Jews or Christians? : The Followers of Jesus in Search of Their Own Identity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)

GIORGIO JOSSA

Jews or Christians?

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 202

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor J o r g Frey Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck

202

Giorgio Jossa

Jews or Christians ? The Followers of Jesus in Search of their own Identity Translated from the Italian by Molly Rogers

Mohr Siebeck

G I O R G I O J O S S A , b o r n 1 9 3 8 ; s t u d y of L a w and H i s t o r y in N a p l e s ; 1 9 6 6 ; P h . D . ; P r o f e s s o r of H i s t o r y of A n c i e n t C h u r c h and H i s t o r y of Christianity in the U n i v e r s i t y » F e d e r i c o I I « in N a p l e s .

I S B N 3-16-149192-0 I S B N - 1 3 978-3-16-149192-4 I S S N 0 5 1 2 - 1 6 0 4 (Wissenschaftliche U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u m N e u e n Testament) D i e D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o t h e k lists this publication in the D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o graphie; detailed b i b l i o g r a p h i c data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2006 b y M o h r Siebeck, T u b i n g e n , G e r m a n y . A u t h o r i s e d E n g l i s h translation of » G i u d e i o cristiani? I seguaci di G e s u in cerca di u n a p r o p r i a identita« © 2004 b y Paideia Editrice, B r e s c i a T h i s b o o k m a y not be r e p r o d u c e d , in w h o l e or in part, in any f o r m ( b e y o n d that permitted b y c o p y r i g h t law) w i t h o u t the publisher's written p e r m i s s i o n . T h i s applies particularly to r e p r o d u c t i o n s , translations, microfilms and s t o r a g e and p r o c e s s i n g in electronic s y s t e m s . T h e b o o k w a s typeset b y M a r t i n Fischer in T u b i n g e n using Stempel G a r a m o n d typeface, printed b y G u l d e - D r u c k in T u b i n g e n on n o n - a g i n g p a p e r and b o u n d b y B u c h b i n d e r e i Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in G e r m a n y .

Acknowledgements This book, now being published in the Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, is the translation, with slight modifications in the text and with an enrichment of the notes, which are more numerous and more complete, of Giudei o cristiani ? I seguaci di Gesu in cerca di una pro­ pria identity published in Italy by Paideia publishers of Brescia. I am deeply grateful to Professor Martin Hengel for the generously positive evaluation he has given to my book and for the kind interest he has shown in its trans­ lation into a language that is more accessible than Italian; and to Professor J o r g Frey and the publisher Dr. Georg Siebeck for having welcomed my book in their prestigious series. And I warmly thank Mrs. Molly Rogers for the competence and passion that she put into this rather difficult translation, and Dr. Marco Scarpat for the unselfish readiness with which he approved the proposal of this translation.

Table of Contents Introduction

1

Chapter one: The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

15

1. The image of the Judaism of the first century C E in the most recent research

15

2. Problems and aporias of the new research a. Jewish identity and influence of the Pharisees b. The messianic hopes of the Jews and the emergence of rabbinic Judaism

22 22

Chapter Two: The Christians from 30 CE to 100 CE

45

1. The attitude of Jesus towards Judaism a. The observance of the Law b. The messianic claim

45 46 54

2. Faith in the early community in Jesus as Lord and Messiah

63

3. The Hellenists, the Hebrews and the Mosaic L a w

76

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles and Christian proselytism . . .

89

35

5. The gospels of Matthew and of John and the problem of Judaeo-Christianity

102

Chapter Three: Jews and Christians as seen by the Romans

123

1. F r o m Tiberius to Claudius

125

2. The Christian persecution by N e r o (64 C E ) and the Jewish war (66-74)

131

3. The exaction of the Jewish tax and the persecution by Domitian . . 138

VIII

Table of

Contents

Bibliography

145

Indexes

165

Sources Authors Subjects

165 171 174

Introduction When was it that Christianity, born as a particular current within J u d a ­ ism, constituted itself as a religion different and separate from the Jewish religion? The question has been asked, and the problem has therefore been considered, since historical-critical investigation of Christian origins began. At the very beginning of this investigation, F. C . Baur wrote, for example, that »the ultimate, most important point of the primitive history of Christianity« is »how Christianity, instead of remaining a mere form of Judaism [...], asserted itself as a separate, independent principle^ Until a few years ago the answer was, in any case, felt to be rather simple, contained as it was in the books of the N e w Testament themselves. In fact, it seems, although it was in a form that must be clarified, which will be the specific aim of these pages, that the realization of the separation was apparent from the origins, not only in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, which speak of the Jews as mortal enemies of Jesus, thus taking their distance from them, but already in Paul, when he refers to >Jews and Greeks<, thus distinguishing himself from them, and even more when he recalls his former life in >Judaism< {Gal. 1:13). But when Paul states, »There is neither Jew nor Greek [...] for you are all one in Christ Jesus« {Gal 3:28; cfr. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11), does this mean that he is perfectly aware that he now belongs to a new social group that will later be defined as a T p i x o v yevo^, a tertium genus, alongside the traditional ones of the Jews and the Greeks, or does he merely express the position of a person who is still >a radical JewJudaism< and Luke and John indicate the >Jews< as having primary responsibility for the death of Jesus, do they really express through this the completed separation of the Christian group from its Jewish origins or do they bear witness to a conflict that is still entirely within Judaism, between a new group of Jews and the authorities of the synagogue? Actually, the problem has become acute only in the last few decades, because of the occurrence of a whole series of circumstances and of reflec­ tions that have deeply changed the historiographic understanding regarding Judaism in the first century and thus the origins of Christianity. 1

2

1

Paul, the Apostle

2

C l e m . Alex., Strom.

of Jesus Christ,

L o n d o n 1873, 3.

VI,5,41,6 (Kerygma

Petri); Arist., Apol

2,2. See b e l o w p. 143.

2

Introduction

In the nineteenth century, above all among so-called >liberal< Christian theologians, a notion was held of Judaism in the time of Jesus that was both strongly reductionist and at the same time decidedly critical. Having found in the presentation of the Jewish groups offered by the Jewish historian Flavius J o s e p h u s a substantial confirmation of the picture presented in the canonic gospels, they identified the mainstream Judaism of the time as Pharisaism. Convinced as they were, on the other hand, that among the various Jewish groups only this one had survived the catastrophe of the year 70, merging into the later Rabbinism, they based their interpretation of that Pharisaism on the rabbinic literature known to us. And, unable to offer an interpretation of this literature that wasn't entirely negative, they gave an extremely critical evaluation of Pharisaism and of Judaism. Judaism seemed to be a religion in serious crisis, which had lost all the strength and the freshness of the prophetic tradition, limiting itself to the request for a more and more detailed and formal observation of the Mosaic Law. Already in Jesus' time there was thus a normative Judaism, in this view, represented substantially by Pharisaism and interpreted, in the light of later Rabbin­ ism, in a very negative way. The preaching of Jesus was thus a deep break with respect to Judaism, which Paul's preaching had merely confirmed and aggravated. Although both of them were of Jewish origin, Jesus and Paul were really the >founders of Christianity< as a new and separate religion. If something was owed to the Jewish religion, it was not due to the Pharisaic spirituality of their time, but to the ancient religion of the prophets. It is from this perspective that one can also explain the reductive and sim­ plistic way of approaching a difficult and unsettling problem like that of the anti-Judaism of the ancient Christian sources, and of the N e w Testament in particular. The completely negative evaluation of the Judaism of the time of Jesus, and the contrast made between it and Christianity, seen as a different and superior religion, in the end led to minimizing, and in any case justifying, 3

4

3

Bell. 2 , 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ; Ant. 1 8 , 1 1 - 2 5 . J o s e p h u s indicates, as is w e l l - k n o w n , f o u r >schools<, four >philosophies<, into which, a c c o r d i n g to him, the J u d a i s m of his time w a s divided: the Pharisees, the S a d d u c e e s , the E s s e n e s , and the followers of J u d a s the Galilean. B u t , at least in Jewish Antiquities, he a d d s that the m o s t influential g r o u p is the Pharisees. Ant. 18,15: » B e c a u s e of these views they are, as a matter of fact, extremely influential a m o n g the townsfolk; and all p r a y e r s and sacred rites of divine w o r s h i p are p e r f o r m e d a c c o r d i n g to their exposition. T h i s is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, b y practising the highest ideals b o t h in their w a y of living and in their d i s c o u r s e , have p a i d to the excel­ lence of the P h a r i s e e s « ; 18,17: T h e S a d d u c e e s » a c c o m p l i s h practically nothing, however. F o r whenever they a s s u m e s o m e office, t h o u g h they s u b m i t unwillingly and perforce, yet s u b m i t they d o to the f o r m u l a s of the Pharisees, since otherwise the m a s s e s w o u l d not tolerate t h e m « (trans. L . H . F e l d m a n , LCL). See also Ant. 13,288. 298; 17,41. T h e essential reference is the great History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ b y E . Schiirer, cited at p . 16. B u t similar p o s i t i o n s to that of Schiirer were held also b y J . Wellhausen and A . H a r n a c k . 4

Introduction

3

that anti-Judaism, which on the other hand appeared as a further confirma­ tion of a separation that had already taken place between the two religions. But the discoveries of this past century, by furnishing scholars with an enormous quantity of new documents and forcing them to re-read even the traditional sources in a different way (in a cultural climate that had also changed radically after the Second World War), have profoundly modified this very simple picture. The Judaism of Jesus' time has seemed much richer than just Pharisaism, presenting such a variety of positions as to cause some scholars to begin speaking not of Judaism, but rather of Judaisms, and show­ ing such vitality of conceptions as to cancel every idea of a religion in crisis. Pharisaism itself, on the other hand, no longer simply identified with later Rabbinism, has been recognized as a spirituality of high value, and although Jesus had to deal with it conflictually, he was surely also influenced by it in various ways. Historiography, above all Jewish historiography, has thus re-discovered the >Jewishness< of Jesus, the possibility, that is, of interpret­ ing him within strictly Jewish categories, as the representative of a typically Jewish spirituality, and has carried out what has been defined appropriately as the >re-entry of Jesus into the Jewish peoples And this rediscovery has inevitably posed new questions: was it then with Paul that the parting of the ways of Judaism and Christianity occurred, or did Paul just represent a current within ancient Christianity more or less generally tied to the Jewish tradition and thus still to be interpreted in a more extended manner as Jewish Christianity? And can we not interpret Paul himself (in spite of the doctrine of justification by faith) as remaining entirely within Jewish conceptions? And were not the intended addressees of his letters (though he still certainly remained the apostle of the Gentiles) still prevalently the hellenized Jews of the Diaspora? Was it perhaps the war of the Jews against the Romans of 5

6

7

5

A m o n g the m a n y scholars w h o have dealt with this theme mention is d u e in par­ ticular, for the quality and q u a n t i t y of his essays, and in spite of his s t r o n g tendency to continue to contrast the t w o religions, J u d a i s m and Christianity, J . N e u s n e r . See for e x a m p l e his e s s a y Varieties of Judaism in the formative Age, in Jewish Spirituality from the Bible through the Middle Ages, edited b y A . G r e e n , N e w Y o r k 1986, 1 7 1 - 1 9 7 . A n d cfr. also Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of Christian Era, edited b y J . N e u s n e r , W.S. G r e e n and E . S . F r e r i c h s , C a m b r i d g e 1987. A n d here mention m u s t be m a d e in particular, in spite of the t o o systematic a p p r o a c h and the tendency therefore to contrast Paul and J u d a i s m , of E . P . S a n d e r s , w i t h his b o o k o n Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, Philadelphia 1977. See also E . P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, Philadelphia 1983. A b o v e all in the p r o t e s t a n t scholarly tradition, the anti-Jewish character of m a n y interpretations of the justification b y faith arises f r o m a substantial i n c o m p r e h e n s i o n of J e w i s h thought. It is the h y p o t h e s i s , s t r o n g l y innovative with respect to the prevailing orientations of the present N e w T e s t a m e n t exegesis, a l t h o u g h it w a s already present in other scholars (see, for e x a m p l e , W. D . D a v i e s ) , advanced b y L . Troiani in Per una riconsiderazione degli "EXXYJVSQ nel Nuovo Testamento: A t h e n a e u m 66 (1988) 1 7 9 - 1 9 0 ; II giudeo-ellenista e le origini del Cristianesimo, in Contributi dellTstituto di Storia Antica (Universita C a t t o l i c a ) , 6

7

4

Introduction

66-74, in which the Christians certainly did not participate, that made the situation change rapidly, causing the separation? O r is it necessary to wait for the birth of rabbinic Judaism and the disappearance of Jewish Christian­ ity, thus reaching the revolt of 132-135, to be able to call this separation truly accomplished? Does the anti-Judaism in the gospels of Matthew and of John (but today often the gospel of Luke is also added) indicate necessarily a separation that had already occurred or is this anti-Judaism, on the contrary, a sign of a discussion still completely within the Jewish community? Of course, the problem was soon perceived and addressed. In particular, in 1989 an interesting symposium was held in Durham, in Great Britain, with the title Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A. D. 70 to 13 5, essentially dedicated to this theme. And in that symposium contributions of great value were given, which were further enriched when the proceedings were published. The general impression, however, is that, as often happens 8

9

10

11

vol. X V I I I , M i l a n o 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 5 - 2 1 0 , and in other articles, m a n y of w h i c h have been collected recently in I d e m , / / perdono cristiano e altri studi sul cristianesimo delle origini, B r e s c i a 1999. It is not a q u e s t i o n , in a n y case, of replacing the definition of Paul as the a p o s t l e of the Gentiles w i t h that of the a p o s t l e of the lost sheep of Israel, b u t of e x p l o r i n g this p o s s i b i l i t y as well. In spite of H a r n a c k ' s b e l o n g i n g to the liberal school of theology, this w a s already his conviction. See A . v o n H a r n a c k , Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten I, L e i p z i g 1 9 2 4 , 7 0 - 7 1 : » I t w a s the d e s t r u c t i o n of J e r u s a l e m and of the temple that s e e m s to have p r o v o k e d the definitive crisis, w h i c h ended with the c o m p l e t e b r e a k « . T h i s idea w a s taken u p again in particular b y S. G . F . B r a n d o n , The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, L o n d o n 1951. See also, b y B r a n d o n , Jesus and the Zealots. A Study of the political Factor in primitive Christianity, M a n c h e s t e r 1967, and The Trial ofJesus of Nazareth, L o n d o n 1968. A n d cfr. L . G a s t o n , No Stone on Another. Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the synoptic Gospels, L e i d e n 1970. It is the h y p o t h e s i s of m a n y of the a u t h o r s w h o participated in the s y m p o s i u m in D u r h a m , w h i c h I will m e n t i o n at once, a n d of J . D . G . D u n n and P. S. A l e x a n d e r in par­ ticular. A l s o s u p p o r t i n g this view w a s S. G . Wilson, Related Strangers. Jews and Christians 70-170 C. E., M i n n e a p o l i s 1995, 2 - 1 1 , 2 8 5 - 2 8 8 (288: » T h e significance of the J e w i s h War s h o u l d n o t be belittled, yet a n u m b e r of the texts w e have c o n s i d e r e d confirm o u r s u s p i ­ cion that the events associated with the B a r C o c h b a rebellion h a d a m o r e d r a m a t i c effect on J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n r e l a t i o n s « ) . A m o n g the m a n y images and definitions that are u s e d to indicate the p h e n o m e n o n I a m dealing with (>Rebecca s children<, >the parting of the ways<, >the b r e a k s >a familiar c o n ­ flict^ this one of the parting of the w a y s can seem in fact the closest to reality. H o w e v e r , not even this definition, in m y opinion, indicates exactly the w a y in which the facts occurred. What m a d e J u d a i s m and Christianity t w o clearly distinct religions w a s in fact not so m u c h the p r o g r e s s i v e parting of their respective paths (nor w a s it s o m u c h the exclusion of the followers of J e s u s f r o m the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y ) as it w a s the constituting of Christians into distinct and separate communities. It w a s not, therefore, the paths of the J e w s and of the Christians that progressively divided, b u t it w a s a b o v e all the C h r i s t i a n s , w h o , w h e n faced with the lack of reception of their messianic preaching, separated f r o m the J e w s . A n d it is thus this p r o c e s s of separation that I will try to delineate in the p a g e s that follow. Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways A. D. 70 to 135. T h e s e c o n d D u r h a m T u b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest Christianity and J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989) edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992. A n d to the theme of the s e p a r a t i o n J . D . G . 8

4

9

1 0

,

11

5

Introduction

in matters regarding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, the theme, except for some praiseworthy exceptions, and in spite of repeated statements to the contrary, was dealt with from a perspective that was more theological than historical. In the words of its chairman, J . D . G. Dunn, who in his paper had criticized the c o m p a r i s o n of patterns of religion< made by E . P. Sanders and the contrast between Judaism and Christianity made by J . Neusner and had emphasized how even anti-Judaism is not necessarily evidence of separation, the >question<, defined in fact as >theological<, of the Durham symposium was »how and why the Jewish national particular­ ism and the Christian christological particularism came into ever sharper confrontation until a decisive parting of the ways was unavoidable«. J u d a ­ ism and Christianity were thus not seen as two social entities in constant historical development and in reciprocal dependence, but were considered a priori as two religious forms having contrasting theological characteristics: national particularism on the one hand, and christological particularism on the other. And the question, also formulated in terms that were more theo­ logical than historical, was consequently the following: was the >parting of the ways< of the two religions u n a v o i d a b l e from the first«? Even the choice of the chronological time-frame taken into consideration in the conference, which with its reference to the wars of the Jews against the Romans seemed to reveal a just attention to the general historical circum­ stances of the separation, was in reality conditioned by this point of view. The period examined in the symposium was in fact the one between the two Jewish revolts against Rome (70-135), but this period was considered deci­ sive not so much for the intensification of the hostility of the Jews towards the Romans and for the development of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world, as for the emergence of rabbinic Judaism and the disappearance of Jewish Christianity. P. S. Alexander in particular wrote: »The story of the 12

13

D u n n has in the m e a n t i m e dedicated a specific m o n o g r a p h i c w o r k : The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Chris­ tianity, L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1991. The Question of Anti-semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period, in Jews and Christians, cit., 1 7 7 - 2 1 1 . J . D . G . D u n n , Preface, in Jews and Christians, V I I I - I X . W h a t d o e s u n a v o i d a b l e f r o m the first< actually m e a n ? Precisely for the origins and the d e v e l o p m e n t of christology, w h i c h I also consider decisive in the s e p a r a t i o n of C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m J u d a i s m , the m o s t recent investigations, shared b y m a n y of the participants at the s y m p o s i u m , e m p h a s i z e s t r o n g l y the role of the J e w i s h c o n c e p t i o n s of the time, a b o v e all in relation t o the titles of l o r d and of s o n of G o d , and thus to the s u p e r h u m a n , divine nature attributed to J e s u s b y the early c o m m u n i t y . T h e r e f o r e , o n e can legitimately maintain that f r o m this p o i n t of view the s e p a r a t i o n w a s not at all u n a v o i d a b l e f r o m the first<. A t a certain point, however, it b e c a m e s o in historical reality, w h i c h w a s not m a r k e d o n l y b y a g r o w i n g faith in the divinity of C h r i s t and b y the p r o g r e s s i v e p r e d o m i n a n c e of rabbinic J u d a i s m , b u t w a s also familiar with the criticism b y the Hellenists of the M o s a i c L a w and with Paul's p r e a c h i n g a m o n g the Gentiles. 12

13

6

Introduction

parting of the ways is in essence the story of the triumph of Rabbinism and of the failure of Jewish Christianity to convince a majority of Palestinian Jews of the claims of the G o s p e l « . And he added significantly: until R a b ­ binism triumphed and Jewish Christianity disappeared »there was always the possibility that the Jewish Christians would succeed in christianizing Israel«. Analogous observations can be made for the fine book that J . D . G. Dunn has dedicated to the theme in the meantime. Certainly, here there are not any essays by various authors regarding various aspects of the problem, inevitably thus characterized by strong heterogeneity of points of view and of conclusions, but rather a single study of considerable breadth carried out from a perspective that is rigorously unitary and coherent. F r o m Jesus' preaching until 135 (in reality, until the last N e w Testament writings) the de­ velopment of Christian thought in its relationship with the Jewish tradition is followed with competence and extreme rigour. I will thus make constant reference to this volume in the pages that follow. And yet even here the impression is that it is a more theological than historical work, characterized by a praiseworthy ecumenical effort, but carried out from too unilateral a point of view. In fact, once the >four pillars of Judaism in the second temples to use E . P. Sanders' phrasing, have been identified in monotheism, the elec­ tion of Israel, the Law, and the temple, the author demonstrates that Chris­ tianity, although it later questioned (but in inverse order) all four of these pillars, still remained firmly within the Jewish tradition of thought (the doctrine, therefore, not the community) not only until 70, but even until 135. If, in fact, before this date for the emerging authorities of Rabbinism »the parting of the ways had already happened«, »for J o h n the Evangelist, the faith he proclaimed by means of his Gospel was still a form of second 14

15

14

>The Parting of the Ways< from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism, in op. cit., 3. T h e p o i n t of view indicated b y A l e x a n d e r is u n d o u b t e d l y that of rabbinic, and thus Palestinian J u d a i s m . B u t in a n a l o g o u s terms D u n n also expresses himself, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism, cit., 2 3 8 - 2 4 0 : the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the t w o J e w i s h revolts ( 6 6 - 7 0 and 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 ) w a s decisive for the p a r t i n g of the w a y s . A t that time in fact, rabbinic J u d a i s m e m e r g e d as n o r m a t i v e J u d a i s m and then J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y lost strength. O n e s h o u l d k e e p in m i n d that, differently f r o m Italian, E n g l i s h has n o specific term to indicate the p h e n o m e n o n of w h a t is called in Italian G i u d e o c r i s t i a n e s i m o , b u t speaks a l m o s t always m o r e generically of J e w i s h Christianity. In the rest of this b o o k I will distinguish instead between J e w i s h Christianity, meant as C h r i s t i a n i t y of J e w i s h origin, and J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y , meant as C h r i s t i a n i t y that keeps a J e w i s h identity. T h i s specific p h e n o m e n o n will be d i s c u s s e d m o r e fully later in this text. Op. cit., 24. B u t w h y s h o u l d the existence of this possibility necessarily mean that the parting of the w a y s had not yet o c c u r r e d ? D o e s this separation necessarily p r e s u p p o s e that between J u d a i s m and C h r i s t i a n i t y there w e r e n o m o r e contacts and intermediate g r o u p s ? A n d w a s it thus necessary, to m a k e this h a p p e n , for rabbinic J u d a i s m to b e c o m e s t r o n g and for J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y to d i s a p p e a r ? 15

7

Introduction 16

temple J u d a i s m « . O n the contrary, after closely examining Paul, Luke, Matthew and John, it may certainly be said that »none of these first-century Christian writers would have accepted the proposition that they had denied or abandoned the Law« and even on the theme of the election of Israel, the separation did not appear unavoidable yet, but would become so only with rabbinic Judaism. In fact, the period between the two Jewish revolts (66-70 and 132-135) would be truly decisive. Actually, only then would rabbinic Judaism emerge as normative Judaism and only then would Jewish Christi­ anity lose strength. But until that moment the whole story had not yet been told. Thus, even here there is a comparison that is exclusively doctrinal and considered mostly from the point of view of Christian theology only (it is no accident that the second part of the title of the book speaks of the meaning of the separation »for the character of Christianity«), without there seeming to be any true involvement of the social realities of the Jews (above all those of the Diaspora), not to mention those of the Gentiles. Greater attention to the historical context of Christian origins is no doubt found in the acts of the two seminars on the >rift< held in 1993 in the Romand region of Switzerland, the first of them fruit of the collaboration of the Universities of Lausanne and Manchester, the second of those of Geneva, Lausanne, Neuchatel and Fribourg. The publication is in fact divided into three paths of research, the first of which is purely historical: it attempts to recompose the picture of Judaism before the year 70. And it is this publication that leads to some interesting new information with respect to the Durham symposium and Dunn's book. First of all, the start­ ing point for the research is a stronger recognition of the variety of aspects and of the vitality of the Judaism of the first century. And this recognition not only has a decisive effect on the singling out of the historical precedents and of the remote causes of the >rift<, but thus also anticipates its occurrence. In fact, while F. Siegert maintains that the later separation of Christianity 17

18

19

20

21

16

The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism, 229. Op. cit., 162. Op. cit., 161, 2 3 8 - 2 4 0 . A general a d h e s i o n to this h y p o t h e s i s in the t w o v o l u m e s is f o u n d also in the b o o k already cited, w h i c h is well d o c u m e n t e d and very well balanced, b y S. G . Wilson, Related Strangers. Jews and Christians 70-170 C. E. E v e n if the time f r a m e e x a m i n e d b y the a u t h o r g o e s in fact f r o m 70 to 170 C E . (and the b o o k for this r e a s o n s e e m s less relevant than the other t w o to m y d i s c u s s i o n ) , the decisive m o m e n t of the b r e a k between the J e w s and the C h r i s t i a n s is p r o p o s e d as 135. T h i s is p e r h a p s w h a t is lacking m o s t . T h e o p i n i o n s that G r e c o - R o m a n a u t h o r s h a d of J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s are treated, in fact, in o n l y t w o p a g e s ( 2 4 1 - 2 4 2 ) . A just a m o u n t of s p a c e is given to this o p i n i o n s b y Wilson, op. cit., 1-35. Le dechirement. Juifs et chretiens au premier siecle, edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e 1996. F. Siegert, Le judaisme au premier siecle et ses ruptures interieures, in Le dechirement, cit., 2 5 - 6 5 ; C . Tuckett, Les Pharisiens avant 70 et le Nouveau Testament, ibidem, 6 7 - 9 5 . 17

18

1 9

2 0

2 1

8

Introduction 22

from Judaism goes back to precisely that variety of aspects and C . Tuckett tends to explain the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees through the very close relationship that existed between them, greater attention to the historical context also leads to a different evaluation of the final moment and of the decisive reasons for the >rift<. The final end of the separation between Jews and Christians is not placed, as at the Durham conference and in Dunn, as late as the war of 132-135, but is moved to the end of the first century. And the principal reason for the separation is not seen, as at Durham and in Dunn, in christology, but rather in the question of the Mosaic L a w and of the means of reconciliation. There is thus doubtless greater attention given to the historical context of the separation. But on the one hand, once again, this historical context is almost exclusively that of Palestinian J u d a ­ ism, without any attention to the Judaism of the Diaspora, much less to the Gentiles. And on the other hand, once this historical context is indicated as Palestinian Judaism, all the rest of the book is dedicated in substance to the single doctrinal positions of the various N e w Testament writers. 23

24

But the parting of the ways of Judaism and Christianity is above all a historical problem, which necessarily involves as protagonists, together with the Palestinian Jews and the Christians of Jewish origin, the Jews of the Diaspora and the Christians of Gentile origin as well. It is really surprising that, to an absolutely prevalent degree, the phenomenon we are addressing has been taken into consideration from an exclusively Palestinian point of view, looking on the one hand at the increasing predominance of Rabbinism and on the other hand at the slow disappearance of Jewish Christianity, both 2 2

» T h e internal diversity in J u d a i s m before the year 70 largely explains w h a t h a p p e n e d s h o r t l y afterwards between it a n d the c h u r c h « (Le judaisme au premier siecle, cit., 25). » I n s o m e w a y s , the b r e a k between the church and J u d a i s m repeated the divisions within the latter« (op. cit., 26). A n d in this w a y even the plurality of p o s i t i o n s in early C h r i s t i a n i t y can be attributed to the plurality of p o s i t i o n s in the J u d a i s m of the first century. See, for e x a m p l e , J . N . C a r l e t o n Paget, Jewish Christianity, in The Cambridge History of Judaism III. The early Roman Period, edited b y W. H o r b u r y , W. D a v i e s and J . Sturdy, C a m b r i d g e 1999, 7 4 3 - 7 4 6 . » I t is precisely b e c a u s e they r e s e m b l e d each other s o closely that they o p p o s e d each other s o violently. A n d the v e r y virulence of their o p p o s i t i o n c o u l d indicate clearly, p a r a ­ doxically, the closeness of their k i n s h i p « (Les Pharisiens avant 70, cit., 95). T h i s thesis of the similarity between J e s u s a n d the Pharisees has c o m e f o r w a r d s o s t r o n g l y in scientific research as to be a d o p t e d b y ecclesiastical teaching. See, for e x a m p l e , the recent d o c u m e n t of the Pontifical Biblical C o m m i s s i o n Ilpopolo ebraico e le sue Sacre Scritture nella Bibbia cristiana, C i t t a del Vaticano 2 0 0 1 . D . M a r g u e r a t , Introduction, in Le dechirement, 19: » T h e interpretation of the T o r a h , as such, w a s not e n o u g h [...] to c a u s e the separation; e m e r g i n g rabbinic o r t h o d o x y never r e s e m b l e d inquisitorial strictness. [...] It w a s , however, precisely over a q u e s t i o n of the T o r a h , and not over the q u e s t i o n of the true M e s s i a h , that the p a t h s w e r e to p a r t « . Siegert, 65: » T h e b r e a k between J u d a i s m - a b o v e all unified J u d a i s m after 70 - and the church cannot be u n d e r s t o o d s o m u c h as a d i s s e n s i o n over the q u e s t i o n of the true M e s s i a h as a c o m p e t i t i o n a m o n g the m e a n s of reconciliation*. 2 3

2 4

9

Introduction

influenced by the Jewish wars of 66 and of 132. F r o m this perspective it may also be understandable, although it is paradoxical, that one can state, as S. C . Mimouni does, that »before 70, and to some extent until approximately the year 100, it is possible to claim that there were, among others, some Chris­ tian Jews, just as there were some Sadducean Jews, some Pharisaic Jews, and some Essene Jews. Around these Christian Jews, just as there were, on the other hand, around most of the Jewish groups, proselytes and sympathizers [...] gathered, who were themselves of pagan origin«; or even that until 135 »Christianity did not yet exist except as a current within J u d a i s m « . In Palestine (and perhaps also in Syria) things might even have been this way. But alongside Palestinian Judaism there was the Judaism of the Diaspora and alongside Christianity of Jewish origin there was Christianity of Gen­ tile origin. And between the two extremes of Judaism of essentially Aramaic origin and Christianity of exclusively Greek origin there were the interme­ diate social categories of the >Greek< Jews, thus with Hellenistic sympathies, and of the >God-fearing< Gentiles, that is, Gentiles with Jewish sympathies. The spreading of Christianity was not limited to Palestine, but, already in the decade from 40 to 50, mainly because of these intermediate categories, had touched the principal centres of Hellenistic-Roman culture. The fact is that in this unilateral way of considering the problem, one can see, in my opinion, with absolute clarity, in the ecclesiastical as well as in State Universities, the ill-advised separation between Jewish and N e w Testament studies, on the one hand, and studies of ancient Christianity, on the other. Having begun my studies as a historian of ancient Christianity in the State University, when I dealt with the conception that was then quite widespread of an early separation of Christianity from Judaism and of its rapid characterization as a Hellenistic-Roman religion (as examples for the rest, we can cite in Italy the names of M. Sordi and M. Simonetti, or even of P. Siniscalco), for years I felt the need to call greater attention on the part of my colleagues to the Jewish components of this Christianity and to the fact that it remained for a longer time within the Jewish tradition. However, having become with the passing years a scholar of Judaism and of the N e w 25

26

27

25

Le judeo-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques, Paris 1998, 19. B u t in a note, still m o r e paradoxically, the a u t h o r a d d s , » T o s a y it differently, the p a g a n s d r a w n together b y Paul to faith in J e s u s as the M e s s i a h w e r e o n l y p r o s e l y t e s and s y m p a t h i z e r s of J u d a i s m and not yet C h r i s t i a n s « . T h u s , even the Gentile m e m b e r s of the Pauline c o m m u n i t i e s were only Jews. Op. cit., 40. C o m i n g f r o m the s a m e strictly Palestinian p o i n t of view, a l t h o u g h it is m o r e p r u d e n t in its c o n c l u s i o n s , is the article b y R . Penna, Che cosa significava essere giudeo al tempo e nella terra di Gesu. Problemi e proposte, in Mysterium Regni ministerium Verhi (Mc 4,11; At 6,4). Scritti in o n o r e di m o n s . Vittorio F u s c o editi d a E . F r a n c o , B o l o g n a 2 0 0 1 , 1 3 7 - 1 5 6 , n o w also in R . Penna, Vangelo e inculturazione. Studi sul rapporto tra rivelazione e cultura nelNuovo Testamento, Cinisello B a l s a m o 2 0 0 1 , 6 3 - 8 8 . See, for e x a m p l e , m y b o o k s o n Jesus and Palestine liberation movements and The 2 6

2 7

10

Introduction

Testament, and having thus entered into closer contact with the ecclesiastical institutions, I cannot today refrain from noting the worrying absence from the horizon of these studies of a really significant reference to the Judaism of the Diaspora and to the Greco-Roman world, as if the discovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and of ancient Christianity suddenly cancelled the very rapid spread of the Christian message outside of Palestine and in the pagan environment. It is instead necessary, just as a historian of Christianity today takes into greater consideration the results of the research of the scholars of Judaism and of the N e w Testament, with the rediscovery in particular of the so-called Jewish Christianity of Syro-Palestinian origin, for these scholars also to take into greater account the research of the historians of ancient Christianity, with their greater attention to the diffusion of the Christian message among the Jews of the Diaspora and in the Greco-Roman world. This appears to be true also from another point of view, voiced above all by at least a part of the Anglo-Saxon world. In the studies reported here so far, the separation of Christianity from Judaism has been considered, as I said, almost exclusively as a doctrinal problem. The tradition of Jewish stud­ ies and even more certainly of N e w Testament studies, is in fact a tradition of studies that are prevalently theological. But the separation of Christian­ ity from Judaism is a problem that is not only doctrinal, but also social. The causes of the separation are social as well as theological. This has been emphasized well by J . T . Sanders in a book that was published in 1993. As the author has rightly taken pains to clarify, the subject of the book is not anti-Semitism or the Jewish Christian polemic, and thus is not the separa­ tion of Christianity from Judaism, but is instead the relationships between Jews and Christians. The connection between the two subjects is in any case quite clear. And the new information in the book is important. As at the conference in Durham, the period considered reaches 135, because after that year for the author Judaism and Christianity were two separate religions. But the fact remains that the historical reality under consideration is not just 28

29

30

31

Christians and the Roman Empire, cited below. T h i s is s h o w n , I believe, once again in m y recent b o o k 77 cristianesimo antico. Dalle origini al concilio di Nicea, R o m a 2000. B e s i d e s M i m o u n i , already cited, see in particular the recent, fine b o o k Verus Israel. Nuove prospettive sul giudeocristianesimo. Atti del c o l l o q u i o di T o r i n o ( 4 - 5 n o v e m b r e 1999) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e C . G i a n o t t o , Brescia 2001 (but w i t h contributions of quite v a r y i n g quality). Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants. The first one hundred Years of JewishChristian Relations, L o n d o n 1993. A very similar point of view can be f o u n d also in E . W. S t e g e m a n n - W. S t e g e m a n n , The Jesus Movement. A social History of its first Century, M i n n e a p o l i s 1999. F o r a general picture of the social condition of the first C h r i s t i a n s , a useful w o r k is also R. A g u i r r e , Del movimiento de Jesus a la Iglesia cristiana. Ensayo de exegesis sociolbgica del cristianismo primitivo, Estella 1998. Op. cit., X V I I I . Op. cit., X X I . 2 8

2 9

30

31

11

Introduction

Palestine (1-151), but rather also the Diaspora (152-228). And above all, the deeper reasons for the separation are identified not as theological causes but as social causes, on the basis of the theory of conflicts, and above all, of the model of deviance defined by H . Becker and K. Erikson. »Mainstream Judaism [...] struck out at the deviant Christians in order to preserve its boundaries, its self-identity as a culture; for these Christians were erod­ ing those boundaries just at the time when Gentiles were threatening to destroy them. [...] Those are the situation and the principle that help us to understand the dynamic of the conflict between early mainstream Judaism and Jewish Christianity in Palestine. Theological issues were present, but they are not sufficient alone to explain the conflicts«. The author doubt­ less tends to under-evaluate the theological problems (and, convinced of a greater weight among these problems of the criticism of the temple and of the Mosaic tradition, he contests in particular, in contrast with P. Rich­ ardson e W. A. Meeks, the idea that the conflict depended normally on the proclamation that Jesus was the Messiah and more generally, on christolo g y ) , since he does not recognize sufficiently that for the first Christians theological enunciations, and christological ones in particular, were already extremely effective expressions of the awareness of their social identity, but in spite of this, the affirmation must certainly be shared. 32

33

34

35

36

32

Op. cit., 1 2 9 - 1 4 8 . Op. cit., 150. Op. cit., 9 2 - 9 9 . B u t the a u t h o r seems t o have a rather singular idea of m e s s i a n i s m and of christology. With respect to the g o s p e l of J o h n , regarding w h i c h he m u s t a d m i t in a n y case that these w e r e the theological causes of the e x p u l s i o n of the C h r i s t i a n s f r o m the s y n a g o g u e , he in fact first writes that » m a n y J e w s , b o t h before and after J e s u s , thought that s o m e p e r s o n or another w a s M e s s i a h w i t h o u t thereby bringing a b o u t such a schism, and o n e c o u l d have raised m o s t of the objections t o those other messianic pretenders that J o h n explains w e r e raised to J e s u s « (p. 44), and then a d d s that u n r e a s o n a b l e as it m a y s e e m to us m o d e r n s , the >high christology< of the G o s p e l of J o h n m a y have been outlandisch but p r o b a b l y w a s not b l a s p h e m o u s o r heretical within R o m a n - p e r i o d J u d a i s m , since similar notions c o u l d exist elsewhere within the J u d a i s m of that t i m e « (p. 93). T h e s e are t w o state­ ments which, as I will later p o i n t out, s e e m quite frankly to be untenable. Instead, S a n d e r s ' conviction of a deviance f o u n d e d m o r e o n r e a s o n s of a social n a ­ ture than of a theological nature, but within a overall presentation of the d e v e l o p m e n t of Palestinian Christianity, w h i c h singles o u t the decisive m o m e n t of the b r e a k in the events of J e w i s h r e o r g a n i z a t i o n after the w a r against R o m e , w h i c h later culminated in the birkat h a - m i n i m and w h i c h f o u n d e x p r e s s i o n in the gospels of M a t t h e w and J o h n , is shared b y S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n , The Jesus Movement, cit., 3 7 9 - 3 9 9 , 4 1 2 - 4 1 7 . A f f i r m a t i o n s a n a l o g o u s to t h o s e m a d e b y S a n d e r s , with correct o b s e r v a t i o n s on the difference in J u d a i s m b e t w e e n variety and separation, and thus between marginal g r o u p (for e x a m p l e , Q u m r a n ) and separate g r o u p (for example, the Samaritans), can be f o u n d in R. B a u c k h a m , The Parting of the Ways: what happened and why: Studia T h e o l o g i c a 47 (1993) 1 3 5 - 1 5 1 , which in an excessive and p e r h a p s even a bit contradictory manner, claims, however, that a central element in the b r e a k between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s (as between J e w s and Samaritans) w a s the attitude w i t h respect to the temple. Instead there is not m u c h that can be u s e d in the c o n f u s e d and superficial article b y F. Blanchetiere, Comment le meme 33

34

3 5

3 6

12

Introduction

The separation of Christianity from Judaism is in reality a complex phe­ nomenon, which cannot be easily reduced to a common denominator and about which, on the other hand, we have too little evidence. F. Vouga has written, quite correctly, T h e p r o c e s s that d e t e r m i n e d the b r e a k b e t w e e n the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t i e s a n d the s y n a g o g u e s is f o r t h e m o s t p a r t u n k n o w n . O n l y v e r y f e w f a c t s c a n b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d a n d o n l y the c o m p l e x i t y of the evolution a n d of the situations can b e c o m e object of any plausible ascertainment. A n y overall presentation of the history of the relation­ s h i p s b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n i t y at its o r i g i n s a n d t h e s y n a g o g u e , a n d o f their s e p a r a t i o n p r e s u p p o s e s that there has been an arbitrary generalization of the very scarce infor­ m a t i o n t h a t is a v a i l a b l e . I n a d d i t i o n , it is n e c e s s a r y t o b e a w a r e o f t h e fact t h a t t h e relationships between J e w s and Christians were extremely variable and developed in v e r y d i f f e r e n t w a y s in t h e d i f f e r e n t r e g i o n s a n d l o c a l i t i e s o f P a l e s t i n e a n d o f t h e D i a s p o r a . [...] C e r t a i n C h r i s t i a n e n v i r o n m e n t s e n t e r e d i n t o c o n f l i c t f r o m t h e b e g i n ­ ning with J e w i s h principles; other communities developed without p r o b l e m s within t h e s y n a g o g u e s ; still o t h e r s (as t h e P a u l i n e c h u r c h e s ) n e v e r s e p a r a t e d f r o m J u d a i s m b e c a u s e they h a d been f o u n d e d o u t s i d e of the s y n a g o g u e s .

