Greek language, and his incendiarystyle 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 andexaggeration695 are the hallmarks of Chrysostom’s sermons against Gentile believers that were attracted tothe beliefs and traditions of the founding faction. Chrysostom advocates extreme measures to contain theinfluence 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 theeffort to sever the influence that the descendants of the founding fathers had over some among hiscongregation: 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)699John’s rampages are lucid, engaging, and demonstrate great ability, but they aim for the visceral, not for thelogical, spiritual, or theological core of his constituency. Chrysostom’s attacks are mostly tactical, notstrategic. In other words, they are sophisticated incitement. They aim to inflame by pandering to the lowestinstincts. [+pg 220] 216The ContextCalled ‘the most horrible and violent denunciations of Judaism to be found in the writings of a Christiantheologian,’700 the eight anti-Jewish sermons targeted Gentiles in John’s congregation who worshipped atsynagogues. Although the audience would know who are the ‘Jews’ being targeted, Chrysostom does notunequivocally identify ‘the Jews’ that attract his congregants: Jewish non-believers in Jesus, the Jewishfollowers of Jesus, Gentile sympathizers with Judaism, or Gentile sympathizers with the foundingfaction.701Many modern scholars see Gentile sympathizers with Judaism as the focus of John’s ire. There is a wideconsensus that supports the identification of the target audience as Gentiles. Besides context, somestatements 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 andself-criticism, and the Judean tradition of sectarian anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric, are appropriated toerode the influence of the founding faction. Chrysostom is quite explicit in recognizing that the biblicalprophets 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 synagoguesof the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers attracted Gentile sympathizers, to the inclusion ofsome among Chrysostom’s flock.704 John’s ire originates in his rage at congregants that embrace hisopponents’ 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 incendiarysermons, we face the same questions that we have considered throughout our journey: was it a conflictwith 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 andlegitimacy inherent in the founding fathers?John’s career started in Antioch, a city with a long connection to the Jewish faction and their mostimportant stronghold outside of Judea. We have seen that two centuries earlier Ignatius, bishop ofAntioch,705 chastised Gentiles in his community who were attracted to the beliefs and customs of theJewish faction (Magn. 8.1–2; Phil. 6.1). It is clear from the content and context of John’s sermons thatthree centuries later the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers among Gentile congregantsremained a challenge. During the third and fourth centuries, the declining but still powerful influence ofthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers706 called into question the truth of the Paulineinterpretation of Jesus’ ministry. Chrysostom and the Apostolic Constitutions corroborate that the beliefsand traditions of the founding fathers continued to attract rank-and-file Gentiles in Antioch, well throughthe fourth century - a fact that infuriated John beyond civility.707From Chrysostom we learn that some members of his congregation saw no problem in participating inservices and ceremonies at local synagogues, most probably at the synagogues of the Jewish followers ofJesus (where Jesus was venerated) rather than at ‘regular’ synagogues (where followers of Jesus would berejected). Chrysostom attempts to draw the line between ‘us’ and ‘them’ but it is obvious that somecongregants yearned for fellowship with the founding faction and saw no problem in participating in bothforms of worship.I place John’s sermons at the end of the excruciating and protracted ‘religious civil war’ that engulfed theJesus movement for at least three hundred years. Whether Chrysostom is aiming at Gentile sympathizerswith Judaism or with the Jewish faction, there is growing support for the view that his eight anti-Jewishsermons 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 persistentinfluence 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 aresentful and vicious debate about Judaism among believers in Jesus, not a conflict with it. In Chrysostom’sresentful, defensive, and abusive homilies the externalization-projection of resentment toward adversariesthat were Jews onto all Jews is seemingly complete. The projection of the intra-religious abuse that weencountered 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 beyondthe Jesus movement and I suspect that the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers is thecause 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, arenot windows into marginal minds. Their writings reflect how many, if not most, Pauline-orthodox religiousleaders thought and preached. During his tenure at Constantinople, the epicenter of the Eastern Empire ata time when Rome and the West were beginning the descent into the dark ages, John was second to thePope 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 ofdenigration, incitement, and persecution that took hold of the orthodox mindset. With Chrysostom, wehave 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 awide-ranging spectrum of theological and pastoral issues not discussed here.710 219Despite the obvious importance of Chrysostom’s writings, these disturbing sermons have attractedrelatively little attention from scholars. Some modern scholars seem to find refuge in stressing that ancientsthrived on visceral clashes and often cling to the ‘bad apples syndrome;’ acknowledging the existence ofrotten trees while refusing to see the forest. Indeed, ancients could be vicious. However, neither ancientnor turn-of-the-era religious texts were permeated by denigration and vilification of other religioustraditions with the intensity and the pervasiveness that we encounter in the lore of the Pauline faction. Noris 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 theabsence of the Pauline ascendancy.However, the fact that views like John’s won out is significant for it shaped attitudes and emotions aboutJudaism.711 Chrysostom’s vicious bias is undistinguishable from later anti-Jewish tractates in either contentor intensity. From here onward, and until the early twentieth century, unrestrained anti-Judaism willbecome 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 ofhuman societies feast on the victims as the ever-silent majority looks away. Thankfully, hope and humandignity 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’sand Tertullian’s apologies against ‘the Jews’ and against Marcion. These texts reflect the fact thatthroughout the first three centuries the Pauline confrontation with the descendants of the Jewish foundersparalleled 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 thedefense of the ascending Pauline strand of belief in Jesus from Pagan influences among his flock. Hissermons against Gentile sympathizers with the descendants of the founding fathers came later, highlightingthe internal nature of his concerns. Throughout his career at Antioch Chrysostom unleashed his rageagainst 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 ofcenturies 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 beparaphrased 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 theethical 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, theclaim put forward in these texts—that a religious tradition spanning two thousand years is unworthy of itsheritage and is incapable of understanding its own inner meaning—could be smiled upon. However, theextraordinary 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 ofthe West. Thus, what from a first-century perspective seems outrageous, did eventually become normativeand 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 notauthored by marginal or renegade believers. Contrary to modern misperceptions, texts like Melito’s PeriPascha, Chrysostom’s homilies, and the vast Adversus Judaeos literature that followed,712 were not the productof marginal ‘bad apples,’ nor were they the unfortunate indiscretions of otherwise admirable churchleaders. It is crucial to internalize the fact that we have discussed authoritative works authored byindividuals that were the acknowledged leaders and trendsetters of their time—venerated by millions, theirtexts later read and revered throughout Christendom during almost two thousand years. Melito andChrysostom, 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 mostpowerful ecclesiastical position in Christendom. Melito was the bishop of Sardis, a cultural and economichub. 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 thepassage of time, will reach inconceivable scope and intensity. Contrary to earlier authors who areapologetic, in Melito and Chrysostom, anti-Judaism is normative and sacrosanct.Almost three hundred years after Mark’s seemingly inconsequential denigration of the disciples and thelaunch of the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif, we find the beliefs and traditions of those chosen by Jesus to bethe guardians of his legacy thoroughly discredited and freely abused. Under the ever-increasing escalationof the anti-Jewish strand, Jews are sinful and quasi-demonic—their lives deemed worthless. By the fourthcentury, the disparagement of Jews and of Judaism that originated in the drive to de-Judaize belief in Jesusreached endemic proportions.From here onward, with few exceptions, anti-Jewish incitement will ravage the souls, hearts, and minds ofGentile believers in Jesus. From here onward, a distinct genre of literature (Adversus Judaeos)713 willdisseminate and intensify anti-Jewish sentiment throughout Christendom. At this stage, the transition fromconjectural 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 ofChristendom’s rise is the darkest age of Judaism. From here onward full-blown anti-Judaism and its worstmanifestations 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, apre-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 theirwriting and the identity of the intended adversaries. Thus, even though to a literal reader these texts feelanti-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-Semiticinclinations. Given on narrow technical grounds, this exoneration must stand even though, enhanced byauthoritative 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 seecontinuity 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 SummaryIntroduction+I have noted that pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish strands have cohabited in the traditions of believers inJesus from the earliest years and have wrestled since for their minds, hearts, and souls. In the NewTestament, we encounter pro and anti-Jewish segments, themes, metaphors, parables, motifs, andtheological constructs - with a preponderance of the latter. In the New Testament, the Q and Mmaterials in Matthew714 and the Epistles of James and Jude, are the only explicitly pro-Jewish residues ofthe Torah observant lore of the early Jesus movement. Outside the New Testament these traditionssurface in The Didache, and the Pseudo-Clementine literature.715Anti-establishment and pro-establishment theologies cohabit the New Testament and the authoritativelore. Simplifying for the sake of clarity, we can say that anti-establishment theologies tend to surfaceamong sectarians and among the marginalized, the poor, the vanquished, and the suffering. Belief in thecoming end of times, dualism, retribution, vindication, and God’s eventual just judgment, are commonlyattested features of anti-establishment theologies. These are theologies of the discontent and themarginalized, 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 theologiesare generally associated with the mainstream, the fortunate, the successful, the socially connected, andthe powerful. These theologies tend to promote the belief that one’s fortune reflects God’s favor, andthe 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 apervasive 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 theJesus movement. It suggests that the Jewish-Christian saga originates in a conflict among followers of Jesuswith varying degrees of Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affinities, affiliations, and inclinations.Therefore, and contrary to traditional interpretations, Judaism, Gnosticism, and Paganism were notparticipants in this struggle. They were the subjects of a debate, (mostly) among Gentile believers - aboutwhat 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 aboutJudaism, 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 Jesusmovement included a Judeo-Gentile crisis, and an intra-Gentile crisis. I will argue that the polemic thataccompanies the Judeo-Gentile crisis in the Jesus movement, and is reflected in the New Testament has sixmain 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 theNew Testament texts. This complex evolutionary trajectory will challenge our ability to understand anddiscuss the emergence of polemical attitudes among early Gentile believers in Jesus. In the chaptersahead, these elements and variants will be introduced, and engaged in the context of Jewish-Gentilerelations in the early centuries. Throughout the texts we will survey, these elements will surface, andresurface 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 relationshipwas the central axis in the evolution of belief in Jesus. In addition, whereas the Judeo-Gentile crisisoriginated 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 theNew Testament, and thus had less impact on later believers. Throughout this survey, the theologicalramifications of these observations will arise, implicitly and explicitly.Furthermore, disputes about Jesus among Jews (was Jesus the messiah or not), disputes among differingfollowers of Jesus (was Jesus human, divine, or both), and disputes about what theological worldviewshould be adopted (Jewish, Pauline, Marcionite or Gnostic) lay fused and intertwined in the authoritativetexts.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 wehad lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them inshedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves, that you aresons 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 killand crucify, and some of whom you will scourge in your synagogues and persecutefrom 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 thiswill 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 broodunder 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 Iproceeded 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 hearmy 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 tothe fact there is no truth in him... He who is of God hears the words of God; thereason 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 HolySpirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fatherspersecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of theRighteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received thelaw 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 ofGod should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselvesunworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles’ ... and when the Gentilesheard this, they were glad. (Acts 13:46–48)And when [the Jews] opposed and reviled [Paul], he shook out his garments and saidto them, ‘Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go tothe 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 12:1–12Mark 12:13–17Mark 12:18–27Mark 12:28–34Mark 12:35–37aMark 12:37b–40Mark 14:2Mark 14:10–11Mark 14:43Mark 14:53–55Mark 14:64Mark 15:43Mark 15:3, 10, 11Mark 15:8, 11, 15Mark 15:38Mark 15:39Mark 15:29Mark 15:31, 38, 39Bias in MatthewMatthew 3:7b–10 Luke 3:7b–9Matthew 5:11–12 Luke 6:22–23Matthew 8:10 Luke 7:9; 13:28–29Matthew 11:16–19 Luke 7:31–35Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15Matthew 12:27–28, 30 Luke 11:19–20, 23Matthew 12:41 Luke 11:32Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35Matthew 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17Matthew 5:18, 11:12–13 Luke 16:16–17Matthew 15:14b Luke 6:39Matthew 11:20–24 Luke 10:12–15Matthew 12:42 Luke 11:31Matthew 23:37–39 Luke 13:34–35Matthew 19:28d Luke 22:30bMatthew’s Bias - Material Originating in MarkMatthew 7:29b Mark 1:22cMatthew 8:16–17 Mark 1:32–34Matthew 9:4 Mark 2:8Matthew 12:1–8 Mark 2:23–28 230Matthew 12:9–14 Mark 3:1–6Matthew 10:1–16 Mark 6:7; 3:13–19a; 6:8–11Matthew 16:53–58 Mark 6:1–6aMatthew 15:1–11, 15–20 Mark 7:1–23Matthew 16:5–12 Mark 8:14–21Matthew 21:33–46 Mark 12:1–12Matthew 22:15–22 Mark 12:13–17Matthew 22:34–40 Mark 12:28–34Matthew 22:41–46 Mark 12:35–37aMatthew 23:1–12(14) Mark 12:37b-40Matthew 24:1–51; 10:17–22a; 25:13–15Mark 13:1–37Matthew 26:1–5 Mark 14:1–2Matthew 27:1–2 Mark 15:1Matthew 27:11–23, 26 Mark 15:2–15Matthew 27:33–42, 44–56 Mark 15:22–41Bias in Matthew - His Use of Unidentified SourcesMatthew 1:1–17Matthew 1:18–25Matthew 3:1–6, 11–12Matthew 3:13–17Matthew 5:20–22, 27–28, 31–32a, 33–39, 43–44aMatthew 6:1–8, 16–18Matthew 10:23Matthew 12:17–21Matthew 12:34aMatthew 12:45cMatthew 15:12–14aMatthew 16:17–19; 18:18Matthew 21:31b–32Matthew 22:1–10Matthew 23:12, 15–33Matthew 23:34–36Matthew 27:24–25Matthew 27:43Matthew 27:62–66; 28:4, 11–15Luke’s Bias - Material Originating in MarkLuke 4:14–30 Mark 1:14–15; 6:1–6aLuke 5:17–26 Mark 2:1–12Luke 5:27–32 Mark 2:13–17Luke 5:33–35 Mark 2:18–20 231Luke 6:6–11 Mark 3:1–6Luke 11:14–23 Mark 3:22–30Luke 8:40–56 Mark 5:21–43Luke 11:37–41 Mark 7:1–23Luke 12:1 Mark 8:15Luke 16:18 Mark 10:1–12Luke 9:22; 9:44; 18:31b–33 Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34Luke 13:6–9; 19:45–48; 21:37–38Mark 11:12–25Luke 20:1–8 Mark 11:27Luke 20:9–19 Mark 12:1–12Luke 20:20–26 Mark 12:13Luke 20:27–40 Mark 12:18–27Luke 10:25–28 Mark 12:28–34Luke 21:5–36; 12:11–12; 12:40;17:23; 19:12–13Mark 13:1–37Bias in Luke - Own Material and in Unidentified SourcesLuke 1:5–23Luke 1:26–38Luke 1:39–45, 56Luke 1:68–79Luke 2:8–15Luke 2:34–35Luke 2:38Luke 2:46–47Luke 7:29–30Luke 10:29–37Luke 10:38–40Luke 11:27–28Luke 11:42–48, 52Luke 11:49–51Luke 11:53–54Luke 13:10–17Luke 13:31–33Luke 14:1–6Luke 14:7–24Luke 14:1–32Bias in Luke - Use of Q MaterialLuke 3:7b–9 Matthew 3:b–10 232Luke 6:22–23 Matthew 5:11–12Luke 6:26Luke 7:9 Matthew 8:10Luke 7:31–35 Matthew 11:16–19Luke 10:12–15 Matthew 11:20–24Luke 12:54–56 Matthew 16:2–3Luke 13:34–35 Matthew 23:37–39Luke 16:16–17 Matthew 11:12–13; 5:18Luke 22:1–2 Mark 14:1–2Luke 7:36–50 Mark 14:3–9Luke 22:3–6 Mark 14:10–11Luke 22:47–53 Mark 14:43Luke 22:54a, 63–65 Mark 14:53, 55–65Luke 23:2–5, 13–25 Mark 15:2–15Luke 23:33–49 Mark 15:22Bias in Luke – Material shared with ActsActs 2:1–47Acts 3:1–26Acts 4:1–31Acts 5:17–42Acts 6:8–8:3Acts 9:1–31Acts 10:1–11 12:1–24Acts 13:6–12Acts 13:14–52Acts 14:1–7Acts 14:19–20Acts 15:1–35Acts 17:1–9Acts 17:10–14Acts 17:16–17Acts 18:4–6Acts 18:12–17Acts 18:19–21Acts 18:28Acts 19:8–10Acts 19:11–20Acts 19:33–34Acts 20:1–3Acts 20:17–38Acts 21:11Acts 21:27–36Acts 22:30–23:10 233Acts 23:12–35Acts 24:1–27Luke 16:14–15Luke 16:19–31Luke 17:11–19Luke 17:20–21Luke 17:25Luke 18:9–14Luke 19:3–40Luke 19:41–44Luke 23:6–12Luke 23:27–31Luke 23:50b–51aLuke 24:6–8Luke 24:20Bias in John and the Johannine EpistlesJohn 1:1–18John 1:19–34John 1:35–51John 2:1–11John 2:13–22John 3:1–21John 3:25John 4:1–3John 4:4–42John 5:1–47John 6:1–71John 7:1–52John 7:53–8:11John 8:12–59John 9:1–41John 10:1–21John 10:22–39John 11:1–54John 12:9–11, 17–19John 12:42–43John 13:33John 15:18–25John 15:18–25John 16:2John 18:1–12John 18:13–23John 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, 7–81 Peter 2:9–10 235236Chapter 8 *Scholarship Introduction+ The pre-Holocaust mindset The post-Holocaust mindset Encountering Judaism anew AfterthoughtsIntroductionThe main meta-narratives that have been put forward to explain Christian anti-Judaism may besummarized as follows:Traditional theology: The Jews rejected Jesus and were responsible for his death. They forfeited God’sfavor 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 theirtransgressions. The tribulations of the Jews are a sign of their depravity. The tribulations of Christians wereseen as the martyrdom of the righteous.Modern theology: Most modern theologians posit multiple originating causes for the emergence ofChristian anti-Judaism. Positioning is nuanced and the relative importance of each element is highlycalibrated. 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 tosever the attraction to Judaism was the main thrust behind polemical attitudes among early Gentilebelievers 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 onthe hearts of believers, we will travel to the first half of the twentieth century, when many of today’sleading scholars and theologians were young students. By looking into what Christian theologians said atthe turn of the 20th century, prior to the emergence of modern theology, we will be able to gauge theimpact 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 authoredduring the first four centuries of belief in Jesus, let’s look at the impact (unintended by their authors) thatthese texts have had on attitudes toward Jews and toward Judaism among later believers in Jesus. Later, aswe engage the rhetoric against the Jewish followers of Jesus among early Gentile believers in Jesus, theanti-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 ofJudaism. Scholarship and theology were tools in the quest to maintain Christian hegemony.721 According totraditional Christian theology, the centuries between the Babylonian exile (sixth century BCE) and theemergence of Christianity were a period of decadence and decline for Judaism. Per this tendentiousnarrative, by the turn of the era, Judaism had become externalized and rigid. God had become distant andsecondary to ritual, and the prophetic message was forgotten. Judaism was accused of misunderstanding itsrole and its purpose. Destruction and exile were deemed just punishment. We may speak of polemicalattitudes that cast Judaism as a discarded, even corrupt, religious phenomenon - as opposed to spiritualChristianity that overshadowed it, and rendered it worthless.As we survey the views of early 20th century Christian theologians and scholars, on Jews and Judaism, wewill see that seldom do any of the authors refer to Jewish sources. Nor do they seem to be acquainted withthem. Pauline dogma was regarded, and internalized, as objective descriptions of the Jewish way of life, andof the Jewish religion. There is no hint of the actual position of The Law (The Torah)722 as man's gratefulresponse to the covenant, as the sanctification of daily life. Ignorance or prejudice, partly attributable to aliteralist reading of the Pauline epistles, blinded Christians to Judaism, as Jews know it. Theologiansaddressed the ‘Jewish problem’ as a question of obstinacy; the consequence of the arbitrary and culpablerejection of Jesus’ ministry, as understood by Pauline believers. These predispositions deflected believers inJesus from penetrating more deeply into the history of Judaism, into Jewish sources, or into living andenduring Judaism.Forty years ago, writing in the footsteps of G. F. Moore, Charlotte Klein reported on anti-Judaism amongChristian theologians.723 Klein’s report was sobering and disheartening. Let’s eavesdrop to what was beingtaught, 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 thewrath of God which is now hovering above them and will overwhelm them on the dayof retribution.’727Legalistic 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 recognizingthe absolute will of God. But men have defrauded themselves of this opportunity bytheir expansion of the precepts into a legal system.’729‘we cannot, of course, forget how heavily burdened this piety was with externals, withthe most trivial regulations and hairsplitting, with anxieties and doubts aboutceremonial, 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 ofthe great mass of the people itself —at the sight of religion frozen into ritualism, at thesight of superficiality and love of self and the world—Jesus’ message becomes a cry ofwoe and repentance.’731‘Legalistic piety was ‘mere appearance and the desires for which they struggled wereexclusively 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 ledto consequences which led right away from the authentic foundation of faith.’733‘Jewish piety ‘became hardened and rigid.’ It attached the greatest importance to ‘formsand externals’ and made no distinction ‘between minor and major matters in thelaw.’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,’ somethingthat the Jews had not been able to do, ‘since they had neither the strength nor thecourage to discard ritualism.’735 239The loss of God’s favor:‘There is an undercurrent of hostility to God running right through the history ofIsrael in the Old Testament from generation to generation. And it was finallyconcentrated in deadly hatred against him in whom God—who gives everything—pressed hard on Israel.’736Consequently, after His rejection the Lord of the vineyard would ‘come and destroythe tenants, and give the vineyard to others’ … This sentence … announced … thatwhat the prophets had threatened was now taking place in redemptive history, namely,the covenant people as such were being rejected.’737From then onward Israel’s political role lies in the fact that ‘the whole Old Testamentheritage passes over to the Church and above all in the fact that the completion of theChurch 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. Theirtragedy, indeed their guilt, consists in the fact that they do not regard themselves asprecursors and consequently are not prepared to be absorbed in the New when theNew appears.’739‘The Mosaic law was meant to prepare precisely for this righteousness through faith inChrist, so that in this sense Christ is not only the end but also the goal of the Mosaicreligion: with Christianity, the latter is abolished and transcended.’740‘The descent of the ‘Jews’ from Abraham and also their claim to be children of Godwould be proved if they were to believe. But they do not believe: they want to kill Jesusand therefore can have neither Abraham nor God as their Father.’ The sins of Israelagainst Jesus weighed heavily: ‘These are transgressions which touch the covenantrelationship 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 sensesthrough the fall from its former exaltation and through all its afflictions. Only becauseGod cannot forget his people … he chastises it harshly and often.’742For, ‘instead of remaining faithful to the true tradition of the saints of the OldCovenant, [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 theirown human efforts.’743Moral ruin and sinfulness:‘Jesus and his disciples lived in daily contact with a system of piety that was built on arational computation of the relation of man to God, and thereby set itself up overGod.’744‘Under such a burden it was impossible for a healthy moral life to flourish…. Foranyone who took it seriously life was a continual torment … And for anyone who hadbrought 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 notonly worthless appearance, but really spiritually ruinous.’746‘The study of the law ‘leads to sanctimoniousness and hardening of the heart; behindformal correctness worldly ambition and cupidity are concealed…. The traditions …often enough are in outright opposition to the law and force on it an interpretationwhich 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 forinward 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 otherpeople has fallen…. There is a cover over the rigid Torah and there is a cover overtheir hard hearts.’751 241‘The Jews’… ‘were bound to be upset by Christ, since he disturbed them in theirworldly thoughts and actions … Their uneasiness … grew into hatred against him.They decided to eliminate this disturber who frightened them out of their human wayof thinking, and they killed him.’752The Jews at heart do not seek God ‘but themselves,’ so that, ‘contrary to their ownknowledge and striving, they hate God.’753‘Hillel’s fine words about ‘loving mankind and bringing them nigh to the Law’ (Abolh1.12) are merely propaganda… ‘the individualism of Jewish piety culminates in thehope of recompense in the next world.’754‘the nature of Judaism as a religion of observance finds expression in the incapacity todistinguish the important from the unimportant, in the whole casuistic attitude, and finally inthe negative basic orientation’…’All this is linked with a certain lack of subjective truthfulnessand sincerity, a striving after externals and appearances.’755‘Jesus rejected the self-confident claim of the Jew to his own greatness and showedhim the hypocritical contradiction in which he became involved when he attempted tocover up his inward alienation from God by parading his veneration of the law and hisfidelity 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.’757The 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 mentallybut also corporeally.'758‘They rejected Jesus Christ. Consequently, they could no longer be partners in God'scovenant with men. By rejecting Christ, they abandoned their own history, the basis oftheir own existence as God's people. That is the reason why they themselves arerejected (Rom. 0.31-3; 11.7-10)’759‘…Nor are the sufferings of Jewry—as Jews frequently think—the consequence of thefulfillment 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 thattask which still faces it, by which... it is marked, which makes it seem like a foreignbody 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—apermanent call to decision for God. But Jewry suffers also because it has always failedto seize this task, by understanding it wrongly, refusing to fulfill it, or rejecting itoutright, 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 madeits Marks on them. But the Church also, if it takes the gospel seriously, must see in thisresistance the obstinacy and guilt which deprive them of salvation.’761Today’s Jews:'This therefore is the history of the Jews;' … 'every Jew bears upon him from hisfathers the light of God's presence. On every Jew the Marks of God's wrath isimprinted. 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 beabsorbed in other peoples... Consequently, it lives abandoned in the desert of theworld.... The whole torment of that first stay in the desert is constantly repeated inIsrael's history, now however without the grace of the continually new revelation andindeed now only kept together by one thing: the curse by which it is burdened and thehatred and aversion of the nations whose godless instincts make a scapegoat for theirown sins shamelessly and brutally out of this alien, unprotected people thrown by Godinto their midst.’763'The curse will accompany this people—reduced to a remnant— throughout historyand will call down one judgment after another on them, but one day it will come to anend.'764'The Jews reject him as a scandal to them even in the name of God. We could almostsay that a supernatural demonism is exercising its power in the hatred of this peopleagainst the true kingdom of God.’765‘Israel still lives, but, so to speak, on the lower plane of the promise and the law. Butthey [Jews today] are different from the Israel of the Old Testament, because they notonly did not enter on the plane of fulfillment, but are in opposition to it. AgainstChrist, they remain attached to the covenant with God eschatologically dissolved byChrist.’766 243The quotes above are from the most distinguished theologians from the late eighteenth to the earlytwentieth century and they reflect a centuries-long frenzy of anti-Judaism that took hold of Christiantheology, culture, and popular attitudes. As we will encounter and engage the rhetoric against the Jewishfollowers of Jesus that emerged, grew and festered in the canonical and in the authoritative lore – we willface 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 ‘ChristianWriters on Judaism,’ Moore stated that ‘Christian interest in Jewish literature has always been apologetic orpolemic rather than historical.’767 Unfortunately, Moore’s manifesto of 1921 did not resonate withcontemporaneous scholars and theologians and it remained an isolated call for change. The most notableexceptions 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 theJewish rejection of Jesus, of the Jewish loss of God’s favor, of a legalistic and morally inferior tradition, andof the responsibility for Jesus’ death770 - is on the defensive. New perspectives have been put forward andare the subject of intense debate. New paradigms have emerged out of an intense and fruitful scrutiny.771The competitive model - This view of the Jewish/Christian saga argues for the existence of a proselytizingstruggle between turn of the era Judaism and early Christianity.772 To a large extent, variants of this modelhave replaced the traditional view. This ‘conflict’ theory surfaced with Marcel Simon’s Versus Israel, one ofthe 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 bythe more aggressive and vigorous proselytizer; the result of hyper-competitiveness gone awry.773 Simon didcast 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 onJudaism 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.’774Like Harnack, Simon argued that Gentile attraction to Judaism during the first three centuries was theresult 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 fourthand fifth centuries CE, when Jewish missionaries became less militant, ‘the attractive power of Judaismdeclined.’775 Simon’s misperception originates in the bondage of mid-century scholarship to the Paulinenarrative that negates the natural and plausible attraction of some Gentile believers to the beliefs andtraditions 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 centuryJudaism as an active proselytizer, the competitive-conflict model has fueled the modern misperception ofthe 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 ofexcessive 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’778Simon’s competitive model did foster the unraveling of the traditional mindset. However, Simon remainedanchored in the anti-Jewish mindset, and described the actions and intentions of Jews in ethically loadedterms. 