3 7

This means at least two things for the theme of my essay. The separation of Christianity from Judaism has to do above all not only with the Jews, but also with the Gentiles, and not only as spectators, but as a social reality that was necessarily involved in that separation. The correct observation that Christianity was born out of Judaism, that in the beginning, in fact, it was nothing more than a further orientation of a non-normative Judaism, which was still in the making, cannot lead to the too rapid conclusion that Christi­ anity was born only »when the groups of followers of Jesus stopped being part of J u d a i s m « . There are, in fact, Christian communities (above all the Pauline ones) that had never been part of Judaism because they were born outside the synagogue. The separation of Christianity from Judaism was not a fact that occurred purely within the Jewish community, but it also and above all occurred in the pagan world. Christian proselytism, so different from Jewish proselytism, (the object, as is well known, of great discussions), and more precisely, the diffusion of Christianity among the Gentiles, no longer going through the mediation of the Jewish traditions, in fact played a decisive role in that separation, as it was a very difficult obstacle for Judaism and for Jewish Christianity. In the same way, on the other hand, the percep­ tion that the Gentiles had of the relationship between Jews and Christians can be extremely indicative for singling out the moment of their separation. 38

est-il devenu Vautre ? (ou comment juifs et nazareens se sont-ils separes ?): R e v u e des Sci­ ences Religieuses 71 (1997) 9 - 3 2 . Les premiers pas du Christianisme. Les ecrits, les acteurs, les debats, G e n e v e 1997, 149. M . Pesce, Quando nasce il cristianesimo ? Aspetti deWattuale dibattito storiografico e uso dellefonti: A n n a l i di storia dell'esegesi 20 (2003) 3 9 - 5 6 . 37

3 8

13

Introduction

The attempt by some (or even many) Christians to remain Jews does not stop Judaism and Christianity from in fact appearing from the outside to be clearly distinct religions. The distinction is not in fact only doctrinal, but also, and perhaps above all, social. And the history of this separation, very different in the various regions of Palestine and of the Diaspora, did not begin only with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70, but already with the preaching of Paul (and even before him, by the Hellenists) to the Jews of the Diaspora and to the Gentiles. Paul's breaking off from Jewish tradition (circumcision and in general what he himself defined as his past in >Judaism<) appears in fact much more radical than that of any other J e w of his time (whether they were >Essenes< of Qumran or even Philo of Alexandria). In certain ways that history had really begun already with the birth of a Christian community after the death of Jesus, if not in the very preaching of the prophet of Nazareth. In whatever way this preaching and that community are evaluated, it is there that Christianity as a religion independent and separate from Judaism actually has its roots. The pages that follow intend to proceed from this principally historical perspective, which includes Jews, Christians and pagans, and this book is therefore divided into three parts: The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE, The Christians from 30 CE to 100 CE and Jews and Christians as seen by the Romans. 39

40

41

3 9

See, for e x a m p l e , the writing of W. A . M e e k s , Breaking away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Communities, in >To see Ourselves as Others see Us<. Christians, Jews, >Others< in late Antiquity, edited b y J . N e u s n e r and E . S . Frerichs, C h i c o 1985, 114: » B y the end of the first century, and m u c h earlier than that in the Pauline g r o u p s , the C h r i s t i a n m o v e m e n t w a s socially independent of the J e w i s h c o m ­ munities in the cities of the e m p i r e « ; this has little or nothing to d o with f o r m a l m e a s u r e s such as the birkat ha-minim. A n d cfr. in particular this statement together with the ones cited a b o v e b y D u n n with respect to J o h n a n d b y M i m o u n i r e g a r d i n g Paul. It is for this r e a s o n that the correct attention to the J e w i s h n e s s of J e s u s and of ancient C h r i s t i a n i t y cannot lead to s i m p l y p u t t i n g them o n the s a m e level as the other J e w i s h g r o u p s of the time. A n d it is also for this r e a s o n that the definition of J e s u s and Paul, respectively as >a marginal Jew< (J. P. Meier) and >a radical Jew< ( D . B o y a r i n ) , as if they w e r e like the Teacher of R i g h t e o u s n e s s or Philo of A l e x a n d r i a , d o not seem c o m p l e t e l y satisfactory. T h e typically A n g l o - S a x o n taste for evocative definitions of a sociological nature c a n n o t hide the fact that with J e s u s a n d Paul w e are faced with s o m e t h i n g m o r e than, or in any case different f r o m the Teacher of R i g h t e o u s n e s s or Philo a n d therefore f r o m a marginal or radical J u d a i s m . B u t they d o not claim in any w a y to be a history of C h r i s t i a n origins, o r a history of the birth of Christianity, for w h i c h it w o u l d be necessary to carry o u t m u c h m o r e c o m p l e t e research of the s o u r c e s (canonic a n d n o n - c a n o n i c ) and of the events (internal and external). T h e s e p a g e s will attempt m u c h m o r e m o d e s t l y to indicate s o m e decisive m o m e n t s in the constitution of C h r i s t i a n i t y as a religion distinct and separate f r o m the J e w i s h religion. 4 0

4 1

Chapter one

The Jews from 4 B C E to 100 C E 1. The image of the Judaism of the first century CE in the most recent research I have already mentioned in the introduction that the idea of a conflict and thus of a very rapid separation of Christianity from Judaism was based, above all in Christian historiography, which was fatally marked by clear theological presuppositions, on a strongly reductive image of the Jewish reality of the time. Liberal historiography of the nineteenth century, which gave, through J . Wellhausen and E . Schiirer, absolutely fundamental contri­ butions to the reconstruction of the Judaism of the time of Jesus, gave it a completely insufficient and extremely critical evaluation. In part because of a lack of direct knowledge, and in part because of the correct perception of a lack of the credibility of rabbinic literature for the era before the year 70, no great importance was attributed to this literature. Liberal historiography of this period was based almost exclusively on the presentation given by Flavius Josephus and on his famous subdivision of (Palestinian) Judaism of the era into four >schools<: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and followers of Judas the Galilean. Since on the other hand, the Sadducees were considered the expression of an aristocratic minority far removed from the people, and very little was then known about the Essenes, because the Dead Sea scrolls had not been discovered, very little attention was paid to these two sects, which were moreover destined to disappear after the war of 66-74. The most vital and significant Judaism seemed substantially to be made up of the Pharisees, considered to be the immediate precursors of the rabbis, for whom the catastrophe of 70 would mark the definitive victory, and made up to a lesser degree of the followers of Judas, considered, on the other hand, to be one of the tendencies within the apocalyptic current. Pharisaism of the rabbinic sort and the apocalyptic current with a zealot orientation were thus the currents in Palestinian Judaism that the preaching of Jesus and 1

2

1

See the great b o o k b y R . D e i n e s , Die Pharisder. Ihr Verstdndnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jiidischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz, T u b i n g e n 1997. See m y essay Gli Zeloti e i Sicari, in G . J o s s a , Gesu e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina, Brescia 1980, 2 1 - 9 4 , n o w also in I d e m , / gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesu, Brescia 2 0 0 1 , 1 1 - 7 8 . 2

16

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100 CE

newborn Christianity had to measure themselves against. And a strongly negative judgment was given of them. Pharisaism represented the legalistic orientation of the Judaism of the time, which had abandoned the universalistic spirit of the prophets to close itself inside a purely formal observation of the Law; the apocalyptic current represented instead the most extremist and fanatic nature of Judaism, which had replaced the hope of the prophets with obscure speculations about the afterlife or the temptation of armed revolt against R o m e . Legalism and fanaticism thus seemed to be the most significant components of a Palestinian Judaism that was considered to be in full decadence, very far from the spirituality of the prophets. Jesus could have nothing to do with this Judaism. His preaching was in fact completely alien to every legalistic worry and to every fanatic attitude. The Jesus of the liberal scholars, J . Wellhausen's in particular, explicitly constructed from precise ideological presuppositions, was the teacher of serene and kind knowledge, tranquil and polite, open to the values of humanity and sociality, thus very far from Pharisaic worries about the meticulous and formal observance of the Mosaic L a w and from the obscure and fanatic aspects of the apocalyptic currents regarding the advent of a kingdom of G o d on earth. It is true that a sentence of Wellhausen's is often mentioned, according to which »Jesus was not a Christian, but a J e w « , but almost always people forget to add that this sentence continued with the affirmation that »one may be justified in maintaining that what is un-Jewish in him, what is human, is more characteristic than what is Jewish«. And the 3

4

5

6

7

3

See in particular the great w o r k b y E . Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi I—III, L e i p z i g 1 9 0 1 - 1 9 0 9 , in w h i c h the chapter o n >the life u n d e r the Law< w a s characterized b y an evaluation s o negative of P h a r i s a i s m that it h a d to be c o m p l e t e l y rewritten in the recent E n g l i s h revision of the w o r k : The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C - A. D. 135) I I . A new E n g l i s h Version revised a n d edited b y G . V e r m e s , F. Millar, M . B l a c k , E d i n b u r g h 1979. In the original w o r k m e n ­ tions of the a p o c a l y p t i c i s m w e r e a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y non-existent and in any case w e r e always a c c o m p a n i e d b y an extremely critical j u d g m e n t . See the effective presentation in the great w o r k b y A . Schweitzer, The Quest of historical Jesus, L o n d o n 2000, 1 6 8 - 1 8 9 . See in particular, b y J . Wellhausen, the i m a g e of J e s u s p r e s e n t e d in Israelitische und judische Geschichte, Berlin 1 9 5 8 0 1 8 9 4 ) 3 5 8 - 3 7 1 . Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin 1 9 1 1 , 102: » T h e g o s p e l m e a n s the s a m e as Christianity. J e s u s w a s not a C h r i s t i a n b u t a J e w . H e d i d not p r o c l a i m a new faith, b u t he taught to d o the will of G o d . F o r h i m as well as for the J e w s the will of G o d w a s contained in the law and in the other h o l y scriptures c o u n t e d as part of t h e m « (trans. H . D . Betz). Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, cit., 102-103: »Yet, he s h o w e d another w a y to fulfill it than the o n e the p i o u s J e w s , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the instructions given them b y their authoritative teachers, r e g a r d e d as the right one and p a i n s t a k i n g l y followed. [...] O n e cannot be s u r p r i s e d that the J e w s g o t the i m p r e s s i o n that he intended to d e s t r o y the f o u n d a t i o n s of their religion. T h a t w a s , however, not his intention, b u t he w a s sent to the J e w s o n l y and intended to remain within J u d a i s m - p e r h a p s also b e c a u s e he believed 4

4

5

9

6

7

2

1. The image of the Judaism

of the first century

CE

17

human for Wellhausen did not consist in some contingent aspects of Jewish religion, legalism and messianism in particular, but in the universal values of contemporary man, morality and interiority above all. Of course, there was a strong awareness of the Jewish, and more pre­ cisely both Pharisaic and apocalyptic nature of the early Christian com­ munity of Jerusalem: that Jewish Christianity which was traced back to the leadership of James the >just< and lived in the expectation of the parousia of the Son of Man. However, whereas this orientation was considered a serious departure from the positions taken by Jesus, and a substantial >rejudaizing< of his preaching, it was thought that the genuine universalistic and moral religious spirit of the preaching of Jesus had been recaptured by Paul and by the Hellenistic Christians of the Diaspora. Hellenistic civiliza­ tion had thus been the fundamental instrument for the diffusion and the advancement of Christianity, and the true intermediary between Judaism and Christianity. The liberal image of the Judaism of the time of Jesus in E . Schiirer and A. Harnack was in fact completed by a clear contrast (and this, too, was strongly ideological) between Palestinian Judaism, totally impermeable, in its fanatic faith in the tradition of the fathers, to the influ­ ences of Hellenistic thought, and the Judaism of the Diaspora, much more open to those influences, because of its lesser orthodoxy. The Judaism of the Diaspora was considered to be a >liberal< Judaism, open and tolerant, thus completely different in its universalism from the closed nationalism of Palestinian Judaism and therefore able to welcome into the Jewish com­ munity the >God-fearing< Gentiles as well. O n e can re-read, for example, this eloquent statement by Harnack: 8

T h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , b y r e j e c t i n g J e s u s , d e n i e d their v o c a t i o n a n d g a v e t h e m s e l v e s the finishing blow; they w e r e replaced b y the n e w C h r i s t i a n p e o p l e ; they t o o k o n all o f J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n ; w h a t w a s u n u s a b l e in it w a s t r a n s f o r m e d o r d r o p p e d . B u t in r e a l i t y this s o l u t i o n w a s n e i t h e r i m p r o v i s e d n o r u n e x p e c t e d ; o n l y t h e s p e c i a l f o r m w a s u n e x p e c t e d ; b u t the C h r i s t i a n i t y o f t h e G e n t i l e s o n l y b r o u g h t t o a c o n c l u s i o n a p r o c e s s t h a t h a d b e g u n s o m e t i m e b e f o r e in a p a r t o f J u d a i s m - t h e b r o a d e n i n g o f t h e J e w i s h r e l i g i o n a n d its t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t o a w o r l d r e l i g i o n .

9

The historical-religious orientation of the first half of the twentieth century, although it was so innovative in other fields, did not change these positions the end of the w o r l d t o be near. T h e b r e a k c a m e at the p o i n t of the crucifixion, and for all practical p u r p o s e s t h r o u g h Paul. T h i s break, to be sure, w a s consistent w i t h and a c o n s e q u e n c e of J e s u s ' o w n teaching and conduct. O n e m a y be justified in maintaining that w h a t is u n - J e w i s h in him, w h a t is h u m a n , is m o r e characteristic than w h a t is J e w i s h « (trans. H . D . B e t z ) . See o n this d i c t u m of Wellhausen's and his interpretations H . D . B e t z , Wellhausen's Dictum Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew< in Light of present Scholarship: S t u d i a T h e o l o g i c a 45 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 8 3 - 1 1 0 . Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, cit., 7 6 - 7 7 . 8

9

18

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

very much. Certainly, the greater attention paid to rabbinic literature and to the apocalyptic currents provoked a change in the evaluation of Jewish religiosity in the time of Jesus. And it led slowly to recognizing, even more than Wellhausen did, the >Jewishness< of Jesus. But it did not cause a real change in the radically negative consideration of the Palestinian Judaism of the time or in the consequent contrasting to it of the superior preaching of Jesus. It is truly surprising that the most important representative of the historical-religious school, whose studies of Judaism would remain in some way classic, W. Bousset, continued to maintain the liberal position of the superiority of Christianity, basing it on an image of Palestinian Judaism as a religion in crisis, with respect to which the appearance of Jesus was a veritable >creative miracle<. Bousset's position is even more inflexible that the one held by Wellhausen and Schiirer, and seems today to be almost a caricature. This image, in spite of the renewed attention to the Jewishness of Jesus, was in fact to remain normative among Bousset's disciples and successors as well. R. Bultmann, for example, in his Primitive Christianity in its contemporary Setting, did not place the figure of Jesus in Christian­ ity, but rather in Judaism. And in his Theology of the New Testament he considered the preaching of Jesus to be among the simple >presuppositions< (and as such they were in themselves in large measure >Jewish<) of N e w Tes­ tament theology. But the line he indicated: Jesus - Paul - John, preserved by almost all the scholars of the N e w Testament, meant precisely the more and more negative evaluation and the more and more radical abandonment on the part of Christians of openly Jewish positions. And in this picture the additional recognition on the part of W. Heitmuller and W. Bousset of the presence of a Hellenistic Christianity already before Paul, and later 10

11

12

13

14

15

1 0

16

See in particular his w o r k s Jesus Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum, Gottingen 1892 (with the statement that »the preaching of J e s u s m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d a b o v e all and prevalently in antithesis to J u d a i s m « ) and Jesus, T u b i n g e n 1 9 0 7 . A n d o n these, cfr. the criticism b y E . P . Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1985, 2 4 - 2 6 . E n g l i s h translation, L o n d o n 1983. I—II, E n g l i s h translation, N e w Y o r k 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 5 5 ( L o n d o n 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 ) . Theology of the New Testament I, cit., 3: » T h e m e s s a g e of J e s u s is a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n for the t h e o l o g y of the N e w T e s t a m e n t rather than a part of that t h e o l o g y itself«. B e t z , Wellhausen's Dictum >Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew<, cit., 9 8 - 1 0 1 . O n the other hand, whoever, like J . J e r e m i a s , attempted, against B u l t m a n n , to at­ tribute a quite different role to the preaching of J e s u s in the f o r m a t i o n of N e w Testament theology, dated the contrast with J e w i s h spirituality completely b a c k to it. See in particular his New Testament Theology 1. The Proclamation of Jesus, L o n d o n 1984. A n d o n his p o s i ­ tions, cfr. the o b s e r v a t i o n s , rightly critical of Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, cit., 4 4 - 4 7 . Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus: Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 13 (1912) 3 2 0 - 3 3 7 . Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenaeus, G o t t i n g e n 1 9 2 1 . 2

11

1 2

13

1 4

15

16

2

1. The image of the Judaism

of the first century

19

CE

17

even in the early community of Jerusalem itself, could only reinforce the traditional conviction that there was a Christianity from the beginning dif­ ferent, precisely because it was >Hellenistic<, from Palestinian Judaism. Beginning in the 1950's, under the influence of a whole series of new elements of interpretation (the extraordinary archaeological discoveries above all, among them, obviously the principal one being the Dead Sea manuscripts; but also the birth of the State of Israel, with the emergence of a renewed Jewish interest in their own history; and the impressive process of the secularization of historical-religious studies, no longer conditioned by theological prejudices), almost all of these positions were challenged more and more. The contrast made between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, which was also used to set up the contrast between Judaism and Christianity, was radically questioned, also causing a reappraisal (but in this case very arbitrarily) of the distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Judaism of the Diaspora. M. Hengel has convincingly argued that Judaea at the time of Jesus showed such a high level of hellenization that one can­ not contrast it simplistically with the Diaspora, representing it as >purely Jewish<. And the publishers of the >new Schurer< have even preferred to divide the Jewish literature of the time of Jesus on the basis of the language (Semitic, Greek, or uncertain) rather than on the basis of the origin from Palestine or from the D i a s p o r a . 18

19

20

But above all the identification of Judaism before 70 with the Pharisaic orientation and the consideration of this orientation as the immediate precursor of Rabbinism have been radically questioned: »the ruinous idea of a >normative Judaism< already present in the pluralism of orientations of early Judaism, which only needed to impose itself in the Talmudic period to become the characteristic manifestation of Judaism in general«. Rabbinism 21

1 7

See in particular F. H a h n , Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im fruhen Christentum, Gottingen 1974. D . G a r r i b b a , La presentazione del giudaismo del secondo Tempio nella storiografia delxx sec: R a s s e g n a di teologia 45 (2004) 7 3 - 8 8 . Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the early Hel­ lenistic Period I—II, Philadelphia 1974; The >Hellenization< of Judaea in the first Century after Christ, in c o l l a b o r a t i o n with C . M a r k s c h i e s , L o n d o n 1989. B u t before h i m other a u t h o r s (S. L i e b e r m a n , J . N . Sevenster) h a d already a s s u m e d an a n a l o g o u s p o s i t i o n . O n the limits in a n y case set o n this statement b y H e n g e l himself, w h i c h reveal in m y o p i n i o n the substantial c o n t i n u a t i o n in the author of the liberal conviction of s h a r p distinction b e t w e e n the >universal< o p e n n e s s of J u d a i s m in the D i a s p o r a and the >national a n d politi­ c a l closedness of Palestinian J u d a i s m , see b e l o w p p . 79 ff. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A. D. 135) III. 1-2. A n e w E n g l i s h Version revised and edited b y G . Vermes, F. Millar, M . G o o d m a n , E d i n b u r g h 1986. K . Miiller, Gesetz und Gesetzeserfullung im Fruhjudentum, in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament, h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n K . Kertelge, F r e i b u r g i . B . - B a s e l - W i e n , 1 9 8 6 , 2 3 . T h i s idea of the existence of a >normative< J u d a i s m already before the year 70 is t o d a y replaced, for 4

1 8

19

2 0

2 1

20

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

cannot be considered as the almost natural result of the victory of a Pharisa­ ism which already before 70 had a pre-eminent position in Judaism; thus, >the triumph of Pharisaic J u d a i s m s O n the contrary, although undoubtedly developing Pharisaic positions, Rabbinism constituted a sharp change with respect to Pharisaism before 70. One need only think of the strong pres­ ence that there is in it of priestly elements. And on the other hand, before 70 Pharisaism was not yet the dominating current of Judaism, but was found to coexist with many other groups and tendencies: priesthood and apocalypticism, Sadducees and Essenes in particular constituted orienta­ tions that were very different and just as strong. According to some, on the contrary, the Pharisees before 70 still had a very limited role, and in Galilee in particular, a completely marginal one. Only after that date would they take on that spiritual leadership that appears to be shown in particular by the canonic gospels and by the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus. The preceding idea of the existence already before 70 of a normative Judaism, which Christianity opposed from its beginnings with Jesus, was replaced by the idea that a plurality of Judaisms existed, within which Christianity at its origins also found its place, and that only after 70 would this plurality be transformed into the normative Judaism of Rabbinism. Actually, not all scholars hold these positions in an unequivocal way. It is precisely in the authors cited previously that statements appear that are difficult to reconcile with this conclusion. E.P. Sanders, who is among those who deny that Pharisaism already had a dominating influence before 70, is convinced, for example, of the existence of something, in that period 22

23

24

e x a m p l e b y N e u s n e r , b y that of the existence, before 70, of a J u d a i s m that is o n l y >formative<, that is, still in f o r m a t i o n . S . J . D . C o h e n , The Significance of Javneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism: H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e A n n u a l 55 (1984) 2 7 - 5 3 . G . Stemberger, Pharisder, Sadduzder, Essener, Stuttgart 1991, 4 0 - 4 1 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 5 . O n e might ask, however, if the i m a g e of P h a r i s a i s m before 70 as an essentially secular g r o u p really c o r r e s p o n d s to reality and if the priestly elements w e r e not already present within it. T h i s is the line of t h o u g h t f o l l o w e d in particular b y M . Smith, Palestinian Judaism in the first Century, in M . D a v i s (ed.), Israel. Its Role in Civilization, N e w York 1956,67-81; J . N e u s n e r , From Politics to Piety: the Emergence ofpharisaicJudaism, E n g l e w o o d Cliffs 1973; Das pharisdische und talmudische Judentum: neue Wege zu seinem Verstdndnis, T u b i n g e n 1984, 9 3 - 1 1 1 ; and E . P . Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 1 8 7 - 1 8 8 ; Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE, L o n d o n 1992, 3 8 0 - 4 5 1 . N o t e , however, already at this point, that it is not easy to h a r m o n i z e this idea of a Pharisaic influence that w o u l d be successful o n l y after 70 with the conviction m e n t i o n e d a b o v e of the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a p u r e and simple identification between P h a r i s a i s m and R a b b i n i s m . If R a b b i n i s m is not s i m p l y a d e v e l o p m e n t of P h a r i s a i s m , o n e c a n n o t s p e a k of the success of P h a r i s a i s m after 70. W h a t w a s (slowly) b e c o m i n g successful after 70 w a s in fact R a b b i n i s m , not P h a r i s a i s m . See M . Vitelli, Popolarita e influenza deifarisei nel giudaismo palestinese del I secolo, in Giudei e cristiani nel I secolo. Continuita, separazione, polemica, a c u r a di M . B . D u r a n t e M a n g o n i e G . J o s s a , Trapani 2 0 0 6 , 1 3 - 6 6 . 2 2

2 3

2 4

1. The image of the Judaism

of the first century

21

CE

as well, that could be defined as >common Judaisms However, it should be identified not with the particular positions of the Pharisees, with which those of Jesus would have been in contrast, but with those of the majority of the people, still substantially controlled by the priest class, which were in reality shared by Jesus himself and by the first Christians. And J . D . G. Dunn, too, as we have seen, although he maintains that until 135 one cannot yet speak of Christianity as a religion independent from Judaism, thinks, however, that >four pillars of Judaism of the second temple< existed: mono­ theism, the election of Israel, L a w and the temple, with respect to which the progressive separation of Christianity from Judaism would occur. And J . Neusner, who was among the first to emphasize the variety of tendencies present in Judaism before 70 and to speak, on the contrary, of >Judaisms<, still continues strangely to assume the Jews were the Pharisees, because they were precursors of the rabbis, and the Christians were the evangelists, and maintains that »Judaism and Christianity are completely different re­ ligions, not different versions of one religion«. » F r o m the very beginnings the Judaic and Christian religious worlds scarcely intersected«. However, there is no doubt that the prevailing tendency among scholars of Judaism, and perhaps above all of the N e w Testament, is today that of emphasizing the existence, in the Judaism of the time, of a plurality of orientations among which Christianity also figured without any difficulty. But to this conviction another one is added. I mentioned in the introduc­ tion that the discussion of the separation of Christianity from Judaism is almost always limited to considering the Syro-Palestinian area, character­ ized on the one hand by the progressive pre-eminence of Rabbinism and on the other, by a longer existence there of Jewish Christianity. Only rarely, in fact, is the broader world of the Greco-Roman Diaspora taken into consid­ eration in this discussion. But when reference is made to this world of the Diaspora, it is just as interesting that there is a tendency on the one hand to reduce the importance of the presence of pagan groups that revolved around the Jewish community, and to emphasize on the other hand the persistence 25

26

27

28

25

Judaism, cit., 47 ff. The Partings of the Ways, 1 8 - 3 6 . Jews and Christians. The Myth of a common Tradition, L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1991, 1, X . Cfr. also, b y N e u s n e r , The Jewish-Christian Argument in the first Century. Different People talking about different Things to different People, in The Law in the Bible and in its Environment, edited b y T. Veijola, G o t t i n g e n 1990, 1 7 3 - 1 8 6 . It has been d o n e quite well a b o v e all b y W . A . M e e k s , The first urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, N e w H a v e n 1983, and J . M . G . Barclay, Jews in Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE), E d i n b u r g h 1996. T h i s author at p. 381 quite rightly e m p h a s i z e s the recent reluctance of scholars (he cites W. D . D a v i e s , E . P. Sanders e J . J . C o l l i n s ) to interpret Paul as a J e w of the D i a s p o r a . Instead D . B o y a r i n has clearly taken this direction, b u t in such a unilateral and e x a g g e r a t e d m a n ­ ner as to c a u s e the sharp reaction of B a r c l a y himself. See below, p . 9 1 . 2 6

27

2 8

22

Chapter

one:

The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

of Christian preaching within the Jewish world. As far as the first point is concerned, it is essentially part of the discussion on the God-fearers, opened in an article by L . H . Feldman and made heated by an article by A . T . Kraabel, which led many scholars not only to deny technical value both 29

30

to the Lukan expressions of 9OJ3OU(JL£VOL TOV i k o v and a e ^ o f x e v o i TOV &e6v and

to that of SsoosfisZc, contained in the inscriptions, but also to question even the existence of a significant category of Gentiles in some way following the Judaism of the synagogue. As far as the second point is concerned, the most interesting contributions seem instead to be those of L . Troiani, who for years has been inviting us to ask ourselves whether behind the termins "EXkrivsQ and I&VY] used by Paul and by Luke are hidden not necessarily Gentiles but rather hellenized Jews, considered for this reason less orthodox by the authorities of the synagogue, and whether for this reason Christian preaching in the Greco-Roman world, even on the part of the apostle of the Gentiles, was not addressed prevalently to these particular groups of Jews of the Diaspora. It is beyond discussion that the historical picture of Judaism of the first century C E must necessarily be reconsidered. But do the hypotheses men­ tioned above all have the same value? Are they all equally convincing? Let us examine them one by one. 31

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

research

a. Jewish identity and influence of the Pharisees It is absolutely true that a distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hel­ lenistic Judaism can no longer be proposed, and this not only undermines the consequent distinction between Palestinian Christianity and Hellenistic Christianity, but also suggests a reconsideration of the very distinction be­ tween Judaism and Christianity. After centuries of Greek domination (and later Hasmonean and Herodian domination) Palestine, too, and even Judaea, were strongly hellenized countries. And Jerusalem itself was to a great extent a Greek city. But the disappearance of the distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism cannot imply also the disappearance of the 29

Jewish >Sympathizers< in classical Literature and Inscriptions'. Transactions of the A m e r i c a n Philological A s s o c i a t i o n 81 (1950) 2 0 0 - 2 0 8 . B u t see now, b y F e l d m a n , Pros­ elytes and >Sympathizers< in the Light of the new Inscription from Aphrodisias: R e v u e des E t u d e s juives 148 (1989) 2 6 5 - 3 0 5 ; Jew and Gentile in the ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton 1993, 3 4 2 - 3 8 2 . The Disappearance of the >God-fearers<: N u m e n 28 (1981) 1 1 3 - 1 2 6 . Troiani has asserted this h y p o t h e s i s in m a n y preceding e s s a y s and in particular in 77 perdono cristiano, cit., 19ff. 30

31

2. Problems

and aporias of the new

23

research

distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Judaism of the Diaspora. Here, however, there is a preliminary question: does one Judaism of the Diaspora exist, or at least of the Mediterranean Diaspora, or do we have to speak nec­ essarily of a plurality of different Judaisms, as the majority of scholars now tend to do? Are the Jews of Asia Minor and of Greece (and even more so those of Rome) comparable to those of Syria and E g y p t ? 1 believe that the answer given by J . M. G. Barclay to this preliminary question is completely convincing. The differences between the Jews of the various regions of the Diaspora were really very great. They can vary from someone like Tiberius Julius Alexander (who in reality was an apostate) to the Therapeutae of Philo (who were monks ante litteram). But the existence of various Jewish profiles does not necessarily mean the existence (at least not in the Diaspora; but we will see that it is still more true in Palestine) of various >Judaisms<. »If Judaism is defined - as it should be - as a social and not just an intellectual phenomenon, it is hard to see how the plural >Judaisms< could apply to the D i a s p o r a « . A characteristic does in fact exist, which Barclay has defined as >ethnicity<, which appears to be an essential part of the Jewish identity of the Diaspora. There is no doubt a distinction between descent, ancestry, and usages, custom. »Nonetheless [...] the evidence indicates that it was ethnic­ ity - precisely the combination of ancestry and custom - which was the core of Jewish identity in the D i a s p o r a « . This is demonstrated - Barclay says - by at least five strands of evidence: the >ethnic< terminology used by the Jews themselves; the way the Gentiles perceived the Jews; the re-socializa­ tion of proselytes in the Jewish community, the recognition of the social importance of endogamy; and the training of children in the Jewish way of life. We can thus speak of a Judaism of the Greco-Roman Diaspora and wonder if the disappearance of the distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism necessarily also means the disappearance of the distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Judaism of the D i a s p o r a . 1 do not believe so. The very label of >Hellenistic< is not exactly the same when it is applied to the Judaism of Judaea and to that of the Diaspora. There was in fact a hellenization that people were subjected to and opposed, for the most 32

33

34

35

36

37

3 2

J . J . Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Di­ aspora, G r a n d R a p i d s 2 0 00. B u t o n the limits of this definition, a d o p t e d b y a l m o s t all m o d e r n a u t h o r s , see S. Etienne, Reflexion sur Vapostasie de Tiberius Julius Alexander. T h e S t u d i a Philonica A n n u a l 12 (2000) 1 2 2 - 1 4 2 . Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, cit., 4 0 1 . Op. cit., 404. Op. cit., 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 . Cfr. also F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the ancient World, cit., 45 ff. E . M . S m a l l w o o d , The Diaspora in the Roman Period before CE 70, in The Cam­ bridge History of Judaism III. The early Roman Period, cit., 1 6 8 - 1 9 1 . 2

3 3

34

35

36

3 7

24

Chapter

one:

The Jews from 4 BCE to 100

CE

part, which was mostly superficial, and this was almost always the case in Jewish Palestine, and there was instead a hellenization that was consciously taken on, and was often very deep, as in the Diaspora, the extreme case being that of Philo of Alexandria. But the difference between Palestine and the Diaspora went far beyond the mere influence of the Hellenistic culture and reached all the aspects of life and of mentality. I do not believe that the Jews who experienced the Diaspora, just because of being hellenized, were necessarily characterized by a >liberal< mentality and by a lesser >orthodoxy<, as was thought, all things considered, by the liberal theologians, A. Harnack in particular, and is still thought, it seems to me, by our L . Troiani. Very often they may have felt, on the contrary, the need to reinforce and make their cultural and religious identity more inflexible. It is precisely the life of a minority group in a foreign community, in fact, with all its differences, that can require this reinforcing. The Jewish >Hellenists< in the Acts of the Apostles, who are in contrast with the Christian ones, are characterized, in fact, not by their liberalism, but by their zeal for the Law. And the same must certainly be said of that other J e w of the Hellenistic Diaspora, Paul, who persecuted the church before his conversion. But the way of living, and thus also the >identity markers<, of a J e w of the Diaspora were very different from those of a Palestinian Jew. Even if he sent the tribute to the temple and dreamed one day of going to Jerusalem, even if for this reason the land of Israel with its sanctuary remained his main point of reference, which could not be renounced, the J e w of the Diaspora did not go to the temple, but to the synagogue. His religiosity was thus not determined by his participation in the sacrificial cult, but by the Scriptures and p r a y e r s , and more in general by the practice of the other aspects of Mosaic Law. The account of Philo of Alexandria, although it comes from a J e w with a very particular cultural formation, leaves no doubt about the question. And in his observance of the Law not all the norms have the same relevance for a Jew of the Diaspora. In all probability the norms regarding ritual purity (some of which make sense only in relation to the sacred nature of the land of Israel 38

39

40

3 8

T h i s is w h a t v a r i o u s reviews of the short b o o k b y H e n g e l o n the hellenization of J u d a e a in the first century C E have p o i n t e d out, for e x a m p l e , L . H . F e l d m a n : J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of J u d a i s m 22 (1991) 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 ; N . Walter: T h e o l o g i s c h e L i t e r a t u r z e i t u n g 118 (1993) 3 9 4 - 3 9 6 ; G . J o s s a : Rivista biblica 44 (1996) 2 2 4 - 2 2 7 . In fact, it is difficult to accept an affirmation, a n d thus share a p o s i t i o n , like that w h i c h w a s already a r g u e d b y H e n g e l , with respect to the hellenization of J u d a i s m in a p r e - C h r i s t i a n era, in another short b o o k , Jews, Greeks and Barbarians. Aspects of the Hellenization ofJudaism in the pre-Christian Period, L o n d o n 1 9 8 0 , 1 2 5 : » T h e d e v e l o p m e n t in Palestine differed o n l y partially f r o m that in the D i a s p o r a ; it affected a l m o s t all strata and g r o u p s of the p o p u l a t i o n and involved b o t h the political and e c o n o m i c and the intellectual and religious s p h e r e s « . See in particular, Barclay, 399 ff. S . J . D . C o h e n , The Temple and the Synagogue, in The Cambridge History ofJudaism III. The early Roman Period, 2 9 8 - 3 2 5 . 3 9

4 0

2. Problems

and aporias of the new

25

research

and of the temple of Jerusalem) are less important for him than the moral norms. In this case it is the writing of Aristeas that seem decisive to me, with his effort to explain to the reader the meaning (essentially symbolic) of the norms of purity. For as much as it may be questionable to oppose the L a w to the cult and the synagogue to the temple, the spirituality of a Jew of the Diaspora certainly was not of a type centred on cults and priests, but was rather of a legal and secular type. In whatever way he experienced his Jewish identity, the existence of a J e w of the Diaspora took place, on the other hand, within a social context that was not prevalently Jewish, but was prevalently Greek. Whether he accepted or refused assimilation and integra­ tion, the wider world in which he lived his life and carried out his work was that of the surrounding Gentile environment. And, to whatever degree his citizenship was officially recognized, he could not fail to feel its influence, and feel pride in it as well. With respect to this, Troiani is right. A J e w from Alexandria, Antioch, or Tarsus, felt Alexandrian, Antiochene, or Tarsian. The mere fact of speaking Greek put him, on the other hand, in a different situation from that of a J e w from Jerusalem, who spoke prevalently, if not exclusively, Aramaic. The Christian >Hellenists< that Luke spoke of were in fact Jews of the Diaspora who returned to Jerusalem but who, speaking only Greek, did not feel completely at home in Jerusalem (they were not, that is, like Paul T ^ p o u o L l£ Tippauov), and they actually were a group distinct from that of the >Hebrews<. F o r this reason it is not surprising that they drew dif­ ferent consequences from the paschal experiences than the Hebrews did. But does this mean that behind the 'EXXy]ve^ and the I&VT] of Paul and Luke there were still prevalently hellenized Jews? And that the God-fearers of L u k e either did not exist at all or were simply pious Jews, too? And that even in the Diaspora the Christian mission thus continued to be addressed primarily to Jews, to those who were perhaps less tied to the organization of the synagogue, and not to be addressed to the Gentiles? I do not believe so. That alongside a geographic and ethnic meaning of J e w (and of Greek), there was also a religious and cultural one, is certain. And that behind the 'EXX7]veg and the I$VT] of Paul and of Luke >Greek< Jews may at times be hidden seems to be proved by the famous passages of Epictetus and of 41

r

f

42

41

Ep.Ar. 1 2 8 - 1 7 1 . Diss. 2 , 9 , 1 9 - 2 0 : » W h y , then d o y o u call yourself a Stoic, w h y d o y o u deceive the multitude, w h y d o y o u act the p a r t of a Jew, w h e n y o u are a G r e e k ? D o y o u n o t see in w h a t sense m e n are severally called Jew, Sirian, or E g y p t i a n ? F o r example, whenever w e see a m a n halting between t w o faiths, w e are in the habit of saying, >He is not a Jew, he is o n l y acting the part<. B u t w h e n he a d o p t s the attitude of m i n d of the m a n w h o has been b a p t i z e d a n d has m a d e his choice, then he b o t h is a J e w in fact and is also called o n e « (trans. W. A . Oldfather, LCL). T h i s is in fact w h a t Troiani maintains. B u t I d o not believe his interpretation is justified. See G . J o s s a , Sulproblema delVidentita giudaica nelVimpero romano, in I d e m , I gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesu, cit., 1 8 0 - 1 8 1 . 42

26

Chapter

one: The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

43

Cassius D i o . But when Paul spoke of Jews and of Greeks and identified the former with those »who are under the L a w « {Rom. 3:19; cfr. 1 Cor. 9:20) and the latter with those »who have not the L a w « {Rom. 2:14; cfr. 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 2:3), he was not thinking of two different kinds of Jews, but of Jews and Gentiles. And when Luke mentioned the Jews and the Greeks who came regularly to the synagogue and who reacted in a different way to Christian preaching, he was also thinking of Jews and Gentiles, not of two different types of Jews. What both were referring to was the opening of the Christian mission to the world of the pagans. That the God-fearers were, on the other hand, a simple invention of Luke's or that they must still be interpreted in any case as Jews is not true. 2e(36(ji£voE, and cpo(3ou(ji£voi TOV xteov, like &£oo-£(3eI<;, may not always be technical terms, but they preva­ lently indicate Gentiles who adhered to or sympathized with Judaism. The reference of Luke to the ae^ofxevot TOV t)eov finds confirmation not only indirectly in the inscriptions relating to the SsoasfisZc; (Panticapaeum, Mi­ letus, Aphrodisias ), but also directly in Flavius Josephus {Ant. 14,110). In whatever way the difficult problem of Jewish proselytism is resolved, 44

45

46

47

48

43

Hist. Rom. 37,17,1: » I d o n o t k n o w h o w this title [of J e w s ] c a m e t o b e given them, but it applies also t o all the rest of m a n k i n d , although of alien race, w h o affect their c u s ­ t o m s . T h i s class exists even a m o n g the R o m a n s , and t h o u g h often r e p r e s s e d has increased to a very great extent and has w o n its w a y t o the right of f r e e d o m in its o b s e r v a n c e s « (trans. E . C a r y , LCL). I n this case Troiani's interpretation seems convincing t o me. C I R B 71 = C I J 683a:CTuvETct/cpoTCEi>ou(j7]<;TTJS auvaycoyYJi; TC3V 'IouSaiwv x a lfrscovae|3Gottesfurchtigen<: J a h r b u c h fur A n t i k e u n d Christentum 8/9 (1965-66) 171-176. C I J 748: TOTCO£ ElouSswv TWV x a l frsoasptov. A . D e i s s m a n n , Light from the Ancient Near East: The New Testament illustrated by recently discovered Texts of the GraecoRoman World, G r a n d R a p i d s 1980, 4 5 1 - 4 5 2 ; H . H o m m e l , Juden und Christen im kaiserzeitlichen Milet. Uberlegungen zur Theaterinschrift, in I d e m , Sebasmata. Studien zur antiken Religionsgeschichte und zum fruhen Christentum I I , T u b i n g e n 1984, 2 0 0 - 2 3 0 ; L . B o f f o , Iscrizioni greche e latineper lo studio della Bibbia, B r e s c i a 1994, 3 5 3 - 3 6 0 ; G . J o s s a , Gli ellenisti e i timorati di Dio negli Atti degli Apostoli, in I d e m , / gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesu, 1 2 5 - 1 2 6 . J . R e y n o l d s - R . Tannenbaum,/eze>s and God-fearers at Aphrodisias. Greek Inscrip­ tions with Commentary, C a m b r i d g e 1987, 43 ff., 48 ff. F. Siegert, Gottesfurchtige und Sympathisanten: J o u r n a l f o r the S t u d y of J u d a i s m 4 (1973) 109-164; M . Wilcox, The >God-Fearers< in Acts-A Reconsideration: J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of the N e w Testament 13 (1981) 1 0 2 - 1 2 2 ; J o s s a , Gli ellenisti e i timorati di Dio, cit., 1 0 5 - 1 3 1 . J o s e p h u s maintains that the temple of J e r u s a l e m o w e s its e x t r a o r d i n a r y wealth 4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

t o the gifts TWV x a x a TYJV OIXOU[AEVY)V 'IouSatwv x a lCTEPO(JLEV(OVTOV OEOV, that is, t o the gifts

of the J e w s of all the w o r l d and of the G o d - f e a r e r s . J o s s a , Gli ellenisti e i timorati di Dio, 123-124. F e l d m a n , Jew and Gentile in the ancient World, 2 8 8 - 3 4 1 ; M . G o o d m a n , Mission and Conversion. Proselytizing in the religious History of the Roman Empire, O x f o r d 1 9 9 4 , 6 0 - 9 0 . See also S . J . D . C o h e n , Crossing the Boundary and becoming a Jew: H a r v a r d Theological R e v i e w 82 (1989) 1 3 - 3 3 , and E . Will - C . Orrieux, >Proselytisme juif ? Histoire d'une erreur, Paris 1992. 4 8

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

27

research

it is certain that in all the principal Greek cities in the Roman world large groups of >God-fearing< Gentiles gravitated around the synagogues. Paul and Luke thus witnessed a Christian preaching that extended from the Jews to the pagans and that recognized in the God-fearers an essential link in this passage. The Christian communities to which they made reference were primarily composed of Gentiles, not of Jews. It is just as indisputable that Palestinian Judaism prior to the year 70 can­ not be identified only in Pharisaism, that the Pharisees cannot be considered simply precursors of the rabbis, and that it is impossible to speak of a n o r ­ mative Judaism< before 70, but one must instead think in terms of a plurality of differing orientations within Judaism. The very idea of a >common J u d a ism< defended by E.P. Sanders and partially shared by J . D . G . Dunn seems rather problematic. And while it thus immediately appears questionable to contrast the preaching of Jesus and early Christianity with >Judaism<, it may instead be very tempting to consider them as merely further orientations within the Jewish tradition. However, there is something just as question­ able, if not even contradictory, in the positions explained previously. The position that first of all appears questionable and at times quite contradictory is actually that of those scholars who attempt to single out a >common Judaism< with respect to which the impact of the preaching of Jesus and of early Christianity may be evaluated. When, for example, Sanders and Dunn, although they believe in the existence of something like a common Judaism, refuse, however, to contrast Jesus (or Paul) with Judaism, because they maintain that the image of the Pharisees provided by the gospels is not credible, because it was determined by the later conflict between the Christian community and Rabbinism, they already, in fact, take a questionable position, because they tend once again to identify Pharisaism with Rabbinism. But when Neusner, after speaking of a variety of Judaisms and making a clear distinction between Pharisaism and Rabbinism, contin­ ues instead to contrast Judaism with Christianity from the beginning as two different religions, his position inevitably appears contradictory, because even for the years prior to 70 he has in mind something very similar to a normative J u d a i s m s in any case identified with Pharisaism. As a matter of fact, this is an unresolved problem in historiography. If Pharisaism is not 49

50

51

52

4 9

B . Wander, Gottesfurchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen, T u b i n g e n 1998. See also C o h e n , Crossing the Boundary and becoming a Jew, cit., 3 1 - 3 3 . See, for example, the e s s a y b y Siegert in Le dechirement cited previously. T h i s is w h a t P e n n a says, correctly, in the article cited at p. 9. A l e x a n d e r rightly maintains that there are essentially o n l y t w o w a y s ( b o t h d e b a t ­ able) to define the b a s e with respect to w h i c h one m a y m e a s u r e the original divergence of C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m J u d a i s m : the first (which he, m o r e than to N e u s n e r , attributes to H . M a c c o b y ) is to p r o j e c t rabbinic J u d a i s m b a c k into the P h a r i s a i s m of the first century, the 5 0

51

5 2

28

Chapter

one:

The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

identified with Rabbinism, one cannot simply say that the presentation of the Pharisees as the dominating group of Judaism before 70 reported by our sources (Josephus and the gospels) is unacceptable because it is determined by the success of Rabbinism after 70. And if the contrast of Jesus and Paul with Palestinian Judaism appears quite different from what could have been the case among the various Jewish groups of the time, it is thus not only because those sources projected a situation of conflict typical of the period after 70 backwards to the time of Jesus and of Paul. As I will point out at once, the problem of the influence of the Pharisees in Jewish society before 70, with the consequences that it involves regarding the evaluation of the position of Jesus and of Paul with respect to the L a w and to circumcision, is still completely open. But it is above all the idea of a variety of Judaisms that appears question­ able and which actually, in its intent to be more concrete historically, shows itself, in my opinion, to be the fruit of a sort of doctrinal abstraction. Let us consider the recent articles by F. Siegert and by R. Penna, who have insisted particularly on this plurality of orientations of the Judaism of the time of Jesus, which would encourage us to consider nascent Christianity as a fur­ ther Jewish orientation as well. Siegert says that the church »was close, at the time of its birth, to phenomena as different from each other as the policy of the collaborators of the house of Herod on the one hand, and the Essene secession, on the other. The church was much less exclusive in relationship to the other Judaisms and less hostile towards the temple of Essenism, the Jewish nature of which was never d o u b t e d « . This is true. But how did it happen then that, as he himself claims shortly afterwards (and it does not matter how exact he is), »however, before 70 C E , the synagogues decided to separate from it (Mk. 13:9; Jn 16:2)«? Does this not mean that there was something in that church that undermined its Jewish nature more radically than the collaborationist or secessionist attitudes of Herodians and Essenes did? In his turn, Penna first criticizes justly the positions of Sanders and of Dunn (and even more, those of W. Stegemann and of M. Casey) and asserts the variety of orientations in the Judaism of the time, in which it would be impossible to establish objective criteria of identity or of orthodoxy, and thus of deviance too, because every group in fact deviated from something that others believed essential. But then, in order to explain the later separa­ tion of Christianity from Judaism, he has to recognize that the position of Jesus (and even more naturally, that of Paul and of the fourth gospel) had particular innovative aspects that could not be found in other orientations. 53

54

s e c o n d (which he attributes to S a n d e r s ) is to attempt to define a c o m m o n essence of the J u d a i s m of the first century. Op. cit., 2. Le judaisme au premier siecle, 2 5 . Che cosa significava essere giudeo, 8 2 - 8 8 . 53

54

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

29

research

And is it thus not necessary to ask ourselves whether these innovative aspects did not open the path, if not to a renunciation, to a re-thinking of Jewish identity? Actually, what Barclay wrote about the Judaism of the Mediterranean Diaspora has even greater validity for Palestinian Judaism. »If Judaism is de­ fined - as it should be - as a social and not just an intellectual phenomenon, it is hard to see how the plural >Judaisms< could apply« to Palestine. Here even more than in the Diaspora there existed a Jewish identity that was given by the combination of descent and customs. The elements that Barclay cites as revealing for the Judaism of the Diaspora, the >ethnic< terminology used by the Jews, the perception of the Jews by the Gentiles, the re-socialization of the proselytes into the Jewish community, the recognition of the social importance of endogamy and the education of children in the observance of the Law, were certainly even more present in the Judaism of Palestine. Per­ haps, in that case, rather than trying to indicate precise doctrinal elements of Judaism with respect to which the progressive separation of Christianity may have taken place (as Dunn in particular tries to do), it is necessary to see what affirmations and what attitudes the Christians used, while departing from these >social identity markers<, to set themselves concretely outside the Jewish community. It is in fact no doubt true, as Siegert mentions, that the attitude of the early community towards the temple was less radical than that of the >Essenes< of Qumran. It is true, however, that the Christians (or at least the >Hellenistic< Christians) were very early on felt to be less compatible than the Essenes with Jewish identity. And it is also true that Paul was much less open towards Greek culture than Philo of Alexandria was. But the fact is that Paul's evaluation of the Mosaic L a w was held to be much more subversive that Philo's allegorical one. Actually, we shall see later that it is precisely the comparison between the first Christians and the >Essenes< of Qumran, on the one hand, and between Paul and Philo on the other, that can help us to understand better the reasons for the >rift<. Even if it was not the >common Judaism< proposed by Sanders, there existed in any case something like a J e w i s h identity< with respect to which the positions of the disciples of Jesus and of Paul could be felt as difficult to tolerate. It is here that in my opinion the unresolved problem of the role played by Pharisaism at the moment of the birth of Christianity arises again with renewed strength. It is completely true, let us repeat it one more time, that Pharisaism before the year 70 cannot be identified with later Rabbinism. 55

56

5 5

See also B a u c k h a m , op. cit., 137: the u s e of the term >Judaisms< is misleading: » t h e vast m a j o r i t y of J e w s , b o t h in Palestine and in the D i a s p o r a , did not a d h e r e « to particular g r o u p s . » T h e y were just J e w s « . T h i s is w h a t is maintained also b y B a u c k h a m , 137ff., a l t h o u g h he tends to p o i n t to the destruction of the temple as the crucial element. 5 6

30

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

And it is probable that this Pharisaism of the time of Jesus and of Paul did not have such a dominating role as the gospels make one believe. I think, however, that conclusions regarding this problem have been reached too rapidly and without sufficient proof. It is true that Palestinian Judaism before the year 70 was not yet the >religion of the Law< that later Rabbin­ ism would be, and that it can no longer be identified only with Pharisaism. The statement by Josephus, according to which the Pharisees controlled the life of the country to such a point that even the Sadducean priests had to follow their rules, which seemed so much the more credible, since, on the basis of Vita 12, Josephus himself was thought to be a Pharisee, has been shown to be, to say the least, excessive. The Pharisaism of Josephus is more an accommodation to the orientations on life of the Pharisees than a true adhesion to their g r o u p . Josephus was really a priest, strongly aware of the role of the priesthood among the Jewish people. And in fact the statements on this role of the priesthood are no less frequent in his writings than those regarding the predominance of the Pharisees. The discovery of the Q u m ­ ran manuscripts and the attribution of value to the Enochic tradition have reminded us, on the other hand, that the apocalyptic currents were wider spread than had previously been suspected. And these apocalyptic currents were not simply marginal or a bit unorthodox. Apocalyptic conceptions were instead somewhat present in all Jewish environments, including that of the Pharisees. This is shown both by the collaboration of Sadoq in the foundation of the >fourth sect< of Judas the Galilean, and by the strong insistence on the theme of the L a w by an apocalypse such as the fourth book of Esdras. But at least from the Maccabean era onward, if not from the time of Ezra, Judaism was really being transformed into what (with a bit of a strained interpretation) can be defined as a >religion of the Law<. 57

58

59

60

57

Ant. 18,15: » B e c a u s e of these views they are, as a matter of fact, extremely influential a m o n g the townsfolk; and all p r a y e r s and sacred rites of divine w o r s h i p are p e r f o r m e d a c c o r d i n g to their exposition. T h i s is the great tribute that the inhabitants of the cities, b y practising the highest ideals b o t h in their w a y of living and in their d i s c o u r s e , have p a i d to the excellence of the P h a r i s e e s « ; 18,17: T h e S a d d u c e e s » a c c o m p l i s h practically nothing, however. F o r whenever they a s s u m e s o m e office, t h o u g h they s u b m i t unwillingly and perforce, yet s u b m i t they d o to the f o r m u l a s of the Pharisees, since otherwise the m a s s e s w o u l d not tolerate t h e m « (trans. L . H . F e l d m a n , LCL). » B e i n g n o w in m y nineteenth year I began to govern m y life b y the rules of the Pharisees, a sect having p o i n t s of r e s e m b l a n c e to that w h i c h the G r e e k s call the Stoic s c h o o l « (trans. H . S t . J . T h a c k e r a y , LCL). T h i s is true even w i t h o u t accepting the interpretation of Vita 12 as limited o n l y to the orientation of J o s e p h u s in p u b l i c life, p r o p o s e d b y S. M a s o n , Flavins Josephus on the Pharisees, L e i d e n 1991, 213 ff. It is sufficient to mention o n l y the statement with which he o p e n s his a u t o b i o g r a p h y : » M y family is n o ignoble one, tracing its descent far b a c k to priestly ancestors. Different races b a s e their claim to nobility on various g r o u n d s ; w i t h us the participation in the p r i e s t h o o d is a sign of an illustrious f a m i l y « . 5 8

5 9

6 0

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

31

research

The so-called >Hellenistic reform< of Antiochus IV, openly supported by a whole part of the priestly aristocracy, in fact provoked a violent reaction in the Jewish population. »The failure of the attempt of the Hellenistic reform­ ers to abolish the Torah by force in effect fixed intellectual development on the Torah«. It is certainly possible that Josephus was exaggerating when in Contra Apionem he made Judaism exclusively a religion of observance and of obedience. The growing success of Rabbinism may undoubtedly have pushed him in this direction. But it seems beyond dispute that above all outside of Jerusalem, the practice of the L a w was the distinctive element of Jewish spirituality more than the cult of the temple was. It is precisely the very lively polemics that exploded among the Galilean followers of Jesus with the Hellenists and with Paul that demonstrate it beyond any doubt. And the insistence of Paul on the fact that he was a Pharisee and on his past in Judaism is a further confirmation. It is in the observance of the L a w that Jewishness is shown fully. This can help us to better evaluate the influence of Pharisaism in the Jewish society in Jesus' time. If in fact »the intensive instruction of the whole people in the L a w « is »one of the chief aims of later P h a r i s a i s m s it is confirmed that there is no foundation to the conviction that, beginning with M. Smith and continuing through, above all, J . Neusner and E.P. Sanders, seems to have become established widely among scholars, according to which before the year 70 the Pharisees had no dominating role in Palestinian Judaism, and that, on the contrary, they were present to a very small degree in the life of the country, above all in Galilee (and Jesus would thus not have been able to enter into such a radical conflict with them). And actually, the principal presuppositions of that thesis have been shown to be fallacious. First of all, it is not true that the Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus contain an image of the Pharisees that is much more positive than the one in the Jewish War, just as it is not completely true that the role of the Pharisees grows 61

62

63

64

6 1

H e n g e l , Judaism and Hellenism I, cit., 308. T h a t precisely this, however, explains, as H e n g e l maintains, 309, »the reaction of J u d a i s m to the primitive C h r i s t i a n m o v e m e n t , w h i c h d e v e l o p e d f r o m its m i d s t « , seems d e b a t a b l e to me. Is it not true that s a y i n g » J e s u s of N a z a r e t h , Stephen, Paul c a m e to grief a m o n g their o w n p e o p l e b e c a u s e the J e w s were no longer in a p o s i t i o n to bring a b o u t a creative, self critical t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of the piety of the L a w w i t h its s t r o n g l y national and political c o l o u r i n g « , means taking u p again the c o n c e p t i o n of H a r n a c k and of B o u s s e t of Palestinian J u d a i s m as a religion in crisis and of Hellenistic J u d a i s m as >liberal< J u d a i s m ? B u t neither Stephen n o r Paul m a y be c o n s i d e r e d >liberal< J e w s . A n d very p r o b a b l y neither w a s J e s u s of N a z a r e t h . C. Ap. 2 , 1 4 5 - 2 1 9 . H e n g e l , Judaism and Hellenism I, 79. D . R . S c h w a r t z , Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees: J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of J u d a i s m 14 (1983) 1 5 7 - 1 7 1 ; S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, cit., 1 8 1 - 3 0 8 ; Stemberger, op. cit., 2 2 - 2 3 . Vitelli, Popolaritd e influenza deifarisei nel giudaismo palestinese del I secolo, cit., 2 8 - 3 2 . C o n s i d e r o n l y the w a y in w h i c h J o s e p h u s presents the rela6 2

6 3

6 4

32

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE 65

progressively from the gospel of Mark to that of J o h n . But above all, one cannot say that this growing role of the Pharisees in the gospels and this more positive image in the Jewish Antiquities depend simply on the fact that these texts were written after the success of Rabbinism. This is because the success of Rabbinism took a much longer time and because Pharisees and rabbis are in any case not the same thing. It is difficult in fact both to maintain with Smith and Sanders that the influence of the Pharisees before 70 was extremely limited and to maintain with Neusner that from the death of Herod to the outbreak of the war, they withdrew from political life. In any case, I would not be comfortable devaluing completely the fact that in both Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities Josephus offers us his principal description of the four >schools< of Judaism and of the predominance of the Pharisaic school, precisely at the moment of the reducing of Judaea to a Roman province. I think instead that this corresponds to his conviction that this was the situation in that particular historical moment. I think, on the other hand, that the fact that the informa­ tion from Josephus on the Pharisees for the period that goes from the death of Herod the Great to the outbreak of the war against the Romans, thus from 4 B C E to 66 C E , is rather scanty, is not at all surprising. It depends in part on the fact that Josephus no longer had Nicolas of Damascus as a source of information, and in part on the fact that he did not concentrate very much on the life of the Jewish people. In any case we have a sufficient amount of information on the Pharisees (and surely more than on the Sadducees and 66

67

tionship of the Pharisees w i t h J o h n H y r c a n u s and S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a in Ant. 13,288-298. 398-415. 430-432. G . J o s s a , / farisei di Marco e Luca, in Fariseismo e origini cristiane ( = Ricerche storico-bibliche 11, 1999), 1 2 9 - 1 4 8 , n o w also in I d e m , I gruppi giudaici ai tempi di Gesu, 79-104. A s an e x a m p l e one can cite this statement m a d e b y D . M . Smith, Judaism and the Gospel of John, in Jews and Christians. Exploring the Past, Present, and Future, editor J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , N e w Y o r k 1990, 83, r e g a r d i n g the situation of the gospel of J o h n after the w a r of 70: » F o l l o w i n g the war, the so-called C o u n c i l of J a m n i a b e g a n the p r o c e s s of retrenching and redefining J e w i s h life and collecting and codifying traditions that w o u l d eventuate in the emergence of rabbinic J u d a i s m as the heir of P h a r i s a i s m . T h e language of J o h n ' s G o s p e l a p p a r e n t l y reflects this state of affairs w h e n the Pharisees are equated w i t h the J e w i s h authorities, precisely the authorities w h o are able to s a y w h o belongs within the s y n a g o g u e and m u s t be e x c l u d e d « . A l m o s t all the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s of this statement (the great i m p o r t a n c e attributed to the so-called council of J a m n i a , the definition of R a b b i n i s m as the heir of P h a r i s a i s m , the presence of J o h n in this precise historical situation) have in fact been s h o w n to be, if not c o m p l e t e l y in error, at least debatable. O n e m a y recall, for example, that J o s e p h u s hardly mentions what w a s the f u n d a m e n ­ tal institution of J e w i s h life in that p e r i o d , which w a s , in m y opinion, the s y n a g o g u e . A . M o m i g l i a n o , Cib che Flavio Giuseppe non vide, i n t r o d u z i o n e a P. V i d a l - N a q u e t , 77 huon uso del tradimento. Flavio Giuseppe e la guerra giudaica, trad, it., R o m a 1980, 9 - 2 1 . 6 5

6 6

6 7

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

research

33

on the Essenes) to maintain that even in this period they not only must have been very numerous but they must also have been influential. In 6 C E a Pharisee, Sadoq, founded with Judas the Galilean what Josephus defines as the >fourth school< of Judaism. Gamaliel the old had been a Pharisee since the years between 20 and 30 C E , and was Simeon's father, and according to Luke {Acts 22:3) Paul's teacher. Paul was a Pharisee {Phil. 3:4) (and according to Acts 23:6 >son of Pharisees<) in the years between 30 and 40 C E . Josephus was a Pharisee, or in any case followed the position of the Pharisees {Vita 12), in the years between 50 and 60 C E . At the outbreak of the war Simeon, Gamaliel's son, was a Pharisee, and Josephus wrote a remarkable eulogy about him. And these were not ordinary people, but very important public figures. But the Pharisees and heads of the Pharisees appeared, according to Luke and Josephus, in many delicate moments of Jewish life in this period. When, for example, in the period between 30 and 40 C E the problem of the followers of Jesus began to emerge, it was the intervention of Gamaliel the old that, according to Luke, directed its deci­ sion in a decisive way. And it matters, little if Luke's account were to be considered a legend. It would demonstrate in any case that Luke, if he had to remember a particularly authoritative figure of those years, could think only of the Pharisee Gamaliel. When in 62 the high priest (Sadducean) Ananus had James the brother of Jesus put to death, Josephus recounts that it was the men »who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in the observance of the laws«, thus with every probability the Pharisees, who intervened with extreme energy, denouncing Ananus both with King Agrippa and with the procurator Albinus, and obtained even the dismissal of the high priest. U p o n the outbreak of the war, when facing a situation 68

69

70

71

68

Ant. 18,4: » B u t a certain J u d a s , a G a u l a n i t e f r o m a city n a m e d G a m a l a , w h o had enlisted the aid of S a d d o k , a Pharisee, threw himself into the cause of rebellion« (trans. L . H . F e l d m a n , LCL). Cfr. Ant. 18,9.23. Vita 190ff. Acts 5:34-40. Ant. 2 0 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 : » P o s s e s s e d of such a character, A n a n u s t h o u g h t that he had a f a ­ v o u r a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y b e c a u s e F e s t u s w a s d e a d and A l b i n u s w a s still on the way. A n d s o he c o v e n e d the j u d g e s of the Sanhedrin and b r o u g h t before them a m a n n a m e d J a m e s , the brother of J e s u s w h o w a s called the C h r i s t , and certain others. H e accused t h e m of having t r a n s g r e s s e d the law and delivered them u p to be stoned. T h o s e of the inhabitants of the city w h o were considered the m o s t fair-minded and w h o w e r e strict in o b s e r v a n c e of the law w e r e offended at this. T h e y therefore secretly sent to king A g r i p p a u r g i n g him, for A n a n u s had not even been correct in his first step, to o r d e r him to desist f r o m any further such actions. C e r t a i n of them even w e n t to meet A l b i n u s , w h o w a s o n his w a y f r o m A l e x ­ andria, and i n f o r m e d him that A n a n u s had n o authority to convene the Sanhedrin w i t h o u t his consent. C o n v i n c e d b y these w o r d s , A l b i n u s angrily w r o t e to A n a n u s threatening to take vengeance u p o n him. K i n g A g r i p p a , b e c a u s e of A n a n u s ' action, d e p o s e d him f r o m the high p r i e s t h o o d which he had held for three m o n t h s and replaced him w i t h J e s u s the s o n of D a m n a e u s « (trans. L . H . F e l d m a n , LCL). 6 9

70

71

34

Chapter

one:

The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

that was becoming more and more dramatic, it was the heads of the Phari­ sees who together with the high priests exerted themselves in every way to bring back tranquillity. And when the authorities of Jerusalem decided to remove from Josephus the command of Galilee, they sent a commission made up of four members whose authoritativeness was guaranteed by the fact that even if two of its members were priests, three members were Phari­ sees. It makes no sense to think that shortly before the war the Pharisees had all of a sudden re-acquired an influence that earlier they had lost or that they suddenly returned >from piety to politics<. It is much more logical to think that they (and in particular, as is obvious, their leaders) appeared, and that, even more, they were appealed to, every time particularly delicate situ­ ations presented themselves. The Pharisees were thus really a particularly influential group of the Judaism of the time and the image that the gospels provide of them is shown to be of great historical value. 72

73

74

Here, however, we must come to terms with an objection that since the works of P. Winter and M. Smith has been taken for granted in the discus­ sion on the importance of the Pharisees at the time of Jesus and on their hostility towards the teacher of Nazareth. The Pharisees, it is said, were completely absent from the synoptic narration of the trial of Jesus. Only in John do they reappear fleetingly at the moment of his arrest (18:3), but they disappear again in the succeeding phases. In Jesus' trial the initiative really 72

Bell. 2,411: » T h e r e u p o n the principal citizens assembled with the chief priests and the m o s t notable Pharisees to deliberate on the p o s i t i o n of affairs, n o w that they w e r e faced with w h a t s e e m e d irreparable d i s a s t e r « (trans. H . S t . J . T h a c k e r a y , LCL); Vita 1 7 - 2 3 . Vita 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 : » T h e s c h e m e agreed u p o n was to send a d e p u t a t i o n c o m p r i s i n g p e r s o n s of different classes of society but of equal standing in education. T w o of them, J o n a t h a n and A n a n i a s , were f r o m the lower ranks and adherents of the Pharisees; the third, J o z a r , also a Pharisee, c a m e of a priestly family; the y o u n g e s t , S i m o n , w a s discended f r o m h i g h p r i e s t s « (trans. H . S t . J . T h a c k e r a y , LCL). T h e r e f o r e , I basically share w h a t has been written b y M . H e n g e l , The pre-Christian Paul, in c o l l a b o r a t i o n with R . D e i n e s , L o n d o n 1991, 44. After having described the great variety of the J e w i s h p o s i t i o n s in J e r u s a l e m in the years between 30 and 40 C E , he in fact maintains, » H o w e v e r , w e s h o u l d not forget that despite this plurality, b y the end of the s e c o n d century B C E the Pharisees were already the leading spiritual g r o u p and had the largest f o l l o w i n g « . See also M . H e n g e l and R . D e i n e s , E.P. Sanders' >Common Judaism<, Jesus, and the Pharisees. A Review Article: J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i c a l Studies 46 (1995), 1-70, n o w also in M . H e n g e l , Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I, T u b i n g e n 1996, 3 9 2 - 4 7 9 (66: » T h u s in his r e p o r t s a b o u t the Pharisees, J o s e p h u s gives a completely accurate rendering of the real situation, and his picture c o r r e s p o n d s with that of the N e w Testament and the early rabbinic L i t e r a t u r e « ) . T h i s is also the h y p o t h e s i s of the entire b o o k b y E . R i v k i n , A hidden Revolution. The Pharisees' Search for the Kingdom within, N a s h v i l l e 1978; and the c o n c l u s i o n of that b y S. M a s o n , Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees, 3 7 2 - 3 7 3 . Cfr. also, A . J . Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A sociological Approach, E d i n b u r g h 1 9 8 9 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ; S. M a s o n , Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels' Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3): H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 83 (1990) 3 6 3 - 3 8 1 , and Vitelli, Popolarita e influenza deifarisei nel giudaismo palestinese dell secolo, 1 3 - 6 6 . 73

7 4

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

research

35

all comes from the priestly authority, and thus from the Sadducees, and this should demonstrate that in the Sanhedrin, and thus in the government of the nation, it was the Sadducees, and not the Pharisees, who had the dominating role. This objection has never seemed very convincing to me. It could make sense if the evangelists had affirmed that the trial of Jesus was conducted by the Sadducees. But they make reference instead to the high priests, and more exactly the Sanhedrin, in which there were the high priests and the scribes. But the high priests, it is argued, were in fact Sadducees. Aside from the fact that they were prevalently, not exclusively, Sadducees, one must then take into account that the scribes were prevalently, although not exclusively, Pharisees. The Sanhedrin, made up of high priests and scribes, was in fact made up, according to our sources, of Sadducees and Pharisees. It is really strange that the same scholars who contest the matching up made by Matthew (21:45; 27:62) and John (7:45.48; 11:47; 18:3) of Pharisees and chief priests (confirmed instead by Josephus, Vita 21 and Bell. 2,409-417) as historically not very credible and maintain that the presence of Pharisees in those passages of the gospels is due to the new situation that had occurred after the year 70, which witnessed the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, then use the absence of Pharisees in the course of Jesus' trial as a precious historical indication to argue that the trial (more and more often claimed to be, moreover, an invention of the evangelists), was conducted by the Sad­ ducees. Actually, it was conducted by the scribes and the chief priests, that is, in all likelihood, by those (heads of the) Pharisees and Sadducees that also Josephus indicates as the true governors of the country. The testimony of the gospels is thus not at all in contrast with that of Josephus, but on the contrary can be read as a confirmation of his information. I will discuss later whether or not the orientation of the preaching of Jesus was so close to that of the Pharisees. Let us recognize for now that, together with the priests, they truly had strong spiritual authority over the people. 75

b. The messianic hopes of the Jews and the emergence of rabbinic

Judaism

I believe, however, that something should be said also regarding the mes­ sianic hopes of the Jewish people. It is in fact in regard to these hopes that the separation of Christianity from Judaism was to be carried out, in my opinion. It is true that, after the ascertainment that the >Essenes< of Qumran separated from the other Jews not because of their messianic ideas but because of questions of a legal nature, some scholars have wanted to draw the conclusion that messianism was not a fundamental element of the 7 5

U . C . v o n Wahlde, The Relationship between Pharisees and Chief Priests: Some Observations on the Texts in Matthew, John and Josephus: N e w Testament Studies 42 (1996) 5 0 6 - 5 2 2 .

36

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100 CE

Jewish identity and therefore did not play any role in the division among the groups, including the Christian one. But here also I believe there is considerable exaggeration. There certainly existed in the Judaism of the first century a great variety of messianic expectations. Alongside the most traditional one of the Son of David of the prophets and the psalms, there was above all that of the Son of Man of Daniel and of the apocalyptic cur­ rent. And in addition to these, Judaism was familiar with the figures of the Messiah-prophet and the Messiah-priest, and above all in the apocalyptic current, there was speculation on a whole series of heavenly intermediaries of salvation. However, in the great variety of these messianic expectations, three elements seem particularly significant to me for an evaluation, which I will take up later, of the separation of the Christians from the Jews: the undeniable pre-eminence, among these various messianic expectations, of the Davidic hopes (above all among the poor); the evident diffidence of Judaism towards any attempt to render the messianic figures divine; and the very strong resistance (above all among the educated) to identifying the Messiah in the historical figure of an earthly person. Let us consider briefly these three elements. 76

77

78

The most recent historiography has rightly emphasized the fact that the messianic hopes of Judaism at the time of Jesus were not limited to the hope of a descendant of the family of David who would come to restore his kingdom. Alongside this completely earthly hope for a son of David, 7 6

T h i s is the p o s i t i o n taken in particular b y Siegert, Le judaisme au premier siecle, 38 (cfr. also 4 7 - 4 8 , 61): » T h e p u b l i c a t i o n [...] of the texts of Q u m r a n forces us to correct the thesis, asserted for a long time, that m e s s i a n i s m or other a p o c a l y p t i c elements have been at the basis of the E s s e n e schism. In spite of all the C h r i s t i a n interest for the ancient a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , it is n e c e s s a r y to n o t e that a p o c a l y p t i c ideas o r tendencies have never characterized or divided J u d a i s m , at least in times of peace. [...] T h i s leads us to s u p p o s e that the b r e a k with the C h r i s t i a n s w a s not p r o d u c e d at the level of the q u e s t i o n of the true M e s s i a h , but rather at the level of the q u e s t i o n of the true faith and of the perfect and valid sacrifice«. H o w e v e r , as w e have already seen previously, Siegert's p o s i t i o n is shared by Marguerat. B e s i d e s , although is it true that m e s s i a n i s m w a s not the c a u s e of the E s s e n e schism, it is also true that o n e m a y o b s e r v e in Q u m r a n a clear d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m a n o n - m e s s i a n i c p e r i o d t o a messianic p e r i o d , of a m e s s i a n i s m m o r e specifically priestly a n d D a v i d i c . G . S. O e g e m a , Messianic Expectations in the Qumran Writings: Theses on their Development, in Qumran-Messianism. Studies on the messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls edited b y J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , H . L i c h t e n b e r g e r and G . S. O e g e m a , T u b i n g e n 1998, 5 3 - 8 2 . T h e r e ­ fore, it is difficult to claim that m e s s i a n i s m and a p o c a l y p t i c p o s i t i o n s d i d not characterize the c o m m u n i t y of Q u m r a n at all. O n the messianic expectations in the Q u m r a n writings see J . J . C o l l i n s , The Scepter and the Star: the Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Literature, N e w Y o r k 1995. See in particular Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, edited b y J . N e u s n e r , W . S . G r e e n and E . S . F r e r i c h s , C a m b r i d g e 1987; The Messiah. Develop­ ments in earliest Judaism and Christianity, edited b y J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , M i n n e a p o l i s 1992. 7 7

7 8

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

37

research

there were other hopes that were addressed to figures of different origins and natures, almost always transcendent. Stimulated in some way by this discovery, there are those who have on the contrary maintained that the Davidic hopes at the time of Jesus were not widespread at all. Only very few texts explicitly confirm their persistence. But a conclusion of this sort has very little foundation. The passages of the Scriptures that make allusions to that hope, although they were not very numerous, constantly transmitted and frequently reinterpreted in a more clearly messianic sense, constituted a traditional base to which popular faith made continuous reference. This is demonstrated by a very widespread liturgical text, the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions, recited several times a day by every pious J e w . It is demonstrated by the various Aramaic targumim, through which the people made contact with the Scriptures in the synagogue worship on Saturdays. And it is demonstrated, in my opinion, also by the N e w Testament tradition of the gospels, in which the Davidic hope is the common presupposition of the faith of the people and of the disciples. Of course, this hope did not ex­ haust the expectations of Israel. Various, and in some way marginal, groups no doubt speculated regarding particular messianic figures. But these figures also remained heritage of the group, and did not constitute, like the figure of the Son of David, the object of a widespread hope in the population. And they were referred to in doctrinal reflections, and not, as for example in the Eighteen Benedictions and in Mk. 10:47.48, in liturgical invocations. This is true also for the two most significant figures of the messianic hope who are different from the Davidic Messiah: the Messiah-Son of Man and the Messiah-Priest. The Messiah-Son of Man is the Messiah of the Danielic and Enochic apocalyptic tradition. Born from the B o o k of Daniel, and in particular with the famous dream of the four beasts, in which, however, the 79

80

7 9

A m o n g the first to maintain this p o s i t i o n w a s certainly B . B a u e r in his Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptischen I, L e i p z i g 1 8 4 6 , 391 ff. F o r him in J e s u s ' time there s i m p l y w a s n o messianic expectation. It w a s o n l y M a r k w h o gave the messianic nature to the s t o r y of J e s u s . B u t it w a s p r o b a b l y A . Schweitzer w h o clarified the p r o b l e m , e m p h a s i z i n g with great energy the contrast between p r o p h e t i c D a v i d i c m e s s i a n i s m and Danielic transcendent m e s s i a n i s m , and claiming that in J e s u s ' time the f o r m e r w a s in clear decline with respect to the latter. The Quest of the historical Jesus, cit., 2 2 1 - 2 6 3 . In m o r e recent times the presence of a D a v i d i c m e s s i a n i s m at the time of J e s u s has been drastically r e d u c e d a b o v e all b y K . E . P o m y k a l a , The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism, Atlanta 1995. While the m o r e general tendency of J u d a i s m to m i n i m i z e the role of the M e s s i a h and accentuate that of G o d in the restoration of Israel has been e m p h a s i z e d in particular b y R . K i m e l m a n , The Messiah of the Amidah: A Study in comparative Messianism: J o u r n a l of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) 3 1 3 - 3 2 0 . A l t h o u g h there is often c o n f u s i o n between them, the w e a k e n i n g in the D a v i d i c h o p e (in f a v o u r of a transcendent M e s s i a h ) and the w e a k e n i n g in the messianic h o p e (in f a v o u r of a direct action b y G o d ) are in m y o p i n i o n t w o different p r o b l e m s . E v e n if K i m e l m a n , op. cit., 3 1 3 - 3 2 0 , is right (but I d o not believe that he is) in seeing in these p r a y e r s a tendency to m i n i m i z e the role of the M e s s i a h . 2

8 0

38

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

>Son of Man< is not yet an individual and messianic title, but only the symbol of the people of Israel (Dan. 7:13-14.18.22.27), it had its greatest develop­ ment in the book of parables of Enoch (Hen. aeth. 37-71), which in all probability (even though not with absolute certainty) dates back to the end of the first century B C E . But it never received the adhesion of larger groups. And in a singular and characteristic manner, it was never adopted by the community of Qumran, either, in which the main messianic figure, greater than the Davidic Messiah himself, was a priestly figure. The Messiah-priest is, on the other hand, the Messiah of the priestly groups, who were in par­ ticular behind the tradition of the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs and of the >Essene< community of Qumran. It expresses the convictions and the expectations of marginal and in some way closed groups of Israel, who had distanced themselves from the orientations on theology and worship held by the official groups in Jerusalem. But this expectation was not shared even in the priestly groups of the temple. What counts the most is that even in these marginal groups who did not share the theology of the authorities in Jerusalem, and that is in the apocalyptic currents and in the community of Qumran, the Davidic hope never disappeared. At Qumran it existed gener­ ally alongside the hope for the priestly Messiah. O n the other hand, the IV book of Esdra makes a difficult fusion between the figures of the Son of Man and of the Son of David. The traditional strength of that hope clearly kept even these groups from abandoning it. And the privileged reference of Jesus and of the first Christians to the coming in glory of the Son of Man was certainly not in line with this main current of tradition. The most recent historiography has rightly insisted, on the other hand, on the speculations that the Judaism of Jesus' time dedicated to various figures of divine intermediaries of salvation whose nature was not just earthly, but heavenly, and who were often endowed with extraordinary powers. These speculations seem to indicate for the period before the year 70 the existence of a different conception of Jewish monotheism, less exclusive and unitary than the rabbinic one and thus capable of reconciling the faith in one G o d with the idea of the divinization of other heavenly figures. L. W. Hurtado has written, for example, 81

T h e r e is s o m e i n d i c a t i o n that J e w i s h belief in the u n i q u e n e s s o f G o d w a s a b l e t o a c ­ c o m m o d a t e s u r p r i s i n g k i n d s o f r e v e r e n c e f o r a n d i n t e r e s t in o t h e r h e a v e n l y f i g u r e s s u c h as chief a n g e l s a n d e x a l t e d p a t r i a r c h s as w e l l as p e r s o n i f i e d a t t r i b u t e s o r p o w e r s o f G o d . I n t e r e s t in t h e r o l e o f t h e s e d i v i n e a g e n t s w a s a p p a r e n t l y w i d e s p r e a d a n d p r o b a b l y o f s o m e i m p o r t a n c e in u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w e a r l y J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s w e r e

81

a

a

4 Q p G e n ( 4 Q 2 5 2 ) V , l - 4 ; 4 Q F l o r ( 4 Q 1 7 4 ) 1,10-13; 4 Q p I s a ( 4 Q 1 6 1 ) 8-10,111,17-20; 4 Q S e r e k H a M i l h a m a h ( 4 Q 2 8 5 ) 5,1-6.

2. Problems

and aporias of the new

39

research

able to a c c o m m o d a t e the exalted J e s u s w i t h o u t feeling that they h a d violated the uniqueness of G o d .

8 2

And D . B . Capes, though he believes that the hypothesis of Hurtado is not well-founded, has also maintained that there was, however, in the Jewish tradition a conception of Jahve (that of the corporate person) that allowed the reconciliation of the worship of Jesus with monotheistic faith. »The Hebrew concept of Yahweh as a corporate person provided the category which made possible the application of Old Testament Yahweh texts to J e s u s « . This is no doubt an interesting line of thought. It seems in fact that for the period preceding 70 the idea that Judaism was a monotheistic faith, absolutely impermeable to any speculation about other divine figures, which is accepted easily by most scholars, is not historically sound. The reevaluation of the apocalyptic tradition which has taken place in the last few decades has allowed us in particular to highlight a whole series of messianic figures that may have in some way prepared, or may have in any case more easily explained, the faith of the disciples in the heavenly lordship of Jesus risen from the dead. These were not only the Son of Man of the book of Daniel, but Enoch of the parables of Enoch, Melchisedeq of the community of Qumran, Yahoel of the Apocalypse of Abraham, Metatron of the later Enochic tradition. There is actually no doubt that apocalyptic speculations on these heavenly intermediaries of salvation flowered in great numbers in these particular groups within Judaism. But we must observe that not only were they marginal groups, whose speculations were strongly opposed by official theology, which, even if it did not condemn them openly, certainly relegated them to the margins of the spirituality of Israel; but above all, that none of these figures received an exaltation similar to that received by Jesus with the idea of resurrection and none, as far as we know, has ever been made object of a worship, as occurred instead for J e s u s . 83

84

85

8 2

L . W. H u r t a d o , One God, one Lord. Early Christian Devotion and ancient Jewish Monotheism, Philadelphia 1988, 8. D . B . C a p e s , Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology, T u b i n g e n 1992, 174. In taking u p again p r e v i o u s ideas of v a r i o u s scholars, it had already in a n y case been s u g g e s t e d b y M . H e n g e l , Der Sohn Gottes. Die Entstehung der Christologie und die judisch-hellenistische Religionsgeschichte, Tubingen 1977, 35-89. T h e r e actually w e r e f o r m s of angelic veneration in the J u d a i s m p r i o r to 70. T h i s is witnessed also b y the letter to the C o l o s s i a n s in which, alongside the feasts, the new m o o n and the S a b b a t h , the letter s p e a k s of a ftpYjaxeia TWV ayyeXwv (2:18). H o w e v e r , even before the success of R a b b i n i s m , J u d a i s m manifested a g r o w i n g caution t o w a r d s them, which the a p p e a r a n c e of C h r i s t i a n i t y further accentuated. T h i s caution w a s shared also b y a p o c a l y p t i c C h r i s t i a n writings such as J o h n ' s Revelation and the A s c e n s i o n of Isaiah, which, while describe the w o r s h i p of C h r i s t in heaven, instead exclude any w o r s h i p of angels. R . B a u c k h a m , The Worship of Jesus in apocalyptic Christianity: N e w Testament Studies 27 (1981) 3 2 2 - 3 4 1 . 8 3

8 4

2

8 5

40

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

But above all, in the presence of a tradition of studies that in the past made the messianic hope the characterizing element of the faith of Israel and which continues still today to speak of the flourishing of innumerable messianic claimants at the time of Jesus, and although this may appear to be in contrast with the asserted pre-eminence of the Davidic hope, it is essential to insist on the growing non-historical (and by and large mythical) content taken on by the messianic wait and on the consequently very strong resistance of J u d a ­ ism (of educated Judaism, at least) to identifying the Messiah concretely in a historical figure. The Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran, who in any case appeared as the authorized divine interpreter of the word of the Scripture, and who for this reason received from his disciples unconditional respect and obedience, was not considered by the community to be the promised Messiah, who still remained a figure to be expected from the future. Of the numerous royal claimants that Josephus mentions from the death of Herod the Great to the outbreak of the Jewish war, none was recognized as the Mes­ siah and probably none ever claimed to be the Messiah. Perhaps Menahem, grandson of Judas the Galilean, head of the popular group of the Sicarii made this claim, right at the beginnings of the war, in the climate of messianic ex­ citement that characterized the revolt. But Menahem's aristocratic rival, the son of the high priest Ananias and head of the Zealots, Eleazar, almost im­ mediately had him killed, and his memory almost completely disappeared 86

87

88

89

90

8 6

See, for e x a m p l e , C . A . E v a n s , Messianic Claimants of the first and second Centuries, in I d e m , Jesus and his Contemporaries. Comparative Studies, L e i d e n 1995, 5 3 - 8 1 , which tends to see messianic claimants in all the p r o p h e t i c and royal figures ( J u d a s , S i m o n , A t h r o n g e s , M e n a h e m , J o h n of G i s c h a l a , S i m o n bar G i o r a , etc.) m e n t i o n e d b y F l a v i u s Josephus. T h i s resistence to identifying the M e s s i a h in a historical character m a y actually a p p e a r to be in contrast with the asserted pre-eminence of the D a v i d i c h o p e . A n d this is in fact w h a t led Schweitzer to consider p r o p h e t i c D a v i d i c m e s s i a n i s m to be in clear decline with respect to Danielic transcendent m e s s i a n i s m , to the p o i n t of causing him to maintain that the d o c u m e n t s d o not » s u g g e s t that s o m e natural p e r s o n r e g a r d e d himself as M e s s i a h a n d as such recruted a d h e r e n t s « {op. cit., 244). M o r e p r o b a b l y , however, this is a sign of the g r o w i n g divarication b e t w e e n the h o p e for the earthly restoration of the k i n g d o m of D a v i d (which w a s w i d e s p r e a d a b o v e all a m o n g the l o w e r classes and gave rise t o frequent messianic m o v e m e n t s ) and the h o p e for the heavenly c o m i n g of the k i n g d o m of G o d (which w a s present a b o v e all in literary texts and constantly w a r n e d against m e s ­ sianic claimants). T h i s w a s a divarication that, since it often set the m o r e concrete p o p u l a r expectations of political and social renewal against the literary a n d mythical expectations of the m o r e educated p e o p l e , w a s b o t h cultural and social. In fact, o n e s h o u l d never forget that the messianic nature of a g r o u p , or of a m o v e ­ ment, d o e s not necessarily m e a n either a messianic claim of its leader or his recognition as M e s s i a h o n the part of his followers (which is the error, in m y o p i n i o n , in the essay b y E v a n s ) . O n l y r e g a r d i n g S i m o n bar K o s i b a d o e s tradition recall b o t h the messianic claim and his recognition as M e s s i a h . Bell. 2,444. Bell. 2 , 4 4 5 - 4 4 8 . 8 7

8 8

89

90

2. Problems

and aporias

of the new

41

research

from the later rabbinic tradition. Simon bar Kosiba undoubtedly made this claim, at the time of the second revolt, this time with the explicit support of rabbi Aqiba. But his claim, too, was immediately ferociously opposed by other rabbis and was rapidly cancelled from that tradition. Simon and Aqiba were exponents of a popular political messianism. But it was not possible for the educated circles of priestly Judaism to think of any historical figure as truly fulfilling the messianic promise, because it was the profound nature of their messianic hope that the Messiah would never arrive, but the wait would always remain. As far as the heavenly intermediaries of salvation are concerned, certainly they were recognized to have extraordinary powers, of a messianic nature and of divine origin: the realization of the final domina­ tion of Israel over its enemies; the carrying out of the judgment of G o d on all nations. But they were heavenly figures, and in any case eschatological, and for this reason in some way mythical, not historical. Among the earthly char­ acters only with regard to Enoch, who is also in some way made mythical, no longer historical, in just one much-debated passage of the parables, was that identification with the messianic Son of Man asserted. But no Jewish group ever thought of placing their speculations regarding these heavenly messianic figures on the historical founder of their own communities. As we will see better later, this characteristic was found only in the disciples of Jesus. The recognition of the existence of a plurality of orientations within Judaism prior to 70 thus cannot lead too simply to the conclusion that the first Christians were nothing more than a new orientation of the Judaism of the time. But the affirmation that the contrast between Christianity and Judaism was caused essentially by the re-organization of Judaism after 70 as rabbinic Judaism, which put an end to Jewish Christianity, an affirmation that can be found in some way in all the scholars cited, also deserves to be 91

92

93

94

9 1

A s a matter of fact, even this claim b y S i m o n and this recognition of A q i b a have at times been q u e s t i o n e d . See, for e x a m p l e , L . M i l d e n b e r g , The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, F r a n k f u r t a m M a i n 1984. B u t these d o u b t s are, in m y opinion, u n f o u n d e d . See P. Schafer, R. Akiva und Bar Kokhba, in I d e m , Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, L e i d e n 1978, 6 5 - 1 2 1 (Schafer rightly e m p h a s i z e s the nationalpolitical, and therefore popular, nature of A q i b a ' s m e s s i a n i s m ) ; C . A . E v a n s , Was Simon Ben Kosiba recognized as Messiah ?, in I d e m , Jesus and his Contemporaries, cit., 1 8 3 - 2 1 1 . T h e exclamation of rabbi J o h a n a n ben T o r t a is significant, w h e n a d d r e s s i n g rabbi A q i b a , w h o w a n t e d to r e c o g n i z e S i m o n b a r K o s i b a as the M e s s i a h , jTa'an. 68b: » R . S i m e o n b. Y o h a i taught: A q i b a , m y master, w o u l d interpret the f o l l o w i n g verse: >A star shall c o m e forth out of Jacob< (Num. 24:17) >A d i s a p p o i n t m e n t shall c o m e forth o u t of Jacob<. W h e n R . A q i b a s a w B a r K o s e b a , he said: T h i s is the K i n g M e s s i a h s Said to him R . Y o h a n a n ben Torta: A q i b a ! G r a s s will g r o w o n y o u r cheeks, and the M e s s i a h will not yet have come!<«. N o t o n l y w a s S i m o n not r e c o g n i z e d as the M e s s i a h , but the c o m i n g of the M e s s i a h w a s p u t off into a f a r a w a y future. Hen. aeth. 71,14. M . H e n g e l a d o p t e d this p o s i t i o n w i t h o u t any hesitation. Acts and the History of ear­ liest Christianity, L o n d o n 1979, 64: »We can h a r d l y d o u b t that the J e w s w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e 9 2

93

9 4

42

Chapter

one:

The Jews from

4 BCE to 100

CE

put to a more careful discussion. In its most radical form this affirmation, as we have seen, tends to move the end of the >parting of the ways< forward to 135. This is the position of many of the participants at the Durham sym­ posium, Dunn and Alexander in particular. For these scholars, only then, in fact, did the definitive victory of Rabbinism and the disappearance of Jewish Christianity occur. I will not stop to discuss this position, because I find it frankly untenable (and all the rest of my work actually contains the refutation of it). But there is a more moderate form of that affirmation that instead deserves to be taken seriously into consideration. According to this more moderate form, the break between Jews and Christians took place around 85 C E as a consequence of the decisions taken by the rabbis of the academy of Iamnia under the guidance of Gamaliel II. The most important arguments that are given to support this position, and which, as we will later see, allow a recognition even behind the gospels of Matthew and John, which are notoriously anti-Jewish, of the continuation of elements of Jewish Christianity, are the synod of Iamnia and the birkat ha-minim. Rabbinic literature mentions the constitution, soon after the year 70, in the city of Iamnia (Jabne), of a group of rabbis around Jochanan ben Zakkai, who was said to have begun the reorganization of Judaism with a whole series of deci­ sions. Among these decisions, the literature also mentions the introduction, at the time of Gamaliel II, into the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions of a curse (the twelfth) against heretics which seems to be directed against the Jewish Christians. For this reason, many authors believe that these events led to the break of Judaism with Jewish Christianity and thus to the defini­ tive separation of Christianity from Judaism. The history of this interpretation basically began with an article by S. Krauss on the consideration of the Jews on the part of the Fathers of the Church. Since Justin, in the second half of the second century, stated that the Jews cursed in their synagogues those who believed in the Christ, and 95

96

97

98

b o t h for the expulsion f r o m the s y n a g o g u e of the Hellenists, w h o w e r e critical of the L a w , a n d for the final b r e a k between the J u d a i s m which w a s renewed after the destruction of the T e m p l e and the Palestinian J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s « . It is the f a m o u s s t o r y of the a d v e n t u r o u s escape of J o c h a n a n ben Z a k k a i f r o m J e r u s a ­ lem and his audience with the future e m p e r o r Vespasian that is contained in Ahot de-Rabbi Natan, vers. A , ch. 4. Cfr. also bGit. 56b; Abot de-Rabbi Natan, vers. B , ch. 6. bBer. 2 8 b - 2 9 a : » O u r rabbis have taught: S i m e o n H a p p a q u l i in Yavneh laid o u t the eighteen benedictions before R a b b a n G a m a l i e l in p r o p e r order. Said R a b b a n G a m a l i e l to sages: >Does a n y o n e k n o w h o w to o r d a i n a blessing against the minim?< Samuel the y o u n g e r w e n t and o r d a i n e d it. A year later he f o r g o t it, and for t w o or three h o u r s he attempted to recover it. B u t they did not r e m o v e h i m « . S. K r a u s s , The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers: J e w i s h Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w 5 (1893) 1 2 2 - 1 5 7 . Dial 16,4. Cfr. also Dial 93,4; 95,3; 96,2; 108,3; 123,6; 133,6. O n J u s t i n and his image 9 5

96

9 7

98

2. Problems

and aporias of the new

43

research 100

since at the end of the fourth century Epiphanius" and J e r o m e explicitly mentioned a curse against the Nazoreans (or Nazarenes) that was recited three times a day in the synagogues, Krauss believed that the twelfth blessing was originally directed against the Nazarene Jewish Christians. The hypoth­ esis seemed to find full confirmation shortly afterwards with the discovery, in the genizah in Cairo, of a text of the Eighteen Benedictions that in fact made mention of the Nosrim. And it received definitive consecration by I. Elbogen, who in his well-known work on the Jewish liturgical service not only confirmed the anti-Christian nature of the birkat ha-minim but also wrote that it was »one of the means for separating fully the two religions*. But this affirmation does not seem to be well-founded. I will discuss later if it is possible to recognize in the gospels of Matthew and John an answer to the decisions of Iamnia and in particular to the birkat ha-minim. For the time being I will point out only that P. Schafer and G. Stemberger have clearly demonstrated not only that it is impossible to attribute this importance to the synod of Iamnia, but that there probably was no synod of Iamnia that made a whole series of decisions regarding problems of Jewish life. Certainly Jochanan ben Zakkai gathered around himself a group of rabbis to proceed to reorganize Judaism, which had been struck by the tragedy of the war. But m

y

102

103

w h e n a n d in w h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e the g u i d a n c e o f this g r o u p , w h i c h u n d e r s t o o d itself as t h e s u c c e s s o r o f t h e S a n h e d r i n o f J e r u s a l e m , p a s s e d f r o m J o c h a n a n t o

rabban

G a m a l i e l I I , is u n c e r t a i n . It is j u s t as d i f f i c u l t t o e s t a b l i s h w h e n t h e R o m a n s r e c o g ­ n i z e d t h e w i s e m e n o f J a b n e as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e , a n d e v e n m o r e of the J e w s see J . L i e u , Image and Reality. The Jews in the World of the Christians in the second Century, E d i n b u r g h 1 9 9 6 , 1 0 3 - 1 5 3 . Panarion 29,9. In Is. 52,4 ff. S. Schechter, Genizah Specimens: J e w i s h Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w 10 (1898) 657: » A n d for a p o s t a t e s let there be n o h o p e ; and m a y the insolent k i n g d o m be q u i c k l y u p r o o t e d , in o u r d a y s . A n d m a y the N a z a r e n e s and the heretics perish quickly; and m a y they be erased f r o m the B o o k of Life; and m a y they not be inscribed w i t h the righteous. B l e s s e d art thou, L o r d , w h o h u m b l e s t the i n s o l e n t « . Der judische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, H i l d e s h e i m 1962 Q1913), 36. A r e m a r k a b l e defense of this p o s i t i o n is f o u n d in the l o n g and scholarly article b y W. H o r b u r y , The Benediction of the Minim and early Jewish-Christian Controversy: J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i c a l Studies 33 (1982) 1 9 - 6 1 , the c o n c l u s i o n of w h i c h is that the curse » w a s not decisive o n its o w n in the separation of church and s y n a g o g u e , but it gave s o l e m n liturgical e x p r e s s i o n to a separation effected in the s e c o n d half of the first century t h r o u g h the larger g r o u p of m e a s u r e s to w h i c h it b e l o n g s « (op. cit., 61). R Schafer, Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne. Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr.: J u d a i c a 31 (1975) 5 4 - 6 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 2 3 , n o w also in I d e m , Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums, cit., 4 5 - 6 4 ; G . Stemberger, Die sogennante »Synode von Jabne« und dasfruhe Christentum: K a i r o s 19 (1977) 1 4 - 2 1 . See also S . T . K a t z , Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C. E.: A Reconsideration: J o u r n a l of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e 103 (1984) 4 3 - 7 6 . 9 9

100

1 0 1

102

1 0 3

44

Chapter

one:

The Jews from 4 BCE to 100 CE

difficult w h e n a n d t o w h a t d e g r e e t h e J e w i s h p e o p l e r e c o g n i z e d t h e m e n o f J a b n e as their p o l i t i c a l a n d r e l i g i o u s l e a d e r s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f J a b n e w i t h i n J u d a i s m certainly t o o k a long t i m e .

1 0 4

Actually, the idea of a synod of Iamnia that in approximately 85 C E made decisions about a whole series of problems of Judaism (from the exclusion of heretics to the definition of the canon) does not find any support in the rabbinic literature. It is thus better to relate those decisions to the entire period from 70 to 132. It is just as unjustified to attribute to the formulation of the birkat haminim around the year 85 such great importance in the process of separation between Jews and Christians. The birkat ha-minim probably existed already before 70. It was a curse that was generically meant against heretics (minim) and which received its specific content from the historical circumstances in which it was concretely pronounced. After 70, and to be exact under Gamaliel II (between 85 and 100), it was certainly reformulated, within a wider process that aimed at giving Judaism greater unity, eliminating all the elements of fragmentation. But there is no proof that it was reformulated precisely against the Christians who still belonged to the synagogue. Actu­ ally, it was to be directed against all those who put the unity of Judaism in danger. And only later, in Palestine, was the specific reference to the Nosrim added, which is shown by the Palestinian version. The attribution to this of such great importance, as far as the process of separation between Jews and Christians is concerned, thus seems to be lacking any real foundation. But I will have to return to this later, when considering the gospels of Matthew and John and the Jewish Christianity which they implicitly witnessed. 105

106

1 0 4

Stemberger, op. cit., 15. T h e s a m e m a y be f o u n d in B a u c k h a m , 136. Stemberger, 16. Cfr. also Schafer, Studien, 62: » T h e s e p a r a t i o n of the J e w s and the C h r i s t i a n s d i d not take place w i t h the birkat ham-minim and the establishment of the J e w i s h canon. It w a s not at all a unilateral J e w i s h d e c l a r a t i o n of i n t e n t s b u t a p r o c e s s that extended over a l o n g time, o n w h i c h both sides had an i n f l u e n c e s K a t z , op. cit., 76: » T h e r e w a s n o official a n t i - C h r i s t i a n p o l i c y at Y a v n e h or elsewhere b e f o r e the B a r K o c h b a revolt a n d n o total s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s before (if i m m e d i a t e l y after?) the B a r K o c h b a revolt«; Alexander, 3: » I t is simplistic to l o o k for a decisive m o m e n t in the p a r t i n g of the w a y s , a crucial doctrine or event that c a u s e d the final r u p t u r e . T h e r e w a s n o s u d d e n b r e a k b e t w e e n C h r i s t i a n i t y and J u d a i s m , b u t rather an ever-widening rift«. Schafer, 51: » C e r t a i n l y the birkat ham-minim w a s not directed exclusively against J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s and (later) C h r i s t i a n s , and there w a s thus n o >means for separating fully the t w o religions<«. T h e s a m e m a y be f o u n d in R . K i m e l m a n , B i r k a t H a - M i n i m and the Lack of Evidence for an anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in late Antiquity, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition II. Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, edited b y E . R S a n d e r s , L o n d o n 1981, 2 2 6 - 2 4 4 (244: » T h e r e never w a s a single edict w h i c h c a u s e d the so-called irreparable s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n J u d a i s m and C h r i s t i a n i t y « ) . Cfr. anche L . Vana, La birkat h a - m i n i m e una preghiera contro i giudeocristiani ?, in Verus Israel, 1 4 7 - 1 8 9 ( w h o p u t s off all the references to the Nosrim to the end of the f o u r t h century). 1 0 5

1 0 6

Chapter Two

The Christians from 30 C E to 100 C E The recognition of the >Jewishness< of Jesus, consequent to a more correct perception of the variety and complexity of Judaism in his time, means concretely that the >parting of the ways< between the Christian religion and the Jewish religion cannot be referred back simply to Jesus himself. The identification of Judaism before 70 with a Pharisaism that was seen as the legitimate and only precursor of Rabbinism and the acceptance of the presentation in the gospels of a frontal contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees led to the conviction that it was with Jesus himself that the birth of Christianity as a separate religion from Judaism took place. Today nobody would share this opinion any more. The profound truth of the first part of Wellhausen's statement about the Jewishness of Jesus (»Jesus was not a Christian, but a J e w « ) has instead been re-discovered, liberating it also from the liberal ideological prejudice present in the second part (»one may be justified in maintaining that what is un-Jewish in him, what is human, is more characteristic than what is Jewish«). Jesus never questioned radically the foundations of Judaism themselves, never burned the bridges with the convictions and religious behaviour of his people, and he never founded a new religion, different from and perhaps hostile to the Jewish one. H e meant instead to fulfil the promises of the Old Testament, and thus to bring the Jewish tradition to its completion. However, I also believe that no discussion of the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity can avoid a careful evaluation of the position taken by Jesus (and precisely by the >Jewish< Jesus) towards some fundamental aspects of the Judaism of his time. It is here that the roots of the future separation were in fact planted.

1. The attitude ofJesus towards Judaism There are two main problems and both of them are very difficult to solve. First of all: what position did Jesus take towards the Mosaic Law, the heart of Jewish spirituality of his time? Did he urge his disciples substantially to go beyond it, which Paul would later support, or did he instead respect and observe it like every good J e w and perhaps even like a Pharisee? And then: did Jesus present himself as the Messiah of Israel promised in the Scriptures,

46

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

and did he do it in a radically innovative way with respect to what was the common hope of the Jews, or did the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah (not just the Son of Man but also the Son of David) arise in the disciples only after his death (and resurrection)? Of course I do not want to go back to the foundation of these two very difficult questions, on which N e w Testament exegesis has been struggling for over two centuries. I will limit myself to only a few observations, which have no other purpose beyond asking for greater prudence in those schol­ ars who, in the enthusiasm of the most recent historiographic acquisitions mentioned above, seem to have gone far beyond the mark. 1

a. The observance

of the Law

O n the theme of the Law, in my opinion, there are above all two historio­ graphic acquisitions: Jesus did not break irreparably with Mosaic Law, and Judaism was not yet simply a >religion of the Law<. If Jesus had broken irreparably with Mosaic Law, at times criticizing it openly (the antithesis of the sermon on the mount), and at times urging others to disobey it (the controversies of Mk. 2:1-3:6), the events of the community of Jerusalem, with the progressive emergence of the >party of James< and the resistence towards the preaching of Paul, would become simply incomprehensible. Those events in fact show a community (or at least the greater part of the community) that was strongly attached to Mosaic Law, and was unable to decide to abandon its observance. O n the other hand, Judaism was not yet what would become, after 70, the rabbinic (and normative) Judaism of the Mishna and of the Talmud, with its absolutely prevalent insistence on the observation of the Law, but, as we have seen above, it included a great vari1

C h o o s i n g these t w o themes as crucial in the d i s c u s s i o n of the attitude a d o p t e d b y J e s u s t o w a r d s J u d a i s m , of c o u r s e I already b r e a k a w a y f r o m D u n n ' s p o s i t i o n . H e in fact, after having identified the >four pillars< of J u d a i s m p r i o r to 70 in the temple, the L a w , the election of Israel and m o n o t h e i s m , definitely a d o p t s the o p i n i o n (which m a n y scholars t o d a y have, and in particular E . P. S a n d e r s ) a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the o n l y true criticism of J e s u s t o w a r d s J u d a i s m (which, however, is not such as to set him o u t s i d e of the variety of J u d a i s m of the time) is his attitude t o w a r d s the temple. The Partings of the Ways, 3 7 - 5 6 (51: »If high priests rather than Pharisees w e r e m o s t r e s p o n s i b l e o n the J e w i s h side for J e s u s ' death, that clearly implies that the crucial issue was the Temple and not the Law«; 5 2 - 5 3 : and even the d i s c u s s i o n of the messianic claim of J e s u s w h i c h t o o k place d u r i n g the trial in front of the Sanhedrin w a s strictly connected to the p r o b l e m of the temple). B u t it is for m e c o m p l e t e l y i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e h o w a u t h o r s w h o , on themes of the relationship b e ­ tween J e s u s and the L a w and of his messianic claims, exercise a meticulous and exasperated criticism of the evangelical texts, o n the theme of the attitude of J e s u s t o w a r d s the temple, instead reveal themselves to be willing to accept w i t h o u t d i s c u s s i o n the presentation in the g o s p e l s . Actually, if there is a theme u p o n w h i c h one s h o u l d expect the historical situation of the evangelists to condition their narration strongly, it is precisely the theme of the temple, since at least three of t h e m w e r e writing w h e n the temple n o longer existed.