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 theirtradition against Christian preaching, the Jews ‘might sometimes have gone further than they weresupposed to do.’ The Jews gave assistance, ‘often in a very active and spiteful way’ to the Paganpersecutors.779At first, post Holocaust scholarship did embrace the competitive model to explain the impetus for theemergence of polemical attitudes among early Gentile believers. Hoping to explain and mitigate anti-Jewishprejudice, 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 aggressiveproselytizer could not be corroborated and collapsed under scholarly scrutiny. Unfortunately, by projectingonto turn of the era Judaism the combative and militant proselytizing zeal that has characterized Paulinessince 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 hasbeen minimized.The attraction to Judaism - The attraction of some turn of the era Gentiles and Pagans to Judaism isincreasingly viewed by many scholars as fueling the polemical fervor that is embryonic in the canonical loreand permeates the authoritative texts thereafter.780 This emphasis, a nuanced version of the competitivemodel, has gained momentum during the last decades of the 20th century and seems to be gaining groundagainst 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.’782I will question throughout whether the sympathy for Judaism among first and second century believers inJesus originates in attraction to Judaism (as claimed by most advocates of this view) or is the consequenceof the sway that the founding fathers of the Jesus movement had over new converts. This distinction isimportant in our attempts to decipher the origins and the impetus behind the anti-Jewish strand. For themost part, and acknowledging the existence of a marginal occurrence of Pagan and Gentile sympathy withJudaism, it seems to me that the apparent influence of Judaism among believers in Jesus was due to the factthat 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, notJudaism without. In other words, the preponderance of the evidence and the socio-theological contexthave lead me to the conclusion that attraction of some Gentile believers in Jesus to Judaism, was not themain cause behind the emergence of polemical attitudes among Gentile believers in Jesus. Anecdotalevidence for the attraction to Judaism is insufficient to explain the pervasive presence of polemicalattitudes 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 centuriesattempt to engage is internal; the influence of the descendants of the founding fathers among theircongregants. For the most part, the targets of their ‘anti-Jewish’ ire were Gentile sympathizers with theJewish faction who favored a greater affinity to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. TheJewish faction, self-segregated from these intra-Gentile debates, was the ultimate adversary. However, forthe most part, it seems that the founding faction was not an active participant in these debates, which tookplace (mostly) among Gentiles. [+pg 253]Encountering Judaism anewContemporaneous with the models discussed above, a new awareness of Judaism ‘as Jews-know-it’ hasstarted to percolate through the dogmatic membrane that has sustained the Pauline hegemony through theages. 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 andtendentious misrepresentations of Judaism. Sanders’ work signaled the rediscovery of ancient Judaism, orrather, its rediscovery by non-Jews. What most Jews have always known about their faith, many Christianscholars are acknowledging only lately. Sanders argues that Judaism must be understood from within itsown 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; thathe 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.’787However, the Torah is a ritual, behavioral and disciplinary pathway that assists individuals andcommunities 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.’790Among recent readers of Paul, no one has argued more vigorously for a new view of ancient Judaism thanE.P. Sanders. Following on the earlier work of George Foote Moore, W.D. Davies, and others, he hascoined the phrase ‘covenantal monism’ to describe the relationship between redemption and the Law inancient 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 persistentconception of Judaism as a religion of works-righteousness, (i.e., the notion that Jews thought ofthemselves 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.’793This critique by theologians and New Testament scholars became increasingly mainstream during thesecond half of the twentieth century and was accompanied by an increasing rejection of traditional viewsabout Jews and about Judaism. Among those that stood at the forefront of the effort to correct thestereotypical 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.’798Rethinking anti-Judaism - Judaism’s idiosyncratic beliefs and traditions were a stumbling block for mostGentiles. Thus, for the most part, and acknowledging the existence of a marginal occurrence of Pagan andGentile attraction to Judaism, the appeal of Judaism among believers in Jesus seems to be associated withthe 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 ascorroborating 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 textsthat we have surveyed are reacting against, must be existential. The Judaism that infuriates these authorsseems to be within, not without, the Jesus movement. Gentile believers yearned to be recognized aslegitimate followers of Jesus, despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions of the descendants ofJesus’ disciples and first followers. On the other hand, the founding fathers rejected the many Gentileforms of belief in Jesus that spawned following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles. The painand the resentment caused by the failed fellowship, and subsequent estrangement, between Gentilebelievers and the founding faction further fueled the fire. Anecdotal evidence for the attraction ofindividuals to Judaism is insufficient to explain the emotional intensity, the fascination, and the obsessionof 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 encounterthroughout the lore may have been Gentile sympathizers with the Jewish faction - who favored a greateraffinity to the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers. The Jewish faction, the ultimate addressee ofmost 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 ofJesus) the descendants of the founding fathers seem to have remained mostly unengaged and uninvolved inthe debates among Gentiles. 250Afterthoughts+An edifice of sanctified hatred emerged out of emotional and intellectual predispositions that took hold ofthe minds and souls of believers following prolonged exposure to messages of ambivalence and hatred thatwere perceived to be sacrosanct, legitimate, sanctioned and justified. These emotions and attitudesepitomize 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.’799Fortunately, since Klein’s survey, we have witnessed unprecedented and breathtaking change. During thelast decades of the 20th century overt anti-Judaism receded in academic circles. Benign winds have sweptthrough, and have deflated attitudes and sentiment toward Jews and toward Judaism. At the dawn of thetwenty-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-Jewishattitudes. 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 orthodoxparadigm. In the context of this survey, scholarship’s bondage to the Pauline orthodox worldview andmindset 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;’ aneffort to de-emphasize the recurrent and systemic nature of the phenomena.801 The many ‘dots’ on thegraph are seldom connected into a trajectory, or understood as consistent and recurrent. Overall, theattempt to impress upon the rank-and-file the ominous nature of the polemical strand embedded in theNew 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, areresilient to change. Leading theologians and scholars of the early 20th century did exacerbate this naturalconservatism in religious matters. These include Bousset, Eduard Meyer, Emil Schurer andStarck/BillerBeck, who, despite their embrace of anti-Jewish attitudes, are still authoritative among manybelievers 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 DisclaimersDelegitimizing the Disciples+The disparaging of the disciples and their traditions in the canonical Gospels and in the authoritative textsis a peculiar and unique deviation from most religious legitimating narratives, where the disciples of thefounding leader are usually honored as the legitimate heirs of the founder’s legacy and ministry.802Therefore, we must ask ourselves: why did Paul’s followers engage in this unique and peculiardisparagement and vilification of those chosen by Jesus to be the custodians of his legacy? Why do thecanonical 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 andrespected? signaling that their customs, traditions, and beliefs should be rejected?The use of ancestral and authoritative figures and stories to chastise contemporaneous antagonists is widelyattested in many ancient cultures. In the Hebrew Scriptures, denigration of the ancestors of one’sadversaries 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 negativemetaphors, allegories, and literary proxies. Thus, we may suspect that the criticism of the disciples, Jesus’salleged 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 ofJesus’s life.Therefore, we may suspect that the delegitimating of the disciples, the supposed alienation of Jesus fromhis Jewish co-religionists, and the abuse of Jewish beliefs and traditions, reflect the Pauline goal ofdelegitimizing "the Jews" (the Jewish faction) rather than the historical circumstances of Jesus’ life. Todelegitimize the Jewish followers of Jesus through the delegitimization of the disciples perfectly matchesthe polemical needs of the Pauline faction in the first phase of the Judeo-Gentile crisis within the messianicmovement of Jesus. At that time, the Jewish followers of Jesus were the undisputed leaders of themovement and the Paulines did not seek an open confrontation with them. To delegitimize the discipleswas 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 weencounter in the lore seems to emulate, and emerge out of, Judean polemical traditions. This rhetoricseems to target the existential danger confronting the Gentile followers of Paul a couple of generationsafter Jesus’s death—the draw, the influence, of the descendants of the founding fathers among Gentilebelievers.Delegitimizing the Disciples – MarkWriting some four decades after the events and alien to Jesus’ cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage, Markimplies that he ‘understands’ what was obscure to those that shared Jesus’s life, ministry, religiousbackground, and ethnicity - those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy. Hindsight derived fromour knowledge of what was to come, helps us identify the disparagement of Jesus’s disciples and followersas the first salvo in the emerging opposition to the authority and to the legitimacy of the Jewish faction as the exclusiveguardians and interpreters of Jesus’s ministry.806Throughout his gospel, and in line with the ancient tradition of denigrating the ancestors of one’sopponents, Mark disparages the Twelve Apostles, the special Three, and Peter. Peter is the recipient of thelion’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 notunderstand his true mission.Therefore, the Markan account is not only about a conflict between Jesus and some Judeans in positions ofauthority, it also reflects a conflict about identity and legitimacy among believers in Jesus, as seen from aPauline perspective. By the time of Mark’s writing, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles appears to have metsuccess in attracting Pagan sympathizers and recruits. These new converts must have soon encounteredJewish followers of Jesus or their Gentile sympathizers in the public arena, and must have realized thatthey 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 someamong the descendants of the Jewish founders, that Gentile forms of belief in Jesus were insufficient andlacking. It may have also been crafted to explain and justify, to the rank and file, the rejection of thetraditions and beliefs of Jesus and his disciples, and the estrangement from the descendants of Jesus’sdisciples and first followers. In other words, Mark attempts to reassure the rank and file that they arerightful followers of Jesus despite their rejection of the beliefs and religious traditions espoused by Jesusand by those chosen by him to be the custodians of his legacy. He does so by denigrating the disciples andby 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 denigrationthat shadows the growing tension and the estrangement within the Jesus movement.807 This upsurge ofdefamation 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; Luke22:47–53. ‘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 thatdecades after Mark, Matthew and Luke chose to embrace and intensify Mark’s denigration of the disciplesis significant.Delegitimizing the Disciples – JohnJohn’s deployment of the multivalent ‘Ioudaioi’ and his intense anti-Ioudaioi rhetoric signal a significantpivot, a turning point. It seems that for the Johannines, the denigration of the disciples that characterizedthe Synoptics was no longer sufficient. The tensions between the parties had become an open conflict; aconfrontation-estrangement-secession. Sharper tools were deemed necessary to sever the sway of thedescendants of the founding fathers among John’s audience. Furthermore, when the author(s)/editor(s) ofthe 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 fromthe Jewish founders, not their estrangement from mainstream Jews, to which they would have beenindifferent.Delegitimizing the Disciples – Hebrews and BarnabasWhereas Mark seems to imply that Jesus’s messiahship was deliberately hidden, causing the disciples tomisunderstand his ministry, Barnabas and Hebrews are the first to insinuate that ‘their’ understanding ofJesus’s life and ministry was erroneous, misguided, and originated in sinful minds. Whereas Mark hints thatthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers did not understand Jesus’s legacy and abandonedhim, Barnabas and Hebrews reach deeper; they claim that the true meaning of the Israelite journey is to beunderstood and deciphered by non-Jews. 255Hebrews and Barnabas, roughly contemporaneous with the Synoptics, reflect a more strident and explicitantagonism 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 firststages of a shift to open and undifferentiated attacks deployed to batter the Jewish elite of the Jesusmovement. Hebrews’ and Barnabas’ anti-Jewish rhetoric has populated the tradition since, and is deeplyembedded in the theological discourse and in the lore.In Mark, the Synoptics that stand on him, and the Pauline tradition that dominates the canonical andauthoritative texts, the people that shared Jesus’s life and ministry as well as his religious and ethnicaffiliation ‘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 Jesusmovement. For a while, some among the Jerusalem faction and small numbers of Gentiles may haveattempted full fellowship and may have coexisted in an asymmetrical relationship; where Gentile believerswould have felt marginalized and un-empowered. Furthermore, it appears that most Gentiles found theJewish milieu of the descendants of the founding fathers alien and yearned for recognition and legitimacyas rightful followers of Jesus—despite their rejection of the beliefs and traditions embraced by thefounding fathers.On the other hand, members of the Jewish faction may have remained ambivalent and equivocal about themany forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to theGentiles, 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 thefounding generation as a requirement for being recognized as legitimate followers of Jesus. These beliefsand traditions, while integral and intrinsic to Jesus and to the descendants of the founders, were alien tomost non-Jewish converts and consequently emerged as wedge issues in the drive to de-Judaize belief inJesus.Facing the unassailable legitimacy of those chosen by Jesus to be the guardians of his legacy, intuitivelyconfident of their core arguments - but standing on not fully formed, evolving, and often shiftingtheological ground - Pauline leaders and intellectuals gradually gravitated to a strategy of ancestordenigration 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, inany 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 andobscured the theological conundrum of how to explain and justify the rejection of Jesus’ beliefs andtraditions, 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 adversarieswere the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, and therefore the presumptive guardians of hislegacy) and by framing the debate around beliefs and traditions that most Gentiles found strange andidiosyncratic, the Pauline faction gradually fashioned a strategy that was eventually victorious, and led togrowing 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 putforward in an implied and veiled manner; their ultimate aims seldom stated overtly. Indeed, throughout thisconfrontation, and throughout the lore accompanying it, we encounter a persistent reluctance to cast theconflict as a rejection of the beliefs and traditions that grounded Jesus’ ministry. The strategy that won theday 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 aprotracted and uncertain, but eventually successful, challenge to the descendants of Jesus’s disciples andfirst followers. The struggle over identity, legitimacy, and ascendancy of which the de-Judaizing effort wasa central facet - was cast by the later guardians of orthodoxy as a confrontation with ‘the Jews.’ Intended orunintended, conscious or unconscious, this blurring of the identity of the adversaries was self-serving; itallowed the proto-orthodox leadership to erode the status of the descendants of the Jewish founders, tothe 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 ofbelievers a pervasive anti-Jewish strand.The de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus was also facilitated by the weakening of the Jewish faction caused by thedecimation in their ranks during the two failed Judean revolutions. The decimation of the Judeanstrongholds of the Jewish faction may have created an unexpected vacuum of authority that facilitated theproto-orthodox ascendancy.Projection onto Judaism+Anti-Jewish sentiment among Pauline believers reaches its zenith in the Apostolic Fathers and in theapologists 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- andthird-century religious ‘civil war.’ Great resentment and pain underwrite the texts authored during thisperiod. The extreme anti-Jewish tone of the post-canonical texts is indicative of great emotional andpsychological stress, of great anxiety about identity and legitimacy. It appears that the need to explain andjustify 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-orthodoxpsyche.Even though a literal reading of the texts seems to indicate that the intended adversary was ‘Judaism’ Isuspect that dynamics of projection and externalization are at play. I have suggested throughout that thesocio theological context of the Jesus movement at the time, seems to preclude Judaism as the intendedadversary. Rather the intended adversaries, the intended audience, and the goals of the anti-Jewish Paulineliterature of the second and third centuries seem to be internal. At that time, the abuse of Judaism seems tobe aimed at the Jewish followers of Jesus, and the goal was to disqualify them as the authoritativecustodians of Jesus’ legacy. Furthermore, during the first three centuries, believers in Jesus were immersedin a fierce internal struggle about self-definition, legitimacy, and identity that makes their engagement ofexternal enemies implausible. Although, originally, the defamation of Judaism was a means to a goal (thede-Judaizing of belief in Jesus, and the eradication of the influence of the Jewish followers of Jesus in theJesus movement). As the Paulines gradually emerge ascendant and as they gradually reach minimal internaland 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 mostpart, 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’ disciplesand first followers were Jewish – not to the attractiveness of Judaism per se. Therefore, the draw ofJudaism would be a consequence of this particular context and should not be seen as corroborating theexistence of a competitive struggle between Judaism and Christianity.Until the Christianization of the empire, the Judaism that infuriates these authors seems to be within, notwithout, the Jesus movement. However, it seems that by the second century, a gradual fusion andconfusion of ‘Jews within’ and ‘Jews without’ had become an ingrained phenomenon, triggering the initialphases of the externalization and projection of anti-Jewish attitudes among some Gentile believers in Jesusonto ‘external-mainstream’ Judaism. Jewish followers of Jesus were often labeled as ‘Jews’ by Gentileopponents 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 shouldacknowledge 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 withJudaism) for our understanding of the anti-Jewish bias in the canonical and in the authoritative literature. Ihave questioned throughout the current views about ‘the conflict between Judaism and Christianity’ andabout ‘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 inJesus. I have argued that clarity and consistency emerge out of re-placing the ‘anti-Jewish’ rhetoric of thefirst three centuries within the Jesus movement. Moreover, the texts authored during this period seem tooriginate in a rather closed universe; their context, purpose, horizon, and protagonists seem to be insidethe Jesus movement. Therefore, I do not see socio-theological grounds for a conflict between first-centuryJudaism 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 thatstands on a complex and multilayered trajectory that seems to originate, mostly, within the Jesusmovement. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence for the attraction of individuals to Judaism is insufficient toexplain the emotional intensity, the fascination, and the obsession of most early Pauline leaders and literatiwith all things Jewish. Therefore, attacks on Judaism (distinct from attacks on the character, traditions andbeliefs of the Jewish founding fathers) should be considered a later by-product of issues and tensionswithin the Jesus movement, a derivative phenomenon. I have posited that since the legitimacy of thePauline ‘orthodoxy’ could not be based on the acknowledgment of a Gentile adversarial takeover of theJesus movement, it was necessary to obscure and conceal the demotion of the descendants of the foundingfathers. This deletion may have emerged out of the desire to project a consensual transfer of leadership andof 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’ wasconscious or reflects an already authoritative tradition that stood on the fusion and confusion of Jewswithin and Jews without the Jesus movement. Either way, his telling of the origins of the faith (thatemphasized ‘Jewish vs. Christian’ tensions) became the foundational myth of the new religion. Eusebiuswriting, three hundred years after Jesus’s death, solidified the externalization and the transference of thePauline rhetoric against the Jewish followers of Jesus, onto all Jews. Whether Eusebius was intent onobscuring and misrepresenting the evolution of belief in Jesus or was misinformed, his work enshrined themyth 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 theJesus movement well into the fourth century, Eusebius’s work offered the Pauline victors a comprehensiveand seemingly authoritative legitimating account of origins on which the exclusivist, triumphalist, andascendant orthodoxy stood for the next sixteen hundred years. From his ecclesiastical ‘history’ and fromhis apologia to Constantine (Vita Constantini) we can surmise that Eusebius had a strong sense of ‘wherethe political wind was blowing’ and was keen to cater and ponder to the powerful and the mighty.810Whether 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 vitriolagainst 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 ofthe founding fathers and to de-Judaize belief in Jesus thus enabled (and may have necessitated) the laterreading of the anti-Jewish sentiment generated during the protracted second-century religious ‘civil war,’ asaimed 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 seeminglyseamless. The externalization of internal tensions within the Jesus movement onto the intra-religious arenabecame ‘history.’Disconnected from their original socio-theological grounding, the emotions and attitudes thataccompanied the estrangement between Jews and Gentiles in the Jesus movement - were internalized asreflective of a Jewish-Christian conflict. Gradually, hyperbole against the founding faction, often hiddenbehind 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 theJesus movement do not favor a scenario where the dominant element would be an inter-religious (Jewishversus Christian) conflict. A first stage of self-definition, consolidation, and integration must have takenplace before the proto-orthodox would engage enemies beyond the boundaries of the movement. Weshould not expect a religious movement in the initial stages of identity formation, engulfed in a ‘religiouscivil 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 energiesof believers must have been focused inward. For the most part, in the canonical and in the authoritativelore, ‘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 resurfacesas 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 externalenvironment and became virulent. Lacking the natural protection provided by kinship, the intense andmilitant vitriol that characterizes sectarian posturing metamorphosed and became undifferentiated polemic.This trajectory, from infighting among Jews - to Gentile incitement against Judaism, has been a coreconcern of our inquiry. 260When internal rhetoric (Jewish followers of Jesus chastising establishment-Judaism) migrates from theirhearts, minds, and lips to the hearts, minds, and lips of Gentiles, and is used to dehumanize and todisenfranchise Jewish opponents within the Jesus movement, a unique phenomenon and a major shift havetaken place. Similar to a virus that mutates and invades a new species, identity takeover is the vehiclethrough which the ire of Jewish sectarians toward the Jewish mainstream did migrate to Gentile hearts, andbecame 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 Paulinelore. However, the issue is not whether ‘by the measure of contemporary Jewish polemic, the NewTestament’s slander against fellow Jews is remarkably mild.’811 Rather, the issue is that behavior that weaccept in our kin is unacceptable in a stranger. Fraternal exchanges are often strident, buy they do notlicense strangers to trespass inter-religious markers. Moreover, the viciousness of internal feuds isunacceptable in the dialog between religious traditions. Therefore, non-Jews may not use the fact that Jewsdenigrated Jews, as licensing, or ‘justifying’ their denigration of Jews or of Judaism. The fact that the insultsof a stranger are similar to fraternal attacks, does not make the former any more acceptable—or lessdangerous.The tensions that we encountered in the New Testament between the authors and the Jewish followers ofJesus gradually morphed (in the memory and in the perception of later believers) into a conflict betweenthe ‘synagogue and the Church.’ The complex and theologically unsettling socio-theological processes thatdominated 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 betweenJudaism and Christianity.’ This deeply rooted misperception was further exacerbated by themisinterpretation, and misreading, of the multivalent ‘Ioudaioi’ and of ‘they / their / them’ into theunivalent ‘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 factthat 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 ofsecond and third century are hard to endure. Moreover, this derogatory and inflammatory hyperbole isabhorrent and unnecessary. It is abhorrent due to the fact that it contains the rationale for the futuredisenfranchisement and martyrdom of defenseless Jews. It is unnecessary due to the fact that integration ofpreceding lore does not need be derogatory, adversarial, or supersessionary.About Judaizing+Accusations of ‘Judaizing’ surface when the drive to Gentilize the Jesus movement encounters oppositionfrom those attempting to maintain the Jewish affiliation of the Jesus movement. This peculiar termoriginates 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 Paganismwho joined Pauline communities. Upon encounter with the Jewish followers of Jesus or their Gentilesympathizers 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 Gentilesympathizers to fend off the de-Judaizing of the Jesus movement are often portrayed in the lore asoffensive moves to Judaize it. However, these activities should not be considered proselytizing given thatthey would be directed to oppose change, not to bring it about. During the first century, belief in Jesus wasnot in danger of being ‘Judaized’; it was Jewish.Recognition of the importance, and of the impact, of Judaizers (Gentile sympathizers with the Jewishfaction) 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 (GentileJudaizers) as main targets of some of the texts we have discussed. Her work focuses on Gentilesympathizers with Judaism as the opponents of the authors and rejects the traditional identification of ‘theJews’ as ‘the’ main adversaries. Murray’s conclusions support the existence of an influential Jewish factionthrough 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.814Whether the opponents of an author are members of the Jewish faction, their Gentile sympathizers, orGentile 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 advocatedhere, Paul and later Pauline authors were not fending off ‘Judaizers,’ they were de-Judaizing the Jesustradition816 (they were not fending off change, they were promoting it). The promoters of change labeledthe original identity holders as ‘heretical’ and engendered the view that their efforts, and those of theirsupporters, 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 squabbleabout semantics is at play here for ‘Judaizing’ is an anachronistic term that has come to symbolize hereticalchange and is associated with a discourse tainted by anti-Judaism. ‘Judaizing’ is a tendentious term thatreflects a Gentile perspective on the opposition to the crusade to de-Judaize the Jesus movement. ThePauline goal was to fashion a Gentilized version of belief in Jesus that would maintain some similitude tothe tenets of the founding fathers, but would reject those features that were most foreign, demanding, andalien 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 aggressiveproselytizing learned from Jews, for there is no evidence in extant sources from antiquity for a significantmissionary activity by Jews, although we cannot rule out that individuals may have occasionallyproselytized.817 Most scholars agree that a tradition of ‘Gentile-Judaizing’ existed without interruption fromthe earliest times.818 Lacking is the recognition that it reflects and corroborates the persistent influence ofthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers and/or their enduring legacy – not the influence ofJudaism per se.Furthermore, Gentile Judaizing is often associated to the ‘attraction’ to Judaism, not to the yearning forfellowship with the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers, where it originates.819 I suggest thatthe ‘Judaizing’ phenomenon that infuriated Pauline leaders and intellectuals should be re-placed within theJesus movement. Christian anti-Judaism does not emerge out of the reaction of Church leaders to theattraction of some Gentile believers to Judaism, as suggested by most scholars. Rather, some Gentilebelievers in Jesus were attracted to the synagogues of the Jewish followers of Jesus, not to mainstreamsynagogues, 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 thedescendants of the founding fathers of the Jesus movement, not attraction to Judaism per se. Attraction toJudaism by some Gentiles would be a consequence, not the cause, of this phenomenon—creating a shift ofemphasis 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 JewishChristians was understandable and acceptable even well into the second century, the deliberate adoption ofJewish 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’ ofJewish Christians could be seen as a hangover from the past, even if it served as an uncomfortablereminder of the rapidly receding Jewish roots of the Christian movement.To the Pauline leadership the ‘Jewishness’ of Judaizing Gentiles lent unwelcome standing to what wassupposed to be a moribund and superseded competitor for it challenged the distinctiveness andsupersessionary thrust of the Pauline claim. The denigration of Judaism that this could inspire is seen mostclearly 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 theChristian tradition. This is due to the fact that, despite great efforts by many scholars, the search for theJewish side of these debates has yielded dismal results. Moreover, scholars have noted an enormousdisproportion in intensity and quantity—to the point of rendering insignificant, the few segments that havebeen identified as possible Jewish responses.820 The absence of a commensurate Jewish response, ifJudaism understood itself to be the intended adversary, is difficult to explain. However, if the original crisiswas within the Jesus movement, as suggested here, we should not expect a significant Jewish response (atthe time, debates within the Jesus movement would be unknown, inconsequential, and irrelevant to thoseoutside 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 Gentilefollowers of Paul. Not only was it vastly superior numerically, it enjoyed significant prestige among Romanelites. Despite Judean rebelliousness, and the opposition of some Pagan writers, it enjoyed significantprivileges 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 thatcompared to the scope, centrality, and pervasiveness of the anti-Jewish hostility among early Gentilebelievers in Jesus, the Jewish side is intriguingly silent.821A 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.’822During 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 theGospel 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 notconcerned with Gentile believers in Jesus. It was (apparently) designed to dissuade Jewish followers ofJesus from leading Jewish religious services.A few second-century citations of ‘Jewish’ persecution are occasionally cited when a Jewish response isargued. 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 Jewishbelievers in Jesus824 or mainstream Jews. In addition, it is often difficult to discern whether the persecutionrefers to biblical times, Jesus’s lifetime, or is contemporaneous.825It has also been suggested that later Jewish self-censorship, triggered by fear (following the orthodoxascendancy), 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 byGentile believers in Jesus. Furthermore, evidence of a Jewish reaction should have survived beyond thereach of the later church in the Jewish strongholds of Judea, Egypt, Syria, and Persia, which had anextensive cultural interchange.In this respect, it is noteworthy that from Theodosius and until the sixteenth century, the Jewish center ofgravity moved to Mesopotamia and later spread to Muslim Spain and Egypt, far beyond the reach ofPauline Christianity. The geographic dispersion of the Jewish people and lack of a centralized authority orhierarchy 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 haveencountered in the Pauline lore and tradition was not addressed, or reciprocated. It was either unknown ordisregarded 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 attitudesof Jews toward Jesus and his Jewish followers. Wilson contributes corroborating support when he observesthat while we know that for many Christians their relationship to Judaism was of central importance, wecannot assume that the same was true for the Jews.827The search for the response of the descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers to the challenge, andthe vitriol, by the non-Jewish majority has also come to naught. Other than the Pauline perspective of theevents, the reaction of the founding faction to the de-Judaizing crusade also eludes us. It would appear thatthe lack of evidence for a reaction of the Jewish faction to the Pauline attacks is due to the fact that theliterature of small and defeated adversaries seldom survives.The Jewish followers of Jesus, the children and the grandchildren of Jesus’s first followers, understoodthemselves to be the true and legitimate heirs of his legacy and ministry. The role of the Jewish followersof 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 sectarianposturing 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 ofGentile voices that emerged following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to the Gentiles may be a factortoo. The descendants of the founding fathers may have distanced themselves from the large influx ofnewcomers espousing, from the perspective of the founding faction, ‘strange’ views, and beliefs aboutJesus. This scenario may have predisposed the founding fathers to become unengaged and absentantagonists 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 ofactive efforts by Jews to gain converts. This projection of Christian evangelizing zeal onto Judaism couldnot be further from the evidence. Despite meager evidence to support the claim that first and secondcentury Judaism was an active proselytizer,829 variants of this theory have maintained a firm hold onacademic thinking. This characterization was never less accurate than during the first and second centurieswhen Judean energies where consumed by two failed attempts to overthrow the foreign occupation, and bythe need to digest their momentous implications.Imposition of Christian templates on Judaism, a phenomenon that characterizes traditional and modernscholarship, has yielded significant misperceptions about Judaism. Among them, the perception of first andsecond 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, withoutthe disturbing implications of Pauline orthodoxy. According to this narrative, anti-Judaism reflects theover-zealous enthusiasm of the ascendant religion over its declining competitor.The traditional certitude about the causal connection between Jewish proselytizing and the influence ofJudaism 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 graduallycame to be understood as the consequence of ‘Jewish proselytizing.’Nonetheless, the recognition that ‘Jewish proselytizing’ existed mostly in the minds of Gentile beholders, isslowly 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 beengradually introduced to Christian audiences. Within this new awareness, some scholars have revisited thetraditional claims about Jewish proselytizing and have brought forward a variety of new insights. McKnightand Goodman have argued persuasively that a distinction ought to be made between the passive receptionof converts or interested Pagans, and an active desire or intent to convert the non-Jewish world toJudaism.831However, despite the absence of evidence on the reaction of the Jewish side. It is plausible that the intenseanti-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 havebeen 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 areligion that made hatred of all Jews sacrosanct, is complex, elusive, and layered. It has six main sourcesthat 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 andestablishment 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 havesurfaced following Jesus’s death.832 At this early stage, allegations against the ‘Jewish authorities’ (distinctfrom later attacks on ‘the Jews’) may signal that we are reading textual traces of the descendants of Jesus’sdisciples 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’ groupwithin the Jesus movement. At this stage the antagonists were not the ‘Jews without’ but rather ‘the Jewswithin.’ The Pauline mission to the Gentiles evolved in opposition to the founding faction and would havedirected its sectarian and militant rhetoric first and foremost toward them, not toward Judaism—ascommonly 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 Jesusmovement lingered on. They included the tensions between Paul and the Pillars, the disparagement of thedisciples 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 ofthe founders, the exoneration of the Jewish faction from Roman persecution, and the influence that thedescendants of the Jewish founders had among some Gentiles.The Pauline claim to the identity, authority, and legitimacy of the Jewish founding fathers resulted in thesubversion and de-contextualization of their lore - including their self-perception as the New Israel, theiranti-Jewish-establishment posture, and the Judean traditions of prophetic self-criticism. This wide-rangingsubversion-appropriation, was a consequence of the assertion, innocuous at first sight but enormouslyconsequential, that the Gentile followers of Paul superseded and replaced the Jewish followers of Jesus asthe 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 andsupersession of the beliefs and traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus occurred from the secondcentury forward. The arguments elaborated during this period became the bedrock of later anti-Jewishattitudes. An odd mixture of clever, vicious, and bizarre arguments created a crescendo of incitement thatis fully anti-Semitic in tone, intensity, and pitch. In addition to Melito’s infamous Peri-Pascha, scholars pointto the writings of Justin, Tertullian, Aphrahat Ephrem, Cyril, and Eusebius as this era’s most notablecontributions to the transition to anti-Semitism.Without this layer of consolidation and systematization, the edifice of hate that looms in the horizon wouldhave had no foundation to stand on. Influential leaders and intellectuals will follow the pathway created bythe authors we have surveyed. They will harness the human propensity to fall prey to our darkest instinctsin a misguided attempt to sever the influence of opposing interpretations of Jesus’s legacy at first, andagainst other internal and external adversaries thereafter.A more virulent strand of the anti-Jewish bias emerges as these layers become fused and confused in thelore and in the hearts and minds of later Gentile believers. Somewhere along the way, authors and audienceseem to have lost the distinction between the founding faction, their Gentile sympathizers, andestablishment Judaism. As this occurred, the layers surveyed above merged into an undifferentiated, andtumultuous, river of anti-Jewish incitement. Dynamics of fusion, confusion, extrapolation, and projectionconverted an internal debate about Judaism into undifferentiated anti-Judaism. It is reasonable to assumethat this ‘melting pot of incitement’ matured at different times and at different rates for differentcommunities. 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 theproto-orthodox tradition defamation, vitriol, and abuse of adversaries within and without became a centralmodus operandi that left a significant footprint in the lore and had a tragic impact on the souls and heartsof believers and on the lives of opponents. 268Undifferentiated and genocidal polemics originate in ‘normal’ conflicts that take a ‘wrong turn.’ At whatpoint did Pauline believers make an unintended and irreversible turn into an ethical dead end? Genocidaltendencies emerge when the disenfranchisement and the dehumanization of internal adversaries or externalenemies merge with a secular or religious delegitimizing narrative. Undifferentiated anti-Judaism is anintermediate phenomenon that matures when the proto-orthodox interpretation of Jesus’s legacy becomesthe imperial faith. It reaches full bloom when first century polemic against the Jewish followers of Jesus isdistilled into a systematic anti-Jewish theology.The evolution of anti-Jewish attitudes, from the fourth century onward, is well documented and is beyondthe scope of this work. The spiral of denigration that starts with the anti-Jewish establishment rhetoric ofthe Jewish followers of Jesus, and culminates with modern anti-Semitism seems to be, mostly, the result ofcomplex socio-religious and socio-theological processes and dynamics that originated within the Jesusmovement.Orthodoxies and Sacred Texts+Orthodoxies emerge to preserve, control, maintain, and dispense religious legitimacy. Dogmaticgatekeepers attempt to perpetuate structures of religious power and legitimacy, even though humans arenot qualified to place limitations on the creator’s transcendence, immanence, or on his dialog with hiscreation. Continuous divine revelation and a continuing dialog of believers with the divine are orthodoxy’sworst nightmare.Furthermore, during the twentieth century we have come to suspect that ‘reading’ sacred texts is anintricate phenomenon. It seems that when we consult our sacred lore a cyclical sequence is at work—aninteractive process where one’s worldview, mindset, and predispositions are the dominant factors in theinterpretation 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 sacredliterature—one of the wells they emanated from. A believer’s reading of a sacred text may be seen as aritual 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 onlywith hindsight and through the filter of time and interpretational meta-narratives that we can discern andconnect 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 rationalenvironment 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 amajor world religion emerging before our eyes. The ‘push and shove’ of theology-in-the-making isfascinating; 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 palpablein 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 atemplate that is hard to shed off.833 Pondering on alterative historical (and theological) paths goes againstour 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 dependentour 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 isnot. However, ‘History’ has been, since time immemorial, the legitimating narrative of the victors. Up tothe 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 afew decades old. It is no surprise, therefore, that for nineteen hundred years the orthodox account of theemergence of belief in Jesus was accepted as the original, and therefore ‘true,’ understanding of hisministry. 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 aMarcionite, Gnostic, or Jewish Christianity have evolved free of the ‘conflict between the Synagogue andthe 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 fourthcentury theology was local, that Rome became predominantly proto-orthodox, that the communities ofAsia Minor tended to go counter-Rome and were inclined toward Marcion, that the Syrian communitieswere 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 believersin Jesus emphasized Jesus’s death and resurrection. Other believers emphasized, his sayings, teachings, orsecret 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 didnot see Jesus’s death as central to his legacy.Significantly, James and his community, the Q community, the M material in Matthew, the Didache, thePseudo-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 emphasison Jesus’s death, Roman exoneration, and Jewish culpability. The rediscovery of the second-centuryJewish, Marcionite and Gnostic variants has momentous consequences for our reconstruction of theevolution of belief in Jesus and invites us to speculate about alternative pathways. The existence of severalearly 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’sdisciples and first followers, it would have an anti-Jewish-establishment tone and would include a demandfor strict Torah observance. A Gnostic New Testament is more of an enigma, since Gnosticism, more atrend and a state of mind than a theology, was extremely diverse. We also know with some certainty thatthe 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’sgreatest enigmas. The descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers would pose a challenge to aMarcionite Christianity, but the supersessionary impulses behind the crusade to lay claim to their identityand 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 andmay have avoided the anti-Jewish dead end. By rejecting the Jewish heritage of the founding fathers, aMarcionite Christianity may have avoided the anti-Jewish trajectory inherent in the ambivalent Paulinedenigrate-but-appropriate model.Moreover, ‘Marcion’s insistence on the literal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures potentially created abond of understanding between him and at least some Jews that his opponents could not have achieved.’834Whereas the Pauline faction claimed to supersede the beliefs of the founding faction and strived to demotethem from their position as the guardians and interpreters of Jesus’s legacy, Marcionites and most Gnosticbelievers rejected their beliefs and traditions altogether.835 This critical difference may explain the growthof more strident strands of anti-Judaism among the Paulines.836Whereas Marcionites and Gnostics recognized that by rejecting the beliefs and traditions of the foundingfathers they were creating new interpretations of Jesus’s ministry, the proto-orthodox strove to vestthemselves 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 andsubstitution do not - they set in motion the sequence that led to the dead end of anti-Semitism: Appropriation > supersession > disenfranchisement > persecutionThe incorporation of cultural and theological precursors does not need be adversarial, derogatory, ordehumanizing. 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 notall ancients developed a persecutory bent toward their predecessors (see the benign integration of Greekculture by the Romans and of Hinduism by Buddhism). Indeed, the life stories of Jesus and the Buddhashare striking similarities. Both aimed at reforming their native cultures (Judaism and Hinduism). Neitherclaimed 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 wereextraordinarily successful among strangers but were rejected by most their brethren.Christianity and Buddhism also differ significantly: whereas Christianity forged an alliance with power anddespotism, 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 anedifice of disparagement and contempt toward Judaism, Buddhism incorporated the Hindu traditionwithout a discourse of denigration or supersession.Miscellaneous Disclaimers+A note of caution is appropriate: socio-theological processes are complex, protracted, interdependent, andelusive. The processes that we have attempted to identify and decipher are fog-like. ‘In real time,’ thetrajectory 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 intricatestory. A complex reality where multiple protagonists and themes interact in a fluid and inconclusivemanner for some three hundred years seems to be the best depiction of reality-on-the-ground as reflectedin the textual corpus before us.During the early decades of the Jesus movement the internal divide between the Jewish followers of Jesusand mainstream Judaism looms large (i.e., the adversaries are specific groups within Judaism: the highpriests, the Pharisees, the elders, and the scribes). During the last decades of the first century the epicentershifts and points to growing opposition to the beliefs and traditions of the founding faction among Gentilebelievers. In the earlier layers the ordeal and the perspective of the Jewish followers of Jesus left footprintsin the texts. As the movement becomes increasingly Gentile, the ordeal and the perspective of recentGentile converts dominates the scene. It is also possible that projection and externalization onto theinterreligious arena, and the emergence of the misperception about the existence of a ‘conflict betweenJudaism 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 mypresentation. We can expect that in towns or regions where communities of Jews and of Jewish followersof Jesus coexisted, Gentile believers would maintain a clearer distinction of the two. In areas where Gentilebelievers would encounter only one type of ‘Jews’ or none, the fusion, and the confusion would occurearlier and would be more pronounced. Moreover, we should be hesitant to reconstruct a socio-theologicalreality by projecting a partial and posterior selection of texts onto the canvas of reality. In addition, thePauline 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 towardthe ‘Ioudaioi.’ Indeed, their rampages against Pagans, Marcionites, and Gnostics and against any and alladversaries 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 graduallytransited from yearning for fellowship with the Jewish followers of Jesus, to militant anti-Judaism. Thisprogression, from failed fellowship to militant anti-Judaism, did take place at a different pace in differentcommunities. A simplified presentation of the trajectory: THE EMOTIONS THE THEOLOGY We are worthy followers of Jesus too! Rejection of Torah observance You never understood! Delegitimizing the Disciples You are not better than us! Challenging the leadership We are the New Israel! Appropriation of the identity and We are the new people of God! lore of the Jewish followers of Jesus You are no longer God's chosen! Supersession Theology Jews are irredeemable and sinful! Projection onto JudaismMany 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 ofGentiles to be rightful followers of Jesus without having to be Jews, gradually gravitated toward anexclusivist and supersessionary mindset. Standing on the rejection of Torah observance, and expanding onMark’s deprecation of the disciples, and on the supersessionary foundation provided by Hebrews andBarnabas, 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 beunderstood 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, andwere no longer his chosen. The logic behind this strategy seems to be that if the Israelites wereincompetent to properly interpret their own theological heritage, the Jewish faction could not understandJesus’s legacy either.The architects of the Pauline appropriation-supersession edifice maintained that Gentiles could notreinvent 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 itsinstitutions, beliefs, and traditions; and (c) to appropriate the remaining narrative to vest a non-Jewishedifice 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 theemergence of the appropriation-supersession phenomenon, with horrific consequences. The theology ofsupersession is the reflection, elaboration and transformation of these socio-theological circumstances intoa theological claim.The de-Judaizing of belief in Jesus was an adversarial take-over, not the quasi-idyllic transmission ofleadership and of legitimacy that Christian orthodoxy placed at the genesis of the religion. Thediscretionary path of fashioning a compromise creed eventually brought Pauline believers in Jesus to aunilateral assault on Judaism. These historical processes were later obscured to render the compromisecreed 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 originsof 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 AfterthoughtsReligious orthodoxies are the result of complex evolutionary processes. The pursuit of unity and theemergence of orthodoxy are a widely-attested phenomenon in many religious traditions. Orthodoxy catersto the human need for coherence and unity and is naturally intolerant of deviance and diversity. In battlesfor religious hegemony, ‘history’ and ‘legitimacy’ are the victors’ spoils. Claims to exclusive access to, andunderstanding of, the divine realm are often used to further factional interests and power agendas. Thesectarian 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 andmulti-ethnical mega-empire in need of a new unifying ethos. Furthermore, Pauline militancy andenthusiasm coupled with the claim to exclusivity of ‘right belief’ were an advantage in promoting undividedloyalty. For Constantine, a ruthless and pragmatic power broker, these were valuable features and traits inhis 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 andtactician. His reasoning was not theological, nor spiritual. For Constantine, religion, creed and ceremonywere political tools - to be measured by their political effectiveness in servicing his goals. Many theorieshave 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 theologicalworldview—the early fourth-century strands of belief in Jesus were forced by Constantine into a cruciblethat demanded a compromise. Constantine wanted, needed, and demanded, a unified Church standing on aunified 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 – eventhough 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.’839The decision to embrace a minority creed was a bold move. Church and Empire started-off on a long andcomplex relationship. However, Constantine’s efforts to boost the dying political structure wereunsuccessful and failed to revitalize the decaying Roman Empire. Constantine’s vision of harnessing thenew creed to imperial purposes was not fully realized during his lifetime either. At the dawn of the fourthcentury, the decline that led to the disintegration of the Empire was already in motion, and theChristianizing of the empire failed to stem it.Decades of inconclusive struggle between Pagan and Christian elements within the Roman aristocracy layahead, 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 ofpower. Politics and religion became intertwined for the benefit of the powerful and the impoverishment ofethics. The religion about Jesus, the humble Jewish preacher from Galilee, became the official creed of themost powerful Empire in the history of Western Civilization.840From Constantine onward, the Paulines burst onto the world stage with the body of a religion, the muscleof empire and the soul of a sect. Dogma, power, wealth, and exclusivism seemed to overtake theenthusiasm, creativity and diversity of the previous centuries. The extraordinary ascent of Christianity toabsolute power brought an unprepared and not yet fully coherent creed to global pre-eminence. Themilitancy and the resentment of a recently persecuted sect, and its exclusivist mindset, became embeddedin 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 orthodoxywas no longer limited to persuasion and compromise. Following Constantine’s patronage and Theodosius’sChristianizing of the empire Pauline ‘orthodoxy’ could enforce its hegemony in more efficient andexpeditious ways. Only then did the orthodox yield real might and were able to persecute adversarieswithin more effectively. As orthodoxy consolidated its ascendancy and its alliance with the mighty and thepowerful, a persecutory demeanor gradually matured. It progressed from the rancor of peer infighting, tomore efficient and emotionally detached mechanisms of dissent control.Accommodation to power and despotism was swift, the turn to intolerance almost immediate. Catapultedto power and influence by Constantine’s patronage, intoxicated by power, wealth and privilege, andmilitant and exclusivist at soul - Imperial Christianity entered a marriage of convenience with the Romanelite. Constantine’s patronage placed the Church at the center of world power and turned the Christianethical compass toward subservience to the rich and the powerful. Catering to the ruling elites eventuallytook 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, wasshunned. The new focus was elite-friendly and bypassed Jesus’s subversive legacy. It diverted the yearningsof believers to fulfillment in the afterlife - facilitating their plundering by the powerful. Infused with greatenthusiasm and fervor born out of this sudden transformation, Christianity, now the ally of the powerfuland the mighty - became triumphalist, exclusivist and persecutory. Coercion, imposition and persecutionbecame 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 thiswork – but its outlines will be summarized ahead.Moreover, catering to power required de-emphasizing revolutionary and socially unsettling elements ofJesus’ message. A religion based on Jesus’ social teachings would be perceived as subversive by the Romanelites and could not become an imperial religion. From the fourth century onward, political power and theChurch became entangled in a paradoxical relationship (increasingly interdependent, complementary andnonetheless often adversarial). 281Three centuries of conflict with ‘the Jews’ (the Jewish followers of Jesus and their Gentile sympathizers)841left deep scars in the Pauline psyche. Instructed by sacred texts permeated with ‘anti-Jewish’ sentimentoriginating in the identity crisis within the Jesus movement, post-Constantine Christians directed theirresentment toward external Jews. After Theodosius, the victorious Pauline faction (now Christianorthodoxy) will harness and re-direct the vast anti-Jewish rhetorical arsenal it deployed against the foundingfathers - toward external, mainstream Judaism.From Nicaea forward, having attained some degree of self-definition and internal cohesion, and permeatedwith an ingrained tradition of anti-Jewish sentiment, Imperial Christianity turned with full force againstJudaism. As time passed, and aided by Eusebius’ obscuring of, or ignorance about, the diversity of earlybelief in Jesus, the intricate and mostly intra-Christian origin of the anti-Jewish trajectory was forgotten andobscured. As Christianity entered the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism became an integral part of its lore andmindset. Anti-Jewish sentiment was part of the fabric of life, deeply embedded in the religious lore and inthe culture at large. The culture of polemical incitement and theological degradation that emerged from thiscrucible became a pivotal component of the emerging Christian identity. Indeed, ‘The notion of Jewishguilt, of Jewish sinfulness, envy and hostility had become fundamental to the supersessionary argument ofthe church.’842Nonetheless, some positive developments did take place during this period. ‘Augustine, though he didrepeat much of the polemics against Jews and Judaism current in the Patristic period, argued very stronglythat Jews should be allowed to practice their faith freely without interference, since in so doing Jewswitnessed to the divine truth of the Hebrew Scriptures, without which the New Testament and theteachings of Jesus make little sense. The Augustinian position was accepted by Pope St. Gregory the Greatand became papal policy through the ages.’843About canonization+It is now a majority view that the Pauline ascendancy did not occur as early, or as smoothly, as implied bythe ‘orthodox’ narrative. Furthermore, it took at least three centuries for the emergence of a canon and atleast as long for that canon to be widely accepted. Irenaeus (c 130-200 ce), bishop of Lyons and the personto coin the term ‘New Testament,’ provides us with the first evidence of the existence of a list (not yet acanon) of sacred scripture, a proto-New Testament. To address the theological chaos and confusionamong believers, Irenaeus created a list of recommended-sacred Gospels. Some of these texts, despite thefact that they contained elements or residuals of non-Pauline worldviews, were eventually included in theNew Testament. According to Irenaeus, one of the Church Fathers, the canonical Gospels were associatedwith differing constituencies. He informs us that the Ebionites (a group of Jewish followers of Jesus andtheir Gentile sympathizers)844 and Gentile adoptionists used the Gospel of Matthew. Those who ‘separateJesus from the Christ’ (i.e., most Gnostics) used Mark. The Marcionites used a revised Luke, andValentinian Gnostics and Docetists used John.Significantly, despite the eventual hegemonic status of the Paulines that followed the fourth centurycouncil 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 tensionsbetween believers with Jewish, Pagan, and Gnostic affiliations and inclinations were never fullyharmonized and remained latent at the core of the tradition. The footprints that these tensions left in thelore were never extricated either. Consequently, future Gentile believers in Jesus were to internalize deeplyambivalent attitudes toward Jews, Judaism, Paganism, and Gnosticism.Irenaeus’ choice of Gospels became normative and later canonical, when Athanasius’ list of authoritativetexts was used to supply the churches throughout the empire with an authoritative canon (approx. 