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

Judaism

47

ety of positions and orientations: the apocalyptic currents and the authority of the priests were no less important than the Pharisaic groups. This means concretely that the concentration of the gospels on the at­ titude taken by Jesus towards the L a w and on his mortal conflict with the Pharisees can be questioned and considered a reflection of the situation in the Christian community after 70 more than in the community at the time of Jesus. In Jesus' time Pharisaism did not represent all of Judaism in the least, because Judaism was not yet a >religion of the Law<. The preaching of Jesus was centred, on the other hand, on the imminent coming of the kingdom of G o d , not on how to observe the Mosaic Law. It is thus difficult to think that the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees on the theme of the L a w had that radical nature about which the gospels speak. The absence of accusa­ tions on the theme of the Law, in fact the very absence of those custodians of the Law, as the Pharisees were considered to be, during the Jewish trial of Jesus reveals that on this point there was no total break between Jesus and Judaism. If such a break there had been, it would be impossible to under­ stand the progressive emergence of the >party of James< with its insistence on faithfulness to the Law. That break reflects rather the situation of the Christian community after 70, more and more committed, after the victory of Paulinism and the defeat of Jewish Christianity, to a stern discussion with the Pharisees on the theme of the observances. The part of truth contained in these observations cannot block the rec­ ognition of what was profoundly new, and radically full of conflicts in the teaching of Jesus regarding Pharisaic, and more generally Jewish spirituality, of the L a w that was typical of the time. Let us begin by recalling again that the role of the Pharisees in Palestine before 70 cannot be arbitrarily minimized, as various scholars of Judaism today tend to do. Paul was certainly a Pharisee in the years between 30 and 40, before his >conversion< on the road to Damascus. Josephus was a Phari­ see, or in any case was close to the Pharisaic positions in the years from 50 to 70, and still at the outbreak of the Jewish war. However, as we have already seen, authoritative Pharisees (>heads of the Pharisees<) appeared, according to Josephus, in all the most delicate moments of Jewish life of the time: for example in 62, on the occasion of the killing of James by order of the Sad2

2

A m o n g the n u m e r o u s scholars w h o have maintained this p o s i t i o n , the m o s t effective w e r e p r o b a b l y P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, Berlin 1961, and M . Smith, Palestinian Judaism in the first Century, cit., 6 7 - 8 1 ; The Pharisees in the Gospels, in I d e m , Jesus the Magician, N e w Y o r k 1978, 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 . B u t the author w h o t o d a y is m o s t representative of this orientation is E . P. S a n d e r s in his Jesus and Judaism. L e s s drastic c o n c l u s i o n s , w h i c h d o not attribute the d i s c u s s i o n o n the L a w to the p e r i o d after 70, b u t exclude it in a n y case f r o m the p r e a c h i n g of J e s u s , are reached b y V o u g a , Les premiers pas du Christianisme, 52: » T h e d i s c u s s i o n o n the L a w d o e s not b e l o n g to J e s u s ' preaching, b u t rather to the first confessional conflicts of early C h r i s t i a n i t y « .

48

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

ducean high priest Ananus (Ant. 20,201); at the first indications of the war, in the attempt to convince the rebels not to take arms against Rome (Vita, 21: »When Menahem and the chieftains of the band of brigands had been put to death I ventured out of the Temple and once more consorted with the chief priests and the leading Pharisees« [trans. H . S t . J . Thackeray, LCL]); towards the end of 66, in the delegation sent to Galilee to attempt to take the military command away from Josephus (Vita, 197). F r o m all these passages it appears clear that the Pharisees constituted a particularly influential reli­ gious group, which exercised a sort of control over the rigorous observance of the Mosaic L a w and which was able, through its leaders (the scribes) to carry out a significant role in the political life of the country. With these Pharisees, the spiritual leaders (alongside the priests) of the Judaism of the time, Jesus could not avoid entering into conflict, and cer­ tainly he clashed with them. It is not a question, obviously, of making Jesus into an anarchist or a revolutionary, who systematically disobeyed Mosaic Law. In many ways Jesus can be considered even an >observant< Jew. H e went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day and went up to the temple for the principal feasts. H e openly respected the norms of the L a w and the rules of worship. This is so much so that even in the course of the trial before the Sanhedrin there was no substantial pretext to allow condemning him for >impiety<. And in the Source Q the Palestinian community (or at least that part of the Palestinian community that was more markedly of JudaeoChristian orientation) was able to gather statements that were of substantial recognition of the value of the Law. But in the rules for worship and in the norms of the L a w Jesus inserted a spirit that was not Pharisaic, nor was it simply the Jewish spirit of the time. It is certainly possible that tradition and the evangelists embellished some stories and even that they themselves created some new ones. But the kernel of the contrast is surely historical. It is manifested above all in the behaviour of Jesus, which was informal, even decidedly anti-conformist. Jesus did not frequent the conformist circles of Judaism (let us say, to make it clear, those of the two principal religious groups of the Pharisees and the Sadducees), and he did not gather his dis­ ciples from these groups. Instead, he frequented people who belonged to groups that in the country were marginal and scorned (the gospels indicate them with the formula of >tax collectors and sinners<) and it was from these groups that he recruited his followers. This behaviour strongly scandalized the conformists of the time, and not only the Pharisees, but also common people. The criticism of Jesus because he loved surrounding himself with morally questionable people and because precisely among these he chose his disciples, is so frequent in the gospels that there can be no doubt, not only of its real authenticity, but also of the fact that this was an absolutely characteristic element of the behaviour of Jesus. »Why does he eat with

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

49

Judaism

tax collectors and sinners ?« the Pharisees asked the disciples, according to Mk. 2:16; Mt. 9:11. And this question was so pertinent and dangerous that Jesus various times and in various ways took care to answer it. It is very probable that parables such as the one of the Pharisee and the tax collector, or statements like the one regarding the fact that those who are ill need a physician, not those who are well, were in fact Jesus' answer to this criti­ cism, which came prevalently from the >just< of Pharisaic orientation. But the contrast with the Pharisees, and more generally with the Jewish spirit of the time, is shown above all in the controversies that, according to Mark, Jesus had with them and this is expressed in particular in affirmations of principle on the value of the Law, which the Source Q did not think nec­ essary to preserve but which in their substance certainly go back to Jesus. As M. Hengel and R. Deines wrote against E . P. Sanders, t h e e a r l i e s t c o m m u n i t y o f d i s c i p l e s in J e r u s a l e m a n d G a l i l e e m a y also h a v e e x p e r i ­ e n c e d s u c h c o n f l i c t s . Y e t t h e C h u r c h d i d n o t s i m p l y f r e e l y i n v e n t >ideal scenes< in t h e G o s p e l s , b u t r a t h e r f o r m e d t h e m o n t h e b a s i s o f c o n c r e t e memory.

F o r s h e still k n e w

t h a t s u c h c o n f l i c t s w e n t b a c k t o J e s u s ' p r o v o c a t i v e b e h a v i o u r in w o r d a n d d e e d , w h i c h in o u r v i e w h a n g s t o g e t h e r w i t h his c l a i m t o m e s s i a n i c a u t h o r i t y .

3

In the first part of his gospel (the part that takes place prevalently in Galilee), besides the five controversies of 2:1-3:6, Mark tells, for example, about a discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding the norms of purity (7:l-23). The Pharisees criticized the disciples of Jesus because they did not wash their hands before eating. Here it is not so important to know whether 4

3

H e n g e l and D e i n e s , E. P. Sanders' >Common Judaism<, Jesus, and the Pharisees, cit., 11-12. I a m certainly not forgetting the perceptive assertion b y D . L u h r m a n n , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the t h e o r y of the t w o s o u r c e s is not taken really s e r i o u s l y b y the scholars in its methodical i m p o r t a n c e , b u t the d o m i n a n t i m a g e of J e s u s is still that of M a t t h e w ( K a s e m a n n ! ) . O n l y in this way, L u h r m a n n says, can o n e in fact explain the fact that the research c o n s i d e r s the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the L a w on the part of J e s u s a central q u e s t i o n , while the w o r d v6[xo^ is not encountered at all in M a r k and in Q o n l y in 16,16f. Die Logienquelle und die Leben-Jesu-Forschung, in The Sayings Source Q and the historical Jesus, edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n 2 0 0 1 , 196. H o w e v e r , I o b s e r v e that L u h r m a n n himself at p . 206 has v e r y o p p o r t u n e l y recalled that as the q u e s t i o n of the relationship between w i s d o m and the a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , w h i c h t o d a y d o m i n a t e s the investigation r e g a r d i n g the S o u r c e Q, c a n n o t be resolved o n l y t h r o u g h the identification of v a r i o u s levels of tradition in Q, s o the q u e s t i o n of the identity of early C h r i s t i a n i t y (and thus also of historical J e s u s ) cannot be resolved o n l y t h r o u g h the s o u r c e of the logia or t h r o u g h the other g o s p e l s . A n d I a d d also, w h i c h m a y be even m o r e i m p o r t a n t , that one s h o u l d never forget that, a l t h o u g h the existence of the S o u r c e Q m a y b e held to be ( a l m o s t ) certain, its reconstruction, a n d thus also its extension, instead remain s t r o n g l y hypothetical. In agreement with H . D . B e t z , I believe, for e x a m p l e , that the s e r m o n on the m o u n t in M a t t h e w can essentially g o b a c k to a recension of the S o u r c e Q. See below, p. 87. A c c o r d i n g to M . J . C o o k , Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders, L e i d e n 1978, 4 6 - 4 7 , the d i s c u s s i o n w a s part of the collection of Mk. 2:1-3:6. 4

50

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE 5

the scene is reported by Mark with absolute fidelity, or if he, as appears more probable, put together pieces of tradition from various origin. And it is not important whether the practise of washing one's hands derived from a norm of the Mosaic L a w or if it was only a >tradition of the elders< that the Pharisees tried to impose on all the rest of the people. What is important is the affirmation which, at the end of the discussion, Mark puts in Jesus' mouth: »There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him« (7:15). In the last few years there has doubtless been an increase in the number of authors who contest the origin from Jesus of this statement, above all on the basis of the consideration that if Jesus had stated a principle of this sort, the silences and hesitations of his disciples regarding foods would be inexplicable. But the argument does not seem convincing to me. Although it was certainly a statement of principle, which questioned the very idea of purity and which thus was to lead slowly to leaving ritual norms behind, it still remained on the level of the interpretation of the Law. It thus did not contain a pure and simple negation of the norms of purity, but an invitation to reflect on their range and obligatory nature. Just as with his messianic claims we must say that the language of Jesus was purely allusive and enig­ matic, so on the problem of the L a w it is necessary to recognize that Jesus' statements were not absolutely unequivocal. Above all they did not clearly prescribe the behaviour to adopt with respect to the norms, but instead 6

7

8

9

5

Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 , q u e s t i o n s the historical veracity of the report. H e thinks that it is not » c r e d i b l e that scribes and Pharisees m a d e a special trip to Galilee f r o m J e r u s a l e m to inspect J e s u s ' disciples' h a n d s « (265). B u t J . D . G . D u n n , Jesus and Purity: An ongoing Debate: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 48 (2002) 462, is right w h e n he writes: » T h e a r g u m e n t is w e a k e n e d b y Sanders's resort to s a r c a s m [...]. L u k e k n o w s a similar tradition and criticism in a different context ( L u k e 11.38)«. B u t that the Pharisaic halakha d o e s not have the s a m e value as the T o r a h s h o u l d be b e y o n d d i s p u t e . E v e n if its p r o m o t e r s try to p u t it on the s a m e level as the written law, it in fact still remains an interpretation and a heritage of the g r o u p , w h i c h are not necessarily a d o p t e d b y e v e r y o n e in practice. See what, in arguing with F. H a h n and M . H e n g e l (but t o d a y o n e w o u l d have t o a d d at least E . P. Sanders), is asserted b y K . Miiller, Gesetz und Gesetzeserfullung, cit., 1 1 - 2 7 . H . R a i s a n e n , Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15, in Logia. Les paroles de Jesus - The Sayings of Jesus. M e m o r i a l J o s e p h C o p p e n s , edited b y J . D e l o b e l , L e u v e n 1 9 8 2 , 4 7 7 : » T h e decisive p r o b l e m is that of the missing s t o r y of the effects of the w o r d in ancient C h r i s t i a n ­ i t y « ; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 266: » T h e p o i n t of the saying, in fact, is s o clear that the p o s i t i o n s of the >false brethren<, Peter a n d J a m e s b e c o m e i m p o s s i b l e to u n d e r s t a n d if the saying be c o n s i d e r e d authentic«. G . T h e i s s e n - A . M e r z , The historical Jesus. A comprehensive Guide, L o n d o n 1998, 367: » T h e l o g i o n a b o u t cleanness is a l o g i o n w h i c h m a k e s a radical j u d g m e n t . B u t w e need not for that r e a s o n d e n y it to J e s u s « . A s has o p p o r t u n e l y been m e n t i o n e d b y T h e i s s e n - M e r z , op. cit., 3 6 6 - 3 6 7 , m o s t of the exegetes seem t o d a y to affirm that Mk. 7:15 is an >enigmatic s a y i n g s w h i c h d o e s not prescribe b e h a v i o u r s . 6

7

8

9

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

51

Judaism 10

urged reflection on their nature and on their value. And on the other hand, if it did not come from Jesus, who did that statement come from? It certainly did not come from Mark, who found it in his source, but it did not come from the community of Jerusalem, either. The community of J e ­ rusalem (at least the part that was more strictly >Judaeo-Christian<) was even more tied to the rules of purity (regarding, for example, the use of certain foods and the sharing of the table with pagans). With the emergence of the figure of James (called >the just<, that is, the observant), it even assumed a nature that one could almost define >Pharisaic< and which in fact caused the disagreements with Paul's position that would be dealt with in the so-called council of Jerusalem. One could think that the affirmation came from a Jewish-Hellenistic Christianity, which already before Paul (with Stephen's Hellenists) was liberating itself from the yoke of the Law. But such a radi­ cal position on the part of the >Hellenists< (who are still Hellenistic Jews) towards the L a w does not seem to be well-founded in the sources, and since the Hellenists, differently from other fellow countrymen of theirs of the Diaspora, were not simply >liberal< or not very observant Jews, could only have in any case its roots in the behaviour of Jesus. We shall actually see that the progressive emancipation from the prescriptions of the L a w had in Stephen's Hellenists a different nature because it derived not from a >liberal< criticism of the L a w but from christology. With this radical nature, the affirmation in its essence can only come from Jesus himself. It in fact expresses, in a form that is probably even more radicalized by M a r k , the behaviour adopted by Jesus also towards other types of impurity, like that of the leper (Mk. 1:40-41) and that of the woman who had a flow of blood (Mk. 5:25-34). And it introduces a principle of absolute novelty in the re11

12

13

1 0

D . L u h r m a n n , w h o , as I have said, argues against considering the q u e s t i o n of the L a w central in J e s u s , affirms in a very balanced w a y : » T h e w o r d s of J e s u s w e r e clearly for the primitive tradition already not unequivocal. Their tenor can certainly be r e c o n s t r u c t e d o n the w h o l e with generally r e c o g n i z e d criteria, which can be interpreted in the b r o a d e s t sense or m o r e strictly. T h e sense of the w o r d s of J e s u s w a s , however, for ancient tradition already m u l t i p l e s Op. cit., 203. F o r R a i s a n e n , op. cit., 483, it p r o b a b l y c a m e u p in the area of the m i s s i o n to the p a ­ gans. T h e f r e e d o m f r o m certain ritual precepts of the L a w c o u l d have been a s p o n t a n e o u s p h e n o m e n o n p r o v o k e d b y charismatic experiences that t o o k place in that area. P a g a n s b e g a n s p o n t a n e o u s l y to be a d m i t t e d into the c o m m u n i t y and this led them to reflect o n the validity of t h o s e rules. D u n n , Jesus and Purity: An ongoing Debate, cit., 4 6 2 - 4 6 5 . G . D a u t z e n b e r g , t o o , w h o excludes the presence in J e s u s of » a conflict of principle with the L a w « , recognizes that »Mk. 7,15, taken not as a principle, c o u l d have been an a r g u m e n t in the d i s c u s s i o n o n the area of validity of the rules o n p u r i t y « . Gesetzeskritik und Gesetzesgehorsam in der Jesustradition, in Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament, cit., 58. See also, J . D . G . D u n n , Jesus and ritual Purity: A Study of the Tradition-History of Mark 7.15, in I d e m , Jesus, Paul and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians, London 1990, 3 7 - 6 0 . 11

12

13

52

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

ligious conception of Judaism of the time, and even in the ancient world in general. This is because it goes beyond, in a single step, every distinction of principle between sacred and profane, pure and impure. There are no more pure foods and impure foods, pure people and impure people, but only the heart of man is pure or impure. Even more important (alongside the discussion on the lawfulness of divorce of Mk. 10:2-9) is the discussion on the observance of the Sabbath. A m o n g the five (according to others, four) controversies of Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees that Mark found in the collection utilized by him in 2:1-3:6, there is one (2:23-28) that arises from an apparently insignificant episode. O n a Sabbath day the disciples of Jesus, as they made their way through the grainfields, plucked some heads of grain. And the Pharisees immediately intervened to protest against the infraction of the Sabbath. In this case, too, it is not particularly important to know if the episode occurred exactly in this way (Luke and Matthew already introduce some small modifications), or if Mark (as is more probable) constructed the scene with material from various origins (in the scene the great variety of the justifications of the gesture on the part of Jesus is particularly striking). This is because even in this case the more important element is the conclud­ ing affirmation by Jesus: »The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath« (Mk. 2:27). Today the authenticity of this logion is often contested. E.P. Sanders states, for example, that just as Jesus did not break with Judaism on the law of purity, he did not break with it on the issue of the Sabbath, either. And J . S. Kloppenborg maintains that the absence of controversies regarding the Sabbath in the Source Q demonstrates that he is essentially right. But then where does this affirmation come from, which 14

15

16

1 4

See n o w J . P. Meier, The historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath: C a t h o l i c Biblical Q u a r t e r l y 66 (2004) 5 6 1 - 5 8 1 . La rupture de Jesus avec le juda'isme, in Jesus de Nazareth. Nouvelles approches d'une enigme, edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , E . N o r e l l i et J . M . Poffet, G e n e v e 1998, 2 1 2 - 2 1 6 . The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the historical Jesus: H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 89 (1996) 332 ff.. O n p u r i t y a n d tithing the S o u r c e Q instead d e m o n s t r a t e s that J e s u s p r o b a b l y m a d e critical statements, of the sort in Mk. 7,15. It is in fact true that a few p a g e s p r i o r to this K l o p p e n b o r g h a d wisely stated that » I t is illegitimate, therefore, to a r g u e f r o m silence that w h a t is not in Q w a s not k n o w n to the editors or, still less, that w h a t is not in Q cannot be a s c r i b e d t o J e s u s « . The Sayings Gospel Q, cit., 330). B u t the absence of controversies on the S a b b a t h is in his o p i n i o n a different case, for the f o l l o w i n g reason: » Q ' s silence on this issue is significant since it is very difficult to argue that Q k n e w os S a b b a t h controversies but d i s r e g a r d e d them. Indeed Q k n o w s other points of difference between J e s u s and Pharisaic practice and l a m p o o n s the latter. It is likewise difficult to a s ­ s u m e that the Q p e o p l e w e r e m o r e conservative than J e s u s with regard to the S a b b a t h and thus rejected stories that depicted him as less than faithful t o w a r d the S a b b a t h . Instead, Q< silence seems to i m p l y that it k n e w nothing of S a b b a t h controversies*. The Sayings Gospel Q, 333. B u t this c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e e m s to m e to be b a s e d on a clear prejudice. T h a t the S o u r c e Q contains a criticism of the Pharisaic practice of the L a w (tithing and rules of 15

16

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

53

Judaism

questions the rule of the Sabbath so radically? This logion, like the other one, does not in the least come from Mark, who found it in his collection, nor does it come from the Palestinian community. The Palestinian commu­ nity continued to observe the L a w and not only would not ever have made a statement of principle of this importance in its >Judaeo-Christian< part, but would never have done so in its Jewish-Hellenistic part either. As I said before, this Jewish-Hellenistic part was not at all made up of >liberal< Jews who felt weakly tied to the observance of the Law. Its position towards the Sabbath was thus not born out of an >illuminated< explanation of the Law, but in consequence of its particular way of interpreting the paschal experi­ ence. And it finds expression not in Mk. 2,27, but in Mk. 2,28: »The Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath«. This is so much the case that not only is nothing similar to be found in the Source Q, an essentially Judaeo-Christian expression of that community, but L u k e and Matthew also, although they surely took the episode from Mark, preferred not to report the affirmation. Later Jewish-Hellenistic Christianity evidently also had difficulty accepting it. And it preferred to base its liberty from the L a w on the authority of the risen Christ (Mk. 2:28). A statement of this kind, corroborated as it is also by other episodes regarding the Sabbath, can only come from Jesus. In fact, for as much as it may seem obvious, and perhaps even banal, it is actually of revolutionary importance. For Judaism in that time the Sabbath was the heart of the Mosaic Law. And the L a w is sacred because it comes from G o d . The content of the individual precepts is thus not important. They must be observed because in them is expressed the will of G o d . The observance of the Sabbath is thus beyond dispute. Of course, even the Judaism of the time, even the Pharisees, admitted exceptions to the rule of the Sabbath: when for example there was the life of a man at stake. Thus, in this case, too, one can say that we are simply dealing with different interpretations of the L a w 17

18

19

p u r i t y ) is in m y o p i n i o n certain and is not at all surprising. T h a t practice in fact a p p e a r e d in his eyes t o o f o r m a l and not radical e n o u g h . B u t that >the Q p e o p l e s w h o e x p r e s s e d a J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y close to J a m e s , were m o r e conservative than J e s u s is, o n the other hand, m o r e than p r o b a b l e . A n d it is p o s s i b l e that this a b s e n c e of controversies over the S a b b a t h w a s d u e to the reaction of the S o u r c e Q to the p r e a c h i n g of the Hellenists. F r o m this, a c c o r d i n g to D u n n , op. cit., 1 2 - 3 6 , p r o b a b l y derived the f o u r controver­ sies of Mk. 2:15-3:6 as the e x p r e s s i o n of a p r e - P a u l i n e d i s c u s s i o n within J u d a i s m . T h e old statement b y E . L o h s e , aappaxov: T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y of the N e w T e s t a ­ ment 7 (1971) 22, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h »the fact that J e s u s himself before the c o m m u n i t y w a s e n g a g e d in conflict r e g a r d i n g the S a b b a t h regulations is to b e r e g a r d e d as o n e of the best established parts of the tradition, even t h o u g h one cannot reconstruct all the d e t a i l s « , in m y o p i n i o n maintains its validity. Miiller, 15, m e n t i o n s in fact that »in the ancient J e w i s h tradition there is a w h o l e current that f o l l o w s the d i s p e n s a t i o n f r o m the c o m m a n d m e n t of the S a b b a t h « . H e cites, however, the decision to defend oneself in w a r taken d u r i n g the M a c c a b e a n revolt, w h i c h clearly constitutes an exception to the general rule. A n d also the affirmation w h i c h is a l w a y s recalled b y S h i m o n ben M e n a s j a in the Mekilta on Exodus, 31:13 (109b): » T h e 1 7

1 8

1 9

54

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

20

within the same Jewish tradition. But even in this case neither the Pharisees nor the rest of Judaism could admit a general principle like the one affirmed by Jesus. This is because in this interpretation one goes beyond the formal value of the Law. The L a w is good, and should be obeyed, if it is advanta­ geous to man. Man for this reason has the right to evaluate the content of the Law. The L a w is thus in some way available to man. It is a revolutionary principle, and one can understand well how not only the Source Q, but also Luke and Matthew were afraid to make it their own, preferring to justify the freedom from the L a w adopted by the community through the authority of Jesus (»The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath«). 21

b. The messianic claim It is more difficult to express an opinion on the messianic problem. Since the end of the nineteenth century and above all beginning from the impor­ tant work by W. Wrede on the messianic secret in M a r k there has been a progressive growth of the positions of scholars who deny that Jesus ever advanced the claim of being the Messiah. It is presumed that the early community re-read in a messianic key a story of Jesus that had not been messianic. This is what was believed by almost all of the proponents of redaction criticism, and this is also believed by almost all the scholars who belong to the >third quest< of the historical J e s u s . And this would be true both for the title of Son of David and for that of Son of Man. Only after the 22

23

24

S a b b a t h is given over to y o u , not y o u to the S a b b a t h « , is not a true parallel b e c a u s e it limits itself to b r o a d e n i n g the exceptions to the rule of the S a b b a t h . T h i s is w h a t is explicitly maintained b y D a u t z e n b e r g , op. cit., 58: »Mk. 2:27 [...] still b e l o n g s to the side of the interpretation of the c o m m a n d m e n t of the S a b b a t h « . A n d it is w h a t is affirmed also b y V. F u s c o , Gesu e la legge: R a s s e g n a di teologia 30 (1989) 5 2 8 - 5 3 8 , taken u p again in Gesu e le Scritture di Israele, in La Bibbia nelVantichita cristiana I. Da Gesu a Origene, a cura di E . N o r e l l i , B o l o g n a 1993, 3 5 - 6 3 . With respect to Mk. 2:27, after having said that » t h e c o n t r o v e r s y concerns o n l y the interpretation of the rule. A n d yet his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s perceive s o m e t h i n g s c a n d a l o u s « (p. 535), he in fact a d d s , » T h e sensational element is n o t in the content of the affirmation or in its concrete applications, b u t in the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n that tacitly underlies it [...] T h e sensational element is not that J e s u s m a k e s this interpretation, b u t in his w a y of d o i n g s o , with a u t h o r i t y « (p. 537). F o r as correct as this reference to the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of the affirmation m a y s e e m (and I will be d o i n g the s a m e s h o r t l y ) , o n e m a y all the s a m e w o n d e r if it is not precisely this insistence o n the authority of J e s u s (and thus the later Mk. 2:28), with its derivation f r o m c h r i s t o l o g y that is the element that m o s t p r o b a b l y can be traced b a c k to a situation in the c o m m u n i t y . T h e i s s e n - M e r z , The historical Jesus, 370: with Mk. 2:27 J e s u s justifies infractions of the letter of the L a w . W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis des Markusevangelium, G o t t i n g e n 1901. A m o n g the first to maintain this p o s i t i o n w a s W. M a r x s e n , Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums, G o t t i n g e n 1956. See M . B o r g , Portraits of Jesus in contemporary North American Scholarship: H a r ­ vard T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 84 (1991) 1-22. 2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

55

Judaism

resurrection of Jesus, in this view, did the community attribute these titles to him, which during his earthly life he had never used. But once again the part that is true in this statement should not be overes­ timated. Of course the explicit identification of Jesus with the Messiah took place only after the resurrection. Only then did the community of disciples recognize him with certainty as the Son of Man promised by Daniel and the Son of David announced by the prophets. But I believe that a hint, although it was allusive and enigmatic, to his messianic nature was given by Jesus already during his ministry. Alongside other less clear and meaningful episodes, there are two in particular that are proof of this, narrated by the gospel of Mark: the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and the so-called question of the Son of David. And if one does not want to consider these two epi­ sodes, because of their content, which is in any case problematic, an explicit statement of his being the Messiah is found in any case in the answer that, according to the gospel of Mark, Jesus gave to the high priest in the course of the Jewish trial. It is not easy to identify the historical content of the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. The comparison among the four evangelic narrations as a matter of fact shows with absolute clarity the progressive accentuation of its messianic and triumphal nature. It is only in the later gospels that this nature appears in full evidence, in the acclamations that the crowd gave Jesus as the >king< (Lk. 19:38; Jn. 12:13) and as the >Son of David< (Mt. 21:9) and in the explanations of the episode given by Matthew and John on the basis of the messianic prophecy of Zech. 9:9: »Rejoice greatly, o daughter of Sion [...] L o , your king comes to you [...] humble and riding on an ass«. But in Mark the messianic nature of the entry into Jerusalem is not at all so clear. It is indicated in a way that is purely allusive and enigmatic. There is the entry riding an ass and there are the acclamations of the disciples. But 25

26

27

2 5

2

G . J o s s a , Dal Messia al Cristo, B r e s c i a 2 0 0 0 , 7 5 - 9 0 . See also M . H e n g e l , Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, in I d e m , Studies in early Christology, E d i n b u r g h 1 9 9 5 , 1 - 7 2 (14: »If J e s u s never p o s s e s s e d a messianic claim of divine mission, rather sternly rejected every thirdh a n d q u e s t i o n in this regard, if he neither s p o k e of the c o m i n g , o r present, >Son of Man<, n o r w a s executed as a messianic pretender and alleged king of the J e w s - as is maintained with astonishing certainty b y radical criticism u n e n c u m b e r e d b y historical a r g u m e n t s - then the emergence of christology, indeed, the entire early history of primitive C h r i s t i ­ anity, is c o m p l e t e l y baffling, nay, i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e « ) . Instead, it seems difficult to m e to share the p o s i t i o n of D u n n , The Partings of the Ways, 1 6 7 - 1 6 9 . A l t h o u g h he recognizes that the idea of messianity w a s not o p e n l y e x p r e s s e d b y J e s u s , he claims in fact that » a n y claim to (re)build the T e m p l e c o u l d all t o o readily be read as a claim to royal m e s s i a s h i p , and divine s o n s h i p (II S a m . 7:12—14)« (167). B u t this is a c o n s e q u e n c e that is o u t of p r o ­ p o r t i o n even t o the usual over-evaluation of the p r o b l e m of the temple. G . J o s s a , Gesu Messia ? Un dilemma storico, R o m a 2006, 8 9 - 9 4 . A n d m o r e fully I d e m , Gesu e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina, cit., 1 9 8 - 2 1 2 . Mk. 11:9-10: » B l e s s e d is he w h o c o m e s in the n a m e of the L o r d ! B l e s s e d is the k i n g d o m of o u r father D a v i d that is c o m i n g ! « 2 6

27

56

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

Jesus is not called king or Son of David by the crowd, nor is Zech. 9:9 cited explicitly by the evangelist. And it cannot be completely excluded that even the presentation by Mark may be a theological interpretation of a historical event of much less importance: the entry into the holy city by a teacher of the L a w surrounded by his disciples. However, it seems that precisely this allusive and enigmatic nature is the more probable historical content of the action of Jesus. With his entry into Jerusalem riding an ass, Jesus did not clearly state that he was the Messiah, but carried out a parabolic action, created a sort of mise-en-scene that alluded discreetly to the prophecy of Zechariah, which the Jews knew well and certainly interpreted with a mes­ sianic meaning. And the reaction of the pilgrims who accompanied him in this mise-en-scene, although it was not so explicit as it appeares in the later evangelists, in fact possessed, in the acclamations they addressed to him, the characteristics of a messianic expectation. Even more difficult is the interpretation of the so-called question of the Son of David: » H o w can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the H o l y Spirit, declared, >The Lord said to my Lord, >Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet«. David himself calls him Lord: so how is he his son?« (Mk. 12:35-37). Here there is above all the problem of authenticity. Is is possible that in Jesus' mouth there is this use of Psalm 110 in a messianic meaning that is not attested to by any other Jewish source of the time, and which we know, on the contrary, to have been denied by the later rabbinic tradition? O r was the possibility to use Psalm 110 with a messianic meaning discovered by the early community only after the resurrection of Jesus? But even admitting the authenticity of the passage as coming from Jesus, do we really have the right to consider it proof of the messianic claim of Jesus? It seems in fact that here Jesus contested openly the Jewish messianology that identified the Messiah with a descendent of the Davidic family. And in any case, in the passage he does not speak openly about himself and thus does not claim in the least that he is the Messiah. In spite of the opposite opinion of many N e w Testament exegetes, I believe that the use of Psalm 110 with a messianic meaning goes back essentially to Jesus himself. The difficulties that intervene in this use 28

29

2 8

G . J o s s a , La domanda di Gesu sulfiglio di David: Mc 12,35-37, in >Il vostro frutto rimanga< (Gv 16,16). Miscellanea per il L X X c o m p l e a n n o di G i u s e p p e G h i b e r t i a cura di A . P a s s o n i D e l P A c q u a , B o l o g n a 2 0 0 5 , 2 3 1 - 2 3 9 . Cfr. I d e m , Gesu e i movimenti di liherazione della Palestina, 183-194. A l t h o u g h , a n a l o g o u s l y to the entry into J e r u s a l e m , o n e m a y think that the explicit ci­ tation of the p s a l m w a s not there in the w o r d s of J e s u s , b u t w a s inserted o n l y b y tradition. T h i s is what is a r g u e d convincingly b y M . G o u r g u e s , A la droite de Dieu. Resurrection de Jesus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament, Paris 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 2 . Cfr. B . L i n d a r s , New Testament Apologetic. The doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quo­ tations, L o n d o n 1961, 32 ff. B u t see also D . M . H a y , Glory at the right Hand: Psalm 110 in 2 9

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

Judaism

57

(the non-existence in the Judaism of the time of a messianic explanation of the passage and the difficulty of defining the Messiah with the title of Lord) are not at all decisive, and an attribution of this pericope to the members of the early community would not do anything but shift the difficulties to them. And I also believe that here Jesus did not contest simply the Davidic origin of the Messiah (if he had done so, how could the >dogma< of his Davidic descent have spread among the disciples?), but instead asserted that this origin was completely insufficient to penetrate the mystery of messiahship. And I believe that he made this statement not to support, against the scribes, a simple >academic< opinion regarding the nature of the Messiah, but precisely in order to suggest that his messianic claim was in the direction of a different, and higher figure, than the traditional one of the Son of David. His listeners were invited to reflect on the nature of the Messiah and to ask themselves in what way Jesus could be related to it. All of this, and it is necessary to admit it, is undoubtedly very hypotheti­ cal. But in any case Jesus certainly made the explicit statement on his messiahship with his answer to the question asked by Caiaphas: »Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?« (Mk. 14:61). Here, in fact, the answer by Jesus was not the one, apparently evasive, in the gospel of Matthew (which limits itself in any case to correcting formally, but only formally, the gospel of Mark), but rather the one, clearly affirmative, in Mark's gospel (Mk. 14:62: »I am«). Without a clear affirmative answer on the part of Jesus to the question asked him by the high priest, the continuation of the trial before Pilate would in fact become incomprehensible. That one was a political trial centred around the accusation of laesa maiestas based on the claim of Jesus that he was the Messiah of Israel (and thus for Pilate »the king of the Jews«). However, this answer by Jesus requires, even if briefly, a closer examina­ tion. In its entirety, it says, »I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven«; and this was considered >blasphemy<, according to Mark, by the high priest and by all the Sanhedrin, and thus was a very serious insult to the religious conscience of the Jews, even if >blasphemy< were not to be considered a technical term. But what was this insult? The most common answer of Christian tradition indicates the >blasphemy< in the assertion by Jesus of 30

early Christianity, A b i n g d o n 1973, 1 5 8 - 1 5 9 ; and D . L . B o c k , Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the final Examination of Jesus. A philological-historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes impacting Mark 14:61-64, T u b i n g e n 1 9 9 8 , 2 2 0 - 2 2 2 (222: » T h e evidence of M k 12:35-37 indicates that it is far m o r e likely that Ps 110:1 goes b a c k to a p e r i o d w h e n the issues s u r r o u n d i n g J e s u s ' identity, w e r e surfacing than to r o o t s in a c o m m u n i t y that w a s o p e n l y confessing him in the m i d s t of d i s p u t e « ) . T h e o p p o s i t e is a r g u e d b y G o u r g u e s , op. cit., 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 . B u t see also L i n d a r s , op. cit., 45 ff. 3 0