367CE). 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 thediscourse to this day. We have Irenaeus’ and Athanasius’ lists. However, and unfortunately, we only haveoccasional quotations of the content of the original texts. The earliest full texts we have are from the sixthand seventh centuries. Consequently, we do not know the extent of re-editing that the original texts weresubmitted to.From Theodosius onward+Sixty years after Nicaea, the Roman Empire became officially Christian but the full Christianizing of theempire took centuries to accomplish. To us, events in the fourth century may seem to have been movinginexorably toward the formation of the Christian civilization ‘as we know it.’ However, at any givenmoment the dynamics and the processes that gave rise to Christianity were unclear, uncertain, and tentativeto those living through them. Wilken cautions that people living through the fourth and fifth centurieswere not aware that they were living at the threshold of a Christian era. Indeed, the sequence of emperorsbetween Constantine and Theodosius — Constantius II, the militant Pagan Julian, the non-committalValentinian, the ardently Arian Valens—gave no one cause to think they stood at the beginning of a newage.Eusebius's dreams of one God, one emperor, one empire, one Church and his celebration of Constantineas a ‘mighty victor beloved of God’ had been replaced by the memory of orthodox bishops languishing inexile, of an emperor offering sacrifices in cities throughout the east, of laws prohibiting Christians fromteaching literature in the schools, of resourceful and aggressive Arian leaders attacking the Nicenedecrees.’845 The path to a full conversion to Christianity was not easy, nor simple. It was protracted andhard 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 theirdecrees: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 towork on Sunday (Council of Narbonne, 589).Facing a reality of persecution, disenfranchisement, and anti-Semitism the coping mechanisms ofEuropean Jewry were, for the most part, defensive and escapist. Emigration, false conversion, andwithdrawal from reality were commonplace. Jewish creativity and energy found expression in the unlimitedfreedom of religious learning, and in esoteric and mystical speculation. Submersion in religious learning andin 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 inEurope. By the seventh century, the anti-Jewish policies implemented from Theodosius onward broughtabout 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. Europehad been thoroughly de-Judaized. This first ethnic cleansing of the largest minority in the Roman Empireis 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 tolong-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 reachof Christianity was the key factor in the Jewish survival. Geographical concentration has doomed toextinction countless peoples whose suffering no longer disturbs our sleep. These vanquished nations havedisappeared from the world scene and from our consciousness.The Adversus Iudaeos literature847 and the virulent anti-Jewish incitement pouring from all corners ofEuropean 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 themyth about the later emergence of ‘modern anti-Semitism.’For the period after the seventh century, in addition to countless regional, local, and individual acts ofdisparagement, 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 dueto 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 membersof national, religious, or ethnic communities. The anti-Jewish bias that we have tracked throughout was theprecursor, the enabler, and the facilitator of the endemic persecution endured by the Jewish people sincethe fifth century. Spanning fifteen hundred years, Jewish-Christian coexistence has had many highs andlows, 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 andculturally sanctioned and legitimated. These attitudes were perpetuated and exacerbated due to thecanonization 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 prolongedexposure 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 andthe 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 exclusivistinclinations. We would expect the evolution from sect to religion to reflect the transition from the marginsof 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-outor 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) orextraordinary military success (Islam).Stroumsa notes that when Christianity was still a religio illicita, and early Christian intellectuals were strivingfor intellectual respectability, they were the first in the ancient world to develop a coherent argument aboutthe need for religious tolerance, and hence pluralism. Oddly enough, it was their fourth- and fifth-centuryheirs who carried out the de-legitimating of religious pluralism.848 Indeed, as the Pauline religious corpusbecame the sacred lore of the most powerful religious movement humanity has known - Paulines no longerneeded 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 thezenith of world power a religion in the making, a worldview and a religious mindset still in flux. Thisaccelerated trajectory may account for the fact that the sectarian anti-Jewish virulence that accompanied thePauline drive for ascendancy was canonized and became normative – without a ‘tuning down’ ofextremism. 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 aresentful and vindictive mindset yielded triumphalist attitudes and an explosion of persecutory zeal. Theimplications for the Jewish-Christian relationship were momentous. According to Crossan, as Christianitybecame the official religion of the Roman Empire, anti-Judaism moved from theological debate to lethalpossibility. He concludes: ‘think, now, of those passion-resurrection stories as heard in a predominantlyChristian world. Did those stories of ours send certain people out to kill?’849From 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 fromdiversity 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 narrowinterpretation of a rich and diverse heritage.850This mythical account of the Christian origins was necessary to legitimate the Pauline ascendancy, toobscure the adversarial demotion of the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers frompreeminence, and to obscure the transition from the original Jewish and Torah-Observant Jesus movementto 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 triumphantOrthodoxies (The Western Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church) were extraordinarily successful intheir efforts to rewrite history. The imposition of the orthodox veil was so complete that 1500 years laterwe 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 anddeep commitment. However, the enablers and facilitators of the transition to virulent anti-Semitism are adifferent cast of characters. From Nicaea onward, we find at the steering wheel a leadership infatuated withpower and might, and concerned with boundary definition and enforcement. Intense persecution ofdissent will rage throughout Christendom. The Dark Ages are upon Europe and darker ages are upon itsJews. 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 AfterthoughtsIntroduction+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 Theimplausibility and the anti-Jewish tendentiousness of the Markan account of Jesus’ death is covered by avast bibliography and needs not be repeated here. In this chapter I attempt to engage this thorny issuethrough the lens of the conclusions of this monograph. We will prepare the ground by restating thequestions that have accompanied us throughout this survey: Was the ‘Jewish responsibility’ motif presentin 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 Jewsblamed? Did the anti-Jewish strand emerge out of Jewish-Christian issues, or out of tensions within theJesus movement? Did it originate in suspicions, among the Jewish followers of Jesus, about theinvolvement 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’, aplausible claim within the context of Jewish anti-establishment rhetoric, morph into accusations against allJews? Why did the binary ‘Jewish responsibility’/ Roman exoneration emerge despite clear Romanculpability and intense Roman persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus? If the ‘Jewish responsibility forJesus death’ was a known fact, why did several generations pass before it was stated explicitly? Why doesthe libel intensify as time passes? 289Moreover, why did this tradition resonate so deeply with the Gentile followers of Paul852 and not with theother 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 responsibilityfor 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 thethinking, 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 inJesus’s death. It is plausible that following Jesus’s death, a variety of accusations and rumors may haveoriginated among his followers regarding the role played by the traitors and collaborators that ruled Judeaon behalf of the Romans.853 This theme may have originated with him or may reflect an intensification orde-contextualization of traditions originating in the anti-Jewish-establishment lore of the descendants ofthe founding fathers of the Jesus movement. There is no consensus as to which elements areincorporations 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 tointernal and external constituencies that Jesus’s followers are not a threat to Roman society. Byemphasizing Jewish culpability, he may be attempting to exonerate the Romans of responsibility for Jesus’sdeath, an unsuccessful attempt to alleviate persecution. Mark may have also aimed at addressing concernsamong prospective converts, some of which would be reluctant to join a sect at odds with the Romanauthorities.Mark’s often contradictory and ambivalent positioning is noteworthy. Mark informs us that Jesus’s identityas 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 hiswork a seemingly contradictory claim. Namely, that Jesus’s death was not the consequence of Jesus’smessianic claims (or of Roman charges of sedition) but the result of a conspiracy by wicked priests andscribes who opposed him (14:55).Furthermore, according to Mark, Pilate was a ‘reluctant’ crucifier who did not want to crucify Jesus. Pilatewas ‘forced.’ He tried to save Jesus, to no avail (15:9–10, 12–14). Pilate, a ruthless and notoriously cruelRoman prefect, is cast by Mark as indecisive and subject to the influence of those ruled by him. The chiefpriests (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 askingfor 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 dynastiesrequired their replacement with an alternative local oligarchy that would do the conqueror’s bidding. Highpriests were, for the most part, appointed by the conquerors and lost their religious legitimacy in the eyesof many among the local populations. We find that not only in Judea, but throughout the Middle East, thescions of venerable and legitimate priestly families were coerced into representing the interests of theforeign conquerors, or were forced into acquiescence by other means. Most of these traitors, minions andcollaborators with Persian, Greek and Roman conquerors were hated opportunists that collected taxes andruled the provinces on behalf of foreign oppressors.In Judea, this process was accelerated by the Hashmonean usurpation of the high priesthood and itstransformation into a quasi-monarchical role. Thus, by the time of the Roman conquest, the High Priesthad little religious legitimacy among the people. Furthermore, ‘It is noteworthy that in every known caseaction against the Jerusalem church or its leaders was taken when the reigning high priest was one of thosewho belonged to the powerful Sadducean family of Annas (Ananus),’854 a clan hated for its ties with theRoman occupiers. The persistent presentation of a corrupt elite; traitors despised by most Judeans, and thesurrogates of the conquerors, as ‘the Jewish authorities,’ is misinformed at best. This casting is adisingenuous and tendentious misrepresentation of a nation under foreign occupation, a nation oppressedby the Romans and by Judean collaborators and traitors.Despite the delicate and sensitive nature of the terrain we are exploring, we must acknowledge that rumorsand suspicions as to the involvement in the death of Jesus, of these Roman appointed traitors andcollaborators, may have originated among his disciples and first followers. We may further say that as longas the Romans and their appointed minions were viewed as responsible for Jesus’ death and the story wastold 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 painfuland resentful estrangement from the descendants of the founding fathers, these Gentiles appear to haveturned 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 leadthe Jesus camp, and did strengthen the proto-orthodox drive for ascendancy in the Jesus movement. Asnarrator, audience, and perspective shifted – so did intent, content and deployment. The transition, in thecanonical Gospels, from the original culprits (‘the chief priests, the scribes and the elders’ – Mark 14:43) tothe different later variants of ‘the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ - seem to be reflections of thisshift. 291The exoneration of the Romans+The Romans were the acknowledged executioners of Jesus, were inhumanly oppressive, were engaged in anongoing persecution of Gentile believers in Jesus that was to be responsible for the martyrdom ofthousands, 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’ willfulkillers. We have seen that despite the almost unanimous agreement among modern scholars that theRoman authorities where the main factor in Jesus death,3 the canonical Gospels create a continuum thatemphasizes the culpability of ‘the Jews.’By the end of the first century, the Synoptics had settled the choice of patron and villain. The Romanexecutioners were exonerated and became benefactors and sponsors, ‘the Jews’ became the scapegoat. Theinclination to exonerate the Romans and blame the Jews was politically savvy; the Romans were thechoicest target audience, the promised land of power and plenty, and the largest reservoir of potentialconverts. Furthermore, blaming ‘the Jews’ turns out to be supportive of the Pauline struggle against theJewish followers of Jesus.Intended or unintended, by preventing the creation of an anti-Roman strand in the New Testament, theMarkan inclination to exonerate the Romans for Jesus’ death turned out to be politically expedient andpaid-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 thatdespite 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 scapegoatand 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, isclear and blunt on the consequences of the anti-Jewish strand embedded in the New Testament and itsimpact 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 Christiansas 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.’861We 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 andincitement, 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 ofJudaism. The Law that Pauline-believers in Jesus rejected was not the Torah that the Torah-observantJewish followers of Jesus revered. The ‘Law’ that Pauline believers were induced into hating was animaginary, 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 hasnot yet run its course. This process is the result of decades of awe inspiring effort by Christians that havelabored tirelessly, often against strong counter-currents. This shift is also a consequence of the emotionaland theological trauma caused by the Holocaust, of the great human march toward religious tolerance, andof 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 relationshiptoward 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 isno coincidence that the statement centers on the Jewish responsibility for Jesus death, the epicenter of oursaga. 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 thesurrogates 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 anillegitimate leadership appointed by conquering armies is preposterous and suggests unstated agendas. Theidentifiers ‘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 unequivocallycorrected, the current text panders to old misconceptions and prejudices, worrisome in its avoidance of anabsolute 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 anhistorical 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 thetraditional ‘the Jews bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death’ is nonetheless contaminated by anti-Jewishbias.Despite the fact that the final text was a compromise designed to placate the conservative wing of theCatholic Church, and regardless of our reservations about the wording of the Nostra Aetate, we mustacknowledge that it was an historical accomplishment of great value and impact. Years later, Pope JohnPaul II declared that ‘Catholic teaching should aim to present Jews and Judaism in an honest and objectivemanner, 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 andwitnessed the deportation of his Jewish childhood friends to the death camps. The anti-Jewish incitementthat 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 70sand the 80s required him attenuate the pace of change. His courageous and groundbreaking personalattitude 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 Gentileschanged the demographics of the movement. Tensions festered as the relatively homogeneous sect ofJewish followers of Jesus finds itself overwhelmed by an influx of recent non-Jewish converts, willing toembrace Paul’s interpretation of belief in Jesus – but resentful of the attempt (by some among the Jewishfollowers 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 viewsabout Jesus death, its causes and implications. Some Gnostics believed that Jesus’ death was a positiveevent signaling the end of his suffering. The Gnostic Gospel of Judas instructs us that, for some earlybelievers in Jesus, Jesus’ death was a welcome event (under most Gnostic belief systems the material worldis the dominion of demonic forces and life is to be escaped so that the divine spark within may join thedivine realm, where it belongs).863 Marcion had a different perspective: Jesus did not fit the Jewishexpectations 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 ‘Jewishresponsibility for Jesus’ death,’ were not embraced by all early believers in Jesus and were not intrinsic to allforms of belief in Jesus.The diversity of the Jesus movement during the second century instructs us that this emphasis was not aninevitable or intrinsic outcome. We have seen that to all strands Jesus’ death was a matter of record, butnot the pivotal focus of belief. The realization that the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ wastheologically central to only one of the four earliest interpretations of Jesus’ ministry challenges us to queryand decode the evolution of proto-orthodox theology. Furthermore, the fact that the faction that strove todemote and replace the Jewish followers of Jesus as the authoritative custodians and interpreters of Jesuslegacy 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-Jewishstrand 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 plausiblethat following Jesus’ death, accusations and rumors may have originated among his followers regarding theresponsibility for his death. Whether fact, rumor or grounded on a pre-existing Essene template,864 theaccusations against the Roman appointed ‘Jewish authorities’ may have been part of the folklore of theJewish 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’ andmade them their own. As these accusations or rumors migrated to the Gentile camp, Gentile believersstarted to feel and to express themselves as Jewish sectarians. As these Jewish sectarian rhetorical staplesbecame part of the lore and self-perception of Gentile believers in Jesus they morphed, mutated andintensified. Gradually, Pauline believers, engaged in a resentful struggle for legitimacy and ascendancy withJewish 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 pouredtheir anger and resentment onto all Jews. Bundling oppressed and oppressors, a nation and its illegitimaterulers, 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 thetradition they were appropriating, the Pauline proto-orthodox literati and leaders told and rememberedJesus’ ministry from the perspective of an outsider, i.e., disconnected from its historical context. The shiftfrom 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 promotedby them. As so often in this sad saga, slander is subservient to, and derivative of, socio-theologicalinterests. The emergence of an almost perfect match between the agenda of the Pauline faction (thedemotion of the Jewish followers of Jesus and the de-Judaizing of the Jesus tradition) and theology (thefocus 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 alsothe group that embraced wholeheartedly the theme of the Jewish responsibility for Jesus’s death and madeit a central theological tenet? Did the focus on Jesus’s death nurture attitudes that enabled and facilitatedthe de-Judaizing drive? Or was it the other way around? Either way, we can say that the gradualintensification in the ire against “the Jews” that we encounter in the New Testament, and theaccompanying Pauline libel about the “Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death,” could not but support thePauline 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 aconflict with Judaism. This observation stands despite the fact that with the passage of time, and loss ofcontext, this distinction was lost and Judaism came to be perceived as the enemy. Even though literalreadings of the canonical Gospels, embedded in a hegemonic Pauline proto-orthodox hermeneutic, yieldJudaism as the adversary - the actual opponents seem to have been the descendants of Jesus’ disciples andfirst 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’ andthe ‘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 surveyedaccepted 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 Jewswere responsible for the death of Jesus. Yearly surveys conducted since in the USA and in Europe, showno significant change in this sobering picture.865 Even though most modern-day believers in Jesus rejectthe ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death,’ the libel and the prejudices and derivatives associated with it arestill alive. Surveys instruct us that one in four American Christians, and one in five Europeans carry thelibel in their hearts. Half of these respondents disclosed that they believe that today’s Jews are to be blamedfor Jesus’ crucifixion. A host of corollary prejudices and stereotypes still loom large in people’s hearts andminds and are deeply embedded and engrained.The libel regarding the ‘Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death’ stands on truncated logic, as exemplified by acouple of historical scenarios:During the WWII occupation of Europe, the Germans imposed draconian measures against any and allforms of dissent or subversion. Any activity that could potentially challenge the German occupation washarshly uprooted. During this period, the Germans ruled through appointed sympathizers andcollaborators. Some among these imposed collaborators and their sympathizers among the populaceparticipated, 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 ofhundreds of thousands of Jews in German death camps.In these circumstances, is the statement that ‘the French,’ ‘the Belgians,’ the Deutch,’ or ‘the Italians’866were 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 ofdissent or subversion throughout the empire. Any activity that could potentially challenge the Romanoccupation was harshly uprooted. During this period, the Romans ruled through appointed sympathizersand collaborators. Some among these appointed collaborators may have participated, facilitated, enabled ormight have been complicit in the death of Jesus. 298In these circumstances, the statement ‘some Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death’ may be technicallytrue, 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 ‘thewhole 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). Itis also not dissimilar to blaming ‘the French’ for the death of Joan D’Arc, blaming ‘the British’ for thedeaths 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 toname 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 havebeen committed by them, or on their behalf, cannot be the responsibility of the people. Failing to clarifythis 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 AfterthoughtsIntroduction+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 externalenemies leads to human right abuses at best, genocide at worst. Anti-Semitism867 is an emotional andintellectual predisposition that emerges following prolonged exposure to undifferentiated messages ofambivalence and hatred toward Jews and toward Judaism that are perceived to be legitimate, sanctionedand justified. The outward symptoms of anti-Semitism range from dislike to persecution, and fromcontempt and ambivalence to genocidal inclinations.The impact of the anti-Jewish strand on Christendom throughout the centuries is beyond the scope ofthis monograph. My limited excursions beyond the fourth century have a limited goal; to explore theconnection 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 multiplefactors that exacerbated and intensified outcomes. The trajectory that infused these religious enthusiastswith unparalleled zeal may have started with the binary-dualistic worldview of the Jewish followers ofJesus. 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 anddarkness, 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 fueleda hyper-militant mindset among Gentiles.Furthermore, the Pauline outlook was forged in the heat of a protracted struggle over legitimacy andascendancy within the Jesus movement, and in the midst of intermittent Roman persecution. Thisenvironment further intensified militant and exclusivist attitudes. Defensive reactions to claims by theiradversaries may have also influenced the Pauline temperament: militancy may have evolved ascompensation for the theological diversity, confusion, and ambiguity that characterized the variousGentile forms of belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions to theGentiles.Moreover, ethical monotheism, the belief in one God that is benevolent, omnipotent and omniscientseems 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 wrongbeliefs, 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 againstthe 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, ethicalmonotheists 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 hasbeen 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 thethreshold to the existence of pre-Christian anti-Semitism. Tensions and conflicts between Judeans andother 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 betweenJudeans 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 occasionallyaccompanied 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-politicalenvironment. Conflicts between Pagans and Judeans were not significantly different from conflictsinvolving other nations or ethnic groups. We encounter Greek and Roman authors that praise orcriticize 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 dependon Alexandrian sources, we must conclude that Roman attitudes toward Jews and Judaism were muchmore positive than the traditional view would allow. One might even argue that the traditional viewmust 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 ofGod we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few fromthe glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worsethan we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincereadvice:First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whateverwill not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to bedone in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we areChristians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, andblaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the pastunknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, nowthat we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing rightbefore our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christand us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and evenworse ourselves, as we very well know.In Deuteronomy 13:12 Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totallydestroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he wouldbe the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy4:2 and 12:32 he commanded very explicitly that nothing is to be added to or subtractedfrom 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 theidolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (aswe 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 theydo 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 themthe same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in abarn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters inour country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as theyincessantly 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 lifeand limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poorJews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17:10) in which he commandsthem to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: ‘what theyteach you in accord with the law of the Lord.’ Those villains ignore that. They wantonlyemploy the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse themwith this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captivewith 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.870It is difficult to reconcile oneself to the coexistence, in the same soul, of the most exalted and the mostreprehensible emotions and attitudes. The fact that the author of ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ is thetheologian that brought about The Reformation is especially discouraging for it epitomizes the splitcognition that enabled, even in the most important and lofty Christian theologians, deep anti-Semiticattitudes.