58

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

his divinity. But this answer, based above all on the gospels of Luke and of John, does not take into account the fact that, if the high priest really asked Jesus, »Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed}«, he obviously did not use this second expression in the sense of later Christian dogmatics, but as a simple honorific title of the Messiah. In frontal opposition to this traditional interpretation, most exegetes today affirm that there was nothing in the original answer by Jesus that could be qualified as blasphemous. The second part of that answer, consisting on two citations of the Old Testament (Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 110:1), is clearly a construction of the early community, which affirms its faith in the glorious return of Jesus at the parousia. And the ques­ tion by Caiaphas, with its allusion to the Messiah and to the Son of G o d , is formulated just as clearly from the point of view of the Christian profession of faith. Originally it must have contained only the allusion to the Messiah, and an affirmative answer to it could not have anything blasphemous about it. But a growing number of scholars maintain that the double Old Testa­ ment citation was not at all impossible in the mouth of Jesus, and that this is precisely the blasphemy condemned by the Sanhedrin. In fact, in their view with it Jesus was alluding to his future heavenly glorification by G o d and precisely to his royal installation on the right hand of G o d as the apocalyptic Son of Man: an inadmissible claim, and precisely >blasphemous<, even on the part of the Davidic Messiah. I cannot make up my mind to completely accept this explanation. It is in fact true that according to Mk. 12:35-37 the messianic use of Psalm 110 in 31

32

31

See for e x a m p l e N . Perrin, Mark 14:62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?'. N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 13 (1966) 1 5 0 - 1 5 5 ; J . D o n a h u e , Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark, M i s s o u l a 1973; and M . D e J o n g e , Christology in Context: The earliest Response to Jesus, Philadelphia 1988, 210: » M a r k ' s account of the trial before the Sanhedrin in 14:55-65 t o o clearly serves M a r k ' s o w n C h r i s t o l o g i c a l p u r p o s e to be a useful historical s o u r c e « . See in particular, O . B e t z , Probleme des Prozesses Jesu, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt 11.25.1, h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n W. H a a s e , B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1982, 5 6 5 - 6 4 7 (635: » J e s u s hoffte, G o t t w e r d e ihn >zu seiner Rechten< setzen, ihn inthronisieren u n d s o eindeutig aller Welt offenbaren, d a s s auch die U n g l a u b i g e n ihn als ihren H e r r n a n e r k e n nen m u s s e n « ) ; C . A . E v a n s , In what Sense >Blasphemy< * Jesus before Caiaphas in Mark 14:61-64, in I d e m , Jesus and his Contemporaries, 413 ff. ( 4 1 3 - 4 1 4 : » I think that J e s u s ' reply to C a i a p h a s w a s r e g a r d e d as b l a s p h e m o u s not b e c a u s e he a c k n o w l e d g e d that he w a s the M e s s i a h , or even the > s o n - o f - G o d - M e s s i a h < [...]. It even m a y not have been b l a s p h e m y in s a y i n g that he w o u l d sit at G o d ' s right hand. I think what m a d e his reply a s c a n d a l o u s b l a s p h e m y lay in the c o m b i n a t i o n of the p h r a s e s f r o m P s a l m 110 and Daniel 7 « , and B o c k , Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the final Examination of Jesus, cit., 2 1 : » W h a t is e m e r g i n g is a d e v e l o p i n g c o n s e n s u s that the k e y to the b l a s p h e m y resides not in the mere u s e of a title, b u t in the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of Ps 110:1 with D a n 7:13 to a p p l y to a h u m a n figure an u n u s u a l l y high level of heavenly a u t h o r i t y « ; 236: » T h e scene as a s u m m a r y of trial events has a s t r o n g claim to authenticity, a stronger claim to it than to the alternative that the scena w a s created b y M a r k or b y the early c h u r c h « . B u t s o already O . L i n t o n , The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm CX: N e w Testament Studies 7 ( 1 9 6 0 - 6 1 ) 2 6 1 . 3 2

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

59

Judaism

all probability goes back to Jesus himself. But in that passage of Mark the reference to the psalm is made to recall the title of (my) lord referred to the Messiah, not to attribute to him the seat at the right hand of G o d . The royal installation of Jesus as the Son of Man at the right hand of G o d , based on the citation, and thus on the messianic interpretation of Psalm 110, is really part of the >christology of the exaltation< that is the fruit of the early community< faith in the resurrection of J e s u s . Together with his coming with the clouds of heaven it delineates that historic-salvific sequence, resurrection-exaltation-parousia that is characteristic of that faith. For this reason, I do not believe it could be contained in the original answer by J e s u s . But I see no reason to doubt the first citation as well. The hint at the coming of the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven, based more or less explicitly on the book of Daniel, is in fact part of the historical preaching of Jesus. With it he hinted, once again in an allusive and enigmatic way (always in the third person, thus without ever identifying himself explicitly with the Son of Man), to his future appearance >in glory<, which was in strong tension with his present humiliating situation. This means that Jesus not only answered affirmatively to the question of the high priest asking whether he was the (Davidic) Messiah, but he also asserted that the Messiah presently humili­ ated in front of the Sanhedrin would be glorified by G o d as the apocalyptic Son of M a n . H e thus advanced a messianic claim and formulated this claim in a way that was anything but customary to the Jewish tradition. It is difficult not to see in this a remarkable break with respect to the Judaism of the time. We continue to affirm that the messianic claim was a common phenomenon in Judaism at the time of Jesus and that Jesus was probably thus only one of many messianic claimants of the time. But, for as much as we know, and in contrast with what is often asserted, no Jew before Jesus had ever claimed to be the Messiah. The Teacher of Righteousness of the community of Qumran had not done so, although he was recognized by his followers as the only authorized interpreter of the word of G o d . The various royal claimants who appeared at the death of Herod the Great (4 B C E ) and at the reduction of Judaea to a Roman province (6 C E ) had not 33

34

35

3 3

See also H a y , Glory at the right Hand, cit., 6 4 - 6 8 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 8 . G . J o s s a , Ilprocesso di Gesu, B r e s c i a 2002, 8 2 - 8 8 . If it had been, that historic-salvific s e q u e n c e of r e s u r r e c t i o n - e x a l t a t i o n - p a r o u s i a , and therefore the u n i o n of the t w o i m a g e s of the p s a l m and of Daniel, w o u l d have s e e m e d rather artificial. U n l e s s one believes that J e s u s w a s already thinking a b o u t his >return<, in his conception the installation o n the right h a n d of G o d in P s a l m 110 w o u l d have in fact to be later, not before the >coming< with the c l o u d s of heaven foretold in Dan. 7:13. M . H e n g e l , >Sit at my right HandU The Enthronement of Christ at the right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1, in I d e m , Studies in early Christology, cit., 217: » I t is entirely p o s s i b l e that J e s u s - similar to the w a y it is r e p o r t e d in M a r k 14:62 - p r o v o k e d the high­ est J e w i s h court, w h i c h tried him, to the u t m o s t with a claim that p o i n t e d to his future identity with the c o m i n g j u d g e « . 3 4

3 5

60

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

done so (or at least we have no reason for thinking they did so). Of course, it is possible that a messianic claim was advanced by the grandson of Judas the Galilean Menahem, head of the Sicarii, during the Jewish revolt of 66. And Simon bar Kosiba was certainly recognized as the Messiah by the famous rabbi Aqiba at the end of the second revolt (132-135). But even these two cases, in any case later than the preaching of Jesus, should be evaluated with extreme prudence. The claim of Menahem (which is in any case not certain) could have emerged only in the atmosphere of extraordinary messianic excitement of the war against Rome. And when rabbi Aqiba recognized Simon bar Kosiba as the Messiah, he caused very lively opposition from other rabbis. We thus do not have any element for stating that a messianic claim could be considered normal at the time of Jesus. If we also add that this claim was advanced by a preacher who not only had none of the char­ acteristics that Judaism expected from the Messiah, but was also at the same time probably accused in front of the Sanhedrin of leading the people astray, and that this preacher even claimed that he would be glorified by G o d as the Son of Man of the apocalyptic tradition and would thus be raised to the position of judge of his own accusers, it is not difficult to understand how this could appear to be >blasphemy<. Of course we do not make the mistake of claiming, as has been done for centuries, that in this way Jesus openly proclaimed his divinity, and it was for this reason that he was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. One must agree with Dunn that »at the level of Jesus [...] there was nothing yet which called in question the traditional understanding of God« because »Jesus himself still stood well within the boundaries of second Temple Judaism at the point ofJewish monotheism«. But we are not surprised that statements of this kind could be considered blasphemous by the Sanhedrites. The fact is that at the basis both of the statements on the value of the Mosaic L a w and of the messianic claim of Jesus there is that very particular, unique eschatological awareness that is probably also expressed in his sig­ nificant choice of the twelve and in his conviction of being >the Son< (Mk. 13:32; Mt. 11:27 = Lk. 10:22): an eschatological awareness so strong and definitive that it questioned even the election of Israel and opened up to a universal dimension; and this thus distinguishes him from all the teachers and prophets of the time, including the Teacher of Righteousness. I will cite in this regard a page from my Dal Messia al Cristo, which I can only fully confirm: 36

I n the a n n o u n c e m e n t o f the k i n g d o m a n d in the t e a c h i n g o f t h e L a w o n t h e p a r t o f J e s u s t h e r e w a s t h e e x p r e s s i o n [...] o f a n u n - h e a r d o f c l a i m . A n y o n e w h o d a r e s t o s a y t h a t in his m i r a c u l o u s a c t i v i t y t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d is n o t o n l y a n n o u n c e d , b u t it The Partings

of the Ways, 182.

1. The attitude

ofJesus

towards

61

Judaism

h a s > c o m e u p o n y o u < , is n o l o n g e r j u s t a p r o p h e t , w h o s e t a s k is l i m i t e d p r e c i s e l y t o a n n o u n c i n g the c o m i n g o f the k i n g d o m , a n d t h e r e f o r e t o p r e p a r e the w a y of the L o r d (the i d e a o f I s a i a h a n d M a l a c h i , b u t a l s o o f D e u t e r o n o m y ) , b u t c l a i m s t o a b s o l v e himself the t a s k of realizing the k i n g d o m , salvation, w h i c h b e l o n g s o n l y to G o d . T h a t is, h e c o n s i d e r s his m i s s i o n in the h i s t o r y o f s a l v a t i o n d e c i s i v e a n d d e f i n i t i v e t o s u c h e x t e n t t h a t final b e l o n g i n g t o the c o m m u n i t y o f s a l v a t i o n d e p e n d s o n the a t t i t u d e t o w a r d his a n n o u n c e m e n t a n d his p e r s o n . A s t h e g o s p e l o f M a r k s a y s , >For w h o e v e r is a s h a m e d o f m e a n d o f m y w o r d s in this a d u l t e r o u s a n d sinful g e n e r a t i o n , o f h i m will the S o n of M a n a l s o b e a s h a m e d , w h e n h e c o m e s in the g l o r y o f his F a t h e r w i t h t h e h o l y angels< (Mk.

8:38). A n d a p e r s o n w h o w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e M o s a i c L a w

d a r e s t o s t a t e , >You h a v e h e a r d t h a t it w a s s a i d t o t h e m e n o f o l d . . . B u t I s a y t o y o u < , is n o l o n g e r s i m p l y a s c r i b e , t h a t is, a c o m m e n t a t o r , a n i n t e r p r e t e r o f t h e L a w , w h o still r e m a i n s t i e d a n d t h u s s u b j e c t t o t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e L a w , b u t c l a i m s t o h a v e a n authority s u p e r i o r to that of M o s e s , and b y so d o i n g m a k e s himself similar to G o d . H e in f a c t c r i t i c i z e s t h a t L a w o f M o s e s t h a t w a s c o n s i d e r e d s a c r e d a n d u n t o u c h a b l e b y all J e w s b e c a u s e it w a s a d i r e c t e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e will o f G o d . A n d h e a f f i r m s t h a t a c c e p t i n g his w o r d is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n o b s e r v i n g t h e L a w . T o t h e r e q u e s t o f a d i s c i p l e t o a l l o w h i m t o g o a n d b u r y his f a t h e r first, J e s u s in fact a n s w e r e d , > F o l l o w m e , a n d l e a v e the d e a d t o b u r y their o w n dead< (Mt. 8:22 = Lk.

9:59-60).

3 7

The conviction of Jesus that he was sent by the Father to bring salvation to Israel, but also beyond Israel, and for this reason, Jesus' claim to an author­ ity not comparable to that of the scribes and the prophets, were as much the basis for his positions towards the L a w as they were the basis for his state­ ments regarding the Messiah. The tendency, widespread above all among American scholars, to make Jesus into a simple teacher of wisdom, basing themselves on the source of the logia and on the gospel of Thomas and eliminating, or re-interpreting in a symbolic sense, the eschatological and christological hints in his preaching, is not well founded; it is essentially nothing more than the resumption, in rather more sophisticated terms (see in particular the reference to the >cynical< nature of his teaching) of the old liberal positions of the nineteenth century. The use of the gospel of Thomas for a reconstruction of the historical Jesus remains extremely debatable 38

39

37

Dal Messia al Cristo, cit., 6 1 - 6 2 . See a b o v e all J . M . R o b i n s o n , L O G O I S O P H O N : On the Gattung of Q, in J . M . R o b i n s o n - H . Koester, Trajectories through early Christianity, Philadelphia 1971, 7 1 - 1 1 3 , and H . K o e s t e r , G N O M A I D I A P H O R O I : The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of early Christianity, ibidem, 1 1 4 - 1 5 7 . B u t cfr. also J . D . C r o s s a n , Four other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon, M i n n e a p o l i s 1985; The historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, San F r a n c i s c o 1991; S . J . Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, S o n o m a 1993. C M . Tuckett, Q and Thomas: Evidence of a primitive >Wisdom Gospel? A Re­ sponse to H. Koester. E p h e m e r i d e s T h e o l o g i c a e L o v a n i e n s e s 67 (1991) 3 4 6 - 3 6 0 ; Q and the History of early Christianity: Studies on Q, E d i n b u r g h 1996; J . H . W o o d , The New Testament Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas: A new Direction: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 51 (2005) 5 7 9 - 5 9 5 . I d o not w a n t b y this to d e n y the p o s s i b i l i t y that certain s a y i n g s of J e s u s are transmitted in the gospel b y T h o m a s in an a u t o n o m o u s and p e r h a p s even m o r e 3 8

3 9

62

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

and the meaningfulness of the eschatological (and christological) statements of the Source Q (the Son of Man!) is absolutely indisputable. Since they are certainly kerygmatic, these two documents in any case would not give an image of Jesus that would be precedent and be more authentic than the one in Mark, but, as we shall see at once, they are only the orientation of the 40

authentic f o r m than in the s y n o p t i c g o s p e l s . See, for example, the very interesting case of Ev. Thorn. 36 (P. O x y . 655), in w h i c h the ou £aivei of the text, s u p p o r t e d as it is b y the ou ^evoudtv of Mt. 6:28 S*, seems t o p r e c e d e the au^avet of Lk. 12:27. T h i s is the p o s i t i o n of at least J . M . R o b i n s o n in a w h o l e series of articles, contested, however, with great a c u m e n b y R . H . G u n d r y , Spinning the Lilies and unravelling the Ravens: An alternative Reading of Q 12.22h-31 and P. Oxy. 655: N e w Testament Studies 48 (2001) 1 5 9 - 1 8 0 . T h e d i s c u s s i o n on the authenticity of the s a y i n g s still remains o p e n and can o n l y be carried o u t case b y case. W h a t seems untenable, and b a s e d in the final analysis on a hermeneutic prejudice, is the idea of J . M . R o b i n s o n and of J . D . C r o s s a n , shared in Italy also b y E . N o r e l l i , that, b a s e d a b o v e all on the criterion of multiple attestation, the s i m p l e presence in the g o s p e l of T h o m a s of >wisdom< parallels of the s o u r c e of the logia w o u l d justify the h y p o t h e s i s of an original n o n - e s c h a t o l o g i c a l level of the S o u r c e Q, and w o u l d thus a u t h o r i z e a r e ­ con stru c tion of the figure of J e s u s as a p u r e teacher of w i s d o m . T h i s is a r g u e d rightly b y F u s c o , Le prime comunita cristiane. Tendenze e tradizioni nel cristianesimo delle origini, B o l o g n a 1997, 1 2 8 - 1 3 3 , 1 6 2 - 1 7 6 . T h e h y p o t h e s i s of an original level of the S o u r c e Q, that w o u l d have i n c o r p o r a t e d older collections of w i s d o m s a y i n g s , therefore of a n o n - e s c h a t o l o g i c a l nature, which is needed b y the current of t h o u g h t of J . M . R o b i n s o n , J . D . C r o s s a n , B . L . M a c k , F. V o u g a , etc., to s u p p o r t its i m a g e of a J e s u s w h o w a s a simple teacher of w i s d o m , and w h i c h leads, as I said, to an essential renewal of the liberal p o s i t i o n s of the nineteenth century, although it is presented b y J . M . R o b i n s o n , History of Q Research, in J . M . R o b i n s o n , P. H o f f m a n n , J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g , The critical Edition of Q. Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas, L e u v e n - M i n n e a p o l i s 2000, L X V , as generally shared b y the scholars, is in fact w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n . See the results that have emerged f r o m the recent conference of L e u v e n o n the S o u r c e Q and the historical J e s u s : The Sayings Source Q and the historical Jesus, cit., in particular with the article b y P. H o f f m a n n , Mutmassungen uher Q. Zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q, ibidem, 2 5 5 - 2 8 8 . A n d note that this is the p o s i ­ tion also of an a u t h o r w h o in m a n y w a y s is close to those mentioned, H . Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development, L o n d o n - Philadelphia 1990, 150: » T h e original version of Q m u s t have included w i s d o m s a y i n g s as well as eschatological sayings. It cannot be a r g u e d that Q originally presented J e s u s s i m p l y as a teacher of w i s ­ d o m w i t h o u t an eschatological m e s s a g e « (see also H . Koester, The historical Jesus and the Cult of the Kyrios Christos: H a r v a r d D i v i n i t y Bulletin 24 (1995) 14: » T h e reconstruction of a J e s u s w h o is purified f r o m all eschatological elements finally w o u l d m a k e the begin­ nings of C h r i s t i a n i t y as a m o v e m e n t with a pervasive eschatological m e s s a g e a c o m p l e t e c o n u n d r u m « ) , although he then interprets this e s c h a t o l o g y not as oriented t o w a r d s the future, even if o n l y imminent, b u t as already >realized<. T h e refusal to d e d u c e f r o m the existence of a first n o n - e s c h a t o l o g i c a l level of the S o u r c e Q an i m a g e of J e s u s as a teacher of w i s d o m is f o u n d also in an a u t h o r w h o , h y p o t h e s i z i n g v a r i o u s p h a s e s in the f o r m a t i o n of the S o u r c e Q and believing that the first p h a s e did not have a s t r o n g eschatological nature, w a s a c c u s e d v a r i o u s times of this conclusion, and that is J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g , on the basis of the c o n s i d e r a t i o n that »literary history is not convertible with tradition history*. The Formation of Q. Trajectories in ancient Wisdom Collection, Philadelphia 1987, 287; The Sayings Gospel Q, 322. 4 0

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

63

Messiah

kerygma aimed at transmitting the teaching of Jesus alongside that (above all Hellenistic and Pauline) intended to proclaim his death and resurrection. 41

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

Messiah

The scholars who participated in the Durham symposium in 1989 regard­ ing the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians between 70 and 135 were essentially in agreement in recognizing christology as the crucial element of the separation, but they disagreed sharply over how and when that separation became >unavoidable<. For some only in the period under examination by the symposium were categories asserted, such as the divin­ ity of Jesus or the incarnation of G o d , which were unacceptable to the rabbis; for others the break was instead inevitable already in Paul's time, and even before, for example, in the idea of the exaltation of Jesus crucified to the right hand of G o d . Let us begin, therefore, by asking ourselves this question: how did the disciples relate to their Jewish fellow countrymen in the first half of the first century (thus, from 30 to 50)? The prevailing orientation among scholars today is the following: it is impossible in this phase to speak about Christianity. The followers of Jesus were only a further Jewish group that existed alongside the other tendencies present in the Judaism of the time. In fact just as Jesus »was not a Christian, but a J e w « , so the disciples of Jesus were also not Christians, but Jews. J . D . Crossan, for example, has written, »When most people see the term Christianity, they think about a religion quite separate from Judaism. That is an accurate description of the present situation, but it is hopelessly wrong for the early first century«. Christianity did not yet exist in that period except as »a sect withing Judaism«. For this reason, Crossan continues, »I refer to Christian Judaism just as I might refer to Pharisaic Judaism, Sadducean Judaism, Essene Judaism, apocalyptic Judaism, or any other of the manifold sects and factions in that first-century Jewish h o m e l a n d s And many scholars agree with him. It may even seem to be an almost obvious 42

43

4 1

It is very i m p o r t a n t in fact to r e m e m b e r that the S o u r c e Q d o e s not s i m p l y transmit the h i s t o r i c a l Jesus<, but the one w h o is also a >kerygmatic Jesus<. T h e recognition of J e s u s as the S o n of M a n in fact led to the salvific interpretation of his preaching. See a b o v e all H . E . T o d t , Der Menschensohn, G u t e r s l o h 1959, 5 9 - 6 0 , 206, 210, and J . S . K l o p p e n b o r g , The Sayings Gospel Q, 315; Discursive Practices in the Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the historical Jesus, in The Sayings Source Q and the historical Jesus, 161-162: » T h e >Jesus< of Q has the s a m e status as the >Jesus< of M a r k ; he is a literary character, constructed f r o m a n e t w o r k of sayings, stories, and editorial c o m m e n t s « . J . D . C r o s s a n , The Birth of Christianity Discovering what happened in the Years immediately after the Execution of Jesus, San F r a n c i s c o 1998, X X X I I I . In his excellent c o n t r i b u t i o n o n the J e w i s h phases of Johannism<, after having cited C r o s s a n ' s statement, M . Pesce writes, »Personally, I prefer to avoid the adjective C h r i s t i a n 4 2

4 3

64

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

position. The first Christians in fact were nothing more than Jews who had recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah that Israel had been waiting for. But is the situation really so simple? Is the messianic faith that char­ acterized the disciples an element that is comparable to those elements that distinguished the various Jewish groups from each other? Was the Christian group only another group, another >sect<, alongside those already existent in the Judaism of the time? Were the Christians thus really comparable to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the followers of Judas the Galilean? Let us consider the question a little more carefully. According to almost all N e w Testament scholars the paschal experiences of the disciples (however these experiences are defined and understood) had an immediate effect: the identification of Jesus himself as that Son of Man to whom Jesus had alluded in an enigmatic manner in his preaching. With the appearances of Jesus, from which the faith in his resurrection was immediately born, his reference to a future glorious manifestation of this mysterious character taken from the book of Daniel was clarified. And the >messianic secret< was resolved. Jesus was the Son of Man announced by Daniel and to whom Jesus himself had made reference. It was he, »risen from the dead«, who according to a very old profession of faith reported by Paul, the disciples had thus »to wait for [...] from heaven« (1 Thess. 1:10). 44

even in this case, b e c a u s e it is, in m y o p i n i o n , tied to a religious f o r m that asserted itself o n l y after the s e c o n d half of the II c e n t u r y « . 77 Vangelo di Giovanni e le fasi giudaiche del giovannismo. Alcuni aspetti, in Verus Israel. Nuove prospettive sul giudeocristianesimo, cit., 49. B u t here either it is a question of a p r o b l e m of t e r m i n o l o g y (just as a normative J u d a i s m was b o r n o n l y f r o m the r e - o r g a n i z a t i o n of J u d a i s m carried o u t b y the wise men of Iamnia and w i t h the gathering together of the rabbinic writings, s o also normative C h r i s ­ tianity w a s b o r n o n l y f r o m the victorious battle of Christianity against G n o s t i c i s m and with the a p p e a r a n c e of a N e w Testament; w h a t asserted itself after the s e c o n d century w a s thus not Christianity, but n o r m a t i v e Christianity, or, as H a r n a c k already said, the >catholic church<), or w e are at the limit of the p a r a d o x . T h e elements that Pesce considers decisive for evaluating the detachment of a m o v e m e n t f r o m J u d a i s m : the practices, the conceptions, and the w a y s of joining the g r o u p , are present in all their novelty in >Christianity< well before the end of the s e c o n d century. P o s i t i o n s a n a l o g o u s to those of C r o s s a n are essentially f o u n d in t w o other recent attempts to re-write ah imis the history of the origins of C h r i s t i a n i t y beginning f r o m a stronger awareness of its basically J e w i s h nature: that of F. V o u g a , Les premiers pas du Christianisme, and that of E . N o d e t - J . Taylor, The Origins of Christianity. An Explora­ tion, Collegeville 1998. B u t with respect to attempts of this sort, I cannot avoid e x p r e s s ­ ing the d o u b t , already mentioned in the i n t r o d u c t i o n to this b o o k , that the indisputable c o m p e t e n c e of the authors in J e w i s h and N e w Testament literature is not a c c o m p a n i e d b y an a n a l o g o u s sensibility for the history of C h r i s t i a n origins. C a r l e t o n Paget, Jewish Christianity, cit., 742: » I n the beginning all Christianity w a s J e w i s h Christianity. T h e first C h r i s t i a n s were practising J e w s operating within the sphere of J u d a i s m . All that separated t h e m f r o m n o n - C h r i s t i a n J e w s w a s their conviction that J e s u s of N a z a r e t h w a s M e s s i a h « . O n the c o n c e p t of J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y , w h i c h s h o u l d be distinguished, in m y opinion, f r o m simple Christianity of J e w i s h origin, I will instead c o m m e n t further later. 4 4

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

65

Messiah

This is the so-called christology of the parousia, present in the most ancient strata of the evangelic tradition, and particularly in the Source Q. But the paschal experiences (and, that is, essentially the appearances of Jesus meant as events of revelation) also had another, even more impelling, effect on the disciples. In fact, for them the resurrection did not mean only that Jesus, who had been humiliated by the Sanhedrin, would one day be exalted by G o d , showing himself in the glory of the Son of Man, but that Jesus, who had been the victim of the infamous torment of the cross had already received from G o d the power and sovereignty promised to the Son of Man by the book of Daniel. The paschal experiences thus convinced the disciples that Jesus not only would come back in glory at the end of time but that with the resurrection he had already been placed on the throne on the right hand of G o d . The Son of Man already now possessed the royal power of the Lord that guides his people. Therefore, he had to be recognized as the Messiah that had been promised to Israel. This is the christology of the exaltation, which is expressed in the strongest and clear­ est way in the speech that Peter gave at Pentecost to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: » G o d has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified« (Acts 2:36). It is already present in the very ancient profession of faith taken up again by Paul, to refer to Jesus Christ in Rom. l:3b-4: »who was discended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of G o d in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead«. And it was taken up again by Paul in Phil. 2:9: »Therefore G o d has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name«. That Jesus of Nazareth that the Jews of Jerusalem had crucified and who in his physical nature possessed the genealogical requirement of Davidic descent that the Jews maintained almost always to be indispensable to the figure of the Messiah, had received with the resurrection the royal sovereignty that had been promised to this Messiah by the Scriptures. As 45

46

47

4 5

T h e h y p o t h e s i s of an original non-eschatological level of the S o u r c e Q is, in m y o p i n i o n , as I have already said, u n f o u n d e d . E v e n if Q is a s o u r c e that p r o g r e s s i v e l y g r e w and b e c a m e richer, as is certainly p o s s i b l e , if not p r o b a b l e , its eschatological nature distin­ guished it f r o m the beginning. In any case, w e m u s t take notice of the c o m p l e x p o s i t i o n of J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g , w h o , a l t h o u g h he e m p h a s i z e s that »literary h i s t o r y is not convertible with tradition h i s t o r y « and that the nature of the preaching of J e s u s and of the early c o m ­ m u n i t y cannot be d e d u c e d f r o m that of the S o u r c e Q, believes that the accentuation of the eschatological elements b e l o n g s to the s e c o n d p h a s e of the f o r m a t i o n of Q. H e n g e l , >Sit at my right Hand!< The Enthronement of Christ at the right Hand of God, cit., 2 2 1 : » T h e enthronement of J e s u s , the crucified M e s s i a h , as the >Son< w i t h the Father >through the resurrection f r o m the dead< belongs to the oldest m e s s a g e w h i c h all of the missionaries p r o c l a i m e d in c o m m o n « . Cfr. also L i n d a r s , New Testament Apologetic, 45 ff. J o s s a , Dal Messia al Cristo, 1 2 4 - 1 5 0 . In the confession of faith r e p o r t e d in Rom. 1:3b-4 >Son of G o d < is in m y o p i n i o n still equivalent to M e s s i a h . 4 6

4 7

66

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

the early community has Jesus say, in the pre-Markan account of the pas­ sion, to the high priest who interrogated him in the Sanhedrin, he was not only the Davidic Messiah, who as Son of Man must »come with the clouds of heaven« to receive power and glory from G o d , but he was the Son of Man »seated at the right hand of Power« who would return to carry out the judgment of G o d (Mk. 14:62). N o t all scholars would perhaps agree with this conclusion. The death and resurrection of Jesus were in fact the basis of the theological orientation that was above all characteristic of the Pauline kerygma. But the special atten­ tion given to the Source Q in the research of the last few decades, with the consequent ascertainment that there is no mention of resurrection in it, has strengthened the proposal of the idea that in the early community a theo­ logical orientation existed that was different from, if not in contrast with, the Pauline kerygma. And some scholars have believed, as we have seen, that this orientation was no less ancient that the one based on the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the last few years the traditional idea of the unity of the early kerygma, from which various theologies developed, has thus been replaced in some scholars by the hypothesis of a plurality of kerygmata originating from the preaching of Jesus. A similar proposal, which was that of replacing the >static< categories of background and environment of the N e w Testament with those of >trajectory< within the Hellenistic world, had in some way already been advanced by J . M. Robinson and H . Koester, ac­ cording to whom the event of the historical Jesus led after the paschal events to various destinations, each of which accepted only one aspect of the figure of J e s u s . But, above all, this is the model of >determinist chaos< adopted by F. Vouga, according to which the history of Christianity at its origins was not a linear development from a single beginning, but experienced a plurality of different phenomena and groups who compared and contrasted themselves with each other: the itinerant preaching of the Galileans, the wis­ dom movement in Galilee, the >Jewish-Christians< of Jerusalem, the >Hellenists< in Jerusalem and at Antioch. However, to this correct perception of the existence of a multiplicity of orientations in Christianity at its origins (those which, in the wake of >Judaisms<, some want to call >Christianities<) one must add at least two observations. First of all, it seems to me that even those scholars cannot deny, and actually they usually do not deny, that at the basis of later developments, and thus at the origins of Christianity, there was, as an ineliminable presupposition, precisely the experience of the 48

49

4 8

J . M . R o b i n s o n , Introduction: The Dismantling and Reassembling of the Categories of New Testament Scholarship, in J . M . R o b i n s o n - H . Koester, Trajectories through early Christianity, Philadelphia 1971, 13. Les premiers pas du Christianisme, cit., 2 1 - 2 6 , 3 4 - 4 9 . 4 9

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

67

Messiah 50

resurrection, meant as the experience of the exaltation of J e s u s . Even the absence of references to the resurrection in the Source Q must not, in fact, deceive us: if it is not the content, it is in any case the presupposition of the traditions of the Source Q, which precisely for this reason are in any case traditions of kerygma and not only historical ones, words provided with authority and not simple words of wisdom. The assertion of the authority of Jesus in the Source Q takes the place in some way of the proclamation of his resurrection. Second, having said this, it seems legitimate to hypothesize at the origins of Christianity, not only, and not so much, the existence of multiple groups who may have given origin to different and often contrast­ ing theological orientations, but theological developments that emerged from various interpretations of the paschal event and which were in contact and even had contrasts with each other. In particular, all the indications converge to demonstrate that the preaching centred on the resurrection of Jesus emerged immediately after the paschal event, while that centred on his teaching took shape later. This might mean that the collection of the sayings of Jesus contained in the Source Q, which basically expresses the Judaeo-Christianity of the community of Jerusalem guided by James, emerged also as a reaction to the preaching of the Hellenists. The paschal experiences are thus at the origins of Christianity and at the basis of later developments. And these experiences are not comparable to the elements that distinguish the various orientations of the Judaism of the time. It is difficult to share entirely the assertions of Dunn on the question. Although he admits that one must not lessen the theological value of those experiences, as he says R. Bultmann and W. Marxsen do in differing ways, 51

52

5 0

V o u g a , as well, w h o , as I have said, insists particularly on the existence in early C h r i s ­ tianity of v a r i o u s m o v e m e n t s , in fact writes, » T h e paschal p r o c l a m a t i o n is r e c o g n i z a b l e as the f o u n d i n g m o m e n t of the C h r i s t i a n faith not o n l y in the Hellenistic tradition. A l s o in the other m o v e m e n t s of early Christianity it m a y be r e c o g n i z e d as the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n f r o m which the p e r s o n and the teaching of J e s u s are conceived of as salvific events. T h e awareness of this fact is not always e x p r e s s e d in such a clear w a y as in the p r e - P a u l i n e , Pauline and p o s t - P a u l i n e lines of development. B u t it is implicitly present e v e r y w h e r e « . Op. cit., 30. A n d for this reason his exposition begins with the paschal appearances of J e s u s r e c o u n t e d in 1 Cor. 15:3-7. F u s c o , 1 4 7 - 1 5 1 . O r were there disciples of J e s u s w h o did not in any w a y participate in the paschal experiences and w h o thus did not believe in his resurrection and exaltation? T h e historian indeed cannot exclude it completely, but the sources in o u r p o s s e s s i o n d o not a u t h o r i z e us to assert it. T h e negation of the resurrection of J e s u s m a d e its a p p e a r a n c e later. T h e s a m e is a r g u e d , in a m u c h m o r e convincing way, b y F u s c o , w h o , after having asserted (regarding the absence in Q of the death of J e s u s ) that »the p r o b l e m [...] is not resolved b y imagining radically o p p o s e d C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s « (op. cit., 147), c o n c l u d e s that while the k e r y g m a of the resurrection w a s b o r n immediately after the paschal events, that of the teaching w a s s h a p e d t h r o u g h a gradual recovery of material on the earthly J e s u s (op. cit., 279). 5 1

5 2

68

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

he maintains that, »In its earliest expressions the christology which grew out of the resurrection (or resurrection faith, if you prefer), continued to remain within Jewish categories«. The category of the exaltation to divine functions (with ascensions, apotheoses, judgment and dispatching the spirit) cannot in fact be considered extraneous to Judaism. But this evaluation seems rather hurried to me. The assertion of the heavenly exaltation of Jesus (and of Jesus crucified) in fact puts the group of his disciples in a completely different situation from that of the other Jewish groups of the time. I have already mentioned the fact that we have no reason, on the basis of the evidence we have today, to believe that the claim of being the Messiah was a habitual phenomenon in the Judaism at the time of Jesus. O n the other hand, still only as far as we know, no Jewish group, not even among the ones of an apocalyptic nature, had ever recognized its founder as the Messiah of Israel. N o matter how strong the eschatological awareness of the group might be, as for example at Qumran, where the community was convinced that it was the sacred remains of Israel, in which the promises of G o d to his people and thus the times of the Messiah were realized, none of its leaders was recognized as the figure of the Messiah, who still remained the one they were awaiting. Even for this reason alone, therefore, the disciples of Jesus cannot be compared to the >Essenes< of Qumran. But above all no Jewish group had ever thought of placing its founder in this position of sovereignty. Powers and titles that were in some way superhuman, which could thus be given only to G o d , had (perhaps) been attributed to messianic figures of the future by the Enochian and Essene currents: for example, to the Son of Man by the Ethiopic book of Enoch, to Melchizedeq by 11 QMelch and to the sovereign of 4Q246 by the community of Qumran; just as they would later be attributed to Metatron by the third book of Enoch. Whereas the Son of Man of the book of Enoch will sit »on the throne of g l o r y « , Melchizedeq in fact has the power to judge the enemies of Israel and the king of 4Q246 received the title of the Son of G o d . And Metatron will even be defined >prince of the world< and >little Jahve<. Therefore, the identification of Jesus with a heavenly entity may have a precedent in this apocalyptic specula53

54

55

56

57

58

53

The Partings of the Ways, 185. Op. cit., 1 8 5 - 1 8 8 . Hen. aeth. 62,5. H Q M e l c h 11,13: » B u t , M e l c h i z e d e q will carry out the vengeance of G o d ' s j u d g e s [on this day, and they shall be freed f r o m the hands] of Belial and f r o m the hands of all the sp[irits of his l o t ] « . A n a l o g o u s l y the >prince of lights< in 1 Q S 111,20; C D V,18; 1 Q M X I I I , 1 0 and Michael in 1 Q M X V I I , 6 - 7 . 4 Q 2 4 6 1,9-11,1: » [ . . . ] great will he be called and he will be designated b y his n a m e . H e will be called s o n of G o d , and they will call him s o n of the M o s t H i g h « . 3 Hen. 12,5; 30,3; 38,3. 54

55

5 6

5 7

58

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

Messiah

69

59

tion. But the installation, heavenly, not earthly, and thus real, and not only metaphorical, of a historical figure at the right hand of G o d seems to go even beyond these assertions. When, in fact, rabbi Aqiba (once again) wanted to attribute it to the future Davidic Messiah, reading in this way the allusion of Daniel 7:9 to the thrones placed alongside G o d , he aroused the indignant opposition of rabbi Jose the Galilean: »Aqiba, how long are you going to treat in a profane way the Sekina}«. And bSanh 38b itself severely warned against confusing Metatron with G o d himself. In spite of the flourishing of these apocalyptic speculations regarding heavenly mediators, Judaism maintained a very particular sensibility regarding the sovereignty of G o d . But above all, affirmations of this sort could enter into the speculations on the future Messiah, but no group had ever thought of attributing this heavenly sovereignty to its founder, as the disciples of Jesus did now: that Jesus who had even been condemned to death by the Sanhedrin and by the Romans. And this put those Jews into a radically different position from that of the others Jewish groups, even those endowed with a strong eschatological awareness, like the >Essenes< of Qumran. An installation >on the right hand of God< had in fact been foreseen symbolically for the Davidic king by Psalm 110, and could thus be attributed also to the future Messiah as a metaphor for his royal enthronement at the head of Israel. But when those Jews asserted that to the question by the high priest on his messianic identity Jesus had answered that not only was he the Davidic earthly Mes60

61

62

5 9

See in particular the statement already mentioned, b y H u r t a d o , One God, one Lord, cit., 8: » J e w i s h belief in the uniqueness of G o d w a s able to a c c o m m o d a t e s u r p r i s ­ ing kinds of reverence for and interest in other heavenly figures such as chief angels and exalted patriarchs as well as personified attributes or p o w e r s of G o d . Interest in the role of these divine agents w a s a p p a r e n t l y w i d e s p r e a d and p r o b a b l y of s o m e i m p o r t a n c e in u n d e r s t a n d i n g h o w early J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s were able to a c c o m m o d a t e the exalted J e s u s w i t h o u t feeling that they had violated the uniqueness of G o d « . A n d cfr. also H e n g e l , Der Sohn Gottes, cit., 35 ff. hSanh. 38b: » H o w shall w e explain >till thrones were placed< (Dan. 7:9)? O n e is for him, the other for D a v i d . A s it has been taught on Tannaite authority: >One is for him, the other for D a v i d s the w o r d s of R . A q i b a . Said to him R . Yose: A q i b a , h o w long are y o u going to treat in a p r o f a n e w a y the Presence of G o d ? Rather, one is for b e s t o w i n g j u d g m e n t , the other for b e s t o w i n g righteousness<«. »Said a min to R . Idit: » I t is written: A n d to M o s e s he said: c o m e up to the Lord< (Ex. 24:1). O u g h t it not have said: c o m e u p to meThis refers to M e t a t r o n , w h o is called b y the n a m e of his master, for it is written: >For m y n a m e is in him< (Ex. 23:21). >If s o , let us w o r s h i p him<. >It is written: >Be not rebellious against him< (Ex. 23:21). >Do not exchange m e for him<«. F o r this r e a s o n H u r t a d o is right, 12: » A n c i e n t J u d a i s m p r o v i d e d the first C h r i s t i a n s with a crucial conceptual c a t e g o r y for a c c o m m o d a t i n g the exaltation of J e s u s to G o d ' s >right h a n d s t h r o u g h the traditions I label >divine agency<. B u t »early C h r i s t i a n religious experiences p r o d u c e d a s o m e w h a t distinctive modification of these traditions involving the cultic veneration of G o d ' s chief agent, in this case the risen C h r i s t « . Cfr. also H e n g e l , 67ff. 60

6 1

6 2

70

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

siah, but the heavenly Son of Man »seated at the right hand of Power« who would return to judge all of Israel (Mk. 14:62), they were maintaining that Jesus had really been installed at the right hand of G o d to share his function of judge. Therefore, the >blasphemy< pronounced by him was clear and the condemnation of Jesus and his disciples was completely justified. I will not go into detail in illustrating the positions of the so-called Hel­ lenists on this theme of the exaltation and enthronement of Jesus. The char­ ismatic experiences of Stephen and his mention of the Son of Man »standing at the right hand of G o d « (Acts 7:56) suggest, I believe, a particular emphasis of this aspect by the Hellenists. But we shall see it later, in relation to the position they took towards the Mosaic Law. I will mention instead another aspect of the reflections of the early community, which did not belong only to Stephen's group, and which is strictly connected, in my opinion, to this christology of the exaltation and to the ensuing eschatological awareness of the community. According to Acts 2:36, with the resurrection Jesus was made Lord and Messiah. N o t only Messiah, but Lord and Messiah. Lord even before Messiah. The exaltation on the right hand of G o d thus means the attribution to Jesus risen from the dead of a lordship, of a sovereignty, 63

6 3

D . G e o r g i , The early Church: internal Jewish Migration or new Religion f: H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 88 (1995) 4 4 - 4 5 , d o e s not agree: for him, as for D u n n , the idea of the exaltation has a l o n g p r e h i s t o r y in J u d a i s m , a b o v e all in reference to the figure of E n o c h . T h e chapters 70 and 71 of the E t h i o p i c b o o k of E n o c h s h o w in particular that the idea of a b d u c t i o n of the patriarch into heaven (Gen. 5:18-24) d e v e l o p e d f r o m a simple transfer to a true exaltation, w h i c h culminated in his further identification as the S o n of M a n . T h e exaltation of E n o c h for this reason already contained elements of deification, which his further identification with M e t a t r o n in the third b o o k of E n o c h o n l y reinforces. H o w e v e r , it d o e s not s e e m to me that the c o m p a r i s o n is completely convincing. T h e c o n n e c t i o n between the figure of the S o n of M a n and the idea of the a b d u c t i o n of E n o c h , as takes place in Hen. aeth. 70-71, m a y d o u b t l e s s have m a d e it easier to attribute the installation at the right hand of G o d to an earthly figure w h o is already w e l l - k n o w n ( H . R . B a l z , Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Christologie, N e u k i r c h e n / V l u y n 1967, 96 ff.). B u t even if the g r o u p t o o k the figure of E n o c h as the basis for its theological p o s i t i o n s , this figure p r e s e r v e d a nature that w a s in s o m e w a y >mythical<, not historical ( E n o c h w a s not the historical f o u n d e r of the g r o u p ) , and his identification with the S o n of M a n (which not all scholars in any case believe is authentic) m a k e s him an >heavenly<, not divine being (no cult is attributed to E n o c h ) . T h i s identification of E n o c h as the S o n of M a n can thus have p r o v i d e d a precedent to the identification of J e s u s , but it d o e s not yet c o r r e s p o n d really to the enthronement of a historical figure o n the right hand of G o d , which did h a p p e n with the c h r i s t o l o g y of the exaltation. F o r this reason, I continue to believe that it is the attribution to an earthly figure of that heavenly exaltation that the a p o c a l y p t i c tradition attributed to the S o n of M a n , and m o r e exactly of that royal instalment >at the right hand of G o d < meant in a real, not metaphorical, sense, and thus the u n i o n in the exalted C h r i s t of the images of Daniel 7 and of P s a l m 110, that is the decisive novelty, w h i c h gives rise to the birth of a >Christian identity<. Cfr. also M . Hengel, Praexistenz hei Paulus ?, in I d e m , Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften I I I , T u b i n g e n 2002, 2 6 2 - 3 0 1 , spec. 2 9 6 - 3 0 1 (an exaltation in such close c o m m u n i o n with G o d is not attributed in the J e w i s h texts to an angel or to a h u m a n figure).

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

71

Messiah

which was royal. And it is precisely this that allows one to see in him the Messiah promised to Israel. With the resurrection he received that sover­ eignty which according to tradition was due to the Messiah (whether he was the Son of David of the prophets and the psalms or the Son of Man of the book of Daniel). Now, this position of sovereignty was expressed by the early community with the attribution to Jesus risen from the dead of the Aramaic title of mar or of the Greek one of x u p i o ^ . And this was a fact without precedents in the Jewish milieu. It is in fact true that the most recent studies have shown that the title of lord was not at all limited in Judaism only to G o d but could be given to every person who had particular author­ ity. But there were apparently no real precedents for the fact that not only could one address a person calling him >(my) lords or indicating him as >my lords but that this person could also be defined as >(the) L o r d s The absolute use (that is, without possessives or modifiers) of lord to define someone is limited in Judaism exclusively to G o d . Only about him can one say in the strongest sense of the word that he is (the) Lord. Now, Dunn is certainly right when he asserts that calling Jesus Lord does not mean identifying him with G o d . The explicit assertion of the divinity of Jesus took time and it is found in complete clarity only in the gospel of J o h n . But when Dunn adds that, by using that term for Jesus, the first Christians only wanted to say that »the one God had shared his lordship with the exalted Christ^ and thus did not offend the monotheistic Jews, he makes a debatable assertion. As we have just seen, it is precisely this idea of the sharing of the divine characteristics and functions by a human being that in fact seemed unac­ ceptable to the Jews at the time of Jesus. When for this reason in the Acts of the Apostles, according to the very ancient confession of faith cited above, the J e w Peter asserts that » G o d has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified«, he makes an unheard-of, and for a Jew, a blas­ phemous statement. And when in the hymn reported by Paul in the letter to the Philippians, the community of Jerusalem (or of Antioch) asserts with 64

5

66

6 4

T h a t the J e w s of Palestine, a p p l y i n g to the risen C h r i s t p a s s a g e s of the O l d T e s t a ­ ment that referred to G o d , t h o u g h t J e s u s w a s G o d and J a h v e , as is s u g g e s t e d b y C a p e s , Old Testament Yahweh Texts, 1 6 4 - 1 6 7 , recognizing that it is a d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h o u t precedent in J e w i s h life and for this reason l o o k i n g for a justification in the idea of G o d as a c o r p o r a t e p e r s o n , is in fact a stimulating h y p o t h e s i s , but difficult to accept. L e t us recall rather that the assertion of the divine nature of J e s u s w a s at least implicitly contained b o t h in the statements of the h y m n to the Philippians (2:6-11) on his (pre-)existence »in the f o r m of G o d « and on his » e q u a l i t y with G o d « and in the a r g u m e n t a t i o n of the letter to the H e b r e w s (1:3-6) on the superiority of the S o n with respect to the angels and on the >metaphysical< union with the Father. Op. cit., 191. T h i s view is shared b y P. Stuhlmacher, Das Christusbild der Paulus-Schule - eine Skizze, in Jews and Christians, 170: the conviction that G o d m a d e J e s u s L o r d and M e s s i a h i n t r o d u c e d a critical division a m o n g the J e w s . 65

6 6

72

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

respect to Jesus that G o d not only »highly exalted« him but also »bestowed on him the name which is above every name« (that is, the name of lord), he makes an even more blasphemous statement. These disciples of Jesus no longer had as their lord only G o d , and thus they no longer belonged just to him, as Judas the Galilean had asked in a particularly intransigent way, but as every good Jew really believed, but alongside him (>at his right hand<) they placed Jesus himself. However, as I have already mentioned in the introduction, the problem of the separation of the Christians from the Jews is not only a theological problem, but also a sociological one. I have mentioned above the relation­ ship that there was between the confessions of faith in the early community and its eschatological awareness. But the eschatological awareness indicates the way it related to others, and thus indicates the place the community chose for itself with respect to the world. It is a sign, and really the most efficient sign, of the identity that it thought it had with respect to the world. And this thus means that among the confessions of faith of a community and its social situation there is a very close link. Above all W. A. Meeks has never tired of reminding scholars of this, even if he has done it above all in relation to the assertions of Paul and of John. The christological statements (differently from what J . T. Sanders seems to think) did not indicate only the way in which the community conceived of the person of the risen Christ, but they are a very efficient means to assert its identity with respect to other social groups. There is a »continual, harmonic reinforcement between social experience and ideology«. The assertion of the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of G o d and of his lordship over his disciples means the aware­ ness on their part of having acquired a new social identity. It thus means concretely the manifestation of a specific >Christian identity<. We can easily confirm this with two further observations. The first has to do with the worship of Jesus in the early community. At the beginning of the twentieth century the scholars of the history of religions, especially W. Bousset and W. Heitmiiller, maintained that the great shift in the development of early Christianity took place with the passage from the faith of the Palestinian community to that of the Hellenistic com­ munities. Then in fact the disciples of Jesus replaced the hope in the return of the Son of Man with the faith in the exaltation of the heavenly Lord. And 67

68

69

67

Bell. 2,118: » U n d e r his administration, a Galilaean, n a m e d J u d a s , incited his c o u n t r y ­ m e n to revolt, u p b r a i d i n g t h e m as c o w a r d s for consenting to p a y tribute to the R o m a n s and tolerating mortal masters, after having G o d for their l o r d « (trans. H . St. J . T h a c k e r a y , LCL); Ant. 14,23. W. A . M e e k s , The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism: J o u r n a l of Biblical Literature 91 (1972) 7 1 , here in relation to the J o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y . See n o w L . H u r t a d o , Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity, G r a n d R a p i d s 2003. 6 8

6 9

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

Messiah

73

70

they began to worship this L o r d . This is a thesis that R. Bultmann, disciple of Bousset, also shared: although it had a strong eschatological awareness, in his view the early community was still characterized by a future eschatology, and only the Hellenistic communities had adopted a present eschatology. But later research demonstrated the fallacy of this thesis. In fact, as we have seen, contrasting the Palestinian community and the Hellenistic communi­ ties is generally unacceptable, and the early community of Jerusalem already attributed to the risen Christ exaltation to the right hand of G o d , and thus sovereignty, lordship, over his disciples. Moreover, let us add now that this new social group even rendered worship to its L o r d . This is what the very ancient prayer of the maranatha demonstrates. Aware of the significant the­ ological value of this prayer, Bousset and Bultmann attempted to avoid the consequences of its use with respect to Jesus by the Palestinian community. For Bousset it had in fact emerged in the Antiochene community, not in the Jerusalem one, whereas for Bultmann it was addressed to G o d , not to Jesus. But neither of the hypotheses is acceptable. The prayer of the maranatha, as is proved unequivocally by its citation in Aramaic in Greek texts such as the first letter to the Corinthians by Paul and the Didache, originated in the community of the >Hebrews< of Jerusalem, and it demonstrates that Jesus was already worshipped in that community. In it one must in fact recognize the invocation which in the Eucharistic ceremony the disciples addressed to Jesus, imploring his return in the role of Son of Man in glory: » C o m e , our L o r d ! « But the clearest text in this sense is probably that of the pre-Pauline hymn contained in the verses 2:6-11 of the letter to the Philippians, which comes from the >Hellenists< of Jerusalem or of Antioch. In verses 2:6-8 Paul recalles the obedience of the Christ Jesus, who, although he was »in the form of G o d « , did not consider this »equality with G o d « of his to be a privilege, but annihilated himself, humiliating himself unto death and unto death on a cross. And it is difficult to consider this mention of an >equality< (similarity?) of Jesus with G o d in any other way than as a reference to his pre-existence, and thus to his >divinity<. In any case, he adds, in verses 9-11, »Therefore G o d has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of G o d the Father«. I have already said that there is no doubt that the name superior to every other name is the name of xupio<;. And that Paul here expressed the traditional faith of the community (the hymn certainly had pre-Pauline origin and was only used and re-elaborated by Paul) in the glorification of Jesus that took place 71

72

7 0

71

7 2

See in particular B o u s s e t , Kyrios Christos, cit., 1 ff., 75 ff. Theology of the New Testament I, 3 3 - 6 2 , 6 3 - 1 8 3 . T h i s p o i n t is insisted u p o n , and w i t h great force, b y C a p e s , 43 ff., 157ff.

74

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from

30 CE to 100

CE

with his resurrection. Paul thus bears witness once again to the conviction of the community that the resurrection was also the exaltation of Jesus to heavenly glory. But to this x u p i o g the community rendered worship. The proclamation that Jesus Christ is Lord means that every knee shall bow in front of him, as is written in the text of Is. 45:23b L X X , referring to G o d . The Lord to whom this new social group asserted that it belonged was thus not just the interpreter of the word of G o d contained in the Scriptures, like the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran, nor was he only the Son of Man awaited for the final judgment or one of the many heavenly mediators gifted with extraordinary powers, but he was the object by now of a specific form of worship. The second element instead has to do more directly with the way in which the first Christians expressed their awareness that they belonged, in addition to G o d , to the Lord Jesus. It is extremely probable, in fact, that this recognition of the lordship of Jesus, and thus this new belonging to him on the part of his disciples, started to be expressed very soon also in another way. In fact, Luke narrates in the Acts of the Apostles that soon after the arrival of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, thus already in the years between 40 and 50, the disciples of Jesus, identified probably by the Jews of Jerusalem as Nazarenes (at Cesarea, according to Acts 24:5, still in the dec­ ade before 60, Tertullus in fact made the accusation to the procurator Felix that Paul was the man behind the uprising of the sect of the Nazarenes), 7 3

74

75

7 3

O n e of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t m o n o t h e i s t i c texts of the O l d Testament. C a p e s , 157—

160. 7 4

T h i s is really w h a t is maintained also b y H u r t a d o , One God, one Lord, 11: T h e religious w o r s h i p of J e s u s as a divine figure b e g a n a m o n g the J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s , not to be u s e d b y p a g a n categories. T h e first C h r i s t i a n s thus m a d e a redefinition of d e v o t i o n to G o d that allowed the veneration of J e s u s . B u t actually, this is really the w e a k e s t p o i n t of his h y p o t h e s i s of the >divine agents< as theological precedents of the exaltation of J e s u s . A s his critics have rightly p o i n t e d out, n o n e of these divine agents w a s m a d e the object of w o r s h i p b y the J e w s . C a p e s , 1 6 8 - 1 7 2 ; P. A . R a i n b o w , Jewish Monotheism as the Matrix for New Testament Christology: a Review Article: N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m 33 (1991) 7 8 - 9 1 . L u k e really s a y s of the >Nazoreans< not the >Nazarenes< and thus allows us to s u p p o s e that at least at his time N a z o r e a n s w a s the n a m e m o s t u s e d for the C h r i s t i a n s of J e r u s a l e m . B u t I consider i n d i s p u t a b l e the c o n c l u s i o n , reached after an extremely careful and close examination of all the available d o c u m e n t a t i o n , of H . H . Schaeder, Na£ap7]v6q, Na^wpaToc;: T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y of the N e w T e s t a m e n t 4 (1967) 877: » T h u s w e m a y confidently say that Na^wpalos, like Na£apY)v6<;, is the G r e e k f o r m of the A r a m a i c ndsrdjd, derived f r o m ndsrat, Na£ape&«. See also R . E . B r o w n , The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, N e w Y o r k 1977, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 . A s B r o w n rightly notes, o p . cit., 2 1 0 - 2 1 3 , 2 1 8 - 2 1 9 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 5 , this d o e s not, however, exclude the s e c o n d a r y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n N a z o r e a n and nazir (and neser). It is certain, in fact, that it w a s the term N a z o r e a n that s u g g e s t e d to M a t t h e w the further messianic references that are f o u n d on p u r p o s e in his gospel. A n d since in referring to J e s u s M a r k always uses Na^apyjvo; and the other N e w Testament texts (almost) always use Na^wpalos it is p r o b a b l e that precisely b e c a u s e of the presence of this connection, this last t e r m is the o n e that w a s 7 5

2. Faith in the early community

in Jesus as Lord and

75

Messiah

76

»had for the first time the name of Christians«. What does Luke mean here: that those disciples >were called< in this way by the pagans or that they >took the name< of Christians? And what is the precise meaning of the term Christian? Basing themselves on the passive meaning of the verb ^pvjfjiaTiaai and on the Latin suffix -ianus of the new denomination, most writers think that the disciples of Jesus were called Christians by the pagans of Antioch and that the term coined probably in the offices of the Roman governor of Syria, indicated them correctly as followers of Christ. This is one possible explanation. And its importance would be very meaningful. It would in fact identify the Antiochene Christians as a new social group endowed, within the Jewish community, with a new identity. They would be those Jews who recognize the Christ as their leader. However, even admitting that this was the first origin of the name, in my opinion Luke here, recalling the fact, means something more: and it is not simply that at Antioch the disciples of Jesus received that name from some other people, but that they know­ ingly made it their own. And if this is true, this fact is important. This is because these Greek terms in - i a v o < ; , just like their equivalents in -ianus, and differently from the more common ones in -Y]VO<; and in -<xZoq (like 'ECT(TY]V6<; and 'Eaaouos), expressed not only the idea of being a follower of someone, but the conviction of belonging to him. That is, one can recognize in the person referred to not only one's leader, but one's xupio*;. B y asserting that they were Christians, and not simply Nazarenes, those Hellenistic disciples of Jesus did not state only that they were followers of Jesus of Nazareth, as one can be a follower of Caesar or of Herod, but, by recognizing him as the one enthroned at the right hand of G o d , they stated that they belonged 77

78

79

80

p r o g r e s s i v e l y established and for this reason w a s the n a m e chosen b y t h o s e C h r i s t i a n s of J e r u s a l e m w h o e s c a p e d to Pella, and w e r e to begin the sect of the N a z o r e a n s . l O T l 0 i V 0 Acts 11:26: eyevexo 8e ... xpT)[/.aTi(jai TE ev 'AVTLOX^OC TOU<; [xath)Ta<; R . Paribeni, SuWorigine del nome Cristiano: N u o v o bollettino di archeologia cristiana 19 (1913) 3 7 - 4 1 ; E . Peterson, Christianus, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati I, C i t t a del Vaticano 1 9 4 6 , 3 5 5 - 3 7 2 , n o w also in I d e m , Fruhkirche, Judentum und Gnosis, F r e i b u r g 1959, 6 4 - 8 7 . See also b e l o w p . 126. E . B i c k e r m a n , The Name of Christians. H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 42 (1949) 1 0 9 - 1 2 4 , n o w also in I d e m , Studies in Jewish and Christian History I I I , L e i d e n 1986, 1 3 9 - 1 5 1 (142: » T h e r e is n o r e a s o n to a s s u m e for the p a s s a g e in A c t s a m e a n i n g w h i c h d o e s not o c c u r in G r e e k elsewhere. T h e author of A c t s s a y s , that at A n t i o c h the disciples started to take on the style of C h r i s t i a n s . T h a t is also the u n a n i m o u s interpretation of ancient readers w h o themselves u s e d the s a m e verb ypr^-ciCp a l m o s t daily. T h e y s a y that the A p o s t l e s >gave themselves the n a m e of Christians<«); B . L i f s h i t z , Uorigine du nom des chretiens: Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e 16 (1962), 6 5 - 7 0 . B i c k e r m a n , The Name of Christians, cit., 147: »A11 these G r e e k terms, f o r m e d with the L a t i n suffix -ianus, exactly as the L a t i n w o r d s of the s a m e derivation, express the idea that the m e n or things referred to, b e l o n g to the p e r s o n to w h o s e n a m e the suffix is a d d e d . In G r e e k as in L a t i n the suffix -ianus is a substitute for the p o s s e s s i v e genitive«. 76

7 7

7 8

7 9

8 0

x?

^'

76

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

to Christ as their Lord. They expressed the awareness of possessing a particular identity that came to them from the recognition of Jesus as their x u p i o g . And this, just as it distinguished them clearly from the surrounding pagans, also distinguished them from the other Jews. Alongside, and fac­ ing, the followers of Caesar and of Herod, whose identity came from their >belonging< to Caesar and to Herod, in the Antiochene community another social group emerged: that of the Christians, whose identity derived from their belonging to Christ. 81

3. The Hellenists, the Hebrews and the Mosaic Law The scholars who took part in the two seminars held in Switzerland in 1993 on the >rift< between Jews and Christians introduced, as I have said, two important novelties in the consideration of the problem with respect to the positions taken by their colleagues at the symposium in Durham. They asserted that the reason for the rift did not lie in the question of the true Messiah but rather in that of the Mosaic Law. And they set the conclusive moment of the separation back from the second Jewish war, thus from 135,

8 1

See also, in a slightly different way, w h i c h considers the n a m e » a linguistic creation c o m i n g f r o m o u t s i d e rather than a typically C h r i s t i a n o n e « , M . H e n g e l and A . M . S c h w e mer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch. The unknown Years, L o n d o n 1997, 2 2 5 - 2 3 0 (228: » T h e fact that the designation is derived f r o m the m o s t c o m m o n honorific title of the >founder< and >hero< of the n e w m o v e m e n t casts s o m e light o n the d e v e l o p m e n t of chris­ t o l o g y in the y o u n g A n t i o c h e n e c o m m u n i t y . Evidently the m o v e m e n t w a s characterized w i t h >Christ< b e c a u s e this title, w h i c h w a s in p r o c e s s of b e c o m i n g a n a m e , had a central place in it. [...] B e l o n g i n g to Christ w a s the special feature w h i c h distinguished them f r o m all other religious g r o u p s , in J u d a i s m and also a m o n g n o n - J e w s « . We shall see at once the reflections of Paul on the question. L e t us mention for n o w that the a b s o l u t e meaningfulness of the t e r m a p p e a r s in a very clear w a y in the s e c o n d century, in the c o u r s e of the trials of the C h r i s t i a n m a r t y r s . H e r e , on the o n e hand, to the request to say xupio? xotiaap the m a r t y r s a n s w e r e d with an energetic refusal, asserting that they b e l o n g e d only to C h r i s t (see, for e x a m p l e , Mart. Pol. 8,2: » A n d the police captain H e r o d and his father N i k e t a s met him and r e m o v e d him into their carriage, and sat b y his side trying to p e r s u a d e h i m and saying: >But w h a t a r m is it to say, >Lord Caesar<, and to offer sacrifice, and s o forth, and to be saved ?< B u t he at first did not a n s w e r them, b u t w h e n they c o n t i n u e d he said: >I a m not g o i n g to d o w h a t y o u counsel me<«; 9,3: » B u t w h e n the p r o - c o n s u l p r e s s e d h i m and said: T a k e the oath and I let y o u g o , revile Christ<, P o l y c a r p said: >For eighty and six y e a r s have I been his servant, and he has d o n e m e n o w r o n g , and h o w can I b l a s p h e m e m y king w h o saved me?<« [trans. K . L a k e , LCL]), while o n the other hand, t o the request to give their identity, they w o u l d a n s w e r that they were only C h r i s t i a n s (see, for e x a m p l e , Mart. Lugd. 1,20: » H e resisted them with such c o n s t a n c y that he did n o t even tell his o w n n a m e , or the race or the city w h e n c e he w a s , n o r whether he w a s slave or free. B u t to all q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r e d in Latin, >I a m a C h r i s t i a n s [trans. K . L a k e , LCL]). T h e term Christian did not indicate only the religion b u t expressed the entire identity of the disciples of C h r i s t .

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

Law

77

82

to the end of the first century. Therefore, they definitively shifted the attention from the problem of christology to the problem of the >means of reconciliation and recognized that this problem existed already before the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. And yet they maintained the convic­ tion that the break of Christianity with Judaism had its roots in the great variety of positions existent in Judaism before 70. What position did the first Christian community thus take towards the Mosaic Law? Was this the theme of discussions with the Jews and the true reason for the separation? The problem of the L a w would become severe with the preaching of Paul. But in some way did it not already exist with the Hellenists? In the first years of its life the community in Jerusalem in fact certainly observed the Mosaic Law. Because the community was made up exclusively of Jews, and of >observant< Jews, its members attended the temple and the synagogue. And yet, fairly soon (and certainly already before Paul) the problem of the validity of that Law after the coming of Jesus seems to have arisen for it. Were the Hellenists the first to raise this problem? The scholars are not able to find an agreement on the interpretation to give to the Lukan group of the Hellenists. It is true that the idea, typical of the liberal historiography of the nineteenth century, has been abandoned, that they made up a sort of Judaism that contrasted, because of the Hellen­ istic influences and its universal openness, with the nationalistic and closed Judaism of Palestine, and in other words that they constituted a >liberal< Judaism in contrast with the >orthodox< Judaism of Palestine. However, the diffidence towards the story of Luke keeps the scholars from reconstruct­ ing an image that can be shared by everyone. The data that is recognized as credible and that is for this reason accepted by everyone is that, having left Palestine following the conflicts with the >Hebrews< and with the J e w ­ ish authorities in Jerusalem, the Hellenists began a first mission among the Gentiles. But about the reasons for those conflicts, and about the motiva­ tions, therefore, for this openness to the Gentiles, there is no agreement. A tendency, however, seems to be emerging, and that is the tendency to dimin­ ish the relevance of the theological nature, and thus the epoch-making im­ portance, of the change, as it was recognized for the first time by F. C . Baur, and to formulate instead the hypothesis of a gradual development, without too many shocks, in which the Hellenists were no longer clearly in contrast 83

84

8 2

See in particular the p o s i t i o n s of M a r g u e r a t and of Siegert cited a b o v e at p . 8. See in particular the assertions of Siegert cited a b o v e at p. 8. I will not s t o p here to d i s c u s s either the historical reality of the Hellenists or their J e w i s h origin. A g a i n s t an excessive devaluation of the data of L u k e , I will instead take for granted b o t h that they are a very real historical entity and that they w e r e J e w s w h o s p o k e G r e e k w h o c a m e b a c k to J e r u s a l e m . F o r a m o r e detailed d i s c u s s i o n of the theme, cfr. in any case J o s s a , Gli ellenisti e i timorati di Dio negli Atti degli Apostoli, 1 0 5 - 1 3 1 . 8 3

8 4

78

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

85

with the Hebrews. Two examples can be given to stand for the many oth­ ers. H . Raisanen denied that the radical criticism of the L a w by Paul that can be found in Galatians and Romans had a truly significant precedent in the position of the Hellenists. Paul developed that radical criticism of the Law not from preceding affirmations by Jesus or by the Hellenists, but rather from theological considerations linked not only to his c o n v e r s i o n s but also to the conflicts in which he found himself involved because of his mission. Mk. 7:15, for example, does not come up at all in the discussion on the mission free from the Law. The abandonment of certain ritual precepts on the part of the Jewish Christian missionaries coming from Jerusalem in this view was prevalently a spontaneous phenomenon, originating from the presence of particular charismatic experiences among the Gentiles. Affected by >spiritualizing< tendencies like many Jews of the Diaspora, the Hellenists began to spontaneously admit single pagans into the community and this led to a certain devaluation of the Law, which was reinterpreted in symbolic terms. V. Fusco, in his turn, has also urged prudence. For him there are no definitive elements for asserting that the Hellenists had theological positions that were strongly differentiated from those of the Hebrews. »That the Hel­ lenists as such, because of some element of their theological heritage, were predisposed more than other Christians toward openness to Gentiles, can remain, at most, a working hypothesis«. In all probability the evangelization of the pagans on the part of the Hellenists, favoured in any case by their coming from the Diaspora, was based neither on an emancipation from the Law proclaimed by Jesus, nor on a theological deduction from the salvific value of the paschal experience, but was rather based on new experiences of a charismatic sort. However, a scholar cannot avoid making hypotheses. In spite of the warnings of Hill, who emphasizes the difficulty of imagining a selective persecution of the Christians of Jerusalem, which involved the Hellenists 86

87

88

8 5

T h e scholar w h o m o s t re-evaluated the role of the Hellenists, g o i n g so far as to d e n y any essential ideological difference between their g r o u p and that of the H e b r e w s , w a s p r o b a b l y C . C . Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews. Reappraising Division within the earliest Church, M i n n e a p o l i s 1992. T h e scholar w h o surely went t o o far, seeing the Hellenists as the authors of a w h o l e series of assertions and of theological d e v e l o p m e n t s , w a s instead L . Schenke, Die Urgemeinde. Geschichtliche und theologische Entwicklung, StuttgartB e r l i n - K o l n 1990. Paul and the Law, T u b i n g e n 1983; Paul's Conversion and the Development of his View of the Law: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 33 (1987) 4 0 4 - 4 1 9 . Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15, 4 7 7 - 4 8 4 ; The >Hellenists< - A Bridge between Jesus and Paul?, in I d e m , The Torah and Christ, H e l s i n k i 1986, 2 4 2 - 3 0 6 ; Die >Hellenisten< der Urgemeinde, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II.26.2, h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n W. H a a s e , B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1995, 1 4 6 8 - 1 5 1 4 . Le prime comunita cristiane, cit., 207, 211 ff. 86

87

88

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

79

Law

89

but left the apostles undisturbed, the story of Luke is clear in showing that the repression by the Jewish authorities (whether they were the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees, the Jewish Hellenists or the chief priests) did not strike the whole community, but only the members of the Hellenistic g r o u p . And for as prudent as one wants to be in evaluating theological motivations, that story also shows clearly that the contrasts between the Hellenists and the Hebrews were not simply marginal, but were about central aspects of their spirituality. The preaching of the Hellenists was thus really a novelty in the life of the community of Jerusalem: a novelty that not only created ten­ sions within the church, but also caused a reaction of the Jewish authorities. But what exactly was this novelty: opening the mission to the pagans or the criticism of the Mosaic Law? And what was the profound theological motivation for this novelty: the emancipation from the L a w proclaimed by Jesus or their own interpretation of the paschal experiences? That the Hellenists began the mission among the Gentiles can be con­ sidered certain. It does not appear only from the explicit account of Luke, but is implicitly stated also in the letters of Paul. Paul was not the first to address the Gentiles. Even if one cannot speak in their case about a mission to the pagans on a large scale, which instead would be done only through Paul's initiative, it was the Hellenists who for the first time crossed over the borders of Palestine. As a matter of fact, M. Hengel is right to assert that this question of the adhesion of the Jews who spoke Greek to the message of Jesus of Nazareth and of the consequent openness of the followers of Jesus to the world of the pagans was a rather unique phenomenon to which the scholars have paid too little attention. 90

91

T h i s astonishing influence o n outsiders, transcending the b o u n d a r i e s of l a n g u a g e a n d c u l t u r e , d i s t i n g u i s h e s e a r l i e s t C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m all o t h e r P a l e s t i n i a n J e w i s h m o v e m e n t s , the S a d d u c e e s and Pharisees, the E s s e n e s a n d the B a p t i s t m o v e m e n t ,

89

Hellenists and Hebrews, cit., 1 9 - 4 0 (see at p. 40 the conclusion: » T h e r e is nothing in the a c c o u n t of the p e r s e c u t i o n of A c t s 8:1-4 that w o u l d cause us to believe that the church of J e r u s a l e m w a s divided into ideological c a m p s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the labels >Hellenists< and >Hebrews<«). See also, however, R . B a u c k h a m , James and the Jerusalem Church, in The Book of Acts in its first Century Setting 4. The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, edited b y R . B a u c k h a m , G r a n d R a p i d s 1995, 4 2 8 - 4 2 9 , w h o , continuing the objections of Hill, maintains that L u k e did not m e a n that the apostles w e r e not p e r s e c u t e d at all b u t that, differently f r o m the Hellenists, they stayed in J e r u s a l e m . Hill d o e s not believe s o . H e concludes in this w a y his examination of the Stephen story: » W h a t d o w e k n o w a b o u t the Hellenists o n the basis of the Stephen s t o r y of A c t s 6:8-7:60? P r o b a b l y very little. [...] We have n o genuine r e a s o n to s u p p o s e that Stephen w a s a radical critic of the law or the temple. [...] M o r e o v e r , apart f r o m the fact of his mar­ t y r d o m , w e can k n o w a l m o s t nothing a b o u t Stephen; the account in A c t s a p p e a r s to have been c o m p o s e d of little m o r e than a few pieces of traditional i n f o r m a t i o n s Op. cit., 101. 9 0

9 1

80

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

the a c t i v i t y o f w h i c h w a s l a r g e l y c o n f i n e d t o P a l e s t i n e b e f o r e t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Temple.