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 byreligious or political elites, a message of acquiescence to violence reaches our most troubled and violentsouls. Sanctioned and sanctified hatred lead to atrocities at the bottom of the social pyramid. Elites havebeen aware of this ‘trickle down’ effect of incitement and have used it countless times for political gainand 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 andpurposely 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 acentral theme in Christian theology, liturgy and culture. The persecution of the Jews was officiallysanctioned and sanctified by Christian rulers, theologians and clergy from the fifth century onward andwas nurtured and justified by sacred lore. Since, sanctified hatred has sent the mobs countless times tovent their resentment and their frustrations on the Jewish minority. Anti-Jewish violence and hatredhave been ignited by overt incitement and by subtle appeals to ingrained prejudices. There has not beena 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 thefacilitator of the endemic persecution endured by the Jewish people since the fifth century. From thefifth to the mid-twentieth century, the Jewish-Christian saga has had many highs and lows, within anoverall context of cyclical and ingrained anti-Judaism. The Holocaust was a monstrosity of Nazi genesisbut it was nurtured, enabled and facilitated by the anti-Jewish sentiment embedded in the tradition andby the marginalizing, the disenfranchisement, the disparagement, and the persecution of Jews and ofJudaism that predated WWII.The persecution of the Jews throughout Europe has been intermittent in its historical scope, in itsintensity and in its geographical spread. The de-Judaizing of Europe between the reign of Theodosiousand 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. Thefate of the largest minority in the Roman Empire is unknown. How did they disappear? By what meanswas this achieved?The virulent anti-Jewish incitement pouring from all corners of European society does not leave muchroom for doubt as to the means. We must suspect that most were forced to convert, fled or worse. Thissilent disappearance has been largely erased from our historical memory, creating a vacuum that hasenabled 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 toconvey or grasp: at the high point of Solomon's kingdom, around 1000 BCE, some two million Jewslived in the Land of Israel. On the eve of the destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.), the numberof Jews in the Roman empire and the other diasporas reached a peak of about 4.5 million. Prof. SergioDella Pergola an expert on Jewish demography, estimates that given an ideal hypothetical scenario,without Anti-Semitism, persecution, forced conversion, and assimilation, there would be approximately100-120 million Jews in the world today. Right before the Holocaust the Jewish population wasestimated at 16.5 million. Currently, the number of Jews is estimated at 13-20 million, depending on thedefinition of Jewish identity – whether religious or cultural.Words can, and do, kill. Language, YHWH’s instrument of creation, is the most powerful weapon in thehuman 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 artof incitement and sanctified hatred. The weak links in the societal chain often snap and act under theinfluence of those that write, preach and teach. While these ‘rotten apples’ sometimes pay the price fortheir actions, those that instigate and incite - are most often shielded. Protected by our distinctionbetween speech and action, we prosecute surrogates and minions and protect the ‘free speech’ of themarketers 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 didawake and took notice. After the WWII ended and cinematographic evidence flooded the moviescreens, ambivalence and silent acquiescence turned into a groundswell of guilt, empathy and supportfor the victims and for the survivors. Spearheaded by a small minority of courageous Christians thatprotected Jews during the WWII, the post Holocaust era has witnessed a great Christian leap, a greatawakening 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-Jewishattitudes among early believers in Jesus. As suggested earlier, the rejection of Judaism by most Gentilebelievers in Jesus and the rejection by the Jewish descendants of Jesus’ disciples and first followers ofthe many forms of Gentile belief in Jesus that surfaced following the Pauline and Gnostic missions tothe Gentiles, are the triggers of a protracted and bitter struggle about identity, legitimacy and authoritythat burst into the open during the early decades of the second century. Judaism, Gnosticism andPaganism were not participants in this struggle; they were the subjects of contention. This protractedconflict 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 crucibleand the precursor of Antisemitism.However, the authors of the canonical and the authoritative texts did not intend, nor anticipate, theconsequences of their campaign to de-Judaize belief in Jesus and to appropriate the identity and lore ofthe descendants of Jesus’s disciples and first followers. These early Gentile believers in Jesus must beexonerated of anti-Semitic intent despite the fact that the anti-Jewish strand that emerged out of theirchallenge to the legitimacy of the beliefs and traditions of the founding fathers of the Jesus movementwas 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, andshould not be applied retroactively. Therefore, and despite the heart’s ambivalence, we must exoneratethe 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 intenseemotions 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 misinterpretationby later believers of the anti-Judaic rhetoric that accompanied this foundational crisis within the Jesusmovement - 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 manyforgotten national, religious and ethnic struggles that do not disturb our sleep. It is first and foremostthe sanctification and the legitimating of the anti-Jewish strand that have made anti-Semitism the mostferocious and longest lasting persecution the world has witnessed.At present, the consequence of seventeen centuries of de-legitimization, dehumanization andpersecution of the Jewish people by institutional Christianity is modern anti-Semitism, the mostfrequent symptom of which are derogatory stereotypes about Jews and Judaism. Despite a number ofCatholic and Protestant statements, and despite decades of positive interreligious relationships andteachings aimed at rejecting anti-Jewish attitudes, the stereotypes associated with anti-Semitism surviveand infect minds and hearts throughout the Christian world. According to a study commissioned by theAmerican Anti-Defamation League, that investigated attitudes and opinions towards Jews in more than100 countries via 53,100 interviews, 11% of the population in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinaviancountries believe six or more anti-Jewish stereotypes. In Western Europe, 19% of people in countrieswith 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 since29% 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 theCatholic Church has in recent decades fought anti-Semitism vigorously - the data is indicative of thedifficulty 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, EasternEurope and Russia are of even greater concern. The percentage of inhabitants that believe six or moreanti-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% ofpeople 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-SaharanAfrica (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 enigmaIntroduction+Since the end of the Second World War, Christianity has embarked on an admirable process ofintrospection regarding its Jewish roots and its attitudes toward Judaism. For the first time in humanhistory, a religious community of great power and influence has entered a painful process ofintrospection, 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 nextgenerations 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 engagea 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-Jewishstrand 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 NewTestament873 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 astandstill, a liberation march at a pause. Unfortunately, the great liberating winds of the 1970s havesubsided, 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 ourway to further harm.The Catholic Church, benefiting from a centralized organization, has made significant progress inengaging the anti-Jewish strand and has made substantial strides. Protestant denominations, with theirgreat diversity, range from most progressive to the some of the least. The Greek and Eastern OrthodoxChurches have been conspicuously ambivalent and minimalist in embracing, and implementing, the newtrends. Whereas Catholics and Protestants have engaged the ‘Jewish question,’ the Greek and OrthodoxChurches, 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-Judaismin their midst, combined with the rise of xenophobic sentiment in their area of influence, are of graveconcern. With a constituency that harbors deep anti-Semitic traditions, the Greek and EasternOrthodox 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, toengage the subject with sufficient focus and will. This neglect exacerbates traditional anti-Semiticcurrents in these countries, and facilitates the stage for the current flare-up of anti-Jewish sentiment intheir areas of influence. Weak or non-existent traditions of human rights and tolerance, economies indisarray, 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 Protestantdenominations. Of most concern is the situation among some literalists that have self-segregated frommainstream academic research, and in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Overall, to the exclusion of theEastern 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 thefruits 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 Protestantdenominations and by prominent Protestant theologians and scholars are welcome steps. At present, weencounter a mixed picture that includes important historical declarations, significant changes inattitudes, and a large array of halfway measures. Some declarations and statements are supersessionaryand patronizing, adding insult to injury. Many Christian leaders and thinkers have wrestled with therealization that the canonical texts include tendentious and biased polemic. The recognition that,although divinely inspired, sacred texts reflect the circumstances, agendas, shortcomings and flaws oftheir writers, is an epic shift.Furthermore, ‘studies of Catholic and Protestant textbooks used in religious education courses in thiscountry and in Europe. These studies show that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council andparallel Protestant official statements have indeed had a positive impact on the way the New Testamentand Jews and Judaism are presented in religious education programs on the local level.’874The jeopardy in which the Christian soul has found itself is the result of human choices, not of divinedesign. For some seventeen hundred years Christianity did understand itself to be the negation and therejection 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 inspirationon viable paths to a future without anti-Jewish bias. Torah-observance, the teachings of Jesus and theGnostic insights were alternative Christian core beliefs that faded away under the militancy of thevictorious Pauline faction. The diversity of 21st century Christianity, extensive as it is, is limited by theboundaries set by the faction that gained ascendancy. Much is to be gained by reclaiming ancientalternative perspectives on the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and by reflecting on the implications ofearly diversity on the validity of other paths to the divine.Re-connecting with the diversity of the second century may support the strengthening of theologicaledifices that do not depend on the anti-Jewish narrative. Recognition of the validity of other paths tosalvation 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 ofthe battle against its anti-Jewish past. This shift was facilitated by its hierarchical and centralizedorganizational structure, its ability to sequence decision-making and implementation, and its tradition ofemphasis 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.’875At the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church took the unprecedented step of taking astand 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.’876Despite 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 wasalready 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.’877In 1988, the United States Catholic Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Inter-religious relationspublished a pamphlet, ‘Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion.’ This pamphletstresses that passion plays should not stereotype Jewish people. It also recommends avoiding castingconfrontational scenes between Jews and Jesus. According to the pamphlet, Jews should be portrayedaccurately, sensitively and positively. The Catholic Church today calls for great caution in allpresentations 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 ofAmerican Neo-orthodoxy, was among the first to place the responsibility for anti-Semitism on theChristian lap: ‘It is a problem that Hitler did not create but only aggravated.’ Niebuhr’s path-breakingand lifelong support for Jewish causes has had an enduring positive impact on the Neo-Orthodox viewof Jews and of Judaism. Some of Niebuhr’s disciples and younger fellow Neo-Orthodox theologianswere among the first supporters of his diagnosis of the malignancy, an admirable and courageous standat the time.Roy Eckardt, Niebuhr’s disciple and for many years Chairman of the Department of Religion at LeighUniversity, went further than most in identifying the sources of Christian anti-Semitism. Eckardt sawthe 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.’882Norman Beck has postulated the most far-reaching changes, including a new translation andinterpretation 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.’884For 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. Manyscholars 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 thatwould let go of the anti-Jewish prosthesis is still a work in progress that encounters a traditionalistbacklash. The cultural, ethnic and religious diversity of the interconnected twenty first century seems tofavor a multi-covenant perspective.Two thousand years after James’ blessing of a separate and valid mission to the Gentiles, Christianity isre-evaluating its turning away from the recognition and embrace of diversity. Awakening to theexistence and to the pervasiveness of the anti-Jewish bias in the sacred lore and in the authoritativetradition has been a slow process. Encountering the vicious virulence of the post-Apostolic period istraumatic 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?’891Many theologians and scholars are still reluctant to connect the anti-Jewish legacy of the early Christiantexts, which some have come to acknowledge, with the later development of a culture of incitement andpersecution. Although the evidence for this genealogy is well attested in the vast literature that we havesurveyed – most are stalling at crossing the Rubicon. The ‘dots’ representing the evidence that connectssanctified denigration, disenfranchisement and incitement to anti-Semitism have been ‘out there’ formany centuries. However, ‘connecting the dots’ seems to require a leap of insight that is difficult toattain from within a hegemonic religious mindset.Unintended journeys to ethical dead-ends often start from inauspicious beginnings, and end attroublesome shores. I have suggested that genocide is at the door when the disenfranchisement and thedehumanization of internal adversaries or external enemies merge with a secular or religious de-legitimating narrative. The social fabric fractures following prolonged exposure to undifferentiatedmessages of ambivalence and hatred that are perceived to be sacrosanct, legitimate, sanctioned andjustified. Furthermore, periods of crisis and uncertainty bring to the surface fears and anxieties that areeasily 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 altarsand 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 beeneliminated. The long and painful journey of introspection set in motion by the Holocaust is stillunfolding. 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 thattemporary lulls are not signs of irreversible change. Unless the breeding grounds are thoroughlycleansed, the past will recur. Sustainable change will require addressing the theological and culturalsources that sustain and nurture anti-Jewish attitudes and sentiment. Whether extricating the anti-Jewishstrand from the Christian soul will require its extrication from the Christian textual heritage is a dauntingquestion for 21st century believers in Jesus.The current status+The second half of the 20th century was an eventful period for New Testament research (Thediscoveries at Nag Hammadi and the Judean desert. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the rediscovery of Jesus theJew, and of the various second century strands of belief in Jesus). The second half of the 20th centurywas also a turning point for Christian attitudes toward Judaism (The Holocaust, the rebirth of the Stateof Israel and Vatican II). To a large extent, the impact of these events is still unfolding, and our currentunderstanding of them may be transitional. 317A significant number of Christian congregations have explicitly divested the supersessionist outlook, acrucial 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 FederationThe realization that no religion can be understood through the polemic against it, that religiousnarratives are self-contained universes, and that theologies are self-confirming and self-referentialdiscourses - is slowly gaining ground. Traditional views about Judaism are now less prevalent amongChristian theologians, scholars and clergy. There is a growing awareness that Judaism is to be studiedand understood from within, not through external polemical prisms and mirrors. The momentum seemsto be on the side of those working for a true Judeo-Christian ethos. Progress among theologians andscholars has been the strongest. However, the great strides made in these matters in the theological andscholarly 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.’893Indeed. For the most part, clergy are seen as promoters and protectors of cherished truths andtraditions, not as heralds of newly found ones. Thus, pastors seldom step ahead of their congregationsfor 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 inJesus have no anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic inclinations. Furthermore, many of today’s believers in Jesusconsider Jews to be God’s chosen people and have but the warmest attitudes toward them. Therefore, itis intriguing, perplexing, and noteworthy that most are unaware of the deep and pervasive presence ofthe 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, andtraditions. 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 disconcertingexperience.Decades ago, Reinold Niebur in his ‘Moral man and Immoral society’ did attempt to wrestle with thevexing dissonance between the high ethics of individuals, and the often-troubling collective behavior ofgroups. The purity and innocence of individual belief, on the one hand, and the loss of the ethicalcompass by institutional religion on the other - are hard to reconcile. Will the current approach ofgradual declarations, and creative reinterpretation be enough to keep the anti-Jewish legacy at bay? Arewe leaving behind the seeds of recurrence?Aware of past cycles of recurrence, we must be concerned that the current spirit of tolerance could be atemporary lull - not permanent, positive, and irrevocable change. History teaches us that when rootcauses are not eradicated, recurrence is the rule rather than the exception. Since the anti-Jewish strandlays untouched in the canonical lore, given the cyclical and recurring nature of the anti-Jewishphenomenon, and given the human propensity to fall prey to discourses of incitement – we must reachthe 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, andChristians will not be free from its malevolent influence. 319Although religions are self-referential discourses that do not require external validation, and Torahobservance 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 ourconcern.While many scholars, clergy, theologians and lay believers repudiate anti-Jewish attitudes, the texts thatharbor 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 tothe cleansing phase of extrication. Some fear that the dependency is too great, that the malignancy isintertwined with vital theological tissue, that extrication would endanger the theological and emotionalcore 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 thedeclaratory and symbolical areas of recognition and repudiation. As necessary, the first changes were atthe 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 issueof the appropriateness of the anti-Jewish strand as a sacred motif. Extrication remains the greatestchallenge.The current re-evaluation of Christian attitudes toward Judaism has not resulted in uniform andmonolithic change. The fragmentation and the diversity of modern Christianity guarantee painstakinglyslow progress. This diversity implies that different segments of the Christian fleet will choose differentpaths and will travel at different speeds. Change will be gradual and hard fought. The effort to eradicatethe 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 Christiantheology, free from the anti-Jewish scaffold, the great excitement of the first phase has subsided, whilethe most difficult tasks are still ahead. The challenges ahead are daunting, the stakes are great., and aunique window of opportunity may be closing-up. As the Christian generation that witnessed, and wasburdened 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 andconsciences. Without the sense of urgency that characterized the post-Holocaust era, it will be difficultto gather the momentum needed to bring about further change. In these circumstances, the advantagegoes to the ingrained-incumbent-traditional narrative. The fact that disparagement, abuse, dismissal, andtrespassing have been deemed appropriate for the exhortation, edification, and inspiration of the faithfulis hard to accept or comprehend. Anti-Semitism, acknowledged by one in eight Americans andEuropeans, 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 awayfrom traditional views on Jews and Judaism. The view that a proselytizing struggle between turn of theera Judaism and early Christianity may have been the main generator of anti-Jewish attitudes amongearly 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 moreaggressive 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 toJudaism as the main generator of anti-Jewish sentiment among early Gentile believers. Under thisconstruct, attraction to Judaism infuriated Gentile leaders and intellectuals and fueled the anti-Jewishfervor 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 aboutwhat belief in Jesus was, or should be. Therefore, we need internalize the fact that all these believersunderstood 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 theretroactive legitimating of all interpretations of Jesus’ ministry. The implications of this early diversityand of the re-placement of the origins of the Jewish-Christian saga within the Jesus movement, are themain themes of this monograph.Each of the relevant meta-narratives or models; the traditional thesis, the competition thesis ofSimon,894 and the thesis suggested in this monograph, have implications of great importance and scopefor the future of both religions. The future of Judeo-Christian relations and the future of the Christianself-perception depend on which meta-narrative on the Christian origins and on Jewish-Christianrelations 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 authoritativetexts is historically, theologically and ethically justifiable, and whether it is an appropriate theme andcomponent of sacred lore, needs to remain at the forefront of the debate. The danger to the Christiansoul and to Jewish lives dictates a decisive approach. We should not wait for the future to unfold to findout 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 resurfacewhen the circumstances are propitious. The anti-Semitic monster may burst out again, should a newgeneration of marketers of hate gain hold of the Christian soul once more. As we wait for the future tounfold, many Jews (and some Christians) fear that the cancer may recur during periods of instability andanxiety, 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 inharmony 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 traditionalaffiliation 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 toworldwide efforts by the Catholic Church and by most Protestant denominations, Judeo-phobia is inretreat from the public arena, and, hopefully, from the hearts and minds of clergy and lay believers inthe West. 321The great gains of the last forty years have enabled a return to normality and improved security for theJewish people. A process of healing and rehabilitation from multi-generational trauma is under way. Anincreasing 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 othercultures and religious traditions, extrication of the anti-Jewish strand from the sacred texts, and thedivestiture 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 ofmutual respect between two independent, legitimate and equally valid dispensations - free from thespecter of the anti-Jewish strand, and supersession theology.Sacred scriptures are the depositories of our collective engagement with the divine as understoodthrough the fog of human imperfections and limitations. Imperfect hearts and minds can only produceimperfect vehicles of faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that believers were involved in religiousdebates, that tempers flared, and that the literature we surveyed was written. It is, however, deeplydisappointing and troubling that religious leaders sanctified, exacerbated, and perpetuated the attitudesand emotions that accompanied the contentious evolution of belief in Jesus. For almost two millenniaanti-Jewish attitudes were nurtured, deemed worthy, and edifying. The consequences of the unintendedjourney that ensued are sobering, their scope difficult to grasp.In the past, believers could rightly claim innocent ignorance about the existence and the consequencesof the anti-Jewish strand. However, twenty-first-century theologians, religious leaders, and believersseem to be poised to determine for all times, by action or by default, whether the anti-Jewish strand thatlies dormant in their tradition reflects the spirit of God or the human shortcomings and imperfectionsof the authors and editors of the texts. Ultimate responsibility rests with those that write, teach andpreach.895 It is the religious, intellectual and power elites of the past that stand accused as wecontemplate the consequences of the anti-Jewish turn in early Christianity. The past is their burden. Onthe other hand, it is the religious, intellectual and power elites of the present that must contemplate thefuture consequences of preserving the anti-Jewish strand in the canonical lore. The future is theirburden.The Present and the Future – Afterthoughts+We have noted that most of today’s believers are not aware that the canonical and the authoritativeliterature harbors an anti-Jewish strand. Most are not aware of its impact on how believers in Jesus havethought and felt about Jews and about Judaism. The realization that their sacred literature may becontaminated 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 tothe fabric of our consciousness and tests the limits of our intellect and our emotional fiber. We livewithin 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 itsconstituents. 322This peculiar phenomenon may be illustrated by an anecdote. During the 1970s N. Beck, with whom Ishare the experience of an unintended encounter with the anti-Jewish strand, was given the assignmentof 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 hisresearch and the presentation of his conclusions, Beck authored his influential Mature Christianity, TheRecognition 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 hasbeen said about the ‘collateral’ damage of this malignancy: its impact on the souls of millions ofChristians. Throughout the ages the anti-Jewish narrative has not only victimized Jews and Judaism; ithas also victimized the Christian soul. The impact of the anti-Jewish strand on the Christian soul may bethe 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.’896This Jewish-Christian tale is a case study of enthusiasm gone awry, of militancy turned genocidal. Theprocesses that underwrite the journey from rhetoric to genocide are not unique to the Jewish-Christianrelationship. Persistent and undifferentiated disenfranchisement, de-legitimating and de-humanizing ofinternal adversaries or of external enemies lead to human right abuses at best, genocide at worst. Thesepotential ethical failures threaten all human communities, nations and religions. At the dawn of the 21stcentury we hear the drumbeat of religious and xenophobic acrimony emanating from various corners ofthe globe. We must not allow our ancestral narratives, fitted for a clannish, tribal and religiouslyexclusivist world, to dominate our lives in the multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-national world ofthe 21st century.On the other hand, it is important not ‘to equate modern, racial antisemitism, the genocidal ideology ofNazism, with the ancient Christian teaching of contempt for Jews and Judaism. While the latter can besaid to have paved the way for the former, they are qualitatively different. The latter led to forceconversions, ghettos and all too frequent massacres of Jews throughout European history, but it neverconceived of the idea of genocide as such.’897My deep admiration for the sincere and awe-inspiring efforts of the last 40 years and my awareness ofthe 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 livesdictates a decisive stand. Without it, the troublesome footprint of resentment toward adversaries thatwere Jews will continue to reverberate and point in the wrong direction. As long as the anti-Jewishnarrative is available to nurture the fire, this ever-present danger may resurface, as exemplified by thefour cycles of anti-Jewish recurrence surveyed earlier.We must acknowledge that the ‘unintended journey’ of early Gentile believers in Jesus will remainsomewhat 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 Paganinclinations and affiliations is deflationary. If explored further and found worthy, this meta-narrativemay contribute to reduce the tragic and harmful impact that the anti-Jewish strand has had on thereading 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 fertilevalleys 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 painfullytraveled 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 thatnurture our souls and our communities are part of one universal spiritual quest, comes from ourincreasing awareness of a shared human destiny.However, the rivers of faith we currently see and experience are no longer pristine, serene and vital. Thevitality of these rivers has been compromised by the debris of past human conflicts and by the pollutionof their waters in the upstream of history. Boulders and debris from the historical upstream cause mostof the rivers’ turbulence. When the rivers flood; the debris becomes deadly. Pollutants originating in thehistorical upstream are poisoning the rivers’ inner life. This current state is not a natural, necessary orpreordained outcome; it is the result of millennia of contamination. Human imperfections and humanshortcomings have brought our rivers of faith to their current state. This is a reversible human-madesituation.Judaism and Christianity originate in countless springs and tributaries, some of which we share instrange and often tragic ways. Regardless of differing understandings of how we got here, our destiniesare intertwined. For centuries, our tragic saga was perceived as preordained, inevitable. We now have abetter understanding of how we arrived at this juncture. We have a better understanding of the causesfor the recurring floods, the reasons for the rivers’ turbulence and for the pollution of their waters. Wecan take control of our future and avoid the tragic floods that have periodically devastated ourcommunities and our souls. Human progress has brought us to the threshold of a new paradigm whereself-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 historicalupstream. The debris and the pollution are not their essence; they are their curse. By extricating thedebris, 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 andmajestic 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 areasonable job at the downstream, but we have failed to extricate the boulders and the debris at theupstream. We may be squandering a temporary reprieve and making tragic recurrence inevitable. Wemust extricate the debris from our socio-theological upstream and rejoice anew in the majestic flow of aserene, 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 adisturbing past about which we can do little and a future that is up to us. Let’s be inspired by the greatminds on whose shoulders we stand; the courageous theologians and scholars that have led the way inthe effort to cleanse their lore and faith from the debris of an unintended journey, and from the all-toohuman 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 255b. Challenging Unassailable Legitimacy 258c. Projection onto Judaism 259d. About Judaizing 263e. An Elusive Jewish Response 266f. The Anti-Jewish Strand 270g. Orthodoxies and Sacred texts 271h. What If? 272i. Polemic in The New Testament – Summary 276j. The traditional narrative 279k. The post Constantine era 288m. The Responsibility for Jesus’ Death 291n. Consequences 303 328  *Bibliographies of important topicsThe synoptic problem-Mark and the Disciples –Mark’s incomprehension motifThe 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 problemOn 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. andVerheyden Joseph eds. New Studies in the Synoptic Problem BETL, vol. 239 (2011); Sim David Matthew and theSynoptic Problem Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Joseph eds. New Studies in theSynoptic 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 SynopticProblem (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 twogospels in their first century settings. The papers in the second volume focus on the reception history of these twogospels; Kloppenborg John S Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays WUNT, vol. 329 (2014); Goodacre Mark TheFarrer Hypothesis and Farrer Hypothesis Response in Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer (eds.), The SynopticProblem: Four Views (2016) 47-66 and 127-38; Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer eds. The Synoptic Problem: FourViews (2016); Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles in The Early Jesus Movement (2013) 18-41;Mark and the DisciplesNeufeld, Dietmar Mockery and Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (2014); Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews andGentiles 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 DanielHarrington The Gospel of Mark (2002); Henderson, Suzanne W. Concerning the Loaves: ComprehendingIncomprehension in Mark 6.45-52 JSNT 83 (2001) 3-26; Danove Paul Paul The Narrative Rhetoric of Mark’sAmbiguous 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 andthe 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 accordingto 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. TheBlindness 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 characterisationof 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 updatedsurvey of scholarship on the Markan disciples see Black, C. Clifton The Disciples According to Mark: MarkanRedaction in Current Debate (2012); Watson, David F. Honor among Christians: The Cultural Key to the MessianicSecret (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 toMark Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 8.3 (2004) 50-68; Maloney Linda Mark and Mystery Currents in Theologyand 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; MooDouglas 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 PaulThe 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 ReaderUnderstand: ReaderResponse Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (1991); Matera, Frank J. 1989 The Incomprehension ofthe Disciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14– 8,30) Biblica 70: (1989) 153-72; Best, Ernest Disciples andDiscipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark (1986); Donahue, John R. The Theology and Setting ofDiscipleship in the Gospel of Mark (1983); Hawkin, David J. The Incomprehension of the Disciples in MarkanRedaction JBL 91 (1972) 491-500; Tyson, Joseph B. The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark JBL 80 (1961) 261-68.The Jewish followers of JesusQ 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 ComposingMatthew by Recomposing Q: The Composition of Matt 23–25.’ (2016); An Early Reader of Mark and Q van BelleGilbert 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. SmithD.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 tothe Original Sayings and Stories of Jesus (2008); Luz Ulrich Matthew and Q (2005); Dunn, Christianity in theMaking—Vol 1— Jesus Remembered (2003) 60, 144, 147; Darrell Bock, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, DavidAlan Black and David R. Beck, eds. (2001); Robinson James M., Hoffmann Paul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. TheCritical 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 Perspectiveson 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 andthe Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; On the M material: Stephenson BrooksMatthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheatand the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; Snodgrass Klyne R. Stories with Intent: AComprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2008); Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1997) 2:403-18; Kingsbury Jack Dean The Parables of Jesusin Matthew 13: A Study in in Redaction-Criticism (1969)General - Bibliowicz Abel M. Jewish-Christian Relations, The First Centuries (2016) ; Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews andGentiles 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 centuriesSkarsaune 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? InAncient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies inJudaism (2006) 393-408; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizing in the First andSecond Centuries CE (2004) 77-93; Knox John The Origin of the Ebionites in The Image of the JudaeoChristians inAncient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81; Taylor Joan EThe Phenomenon of Early Jewish Christianity: Reality or Scholarly In The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in AncientJewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003); Gager, John G. Did JewishChristians See the Rise of Islam?’ in The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the EarlyMiddle Ages. Edited by A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (2003) 361-72; Mimouni, Simon C Les elkasaites: etats desquestions 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 theJudaeo-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 Sourcefor 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 WilliamHorbury, W. D. Davies, and John Sturdy (1999) 731-75; Knox John Jews and Jewish Christians in the Land of Israelat the Time of the Bar Kochba War, with Special Reference to the Apocalypse of Peter in Tolerance and Intolerance inEarly Judaism and Christianity. Edited by G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa (1998) 228-38; Horbury William JewishMessianism and the Cult of Christ (1998) 1-41; McLaren, J. S. Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66-70 C.E in AncientHistory 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 Recognitions1.27-71. 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. Editedby 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 Disappearancein the Fourth Century. Vigiliae christianae 43 (1989) 409-10; Flusser D. Paul’s Jewish-Christian Opponents in theDidache 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 EgyptianChristianity Edited by B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (1986) 161-75; PritzRay 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/GentileChristianity (1983) 74-79; Lüdemann, Gerd The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical Evaluation ofthe Pella-Tradition in The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Vol. 1of 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 aHypothetical 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 NovumTestamentum 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 EarlyChurch (1969); Pines Shlomo The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Sourcein Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968) 237-309; Barnard Leslie W. The EarlyRoman Church, Judaism, and Jewish Christianity Anglican Theological Review 49 (1967): 371-84; Munck JohannesPrimitive 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’ deathSuggested: 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 TheRejection of the Jews in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 22-25; Richardson Peter DavidGranskou, Stephen G. Wilson Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity: Paul and the Gospels: Volume 1 (1986), KingsburyJ. 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 andMessiah 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 AndrewMark'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 scripturesMarcus 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 SomeCore 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 SeaScrolls and the New Testament (2005); Moyise S. and Menken M.J.J. eds. The Psalms in the New Testament (2004); inMoyise 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); PolenNehemia 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: ACase Study in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (2009); Dirk J. Human and Gert Jacobus Steyn (eds.), Psalms andHebrews: 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 tothe Hebrews (2011 )121-145; Moffitt David M. The Interpretation of Scripture in the Epistle to the Hebrews in MasonEric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 77-99; Moyise Steve The Later NewTestament 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 EarlyJesus Movement (2013) 13-19; Whitfield, B.J. Joshua Traditions and the Argument of Hebrews 3 and 4 (2013); DyerB.R. The epistle to The Hebrews in recent research: studies on the author's identity, his use of The Old Testament, andTheology (2013) 104-31; Foster Paul Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent ScholarlyTrends 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): CurrentTrends and Future Perspectives in the Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New Journal for the Study of theNew Testament (September 2015) 38: 112-125The parting of the waysOn 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. TheParting 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 bythe Fourth Century Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000) 82–119; Meeks Wayne A. BreakingAway: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities in Search of the EarlyChristians: Selected Essays Hilton Allen R. and Snyder Gregory h. (2002) 115–23; Becker Adam and Annette ReedYoshiko 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 norGreek? 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: ThePartition 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-RomanReligions in Antiquity (2006) 278-329; Jossa Giorgo Jews or Christians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of TheirOwn Identity (2006); Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups andTexts (2007); Heemstra Marius The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways (2010); Cohen, Shaye JD. The waysthat parted: Jews, Christians, and Jewish-Christians ca. 100-150 CE (2013), Bibliowicz Abel M. Jews and Gentiles inThe Early Jesus Movement (2013) 151-167; Gager J.G. Who Did What to Whom? Physical Violence between Jews andChristians 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: ACommentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (1989) 228; Johnson Luke T. The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slanderand the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas The Theology of theLetter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle tothe 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 SymbolicUniverse JSNTSup 219 (2002)192–195; Wedderburn A. J. M. Sawing off the Branches: Theologizing DangerouslyAd 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 TheEpistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, et al. (2009) 151-73; Nanos, M. D. New orRenewed 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 RichardHays.’ In Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews, (2009); Mitchell Alan C. A Sacrifice of Praise Does HebrewsPromote 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 proselytizingOn 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 theWays?’ In The Ways that Never Parted, (2003) 48–56; J. Lighthouse, in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. in WilsonStephen G., ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity. Vol. 2. Separation and Polemic.’ Studies in Christianity andJudaism (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; DavidRokeah, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict (1982), 32–44; For the opposite position: D. Georgi, The Opponentsof 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 hereticsLanger Ruth Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (2012) 16–39; Schremer Adiel BrothersEstranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010); Marcus, Joel. Birkat ha-Minim RevisitedNew Testament Studies 55 (2009) 523– 51; Kinzig Wolfram The Condemnation of the Nosrim in the Birkat Haminimin Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 482-488; HorburyWilliam Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (1998) 67-110, 240-43; Daniel Boyarin Justin MartyrInvents Judaism CH 70 (2001) 427–61; Horbury William Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation inTolerance 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 biblique105 (1998) 161-88, 212-15; A. Reinhartz The Johannine Community: A Reappraisal in ‘What Is John?’ edited byFernando F. Segovia (1996 –1998); Mimouni Simon C. La 'Birkat ha-mininVm: Une priere juive contre lesjudeochretiens RSR 71 (1997) 275-98; Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 47; van derHorst Pieter W. The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research ExpTim 105 (1993-1994) 363-68; van der HorstHellenism—Judaism—Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction (1994) 99-111; Joubert S. J. A Bone of Contention inRecent 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 ancientNew 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 ChristianSchism (1985) 56-61; Katz S. T. Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C. E.: AReconsideration 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 BirkatHa-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an AntiChristian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity in Aspects of Judaism in theGraeco-Roman Period. Edited by E. P. Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson. Vol. 2 of Jewish and ChristianSelf-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), 72–97Adversus Judaeos literature-Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans and Christian Identity Formation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 inBlack, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity and Its Social World (2014); Van Nuffelen, PeterTheophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons for John’s DepositionAdamantius 19 (2013b) 138-55; Côté, Dominique Le problème de l’identité religieuse dans la Syrie du IVe siècle. Lecas des Pseudo-Clémentines et de l’Adversus Judaeos de saint Jean Chrysostom in Mimouni Simon C. et PouderonBernard 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 Jewishbelievers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640; David Satran inContra Iudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Stroumsa Guy G. ContraIudaeos, Ora Limor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996) 8–10; 334 -------------------- *Citations1 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, inAnti-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 RabbinicJudaism, 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 theDidache in Matthew, James, and Didache : three related documents in their Jewish and Christian setting (2008) 92-122; HengelMartin Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity Translated (2013); Zetterholm Magnus Paul withinJudaism: 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 inJesus 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. 4157 See bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing pg. 4158 The foundational work is Brown, Raymond E. ‘Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/GentileChristianity.’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 74-799 See bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus10 John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (1942); and ‘Marcion and theSynoptic 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 inI 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 asChristian-Jews.8. See Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (1958), 31–46; B. Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (1980); Elaine Pagels, The GnosticGospels (1943); Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism (1987); and Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battlefor Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (2003). 9; Williams Michael Allen Rethinking ‘‘Gnosticism’’: An Argument forDismantling 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 NTsee 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-JewishPolemic 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 andits Role in Theology (1976), 112–146.02 Historical Background22 Commonly used transliteration of the Hebrew name of the God of Israel.23 Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987) 27-2924 End of Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (1987) 27-2925 For a recent collection of papers on current ‘messiah’ scholarship from a Christian Evangelical perspective see Hess Richard andDaniel 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 otherGospels, 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 TestamentAuthors (2001), 276; Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as PharisaicIntragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on the Pharisees in the NT: Marshall, Mary. The Portrayals of thePharisees in the Gospels and Acts (2015). Also Philip F. Esler Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible HistoricalInterpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–5928 Neusner J. Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (1973) 85-9529 Standing on Flusser D. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (1987) 28-930 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) 270-27132 For a discussion of these terms see Rowland Christopher The Open Heaven: A Study of the Apocalyptic in Judaism and EarlyChristianity (1982) 23-4833 Nickelsburg, George Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity and Transformation (2003) 168 and NickelsburgG. W. 1 Enoch: a Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch (2000) 68-6934 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 aretherefore problematic. Horsley, Richard and J.S. Hanson Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs (1985) 88-106 and Mendels, Doron (The Rise and Fall of Jewish35Nationalism, 1992, 55-80 and 385-394) Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian society (1988) 273, 2773637 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, 74-7939 Here Torah = Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The term is also used to describe the totality of biblical lore andwisdom.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 SupplementSeries 53 (1987). Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible? (1987). Joel S. Baden The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewingthe Documentary Hypothesis (2012)42 Pentateuch (Torah) – The first five texts of the Hebrew scriptures. Torah, in its expansive usage, is also used to encapsulate thetotality 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, 200445 Similar position in Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the Scholarly Consensus, (1995) andMurray 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. MatureChristianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament)1994) 57-947 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 ErrorsMade 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) 4756 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 andmultiplicity 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 asubstantially 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 atraditionalist 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 relationshipsee 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 Romanattitudes toward Judaism.62 Based on Wilken Robert The Christians as The Romans Saw Them (1984) 113, Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers (1995) 21 andBoys 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 ofAntisemitism (1983) 35-112. For other views see J. N. Sevenster The Roots of Antisemitism in the Ancient World (1975), J. MeagherAs the Twig Was Bent: Antisemitism in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Times,’ in A. T. Davies, ed., Antisemitism and theFoundations 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. andUllucci 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 alsoTchericover 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) 967 Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 92-9468 On the Hasmoneans dynasty Mendels Doron The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (1992) 55-8069 See Harold Remus in Blasi, Anthony J., Jean Duhamel and Paul-Andre' Turcotte, eds. Handbook of Early Christianity (2002) 433and 431-452 for an updated summary of scholarship on Roman persecution of Christianity. Also J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus(1995) 2570 See Wilson Stephen G. Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995) 28-2971 On readiness to withstand hardship as a corroboration and exaltation’ of belief in Jesus:King, Karen L. Rethinking the Diversity ofAncient Christianity: Responding to Suffering and Persecution in Iricinschi Eduard et al. eds. Beyond the Gnostic Gospels: StudiesBuilding on the Work of Elaine Pagels (2013) 60-78; King, Karen L. Willing to Die for God: Individualization and InstrumentalAgency 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 theNew Testament (2010) 342-84; Yarbro Collins, Adela Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus JR 78 (1998) 175-96; Talbert, CharlesH. 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) 173-8872 Similar views in Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 9073 See Wilken The Christians as The Romans Saw Them (1984) 197-205, Court, John M., and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, eds. ReligiousDiversity in the Greco-Roman World74 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 andChristianity (2003) chap 22376 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 Years77 In John, Jesus’s ministry seems to include three Passovers. See James D. G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making—Vol 1—JesusRemembered (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 acomprehensive review of scholarship on the subject, see R. Bieringer and D. Pollefeyt, eds., Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents inPauline 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 arecent volume see Sumney Jerry L. ed. Reading Paul’s letter to the Romans SBL (2012), Fredriksen Paula Paul’s Letter to theRomans, 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 andJudaism: 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 theHistory 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 believersin 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 theMother-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-RomanReligion (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 itsmultiple 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, TheGnostic 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 littleinterest 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 theEarly Centuries in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; SkarsauneOskar Jewish-Christian Gospels: Which and How Many? In Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary PerspectiveEdited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in Judaism (2006) 393-408; Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile ChristianJudaizing 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 JewishChristianity 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 Permanencein the History of Religions. Edited by S. Shaked et al. (1987) 71-90; For a general bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus seepg. 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, JeanDuhaime, and Paul-Andre’ Turcotte, eds., Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), section 2, for a discussion of rhetorical techniquesand 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 EarlyChristian-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. Pauland 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, JewishChristianity (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 theones 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 thecore of Paul’s theology.110 Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch (2003), 142, correctly identifies the lenient position of the earlyJewish 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 PhilipAlexander, in James D. G. Dunn, ed., Jews and Christians—the Parting of theWays (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: ASocial-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 failedto 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 itregards Gentiles. Also Hagner Donald A. The Changing Understanding of Paul in the History of Research in Jewish believers inJesus: 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); DasA. 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: AnIntroduction to His Life, Letters, and Theology (2014); Nanos Mark D. and Zetterholm Magnus, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoringthe 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 thePauline Epistles (2014) 229; Charlotte Klein, Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978), 39–66. Luther’s impact on later readings ofthe 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 inthe Pauline Epistles (2014) 235-6126 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 Understandingof 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 theApostle. (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 TheirRelationship to Judaism (2001), 400. Tomson sees a split within the Pauline tradition between the Lukean (non-anti-Jewish) traditionand 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 onthe 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, seeWesterholm Stephen Understanding Paul: the early Christian worldview of the letter to the Romans (2004, part 3 and 445), andSumney 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 whoopposed Law observance only as it regards Gentiles. Also E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977); Lloyd Gaston, Pauland 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 theintra-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 andJudaism, 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-ChristianCompetition 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, andthe question of cause is the more puzzling due to the fact that, in the JewishChristian source of Matthew, the Christian mission is clearly restricted to ‘Israel’(Mf 10.23). Therefore, the synagogue flogging known to this Jewish Christiansource cannot have been for the ‘crime’ of admitting Gentiles to Christianitywithout 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 theHouse of Israel (1993), 87. 340143 For diversity and adversity in early Christianity, see the foundational works of Walter Bauer Orthodoxy and Heresy in EarliestChristianity (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 appraisalof Bauer’s thesis, see Köstenberger Andreas J. and Michael J. Kruger The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture'sFascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (2010); Bauckham Richard James and theJerusalem 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 ‘atheologian in the modern sense, and more a mix of charismatic enthusiast and pragmatic community organizer.’ Heikki R, Paul andthe Law (1987), 200, 218. See also Rosner Brian S. Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say Journal for the Study of the NewTestament (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 Qumran148 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. Reclaimingthe 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 LiDonniciLynn and Lieber Andrea eds. Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism JSJSup, 119 (2007) 177-92150 ‘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). DunnChristianity 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 foundationfor 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 NewTestament (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 LiDonniciLynn 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 theimpact 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 spectrumwe encounter Robert Eisenman and Barbara Theiring, who believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated in the first century withdistinct 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 Jesusmovement seem to emulate the arguments, attitudes, language, and imagery that Jewish sectarians, most notably Qumran, deployedagainst 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 itsleader.16 Following Jesus’s death, the Qumran community (having survived the death of The Teacher of Righteousness) may haveoffered 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, andHebrews 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 toCome,’ 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 theDidache. See Didache (chaps. 1–6) and Barnabas (2.10, 18.2). See alsoVan de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its JewishSources 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 Yearsof 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 Enigma173 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 ofJames: History and Theology of a Jewish Christian Community. SBL Dissertation Series 112 (1989); Bauckham R. ed. James and theJerusalem Church in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting Edited byBruce W. Winter (1995) 417-80; Johnson Luke Timothy The Letter of James Anchor Bible 37A. (1995); Painter John Just James: TheBrother of Jesus in History and Tradition (1997); Chilton B. and Evans C. A. Eds. James the Just and Christian Origins Supplementsto Novum Testamentum 98 (1999) 33-57; Chilton Bruce and Jacob Neusner, eds. The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and HisMission (2001); Chilton B. and Evans C. A. Eds. Peter, James and the Gentiles in The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul: Tensionsin Early Christianity Supplements to Novum Testamentum 115 (2005) 91-142; Bauckham Richard James and the JerusalemCommunity 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. 415177 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 inJewish 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 Greekoriginal 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 inJesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements inthe 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 Translationwith 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 Jacobeds. (2001) 100.185 Bauckham Richard James and Jesus in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and hismission in Chilton Bruce and Neusner Jacob eds. (2001) 100186 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 theQ 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 andApocalypticism in the Epistle of James (1996) 483-503; Jackson-McCabe M. A Letter to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Wisdomand '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 inAncient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81; Evans Craig A. The LiteraryHeritage 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 HvalvikReidar (2007) 419-463; Kinzig Wolfram The Nazoraeans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar andHvalvik Reidar (2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: theearly centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen inJewish 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 deSandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. Introduction in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 1, Schröter Jens Problems with Pluralismin the Second Temple Judaism van de Sandt, Huub and Zangenberg, eds. in Matthew, James and the Didache (2008) 259-71; DraperJonathan 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 inJesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 419-505; Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements inthe 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 ChiltonBruce 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 andHistorical Interpretation (2002), and Zetterholm Magnus The Didache, Matthew, James—and Paul: Reconstructing HistoricalDevelopments 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: theearly centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70; Hidal Sten The Emergence of Christianity in Syria 568 inJewish 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, SchröterJens 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 centurieseds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in AntiochInterdisciplinary 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 TheFormation 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 brotherof 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 Issuesin 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) 86205 Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewishbelievers 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 withGentiles 285–92; Zetterholm, Magnus Purity and Anger: Gentiles and Idolatry in Antioch Interdisciplinary Journal of Research onReligion (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 Developmentsin 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 andovert claim to the designation ‘New Israel’ does not occur in any of the New Testament documents. I assume the use of thisdesignation, 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 Jacobeds. (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 Pauland 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 waysthat 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: theearly centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 66-70; See summary in Painter, John Just James: The Brother ofJesus 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 inJewish 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), 67-68225 Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897226 Has been found to be remarkably similar to the Septuagint’s Greek and would have required more exposure to Hellenistic cultureand 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 1John 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 WisdomLiterature in the New Testament JBL 68 (1949) 339. Eschatology: Penner Todd The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading anAncient 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 andEschatology JSNT Sup 121 (1996) and Verseput Donald J. Wisdom, 4Q185, and the Epistle of James JBL 117 (1998): 691-707, favoran 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: Essaysin Memory of John G. Gammie (Louisville: Westminster, 1993): 165-86, Bauckham, James Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus theSage (1999) 33, Lockett, Darian R. 2005. ‘The Spectrum of Wisdom and Eschatology in the Epistle of James and4QInstruction,’ 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 Jacobeds. (2001) 100234 Hartin, Patrick J. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James (1999) 3235 Allison Dale C. The Jewish Setting of the Epistle of James (2015) In die Skriflig 49(1), Art. #1897 pg. 3-4236 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 ofJames, Peter, and Paul (2005) 270238 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. 3241 Painter John James and Peter models of leadership and mission in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, andPaul (2005) 205.242 Recent contributions: Horrell David G. and Wei Hsien Wan Christology, Eschatology and the Politics of Time in 1 Peter Journalfor 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 ChristianIdentity: 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; FosterPaul The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary TENTS 4 (2010) 91, Lapham Fred Peter: The Myth, theMan 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 1Peter 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 andSecond Apocalypse of James, the Gospel of Peter (mid-second century). Apocalypse of Peter (first half of second century), KerygmaPetrou (second century), Kerygmata Petrou (c. 200 C.E.), Acts of Peter (180-190 C.E.), the Letter of Peter to Philip (late secondcentury), or the Act of Peter (c. 200 CE or later) – In Davids Peter H. The Literary evidence in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig TheMissions 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, andPaul (2005) 209245 Painter Paul in Chilton Bruce & Evans Craig The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul (2005) 191246 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 theNew 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). Mitchell Margaret M., The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism? in Webb, Robert L., and John S. Kloppenborg, eds.252Reading 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 theFormation 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 Partingof 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 DavidHutchinson, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James Journal for the Study of the New TestamentSupplement 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 theLetter of James (1999) 77, 81, 84.259 Lockett, Darian R. Structure or Communicative Strategy? The 'Two Ways' Motif in James' Theological Instruction Neotestamentica42, 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, andPaul (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 Jacobeds. (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 inMatthew, 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 Studiesin 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 andNeusner 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; PartFive - Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin Fathers in Jewish believers inJesus: 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, andPaul (2005) 209.275 See Bauckham Richard Mission and Gentile Believers in James and the Jerusalem Community in the History of Research in Jewishbelievers 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, andPaul (2005) 206-7.A Growing Tension277 On the cross-influence among Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism, seeAlan 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. 415280 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 stake281 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’stheology and soteriology are fundamentally different.’ Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (1990), 160. For scholarship on Qand 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., TheHistorical 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’ andCrossan’s ‘Cross Gospel’ whose existence as separate texts or textual traditions are hotly debated.05 – Chapter 5 - Crisis in the Jesus movement285 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 JesusMovement (2013) pg. 87-93; Taylor Joan E The Phenomenon of Early Jewish Christianity: Reality or Scholarly In The Image of theJudaeo-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. EarlyChristianity 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 aModern 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 MagnusZetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-ScientificApproach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (2003), whoadvocates a secession of Gentile believers in Jesus from a synagogue of Jewishfollowers 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 andDonald Hagner, eds. (1993), 257, who points to Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy andHeresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: Historyand Literature of Early Christianity (1982); and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, the earliestto identify this phenomenon.Mark291 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: Retrospectand 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 RomanEmpire HTR 109:3 (2016) 447–466; and C. Clifton Black, Mark (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2011); Winn Adam The Purpose ofMark’s Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Imperial Propaganda (WUNT 2/245 (2008); Roskam Hendrika N. The Purpose ofthe Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context NovTSup 114 (2004); Kaminouchi Alberto de Mingo But it is Not So AmongYou’: Echoes of Power in Mark 10.32–45 JSNTSup 249 (2003) 161; Peterson Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The MarkanCommunity in Current Debate (2000).297 Supersession, or replacement, theology – Traditional: The view that Christianity was superior to Judaism in every way and replacedit as the People of God. My suggestion: Supersession theology is the theological articulation of the Pauline claim to the exclusivecustody of Jesus’s legacy. In other words, supersession is the view that Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’s legacy replaced the beliefs andtraditions 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 Mark7:19b The Evangelical Quarterly 74.4 (Oct.-Dec. 2002) 291-311; Neufield Dietmar Jesus’ Eating Transgressions and SocialImpropriety 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 andQ 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. Matthewand Q: The Matthean Deployment of Mark and Q in the Apocalyptic Discourse ETL 85 (2009) 99-116; Burkett Delbert The Unity andPlurality 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., HoffmannPaul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. The Critical Edition of Q (2000); Kloppenborg J. S., Excavating Q: The History and Setting of theSayings Gospel (2000), Robinson J.M. The Matthean Trajectory from Q to Mark, in Yarboro Collins (ed.), Ancient and ModernPerspectives 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’sappropriation 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). TheBook 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 Mark12:1, 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 inMark’s Gospel in: Steve Moyise & M. J. J. Menken eds. Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scripturesof Israel (2007) 27-41.300 Similar arguments in Kelber Werner, The Oral and the Written Gospel (1983), 130–131; and Lindsey P. Pherigo, The GospelAccording 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 Mockeryand Secretism in the Social World of Mark’s Gospel (2014); MacDonald, D.K. The characterisation of a false disciple: Judas Iscariotin Mark’s Gospel McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry 15 (2013)119–135; Iverson, Kelly R. Wherever the Gospel IsPreached’: 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 TheDisciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate (2012); Watson, David F. Honor among Christians: The CulturalKey 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 BaptistJournal 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: ComprehendingIncomprehension in Mark 6.45-52 JSNT 83 (2001) 3-26; Moo Douglas J. Question Mark: Understanding the Gospel of MarkLeicester: Religious & Theological Studies Fellowship (2000); Malbon Elizabeth Struthers in the Company of Jesus: Characters inMark’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 theReader Understand: ReaderResponse Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (1991); Matera, Frank J. 1989 The Incomprehension of theDisciples and Peter’s Confession (Mark 6,14– 8,30) Biblica 70: (1989) 153-72; Best, Ernest Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in theGospel 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. TheBlindness 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 MarkJBL 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 ofTheological Interpretation 6 (2012) 65–78; Iverson, Kelly R., A Centurion’s ‘Confession’: A Performance-Critical Analysis of Mark15:39 JBL 130 (2011) 329–50; Iverson, Kelly R. Gentiles in the Gospel of Mark: ‘Even the Dogs Under the Table Eat the Children’sCrumbs (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 ofthe New Testament 78 (2000) 3–22304 See Robert A. Guelich (Mark 1:8–26, c1989, 361–362), R. P. Booth, ‘Jesus and the Laws of Purity: Tradition History and LegalHistory 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 peculiarexclusion of the Pharisees and Sadducees.309 Adiel Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity, and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010)Matthew310 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 Centuriesin Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 745-777; Craig A. Evans Matthew: ANew 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 inContemporary Perspective Edited by Jacob Neusner et al. Studies in Judaism (2006) 393-408; Hare Douglas R. A. How Jewish is theGospel 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 theWeeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; On the M material: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: TheEvidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBLVol. 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 onthe 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 DaleC. 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 otherGospels, 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 TestamentAuthors (2001), 276; Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History as PharisaicIntragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on the Pharisees in the NT: Marshall, Mary. The Portrayals of thePharisees in the Gospels and Acts (2015). Also Philip F. Esler Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible HistoricalInterpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–59.314 Flavious Josephus Antiquities XVII 2, 4 (41-5) reports on 6000 Pharisees during Herod‘sreign.; 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 theauthor is in conflict. Wilson, Related Strangers, 50; The scribes and the Pharisees are themain Matthean enemies. Peter Tomson Jews and the New Testament Authors (2001), 276; 349Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean CommunityHistory as Pharisaic Intragroup Conflict JBL 127 (2008) 95-132; Recent survey on thePharisees 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 ResponsibleHistorical Interpretation of a Challenging Text BTB 45 (2015) 38–59315 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, GrantR. Matthew (ZECNT) (2010); Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. 2nd edition. (2009); DavidSim 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 inJerusalem, 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 BorisRepschinski, 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 earlycenturies eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 242-245; B. Przybylski in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, PeterRichardson and David Granskou, eds. (1986), vol. 1, 181– 200; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (1988), vol. 1, 7–58; G. N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies inMatthew (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 beenincorporated into Q and/or a proto-Matthean intermediate phase. See David Flusser, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-PaulineChristianity (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 andQ van Belle Gilbert and Verheyden Josef eds. Biblical Tools and Studies, vol. 21, 187–215 (2016); Stephenson Brooks Matthew'sCommunity: 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 Mmaterial: Stephenson Brooks Matthew's Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (2015). Meier John P. The Parableof the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30) JBL Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012) 715-732; Snodgrass Klyne R. Stories with Intent: AComprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (2008); Robinson James M., Hoffmann Paul, and Kloppenborg John S. eds. TheCritical Edition of Q (2000); Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to SaintMatthew (1997) 2:403-18; Kingsbury Jack Dean The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-Criticism (1969); For ageneral 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 earlycenturies 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 HansDieter 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 beforeJesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000). For the impact of Psalms 2 on the Passion, see Crossan, Who KilledJesus?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, andin the Gospel of Matthew (2006); Joel Willitts Matthews Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of 'the Lost Sheep of the House ofIsrael' (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 MattheanSalvation 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’sministry, not as a challenge to Judaism as such (Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, 44). ‘The level of animosity, unprecedentedin Matthew, let alone the other Gospels, strongly suggests that the scribes and Pharisees stand for contemporaries with whom theauthor 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 ofhis group of believers in Jesus, but they are not yet members, nor does the narrative indicate that they will become so. Matthew mayhave in mind the phenomenon of the gentiles sympathetic to the synagogue who were not Jews, but who were nevertheless not totallyother. 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 SocialHistory. “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 morereprehensible. Similarly, that in his personal confession Peter, the rock of faith, had hailed Jesus as ‘the Messiah, the Son of the livingGod’ (16:16–18) heightens the irony of his denying Jesus at the very moment the high priest is adjuring Jesus by ‘the living God’ tosay if he is ‘the Messiah, the Son of God.’’ See Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 28–30. On the other hand, the Markan denigrationof the Torah-observant faction is also somewhat mitigated by the high praise of Peter (Matt. 16:17–19) and by the correction of theslander 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 (mostprobably 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 theHistory of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 75-81341 The increased inclination to exonerate the Romans is showcased in the heightened emphasis on the ‘Jewish culpability,’ and in theadditions 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 Israeland the Teacher of the Gentiles,’ Int. 29 (1975), 24–40; and Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospelaccording 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 EarlyChristianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (1993) 55-79; Saldarini Anthony J. Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (1994); EvansCraig 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) 242-3345 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 theTheologian: 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 Purposeof 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 forLuke 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 theirRelationship 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 andChristians (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 knowwho they truly are. Recent: Runesson, Anders Rethinking Early Jewish—Christian Relations: Matthean Community History asPharisaic 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 andIts 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 theChurch, 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 theSecond 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 Apologyand 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: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1993); James A. Kelhoffer, ‘The Gradual Disclosure of Paul’s Violence against Christians; Smith Dennis S. andTyson Joseph B. eds. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (2013). On using Acts for the historical reconstructionof early Christianity, see the discussions in David E. Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (1987) 77–157; the essaysby 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 AlexanderMapping Early Christianity: Acts and the Shape of Early Church History Int 57 (2003) 163–73; Rothschild Clare K. Luke–Acts andthe Rhetoric of History (2004); Gregory Andre Acts and Christian Beginnings: A Review Essay Journal for the Study of the NewTestament (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. AlsoSandmel, Anti-Semitism in The New Testament? 73); and N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity, The Recognition and Repudiation of theAnti-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)John370 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 inChristianity (1975), 35–57; Barrett C. K. The Gospel of John and Judaism (1975), 71; Meeks W. ‘Am I a Jew? Johannine Christianityand 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 Gospelof John and the Jews,’ in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, A. Davies, ed. (1979), 60, 72–97; John Koenig, Jews andChristians in Dialogue: New Testament Foundations (1979), 131, 137; J. E. Leibig, ‘John and The Jews: Theological Anti-Semitismin 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 AdeleBefriending 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 TestamentAuthors (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, andFrederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (2001), 42, 109; Lars Kierspel, The Jews and theWorld in the Fourth Gospel (2006); R. Alan Culpepper, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer, Pollefeyt, andVandecasteele-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); FreyneSean 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 SteveJews, 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 ChristianIdentity 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, andVandecasteele-Vanneuville, 198.382 Among them: James H. Charlesworth, in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, Bieringer,Pollefeyt, and Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, 257–259, advocates ‘some Judeanleaders’ 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 ofthe ‘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 fromHeaven in Johannine Sectarianism,’ JBL 91 (1972); and B. J. Malina, ‘The Gospel of John in Sociolinguistic Perspective,’ Center forHermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Colloquy 48; R. A. Culpepper and C. Clifton Black, Exploring the Gospelof 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 NewTestament 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. TheGospel 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 theJohannines. See Hirschberg Reter Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Gospel of John in Jewish believers in Jesus: theearly 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 ofJohn 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, 23394 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: theearly centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237.396 Similar argument in Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants44–48; 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; andSanders, 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; hishuman 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: GeorgRichter’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, Trajectoriesthrough Early Christianity (1971), 115; W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the Peopleof Israel,’ NTS 24 (1977), 4–39; G. Strecker, ‘On the Problem of JewishChristianity,’ 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 Heavenin 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 SectarianMovement. 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 ofJohn in Current Research,’ RSR9 (1983), 316; W. A. Meeks, in ‘To See Ourselves as Others See Us’: Christians, Jews, ‘Others’ inLate 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 theNegotiations of the Empire (2006) 101; Carter Warren John and Empire: Initial Explorations (2008); Thatcher Tom Greater thanCaesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (2009). Skinner Christopher W. John’s Gospel and the Roman ImperialContext: 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) 116–29421 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 theemerging consensus.427 Langer Ruth Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (2012) 16–39; Kinzig Wolfram The Condemnation of theNosrim 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 InventsJudaism CH 70 (2001) 427–61; Horbury William Early Christians on Synagogue Prayer and Imprecation in Tolerance andIntolerance 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. ReinhartzThe 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-minimin 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 andSynagogue 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 HalakhicPerspectives 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-ChristianControversy JTS NS 33 (1982) 19-61; Schalom Ben-Chorin, Betendes Judentum: Kimelman, Reuven Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lackof 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), 72–97428 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), 72–9787; 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 aportion, 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 inJesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 230-237436 Tomson, Jesus and the New Testament Authors, 407.437 Townsend, ‘The Gospel of John,’ in Anti-Semitism and the FoundationsChristianity, Davies, 72–97, 87. Similar views in Tomson, in Anti-Judaismand 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 inChristianity,’ 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, andVandecasteele-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 HolyScripture, 94–95, 110.Revelation442 Consonant views in Peter J. Tomson, If This Be from Heaven: Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship toJudaism (2001), 362, 365, 366. Recent: Aune David E. The Apocalypse of John and Palestinian Jewish Apocalyptic Neotestamentica40.1 (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 Bookof Revelation : sex and gender, empire and ecology Moore Stephen D. ed. SBL 79 (2014); DeSilva David A., The Strategic Arousal ofEmotion 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 andEmpire: 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 inRevelation 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, RelatedStrangers: 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: ThePower of the Apocalypse (1984), 85–87.446 See Duff Paul The ‘Synagogue of Satan’: Crisis Mongering and the Apocalypse of Johnin 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, 162–3448 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, RelatedStrangers, 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 ofRevelation 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, empireand ecology Moore Stephen D. ed. SBL 79 (2014) 6.455 The beast (Nero), the seven hills that surround Rome, and 666 or 676 (thenumerological equivalents of the two ways Nero’s name is written in Hebrew).Summary456 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) 13406- chapter 06 - Supersession459 On the supersessionary message of Hebrews see bibliography and: Attridge, H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary onthe Epistle to the Hebrews (1989) 228; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews NIGTC (1993) 413, 417; Johnson Luke T. The NewTestament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas TheTheology of the Letter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Salevao Iutisone Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction andMaintenance 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 ofHebrews As 7/51 (1996) 59–70; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: ASocio-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 asPseudepigraphon (2009)Hebrews461 For scholars that have articulated a somewhat positive interpretation of Hebrews’ supersessionism: D. A. Hagner, ‘A PositiveTheology of Judaism from the New Testament,’ SEA 69 (2004), 14; Donald G. Bloesch, ‘All Israel Will Be Saved’: Supersessionismand 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 ChristologicalReading of Hebrews 4.10 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.4 (2014); Dyer B.R. The epistle to The Hebrews in recentresearch: studies on the author's identity, his use of The Old Testament, and Theology (2013) 104-31; Richardson, C.A. Pioneer andPerfecter of Faith: Jesus’ Faith as the Climax of Israel’s History in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2012); Matera Frank The Theology ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 189-209; McCrudenKevin B. The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to theHebrews (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 theHebrews (2011); Whitlark Jason A. Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of theAncient 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 whois 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 andChristian 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 InGelardini, Hebrews: Contemporary Methods, (2005) 107-127; Isaacs, M. E. Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistleto the Hebrews. JSNTSup 73 (1992) 357464 Stephen G. Wilson, Related Strangers: Jews and Christians (1995). Recently, Koester Craig R. Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Futureof Humanity in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 99-121 supports the view that thecommunity 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 oragainst the Hebrews?’ SE 2 (1964), 408; Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (1978), 121; Attridge, Harold W. TheEpistle 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 theBook of Hebrews (2002), 35–36; Luke Timothy Johnson, ‘The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of AncientPolemic,’ JBL 108 (1989), 423–424; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘tothe 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 McCrudenKevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 171-189; deSilva D.A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-rhetoricalCommentary 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 CriticismJSNT 70 (1998), 73; Trotter Andrew H. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews (1997) 163–84 Stanley S. The Structure of Hebrewsfrom 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 theHebrews (1989) 228; Ellingworth, P. The Epistle to the Hebrews NIGTC (1993) 413, 417; Johnson Luke T. The New Testament'sAnti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic JBL Vol. 108, No. 3 (1989), 423–424; Lindars Barnabas The Theologyof the Letter to the Hebrews (1991) 11; Salevao Iutisone Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews: The Construction andMaintenance 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 ofHebrews As 7/51 (1996) 59–70; Lane William L. Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47a (1991) 210; David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: ASocio-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 Jewishfollowers of Jesus see pg. 415471 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 ofthe 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 Partingsof the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism (1990); Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 10–11; Ellingworth, TheEpistle 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 NewTestament’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 Letterto 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. Humanand 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 EricF. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 31-35; Gray Patrick Hebrews among Greeks and Romans inMason 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, IQpHab9.4–5, 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. andin 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 EarlyJudaism, 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 toKing-Priest: Psalm 110 and the Basic Structure of Hebrews in: D.J. Human and G.J. Steyn (eds), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies inReception (2010): 229–40, Mason Eric F. Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews inMason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 53-77491 Some Melchizedek speculation appears in the Qumran texts and in 2 Enoch and may have originated there. There is an equallyenigmatic resurfacing ofMelchizedek 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 theNew Testament and Its Eschatology, eds. W.D. Davies & D. Daube (1953) 363–93; Hurst L.D. Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in theEpistle 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 thewarning passages in the Book of Hebrews GTJ 3 (1982) 67-80; Sharp J.R. Philonism and the Eschatology of Hebrews: Another LookEAJT 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); MasonEric F. Cosmology, Messianism, and Melchizedek: Apocalyptic Jewish Traditions and Hebrews in Mason Eric F. and McCrudenKevin 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 Judaismin Hebrews,’ ERT 13 (1989), 1–6; Robert W. Wall and William Lane, in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig Evans andDonald 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,’ JBLMS7 (1952), 21–28.512 Recent scholarship on Hebrews and sacrifice: Holmes Stephen R. Death in the afternoon: Hebrews, sacrifice, and soteriology inBauckham, R., D. R. Driver, T. A. Hart, and N. MacDonald, eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (2009); MitchellAlan C. A Sacrifice of Praise Does Hebrews Promote Supersessionism? in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistleto 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. HermeneuticalFoundations 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 ofPsalms 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 ScripturalWorld 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 CaseStudy in Early Jewish Bible Interpretation (2009); Dirk J. Human and Gert Jacobus Steyn (eds.), Psalms and Hebrews: Studies inReception (LHBOTS, 527; London: T. & T. Clark, 2010); Gelardini Gabriella Hebrews, Homiletics, and Liturgical ScriptureInterpretation in Mason Eric F. and McCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011 )121-145; Moffitt David M. TheInterpretation 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 ofHebrews 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 OldTestament, 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 tothe Hebrews and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham, et al. (2009) 151-73; Nanos, M. D. New or Renewed Covenantalism? AResponse to Richard Hays in Bauckham et al., The Epistle to the Hebrews (2009) 183-188; Skarsaune, O. ‘Does the Letter to theHebrews 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 KevinB. 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 rabbinicJudaism 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. andMcCruden Kevin B. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews (2011) 251-269527 On the Adversus Judaeos literature – See bibliography in pg. 415. Also Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans and Christian IdentityFormation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 in Black, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on Early Christianity andIts Social World (2014); Van Nuffelen, Peter Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons forJohn’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 Evidencefor 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)8–10528 See John Fischer, ‘Covenant Fulfillment and Judaism in Hebrews,’ ERT 13 (1989), 1–6; Robert W. Wall and William Lane, inAnti-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 itsfulfillment 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 Epistleto the Hebrews, 258; Spicq, L’Epitre aux Hebreux, 125; Johnson, ‘The NewTestament’s Anti-Jewish Slander,’ 423–424; Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 11; Eisenbaum, ‘The Jewish Heroesof Christian History,’ 10; Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews, 192–195. Contrary views in Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC47a, 185.531 Recent surveys of the debates and challenges surrounding Hebrews’ theology: Laansma Jon C. Hebrews: Yesterday, Today, andFuture: An Illustrative Survey, Diagnosis, Prescription pp. 1-32; Attridge Harold W. Hebrews and the History of its Interpretation: ABiblical Scholar’s Response pp. 202-12; Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews: A Book for Today—A Biblical Scholar’s Response pp. 213-24in Jon C. Laansma and Daniel J. Treier eds. Christology, Hermeneutics, and Hebrews: Profiles from the History of Interpretation(2012).532 Wilson, Related Strangers, 121.Barnabas533 My summary of Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 2, 248, and 256; Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: ThePurpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67. Recent: Paget CarletonJames 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 SecondCentury (1996) among many535 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, TheApostolic 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 andHeresy in Earliest Christianity, R. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds. (1971); H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: Historyand Literature of Early Christianity (1982); and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, as theearliest 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, 9–10553 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 theYavnean Rabbis,’ 37; Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 69–70; Wilson, RelatedStrangers, 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, regardingJudaism, 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 JesusMovement (2013) pg. 139-151; Hvalvik Reidar The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas andJewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67564 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: ThePurpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (1996) 249-67568 Anti-Jewish-establishment rhetoric is the designation I have used throughout to encapsulate various types and manifestations ofJewish sectarian posturing against the Jewish mainstream-establishment, to the inclusion of the ‘Two Ways’ imagery. We havealready noted that the ‘Two Ways’ theme is the label given by scholars to a Judean sectarian worldview that sees this world as thebattleground 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, 22572 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); WayneA. 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 andChristians in the Roman Empire (1986), xii; Miriam S. Taylor, Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity: A Critique of the ScholarlyConsensus (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 aJewish Game, 2. 362574 Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas, 69–70575 Murray, Playing a Jewish Game.576 My fusion of Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers, 38; and Paget, The Epistle ofBarnabas, 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.Supersession580 There are traces and insinuations of the term ‘New Israel’ in Matthew, Hebrews, and in the Pauline letters but the unequivocal andovert claim to the designation ‘New Israel’ does not occur in any of the New Testament documents. I assume the use of thisdesignation, 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 Timeof 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 EarlyChristianity (1993), 9–17.586 N. A. Beck, Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of theAnti-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 auniversalistic 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: TheFirst Thousand Years 2nd ed. (2005); Runesson Anders, Binder Donald D., and Olsson Birger The Ancient Synagogue from ItsOrigins 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 Era601 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 butTypes 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 theFaiths 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. EarlyChristian Communities between Ideal and Reality (2015) 161-75606 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 ‘JewishChristianity,’ see H. J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (1969); G. Strecker, ‘On the Problem of Jewish Christianity,’ in Orthodoxy andHeresy in Earliest Christianity, by W. Bauer, trans. R. A. Kraft and G. Kroedel, eds. (1971), 241–285; A. Kraft, ‘In search of ‘JewishChristianity’ and its Theology: Problems of Definition andMethodology,’ 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 Diversityin 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 toPaul in Jewish Christianity, trans. E. Boring (1989), 1–34. Updated views in O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik, eds., Jewish Believers inJesus (2007); and Matt Jackson-Mccabe, ed., Jewish Christianity Reconsidered (2007). See also Shaye J. D. Cohen, From theMaccabees 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) 241-278609 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 centurieseds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen in Jewish believersin Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 361-373; Knox John The Origin of the Ebionites in TheImage of the JudaeoChristians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature Edited by P. J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry (2003) 162-81611 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 BetweenChristianity 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 andJudaism 1 (2000) 82–119; Meeks Wayne A. Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from theJewish Communities in Search of the Early Christians: Selected Essays Hilton Allen R. and Snyder Gregory h. (2002) 115–23; BeckerAdam 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? inThe Ways that never Parted (2003); Zetterholm Magnus The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to theSeparation 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. TheChanging Face of Judaism: Christianity and Other Greco-Roman Religions in Antiquity (2006) 278-329; Jossa Giorgo Jews orChristians? The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity (2006); Jackson-Mccabe Matt ed., Jewish ChristianityReconsidered: 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 betweenJews and Christians in Late Antiquity in A most reliable witness edited by Harvey Susan Ashbrook, DesRosiers Nathaniel, LanderShira 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 Christianself-definition to anti-Judaism. See detailed discussions in R. R. Ruether, Faithand Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (1974), 181; and inLloyd 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 fromit’ (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-Judaismand 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 GnosisAn 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, TheReligious Context of Early Christianity (2000), part VI. On cross-influence between Judaism, Christianity, and Gnosticism, see AlanF. 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 ‘JewishGnosticism.’ Others support the Jewish origins of Gnosticism. B. Layton, The Rediscovery of Gnosticism (1980); Elaine Pagels, TheGnostic 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 bythe second council of Constantinople (ce 553).629 Similar views in David Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds., Matthew and HisChristian Contemporaries (2008), 7630 Lieu, Image and Reality, 264–265.631 Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: Historical Introduction (2007).632 On the Pesher exegetical method, see pg. 113, 210-211633 Supersession theology is sometimes referred to as substitution or replacement theology (see chapter 10).Ignatius634 Jefford, C. N., K. J. Harder, and Louis D. Amezaga, Jr. Reading the Apostolic Fathers. (1996) 54. Eusebius places the martyrdom ofIgnatius in the reign of Trajan (98–117).635 Simon Tugwell, The Apostolic Fathers (1986), 105. Recently: On Ignatius’ ministry: Maier Harry O. Paul, Ignatius andThirdspace: A Socio-geographic Exploration in The Apostolic Fathers and Paul, Pauline and Patristics Scholars in Debate ed. ToddD. Still and David E. Wilhite (2016) 162-180); Sullivan F. A. From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in theEarly Church (2001) 103–25; Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Ignatius- inJewish 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 andJoseph R. Dodson, LNTS 412 (2011) 57–69636 Interesting analysis of the de-Judaizing thrust of Ignatius’s ministry in David Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds., Matthew and HisChristian Contemporaries (2008), Chapter 8637 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 568in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 568-581; Lieu Judith M. ChristianIdentity 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-PaulIgnatius 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 andthe Apostolic Fathers: Vol. 2 Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers ed. Andrew F. GregoryandChristopher 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 Jewishbelievers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510640 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: theearly centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 505-510643 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 ofIgnatius 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.Justin654 . J. D. Crossan, The Cross That Spoke (1988), 66655 My elaboration of Murray Michele’s summary, Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 96. See also Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for JewishBelievers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Justin- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar andHvalvik Reidar (2007) 510-514656 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 inJesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 581-640; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Sources inJustin in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 380-419, 510-516; For ageneral bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415.657 A Jewish audience is suggested by T. Stylianopoulos, Justin Martyr and theMosaic 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 ApostolicChurch (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 forJewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – Justin- in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. SkarsauneOskar 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 EarlyChristianity, 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 OskarEvidence 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 and274–278; 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 andChristians: 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 inEarly 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 Partingof 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 Partingof the Ways, 1991-230-65), Dunn James D.G ed. (The Parting of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism,1992); Wilson StephenG. (Related Strangers: Jews and Christians, 1995, 1-10); Peter Schäfer, ed. The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives onthe Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome (2003).677 Justin I Apol.31.6; Eusebius Hist. eccl.4.6.2678 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 awry679 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 theOld Testament’s Hebrew Calendar. A controversy arose concerning whether it should instead be celebrated on one particular Sundayeach year, which is now the floating holiday that is commonly called Easter Sunday. Skarsaune Oskar Evidence for Jewish Believersin Greek and Latin Patristic Literature – the Quartodecimans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskarand Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 516-528681 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 ChristianIdentity (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 ContraIudaeos Literature in Christian-Jewish Interaction Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar(2007) 620-637684 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, RelatedStrangers, 257.687 From http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV4N1A1.asp688 We may point out that the virulence of this disturbing text is somewhat similar in tone to the viciousness of protestant anti-Catholicand 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.Chrysostom692 Chrysostom: Golden-mouth.693 This segment is my condensation and interpretation of Robert Wilken, JohnChrysostom 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 Chrisand Mayer Wendy eds. (Re)Visioning John Chrysostom: New Theories and Approaches (2016); Black, Stephen Ethnic Judeans andChristian Identity Formation in John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos’ 62-92 in Black, Stephen ed. To Set at Liberty: Essays on EarlyChristianity and Its Social World (2014); Rylaarsdam, David John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of his Theologyand Preaching (2014); Van Nuffelen, Peter Theophilus against John Chrysostom: The Fragments of a Lost liber and the Reasons forJohn’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 Evidencefor 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. Reshapingthe foundations, Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum (2005); Kelly, J.N.D. Golden Mouth. The Story of JohnChrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (1995); Liebeschuetz, Wolfgang The Fall of John Chrysostom Nottingham Medieval Studies29: 1-31 (1985)695 Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews, 124, 148–149; and Pieter W. Van Der Horst, in Christian-Jewish Relations through theCenturies, 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 RomanEmpire (1986), 374.697 John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies against the Jews, Patrologia Greaca, vol. 98. Internet History Sourcebooks Project, ed. PaulHalsall, 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 ApostolicFathers, (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 theSpatial Politics of Religious Controversy (2014); Sandwell, Isabella Religious Identity in Late Antiquity. Greeks, Jews and Christiansin Antioch (2007); Fonrobert, Charlotte Jewish Christians, Judaizers, and anti-Judaism in Burrus Virginia ed. Late AncientChristianity: A People’s History of Christianity (2005); Mayer Wendy Who Came to Hear John Chrysostom Preach? Recovering aLate Fourth Century Preacher’s Audience Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 76 (2000) 73-87; van der Horst, Pieter Jews andChristians in Antioch at the End of the Fourth Century in Stanley Porter and Brook Pearson eds. Christian-Jewish Relations throughthe 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, AHistory 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 andBronwen Neil eds. Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam (2013) 129-49710 Jaclyn L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and His Congregation in Antioch(2006).Summary711 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 Testament714 See bibliography on Q and M pg. 415715 Stanton Graham Jewish Christian Elements in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centurieseds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 305-323; Van de Sandt H. and D. Flusser. The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and ItsPlace 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); BurkettDelbert The Unity and Plurality of Q (2009); Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and Verheyden Joseph eds. NewStudies 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 TheSynoptic Problem and the Historical Jesus NSSP (2011) 371-432; Foster Paul, Gregory Andrew, Kloppenborg John S. and VerheydenJozef 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 focuson 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 andFarrer 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 Scholarship720 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 andcommandments received by Moses, from God, at Mount Sinai. Often used to describe the totality of Jewish religious lore andlearning. 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 15725 Rudolf Bultmann Prophecy 74726 Joachim Jeremias The Parables of Jesus (1963) 139727 H. Schlier Die Zeit der Kirche (1976) 46728 W. Grundmann Gestitchte729 M. Dibelius Jesus 117730 W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 372731 Rudolf Bultmann Theology vol I, 21732 A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (1921) 444733 Martin Noth Laws 106734 Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 282735 Eduard Meyer Ursprung vol ii 429736 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 241737 Leonhard Goppelt Jesus, Paul and Judaism (1964) 93738 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. /I, 82739 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik, vol. ii/2 105740 Gunther Schiwy Weg ins Neue Testament 78741 J. Blank Vum Messias Zum Christus (1964) 306-308742 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. ii/2, 513743 Pierre Benoit Jesus and the Gospel vol. ii (1973)744 M. Dibelius Jesus 109745 Schürer Geschichte des judischen Volks imZeitalter, Jesu Christi (1890) 579746 Eduard Meyer Ursprung, vol ii, 428747 Eduard Meyer Ursprung, vol ii, 427748 Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 283749 Emil Schürer Geschichte des judischen Volks imZeitalter, Jesu Christi (1890) 569, 572750 Leonhard Goppelt Jesus, Paul and Judaism (1964) 166 369751 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 241752 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. ii/2, 124753 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 240754 W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 136, 298755 W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums (1925) 409756 A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (1921) 364757 Julius Wellhausen Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (1894) 364758 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 242759 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. /I, 79760 Georg Fohrer Studien 49-50761 Leonhard Goppelt Christologie and Ethic (1968) 187762 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 243763 H. Schlier Die Zeit def Kirche 242764 M. Schmaus Katholische Dagmatik vol. Iv/2, 168)765 Karl Rahner Spiritual Exercises (1967) 229-30766 Leonhard Goppelt Christologie and Ethic (1968) 187767 Moore George F. Christian Writers on Judaism, Harvard Theological Review XIV (1921) 197768 The publication of The Jew and His Neighbour in 1929. See also (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue; a Study in theOrigins 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 emergingparadigms relevant to this monograph.772 Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire is widely considered the foundational text. See also TaylorMiriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 189-195 and Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004) 139-141among many. For bibliography on the myth of Jewish proselytizing see pg. 415773 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) 379775 Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Roman empire (1986) 367776 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 ChristianIdentity (1995) 189-195 and Murray Michele Playing a Jewish Game (2004), 139-141777 See also Lightstone (1986) 129-32, EFroymson (1980) 25, Gager (1983) 20, Gager (1986) 104778 Gager J. The Origins of Antisemitism (1983) 154779 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) 195780 Munck J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959) 70, 89, 124. 130-4, Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 23-25 and GagerJ. The Origins of Antisemitism (1983) 112-18, 132781 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) 313783 E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 54-59784 Klein Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1978) 60785 Gaston, Lloyd in Stephen G. Wilson, ed. Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol.2 (1986) 163-174786 Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 18787 Gager John G. Reinventing Paul (2000) 32788 Ruether, R.R. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Antisemitism (1974) 241789 Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 18790 P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 236791 Gager John G. Reinventing Paul (2000) 47792 Fredriksen Paula From Jesus to Christ (1988) 107-8793 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) 54795 E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 54-59796 Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 16 370797 Fredriksen Paula From Jesus to Christ (1988) 104798 Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 245-6799 Dunn James D.G Christianity in the Making – Vol 1 - Jesus Remembered (2003) 88800 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 TaylorMiriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 55801 Wilken Robert (Judaism and the Early Christian Mind, 1971, 36-37), Simon M. Versus Israel- Jews and Christians in the Romanempire (1986) 140. Similar critique in Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 12409- Chapter 9 - Recapitulation802 In this subsection, we will concentrate on Mark, John, Barnabas, and Justin despite the fact that this theme reverberated throughoutthe 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 andbetween 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 GospelAccording 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 factthat his name resonates with Iudaeos (‘Jews’) cease to be a coincidence and are suspect of being another of many hints at thetendentious nature of the narrative.Projection onto Judaism808 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 hiscomposition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate statement of facts.’ See Socrates Scholasticus’s HistoriaEcclesiastica.811 L. T. Johnson, The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic (1989), 419–441. Also SeeAnthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-Andre’ Turcotte, eds., Handbook of Early Christianity (2002), section 2, for a discussion ofrhetorical techniques and their effectiveness. Also: Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, eds., The Rhetorical Interpretation ofScripture (1999); G. N. Stanton, Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic (1985).About Judaizing812 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 EarliestChristianity, Kraft and Krodel, 262; John G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism (1983), 115 and 132; Robert Wilken, JohnChrisostom 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 andChristians 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 andGentile 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 thedescendants of Jesus’ disciples and followers, and not ‘Judaism,’ see chapter 7 in this volume.An Elusive Response820 For a recent survey, Peter Schäfer The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (2012); J. Lighthouse, inAnti-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 RabbinicJudaism, 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) 106823 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, Orthodoxyand Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Kraft and Krodel; Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature ofEarly Christianity; and Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1.134–78, 5, as the earliest to identify thisphenomenon.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’ complicityin 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 LightAmong 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 theHistory of Research in Jewish believers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 75-8128. For traces in the pseudo-Clementine literature of a ‘Jewish-Christian’ response, see Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battlefor 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 forScripture 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 era838 For an updated guide to the subject: Klauck, Hans-Josef The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-RomanReligion (2003)839 Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 167, 168840 Further councils at Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) were required to iron-out basic inconsistencies andparadoxes 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 JesusMovement (2013) pg. 167-179; Gager, John G. Did Jewish Christians See the Rise of Islam?’ in The Ways that Never Parted: Jewsand Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Edited by A. H. Becker and A. Y. Reed (2003) 361-72; Mimouni, SimonC 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 theJudaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature (2003); Jones F. Stanley An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on theHistory 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; SegalAlan 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 Antiquityand Christianity (1986) 161-75; Schoedel William R Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (1969); For ageneral bibliography on the Jewish followers of Jesus see pg. 415;842 Sanders E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) 236843 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 HvalvikReidar (2007) 463-488; afHällström Gunnar Cerinthus, Elxai, Elkesaites, and Sampseans in Jewish believers in Jesus: the earlycenturies eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 488-505; Skarsaune Oskar Jewish Christian Traditions in Origen in Jewishbelievers in Jesus: the early centuries eds. Skarsaune Oskar and Hvalvik Reidar (2007) 361-373; Knox John The Origin of theEbionites 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) 211-13846 Standing on Taylor Miriam Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity (1995) 99847 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. Earlierscholarship: A. Hansen, The Sitz im Leben of the Paschal Homily of Melito of Sardis (1968) 180; K. W. Noakes, Melito of Sardis andthe Jews (1975), 246; S. G. Wilson, ed., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 2, 95–100; and David Satran in Contra Iudaeos, OraLimor, Maurice R. Hayoun, and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., (1996), 49–58; Limor Ora, Maurice R. Hayoun, Guy G. Stroumsa eds. ContraIudaeos (1996)848 Segment stands on Wilken Robert John Chrysostom and the Jews (1983) 128-129849 J. D. Crossan Who Killed Jesus (1995) XII850 Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 58, Stroumsa G.G. Contra ludaeos (1996) 1811 The responsibility for Jesus’ death851 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 onUs and Our Children (The Background of Mat. 27, 24-25)’ ASTI 7 (1970) 94-126; Hare Douglas The Rejection of the Jews inAntisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 22-25; Richardson Peter David Granskou, Stephen G. Wilson Anti-Judaismin Early Christianity: Paul and the Gospels: Volume 1 (1986), Kingsbury J. D. Matthew as Star (1988) 56-57; P. L. Maier Who KilledJesus? Christianity Today 34/6 (1990) 16-19; Luedemannn, Gerd The Unholy in Holy Scripture (1997) 97-98; Allison Dale Jesus ofNazareth: 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 andMatthew'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 theMaking – 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)196-214857 Ruether R.R in Davies, A.T. Ed. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 248-256858 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) 252860 Hagner, D. A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (1984) 290861 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 BAR17 (1991) 58. Breidenthal Thomas Neighbor-Christology: Reconstructing Christianity Before Supersessionism Cross Currents 49,(1999) 319 n.1863 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-Consequences864 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.pdf866 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 ChristianAntiquity (1985) 43. On the impact of Hellenism on turn of the century Judea see Smith Morton Palestinian Parties and Politics ThatShaped the Old Testament (1971) 56-81 and Collins John J. and Sterling Gregory R. eds., Hellenism in the Land of Israel (2001) 150-160869 For a short survey of scholarship on Antisemitism see Stroumsa G.G. Contra ludaeos (1996) 10-16870 Luther Martin, Trans Martin H. Bertram On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) chap XI13-The present and the future871 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 ofAmerica 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) 46-7876 Klein, Charlotte Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (1975) 10-11877 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) 130-135882 Van Buren, Paul M. Christ in Context (1988) 164883 Norman A. Beck The New Testament: A New Translation and Redaction (Lima, Ohio: Fairway Press, 2001) which is designed toreduce 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) 285885 Hagner D. A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (1984) 301-2886 Williamson Clark M. A Guest in the House of Israel (1993) 46-7887 R.R. Ruether in Davies A.T. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) 230888 Gaston Lloyd Paul and the Torah (1987) 15889 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) 48891 Davies A.T. Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity (1979) Introduction892 Anti-Defamation League statement February 23, 2004.893 Boys Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? (2000) 248894 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 JohnDominic 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