9 2

The mission among the pagans did not, however, precede, in my opinion, the devaluation of the Law. That is, it was an effect, not a cause of the at­ titude taken toward the Law. It was only following the >persecution< and the consequent expulsion from Jerusalem that the Hellenists began to address the Samaritans and the God-fearers. The conflict with the Jewish authori­ ties thus did not originate from this open behaviour, but preceded it. And it can only have arisen from the position taken toward the Mosaic L a w . This position was not taken, on the other hand, out of an interpretation of the words of Jesus, making explicit the criticism of the L a w contained in them, but was derived from an interpretation of the paschal events, from which it drew decisive consequences for the validity of the Law. It was not the product so much of an emancipation from the L a w proclaimed by Jesus as a particular reading of the paschal experiences. The position of Baur has not entirely disappeared. While trying to give himself a reason for the rather unique phenomenon of the attraction of these Jews who spoke Greek for the message of Jesus, Hengel wrote that, 93

94

the o n l y r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f this is t h a t the p r o c l a m a t i o n o f J e s u s itself h a d f e a t u r e s w h i c h w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y f a s c i n a t i n g f o r D i a s p o r a J e w s . F r o m the b e g i n n i n g , the m e s s a g e o f J e s u s h a d affinities w i t h t h e u n i v e r s a l i s t G r e e k - s p e a k i n g w o r l d a n d p e r h a p s e v e n w i t h s o m e t h e m e s in G r e e k t h o u g h t . W e c a n s e e in it n o t o n l y c l o s e connections with J e w i s h w i s d o m , but sometimes also echoes of G r e e k g n o m i c wis­ d o m a n d a b o v e all o f C y n i c t h o u g h t [ . . . ] . W e c a n b e s t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e a g g r e s s i v e p r e a c h i n g o f the >Hellenists< in t h e G r e e k - s p e a k i n g s y n a g o g u e s o f J e r u s a l e m c o u l d 9 2

Acts and the History of earliest Christianity, cit., 7 1 . B e t z , Wellhausen's Dictum Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew<, 8 9 - 9 4 . Cfr. also M e e k s , The first urban Christians, cit., 91: with the criticism of the L a w and the o p e n n e s s to the p a g a n s the first followers of J e s u s already » g a v e to the C h r i s t i a n m o v e m e n t a character different f r o m that of a n y other J e w i s h sect of the t i m e « . N o t e , however, h o w the t w o authors rightly s p e a k of the distinction and diversification, not of the separation, of the followers of J e s u s f r o m the other J e w i s h g r o u p s . A n d one s h o u l d r e m e m b e r also that this difference of the C h r i s t i a n m o v e m e n t f r o m the other J e w i s h g r o u p s w a s clear already to F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s , w h e n in his f a m o u s t e s t i m o n i u m he w r o t e that J e s u s » w o n over m a n y J e w s , b u t also m a n y G r e e k s « {Ant. 18,63). T h i s of c o u r s e p r e s u p p o s e s that one gives essential credit to the L u k a n account of the events. A n d I believe in actual fact that, differently f r o m w h a t is asserted b y H . R a i s a n e n and J . D . G . D u n n , this deserves to be given credit. It is really difficult, for that matter, to think that the Hellenists b e g a n to a d d r e s s the Gentiles already in J e r u s a l e m , directly after the death of J e s u s , and that it w a s , therefore, this particular fact that p u t t h e m into conflict with the J e w i s h authorities. E v e n F u s c o , w h o denies, as I have said, that the particular p o s i t i o n of the Hellenists derived f r o m a theological reflection o n the value of the paschal events, admits, however, that » a fact that is certain [...] is that the A n t i o c h e n e preaching that is related to it [...] turns out to be essentially lacking in reference to the teaching of J e s u s , and all concentrated o n the paschal event«. Op. cit., 206. 9 3

9 4

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

Law

81

l e a d t o l y n c h l a w f o r their l e a d e r S t e p h e n a n d t o the e x p u l s i o n o f the g r o u p o n the p r e s u p p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e >Hellenists< p r e s e n t e d a r g u m e n t s the f o u n d a t i o n o f w h i c h is t o b e s o u g h t in the m e s s a g e o f J e s u s himself. T h e y c a l l e d f o r t h e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l a b o l i t i o n o f T e m p l e w o r s h i p a n d the r e v i s i o n o f the l a w o f M o s e s in t h e l i g h t o f t h e true will of G o d .

9 5

This is essentially the position of E . Kasemann, with his passionate refer­ ence to the >call to freedom< of Jesus, which Hengel in fact cites in support of his assertions. And this is in some way the rephrasing of the position of liberal theology, with its attention and sympathy for the universalism of (Hellenistic) Judaism of the Diaspora. But even if it appears extremely seductive, it is in any case difficult to support this hypothesis. It rests in fact on two presuppositions that are both debatable: that the position of Jesus toward the Mosaic L a w was openly critical and thus was expected to be made explicit in the behaviour of his followers; and that the Hellenists, precisely because they came from the Greek Diaspora, were less orthodox Jews particularly inclined to a liberal interpretation of the Mosaic Law. As I have instead said above, the attitude of Jesus toward the L a w certainly contained an invitation to reflect on its nature and on its validity, but it did not appear in an unequivocal manner to be an invitation to go beyond the Law. And the Christian Hellenists not only were not >liberal< Jews, but, hav­ ing the same origins as Paul and as the Jewish Hellenists, and their return to Jerusalem is as a confirmation of this, they were very probably particularly orthodox Jews. One can grant to Raisanen and to Fusco that in the Christian Hellenists, as in Paul, the criticism of the L a w was thus not based on the explicit affirmations of Jesus, nor did they draw from them the principle of the emancipation from the Law. In fact, Mk. 7:15 was never cited in the dis­ cussions on the validity of the rules of purity; and even later Mk. 2:27 is not reported either by Luke or by Matthew. The Jewish-Hellenistic community thus did not take from here its arguments against the value of the Law. And actually, if one recognizes, as I have done, that these affirmations by Jesus reported by Mark did not constitute a true break with Jewish tradition, it is very difficult to imagine that the Hellenists reached such a break by starting just from these. What would have pushed them, >orthodox< as they were, to draw consequences immediately from the teaching of Jesus on the Law? And why would their attitude have been considered so much more serious than that of their teacher? 96

95

Op. cit., 72-73. A b o u t these echoes of G r e e k g n o m i c w i s d o m and of C y n i c t h o u g h t see also M . H e n g e l , Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die >Hellenisten<, die >Sieben< undStephanus (Apg 6,1-15; 7,54-8,3), in I d e m , Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften I I I , T u b i n g e n 2002, 5 3 - 5 4 . E . K a s e m a n n , Jesus means Freedom, Philadelphia 1 9 8 2 . 9 6

7

82

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from

30 CE to 100

CE

Even if the texts available to us do not offer much to hold onto for a definitive solution, one is induced to look in another direction. And this direction can only be, as it was for Paul, the charismatic, >enthusiastic< ex­ perience of the resurrection. The charismatic nature that marks in a clear way the figure of Stephen and that of Philip leads to a supposition that it was from the paschal experience that they drew their conviction that the validity of the Law should be questioned. Exactly as in PauPcase, it was from christology that their criticism of the Law was drawn (but it was not yet radical like Paul's). »Full of the Holy Spirit«, the Hellenists recognized, before others did, Jesus as the Son of Man exalted to the right hand of G o d , and thus the Lord of the community, or rather, perhaps, before others did, they drew from this conviction the consequence of the reconciliation and the justification of man through faith alone, and of the liberation, therefore, of the disciples of Christ from the necessity of the Law. We do not have sufficient reason to maintain, with D . Georgi, that the hymn in Phil. 2:6-11, with its references to Jesus who »humbled himself and became obedient unto death«, to his exaltation and to the conferring on him of the »name which is above every name« derived specifically from Stephen's group, if not precisely from Stephen, even if the hypothesis seems quite reasonable. But it may be regarded as certain that already before Paul reconciliation and jus­ tification through the death and resurrection of Christ were present in early Christianity. And it is extremely probable that the Hellenists in particular were the ones who advanced these ideas. That expiatory value was attributed to the death of Jesus is shown in fact by the christological formulas, clearly adopted by Paul from tradition, of Rom. 3:25-26. (»whom G o d put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus«); Rom. 4:25 (»who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification^; 2 Cor. 5:21 (»For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of G o d « ) . And the fact that above all the Hellen­ ists made this idea of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice of expiation for sins their own seems to be proven by the particular formulations of 1 Cor. 15:3b 97

98

9 7

E v e n F u s c o , w h o , as I have said, invites the use of p r u d e n c e in evaluating the reasons for the contrast between Hellenists and J e w s and d o e s not believe that these reasons can be taken b a c k to a reflection on the salvific value of the paschal events, to explain the persecution of the Hellenists writes in any case that »the essential factor of the break w a s not in the L a w but in c h r i s t o l o g y « . Op. cit., 210. Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil 2,6-11, in Zeit und Geschichte. D a n k e s g a b e an R u d o l f B u l t m a n n z u m 80. G e b u r t s t a g , h e r a u s g e g e b e n von E . D i n k i e r u n d H . T h y e n , T u b i n g e n 1964, 2 6 3 - 2 9 3 . 98

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

83

Law

(»Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures«) Mk. 14:24 (»This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out ( e x ^ u v v o f x e v o v ) for many«) and Mk. 10:45b (»and to give his life as a ransom for (Xuxpov OCVTL) many«). The fact that the Hellenists, on the other hand, insisted particularly on the >lordship< of the Son of Man is suggested by various indications. For example, it is probably not an accident that, when Luke wants to recount how the Hellenists in Antioch addressed themselves for the first time to the Greeks, he says that they did it »preaching the Lord Jesus« (Acts 11:20). H e wanted to suggest, on the contrary, that their preaching was characterized by the central assertion that salvation was given only by faith in the Lord (dead and) exalted. This means virtually going beyond the Mosaic Law. As the interpretation of the difficult words of Jesus on the sabbath (Mk. 2:27) contained in Mk. 2:28 parr., and derived in all probability from the Hellen­ ists says, this means that »the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath«. The exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of G o d means concretely, that is, for the Hellenists, that the L a w is challenged as the instrument of reconcilia­ tion. This may have been what distinguished them from the apostles and made them be >persecuted< by the Hellenistic synagogue and the Jewish authorities, provoking the >zeal< of Paul for the L a w (Phil. 3:6). The vision of the Son of Man standing at the right hand of G o d that unleashed the fury of the Sanhedrites against Stephen, who was »full of the H o l y Spirit« (Acts 7:55-58), which cannot be said to derive simply from Lk. 22:69, seems in fact to have a precise theological meaning. It was the charismatic experience of the exalted Christ at the right hand of the Father, thus faith in the role of the Son of Man and Lord that challenged the Mosaic Law as the instrument of reconciliation, and thus determined the break with official J u d a i s m . " y

9 9

R a i s a n e n d o e s not believe s o . F o r him e n t h u s i a s m is certainly a w e l l - k n o w n char­ acteristic of the Hellenists, but is part of the presentation of L u k e , w h o attributes it in a n y case also to the H e b r e w s . A n d even the vision of Stephen is not historical. It derives f r o m Lk. 22:69 and thus d o e s not authorize the attribution to the Hellenists of a particular c h r i s t o l o g y of the S o n of M a n . Die >Hellenisten< der Urgemeinde, cit., 1480, 1 4 8 3 - 1 4 8 4 . R a i s a n e n thinks instead that there w a s an a d m i s s i o n of single p a g a n s into the c o m m u n i t y which, together with an illuminated criticism of the sacrifices, caused the reaction of the J e w i s h authority. Op. cit., 1 4 9 0 , 1 4 9 8 , 1 5 0 1 . B u t just as in Paul, the a d m i s s i o n of the p a g a n s , m o r e than a cause, seems to m e a c o n s e q u e n c e of the devaluation of the L a w . A n d this in its turn is a c o n s e q u e n c e on a soteriological level of the c h r i s t o l o g y of the exaltation of the S o n of M a n . F r o m a different p o i n t of view, w h i c h aims at not giving t o o m u c h i m p o r t a n c e to the p r o b l e m of the L a w , even F u s c o , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , recognizes, for that matter, that the essential factor in the b r e a k lies in christology. Stranger, in m y o p i n i o n , is that G e o r g i d o e s not see in the attitude of the Hellenists a n y b r e a k with J u d a i s m . A l t h o u g h he finds credible the account of L u k e of an accusation of b l a s p h e m y against the L a w b r o u g h t against Stephen b y the Sanhedrin, attributes to Stephen's g r o u p , if not to Stephen himself, the christological h y m n in the letter to the Philippians and even admitts that »this radical c h r i s t o l o g y of Stephen and then of Paul s t o o d out not o n l y within J u d a i s m but also within the early and later c h u r c h « , he in fact

84

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

That is, even if the faith in the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of G o d were shared by all the members of the early community and if it was pre­ cisely this faith that, as I have said in precedence, determined the birth of a specific >Christian identitys only the Hellenists believed, however, that they had to deduce a challenge to the Mosaic L a w as the means of reconciliation from this faith in the exaltation of Jesus, and thus from this new Christian identity. This was already a prelude to the assertion that Jesus is not only the Messiah of Israel, but the L o r d of the world. N o r is it probably without meaning that in the discourse to Cornelius and his family, thus in that which for him was the first instance of the conversion of a group of pagans, Luke had Peter say that Christ is »the Lord of all« (Acts 10:36). It is not possible to reconstruct the theology of the Hellenists with more precision. And even the attribution to them of certain traditions can go no further than being a reasonable hypothesis. F r o m the affirmations of Paul and of Luke cited above, a theological orientation seems, however, to appear, which can in some way be referred back to their positions: and it is the one that insists in particular on the salvific value of the death and resurrection of Jesus and on the consequences that this has for the validity of the Law. In this sense it is true that the pre-Pauline hymn of Phil. 2:6-11, the account of the passion in Mark and the controversies of Mk. 2:15-3:6, although they cannot be attributed exclusively to the Hellenists, are all a part of this orientation. The >Hebrews< did not, however, agree with these positions. Most likely they were not a compact group, either. A figure like Barnabas who, although he was a Cypriot, was like Paul almost certainly a >Hebrew<, was to be the originator, for example, with Paul, of the pagan evangelization of Antioch. H e was thus very close to the position of the Hellenists. And in the later crisis of Paul with the group of James, Peter would not be simply aligned with the attitude of the latter. But the evolution of the community of Jerusalem under the guidance of James undoubtedly went in the direction of a progressive accentuation of fidelity to the Jewish, and in some way Pharisaic, tradition. Probably it was the death of James, the son of Zebedee, and the temporary absence of Peter from Jerusalem, thus during the years of the government of Agrippa I (41-44), that determined this change. F r o m 100

believes that there w a s nothing in all of this that w e n t against J u d a i s m . E v e n the sect of Q u m r a n set the Teacher of R i g h t e o u s n e s s in an a n a l o g o u s central p o s i t i o n . The early Church, cit., 4 3 - 4 4 . H o w e v e r , as I have already said earlier, the exaltation of J e s u s to the right h a n d of the Father, with its c o n s e q u e n t religious veneration, o n the part of the disciples, w h i c h even q u e s t i o n s the M o s a i c L a w as the m e a n s of reconciliation, d o e s not seem to be absolutely c o m p a r a b l e with the respect d u e b y his followers to the Teacher of R i g h t e o u s n e s s , w h o o n l y o r d e r s them o n l y to o b e y that L a w m o r e scrupulously. H e n g e l , Acts and the History of earliest Christianity, 104. 1 0 0

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

Law

85

this moment onward, it was in fact James the brother of the Lord who was the true head of the community. The hypotheses at this point grow in number. The poverty of the sources does not in fact permit us in any way to make peremptory affirmations. But it seems to me that it is to this part of the community of Jerusalem, guided by James, that the origin of the collection by Q of the sayings of Jesus can be connected in the best way. The indication, today quite frequent, of Galilee for this initiative (often tied to a wise or a charismatic image of the figure of Jesus and of his first disciples) has no basis in the sources. Neither Q nor Mark really offer arguments (the geography of the Galilean cities? the hostile orientation towards Jerusalem?) for a hypothesis of this sort. And even Paul and Luke completely ignore a presence of churches in Galilee (in 1 Thess. 2:14 and Gal. 1:22 Paul speaks only about the »churches of G o d which are in Judaea« and the »churches of Christ in Judaea«). If a nucleus of disciples of Jesus remained in Galilee immediately after the resurrection, it rapidly lost any meaning. The group of the Hebrews of Jerusalem, a part of whom were to merge with the >party of James<, must instead have had quite a different importance. And it is to this part of the group that the Source Q may be connected with some likelihood. What are in fact 101

102

103

104

101

See in particular J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g , The Sayings Gospel Q. Recent Opinion on the People behind the Document: C u r r e n t s in Research: Biblical Studies 1 (1993) 9-34; J . L . R e e d , The social Map of Q, in J . S . K l o p p e n b o r g , ed., Conflict and Invention: Literary, rhetorical and social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, Valley F o r g e 1995, 1 6 - 3 6 (which p r o p o s e s C a p h a r n a u m ) ; and J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g Verbin, Excavating Q. The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel, M i n n e a p o l i s 2000, 261 (Galilee in general). See for e x a m p l e , V o u g a , 3 5 - 4 1 , 5 9 - 6 1 , and C r o s s a n , The Birth of Christianity, cit., 238 ff. See in particular, S. F r e y n e , The Geography of Restoration: Galilee-Jerusalem in early Jewish and Christian Experience: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 47 (2001) 2 8 9 - 3 1 1 , o n the p r e s u m e d hostile attitude of Galilee t o w a r d s J e r u s a l e m , which c o u l d s u g g e s t a G a l i l e a n origin for Q; and M . F r e n s c h k o w s k i , Galilaa oder Jerusalem f Die topographischen und politischen Hintergrunde der Logienquelle, in The Sayings Source Q and the historical Jesus, 5 3 5 - 5 4 7 , o n the irrelevance of the m e n t i o n s of the G a l i l e a n t o w n s and of the s y n a ­ g o g u e s for establishing a G a l i l e a n origin of Q (but with d e b a t a b l e assertions o n the scarce presence of s y n a g o g u e s and of Pharisees in Galilee before 70). A g a i n s t the G a l i l e a n origin of Q (but with the d e b a t a b l e a s s u m p t i o n that there w a s n o significant difference in terms of beliefs and practices b e t w e e n H e b r e w s a n d Hellenists), is n o w also B . A . P e a r s o n , A Q Community in Galilee ?: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 50 (2004) 4 7 6 - 4 9 4 . T h e c o m m u n i t y of J e r u s a l e m is considered also b y F r e n s c h k o w s k i , op. cit., 5 4 8 - 5 5 9 , w i t h o u t , however, m a k i n g reference to J a m e s (549: » Q is a d o c u m e n t , a n d p e r h a p s the decisive d o c u m e n t , of the early c o m m u n i t y of J e r u s a l e m « ; 559: » Q is the theological herit­ age of the early C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y « ) . T h i s of c o u r s e d o e s not exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that w h a t is often defined as >the c o m m u n i t y of Q< (but o n the existence of a c o m m u n i t y of this sort, see the d o u b t s of M . H e n g e l , Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 40 (1994) 336, e J . P . M i c h a u d , Quelle(s) communaute(s) derriere la source Q f, in The Sayings Source Q and the historical Jesus, 5 7 7 - 6 0 6 ) w a s of Galilean origin and in the s o u r c e r e p o r t e d experiences had in Galilee d u r i n g the life of J e s u s , as is 1 0 2

1 0 3

1 0 4

86

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

the distinctive characteristics of this source? I do not believe the absence of an explicit reference to the resurrection of Jesus has great importance. It is absurd to maintain that the group that was behind the Source Q did not know the tradition of the appearances or did not in any case attribute any importance to it. Even if an explicit reference is missing, the experi­ ence of the resurrection is, as I have said, the ineliminable presupposition of the faith of the group. The assertion of the authority and the power of Jesus contained in the sayings on the Son of Man, and in particular in the saying on the earthly activity of the Son of Man (Mt. 8:20 = Lk. 9:58; Mt. 11:19 = Lk. 7:34; Mt. 12:32 = Lk. 12:10), is in fact equivalent in Q (as in Mk. 2:10 and 2:28) to the confession of his exaltation in the resurrection. There is missing, however, it is true, a theological reflection on the value of the paschal experience and there is lacking above all any reference to the death of Jesus. N o relationship seems to exist with the hymn of the letter to the Philippians or with the account of the passion in M a r k . The intention of the source is clearly that of recovering the teaching of the earthly Jesus. I do not believe either that this means an open contrast with the kerygma of the death and resurrection, or that the image of earthly Jesus is exclusively wise, and not apocalyptic. Behind the operation of gathering the teaching of Jesus there are surely, I repeat, the faith in his resurrection and the idea of the exaltation of the apocalyptic Son of Man. O n the contrary, these are the presuppositions that explain in the best way the origin of Q and its essentially kerygmatic nature. That is, it is the resurrection and the exalta­ tion of the apocalyptic Son of Man that transform the words of Jesus into kerygma of salvation. But it is certainly true that the preoccupation of the group that gave origin to Q was decidedly different from the preoccupation of the Hellenists and the one that Paul was to have: it did not intend to be a 105

106

s u p p o s e d , for e x a m p l e , b y P . J . Waxxin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, Sheffield 1991, 2 2 0 - 2 2 7 , and P e a r s o n , A Q Community in Galilee ?, cit., 4 9 1 - 4 9 2 . O n e thing, in fact, is the origin of the c o m m u n i t y (and thus of the tradition), and another is the origin of the collection. T h i s is maintained also b y F r e n s c h k o w s k i , 540. F o r the h y m n of the letter to the Philippians, I have already m e n t i o n e d the p o s i t i o n of G e o r g i , w h o attributes it to the g r o u p of the Hellenists of Stephen, if not to Stephen himself. F o r the s t o r y of the p a s s i o n , see instead K l o p p e n b o r g , The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the historical Jesus, 332: » Q has had little or n o direct contact with those w h o created the M a r k a n p a s s i o n narrative«. See for e x a m p l e Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, cit., 86: » T h e S y n o p t i c S a y i n g s S o u r c e ( Q ) , u s e d b y M a t t h e w and L u k e , also d o e s not consider J e s u s ' death a part of the C h r i s t i a n m e s s a g e . A n d it likewise is not interested in stories and r e p o r t s a b o u t the resurrection and s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a r a n c e s of the risen L o r d . T h e G o s p e l of T h o m a s and Q challenge the a s s u m p t i o n that the early church w a s u n a n i m o u s in m a k i n g J e s u s ' death and resurrection the fulcrum of C h r i s t i a n faith. B o t h d o c u m e n t s p r e s u p p o s e that J e s u s ' significance lay in his w o r d s , and in his w o r d s a l o n e « . 1 0 5

1 0 6

3. The Hellenists,

the Hebrews

and the Mosaic

Law

87

theological reflection on the death and resurrection of Jesus, but instead to gather together his teaching. F r o m this teaching is missing, on the other hand, any criticism of the Mosaic Law. And this, too, seems relevant. I have already said that I do not believe that this means that in the attitude of Jesus there was no criticism of the L a w . But the group of Q was evidently interested in emphasizing rather than the aspect of the teaching of Jesus that could sound like a criti­ cism of the Mosaic Law, the fact that he reasserted, and possibly radicalized, that Law. It is in this way, and not certainly as an outgrowing of the Law, that one should in fact read Lk. 16:16 f: »The L a w and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of G o d is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the Law to become void«. And it is in this way that Mt. 5:17 should be interpreted: »Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them«. More in general, Mt. 5-7 should be read this way as well, if the intuition is right, as I believe it is, of H . D . Betz, that the first draft of the sermon on the mount goes back to a Judaeo-Christian document from the middle of the first century that may have merged into the form of Q used by Matthew. The announcement of the kingdom of G o d on the part of Jesus endowed with an incomparable authority by the resurrection of the Son of Man does not mean the abrogation, but rather the radicalization, of the Law. Here there is really some affinity with the community of Qumran. Even if the conflict is in the first place with the Hellenists (and perhaps with Paul), with 107

108

109

1 0 7

T h e r e f o r e , I basically share what has been written b y K l o p p e n b o r g , Excavating Q, 379: » T h e c onc lusion to be d r a w n is not that Q w a s oblivious to the issues of the death and vindication of J e s u s but that Q's a p p r o a c h to these issues is significantly different f r o m t h o s e of Paul (and his i m m e d i a t e p r e d e c e s s o r s ) and the M a r k a n and p o s t - M a r k a n g o s p e l s « . See also R . Penna, Cristologia senza morte redentrice: un filone dipensiero del giudeocristianesimo piu antico, in Verus Israel, cit., 7 5 - 8 1 . T h e contrary, instead, is maintained at least in part b y K l o p p e n b o r g , The Sayings Gospel Q, 332 ff.: the absence of controversies in Q s h o w s that Sanders is m o r e right than H e n g e l in asserting that J e s u s did not m a k e a p r o g r a m m a t i c criticism of the S a b b a t h . T h e a u t h o r admits, however, that on p u r i t y and tithing J e s u s m u s t have m a d e critical state­ ments. H . D . B e t z , Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia 1985 ( = Studien zur Bergpredigt, T u b i n g e n 1985); The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49), M i n n e a p o l i s 1995. H e r e , at p a g e 44, the conclusion: M a t t h e w f o u n d the s e r m o n o n the m o u n t in his recension of Q ( Q ) . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s is criticized b y G . N . Stanton, The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount, in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. E s s a y s in H o n o r of E . E . Ellis for his 60th B i r t h d a y edited b y G . F. H a w t h o r n e with O . B e t z , G r a n d R a p i d s 1987, 1 8 1 - 1 9 2 . A g r e e m e n t with the h y p o t h e s i s of B e t z is instead e x p r e s s e d b y J . T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants, 20 ff. Cfr. also, Hzrtm, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, cit., 1 4 4 - 1 7 2 . 1 0 8

1 0 9

M a t t

88

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

regard to this group of disciples of Jesus, still called Nazarenes (or N a z o r e ans), it is in fact a question of a Jewish >sect< that saw in the teachings of its founder a polemical stand against those who did not observe the Law faith­ fully, including the Pharisees. It is no accident that in making accusations against Paul to the procurator Felix, the rhetor Tertullus presented him as the pestilent ringleader of the >sect< of the Nazarenes, guilty of attempting to violate the temple, who for this reason the Sanhedrin wanted to judge according to its own law (Acts 24:5-6). For Tertullus (or for Luke?) the sect of the Nazarenes was cdpeaiQ just as for Josephus cdpeaeiq were those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. For this reason I would not feel up to subscribing to what Fusco affirms with respect to the group of Q: »If one makes only a superficial examination of a purely sociological aspect, one may speak of a simple >renewal movement within Judaism; theologically it was already outside the synagogue in the sense that in any case of divergence between the synagogue and Jesus, they would have to follow J e s u s « . The community of Qumran, as well, in case of divergence between the Pharisaic teaching and that of the Teacher of Righteousness, followed the Teacher of Righteousness. The Halakhic Letter ( 4 Q M M T ) , in fact, shows that precisely because of this contrast the community broke off from the other Jewish groups. And yet Qumran can surely be interpreted as a >renewal move­ m e n t within Judaism. As a matter of fact, in the Source Q there is really an argument within the Jewish community on the theme of the validity of the Law (and perhaps even of sacrifices) that can be compared to the >Essene< one of Qumran. And the group of Q can for this reason be really defined a >Judaeo-Christianity<, even if the faith in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus distinguished it clearly from other Jewish groups. And its particular position in the Judaism of the time suggests a further hypothesis. The lack of mentions of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the re-affirmation of the value of the Law place this orientation of the group of Q (and thus of the party of James) in clear contrast to what we have seen present among the Hellenists. But this orientation (or rather, the literary product of this orientation, which is the drawing up of the source Q ) came to light toward the middle of the first century, thus after, not before, the Hel­ lenists stated their position. Without going so far as to reach a hypothesis of groups that were theologically in contrast in a radical way, as seems to have become fashionable today, we can thus think that the need to collect the words of Jesus (in Greek!) had its origin not only from the desire to follow 110

111

110

Op. cit., 143. With respect to this, F u s c o , 147, is right (when he s p e a k s of the absence in Q of the death of J e s u s ) : » T h e p r o b l e m [...] is not resolved b y imagining radically contrasting C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s « . See also P e a r s o n , 476: » T h e r e w a s n o significant difference in terms of beliefs and practices between J e s u s - b e l i e v i n g J e w s in Galilee and in J e r u s a l e m « . 111

4. The mission

of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

89

proselytism

his teaching, but also from the desire to oppose the orientation expressed by the Hellenists. It may perhaps be rash to explain Mt. 7:21-23: 112

N o t e v e r y o n e w h o s a y s t o m e , > L o r d , L o r d s shall e n t e r t h e k i n g d o m o f h e a v e n , b u t h e w h o d o e s t h e w i l l o f m y F a t h e r w h o is in h e a v e n . O n t h a t d a y m a n y w i l l s a y t o m e , > L o r d , L o r d , d i d w e n o t p r o p h e s y in y o u r n a m e , a n d c a s t o u t d e m o n s in y o u r n a m e , a n d d o m a n y m i g h t y w o r k s in y o u r n a m e ? < A n d t h e n w i l l I d e c l a r e t o t h e m , >I n e v e r k n e w y o u ; d e p a r t f r o m m e , y o u evil ( a v o u i a v ) d o e r s <

as an indirect argument of Q against the group of Hellenists, who from the lordship of Christ deduced the criticism of the Law. But to the kerygma centred around the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, which was the first, immediate effect of the paschal experience and which in the Hellenists led to questioning the value of the Mosaic Law, is added in any case the kerygma based on the teaching of Jesus, which recovered the material regarding his earthly activity and which aimed at re-affirming and radicalizing the validity of that L a w . 113

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles and Christian proselytism While the re-discovery of the Jewishness of Jesus and of the early commu­ nity is not really surprising, and thus a reading of their spirituality showing it completely within the Jewish tradition cannot be refused absolutely, things are undoubtedly different as far as Paul is concerned. Paul's adhesion to the Christian faith has traditionally been considered a typical example of conversion from one religion to another, and Paul himself has frequently been considered the (second) founder of Christianity. His conception of the lordship of Christ and his criticism of Mosaic L a w in fact seem to distance him in a decisive way from the tradition of his people. And above all in the interpretation of Protestant scholars the principle of justification by faith has almost always brought with it a strong anti-Jewish tendency. A >re-entry of Paul into the Jewish people< analogous to the one that has oc114

1 1 2

See also, in a slightly different way, P e a r s o n , 492: » I w o u l d s u g g e s t that the J e s u s traditions of the A r a m a i c - s p e a k i n g >Hebrews< led b y the twelve >apostles< ( A c t s 6.1; 8.1) were translated in J e r u s a l e m for the benefit of the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g >Hellenists< led b y the g r o u p of seven n a m e d in A c t s (6,5). T h a t c o u l d very well be the origin of w h a t w e n o w k n o w as Q. A s to the p r o v e n a n c e of Q as w e n o w have it, a g o o d a r g u m e n t c o u l d be m a d e that it, t o o , originated in J e r u s a l e m , t h o u g h A n t i o c h is also a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y « . F u s c o , 279. A n d it m a y be n o accident that the a u t h o r s of Q d o not even cite P s a l m 110, that is, the central text for asserting that l o r d s h i p of the risen C h r i s t that challenges the salvific value of the L a w . T h i s is e m p h a s i z e d v e r y well b y J . D . G . D u n n , The Theology of Paul the Apostle, E d i n b u r g h 1998, 334 ff., indicating also in the w o r k s b y E . P . S a n d e r s the turning p o i n t t o w a r d s a new perspective. 1 1 3

1 1 4

90

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

curred for Jesus does not appear easy. And yet it has been attempted several times, and in various ways, in the last few years. It is not my intention to examine all these attempts here. I would, however, like to mention two of them. Precisely because it is possible to share their view in part, they can be particularly useful for my discussion, allowing me to point out the decisive point of my differentiation. In more than one of his writings, but above all in one remarkable article from 1977, W.D. Davies has noted above all that the conversion of Paul cannot be understood as »the passage from one religious faith to another«. When he spoke about the relationships of the Jews with the new people of G o d , and thus once again in chapters 9-11 of the letter to the Romans, »Paul was not thinking in terms of what we normally call conversion from one religion to another but of the recogni­ tion by Jews of the final or true form of their own religion«. This means that »in accepting the Jew, Jesus, as the Messiah, Paul did not think in terms of moving into a new religion but of having found the final expression and intent of the Jewish tradition within which he himself had been born«. Before 70, in fact, Christianity did not exist at all as a distinct and separate religious movement, but rather as a Jewish movement in competition with other Jewish movements that interpreted a common tradition in different ways. As a consequence »he would not have conceived of himself as hav­ ing ceased to be a J e w (Rom. I X . 3 - X I . 1 ) or as having inaugurated a new religion«. This, however, means that the discussions of Paul on the Jews and Judaism were discussions within the Jewish community. It is true, in fact, that »we have no letters of Paul to Jews or to Jewish Christians but only to largely Gentile churches. But these Christian communities were prob­ ably composed of Jews and of Gentiles who had been attracted to Judaism through the s y n a g o g u e s « . And Paul believed that the ethnic and linguistic distinctions would remain until the messianic age. 115

116

117

118

119

H i s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t >in C h r i s t / t h e r e is n e i t h e r J e w n o r G r e e k ( G a l . 111.28, C o l . I I I . 11) w o u l d s e e m at first s i g h t t o e x c l u d e it. H o w e v e r , it is clear t h a t u n i t y >in C h r i s t < d i d not u n d o ethnic differences. In C h r i s t J e w s remain J e w s and G r e e k s remain G r e e k s . E t h n i c p e c u l i a r i t i e s a r e h o n o u r e d (I C o r . I X . 2 2 , X , 3 2 ) .

1 1 5

1 2 0

It w a s certainly a t t e m p t e d b y D u n n , b o t h in The Partings of the Ways and in Jesus, Paul and the Law, and again in The Theology of Paul the Apostle. O n e cannot say instead that such an attempt w a s m a d e b y E . P . S a n d e r s , either in his great e s s a y of 1977 o n Paul and the Palestinian Judaism ( 1 9 8 4 ) or in the later one o n Paul, the Law and the Jewish People, Philadelphia 1983. T h e c o m p a r i s o n of religious m o d e l s in fact in h i m turns into a clear contrast Paul and the People of Israel: N e w Testament Studies 24 (1977) 4 - 3 9 . Op. cit., 24, 27. Op. cit., 1 9 , 2 0 . Op. cit., 19. Op. cit., 23. 2

116

117

118

119

120

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

proselytism

91

Connecting back, in my opinion, to the position of liberal theology of the nineteenth century, with its conception of the Judaism of the Diaspora as Judaism that was hellenized and open, that is, to be exact, >liberal<, in a thought-provoking book published in 1994 D . Boyarin has proposed the understanding of the religion of Paul as a cultural formation analogous to other Hellenistic Judaisms and comparable in particular to that of Philo. Having emerged from a common background of thought made up of the eclectic middle platonism of the Greek-language Judaism of the first century and characterized by the Hellenistic desire for the One, Paul's Christianity is seen as basically a radically hellenized form of Judaism, with strongly spiritualized tendencies, which are expressed in particular in the dualistic anthropology of the flesh and the spirit and in the allegorical interpretation of the Jewish tradition. 121

122

123

T h e c o n g r u e n c e o f P a u l a n d P h i l o s u g g e s t s a c o m m o n b a c k g r o u n d t o their t h o u g h t in t h e t h o u g h t - w o r l d o f t h e eclectic m i d d l e - p l a t o n i s m o f G r e e k - s p e a k i n g J u d a i s m in t h e first c e n t u r y . T h e i r a l l e g o r i c a l r e a d i n g p r a c t i c e [...] is f o u n d e d o n a b i n a r y o p p o s i t i o n in w h i c h t h e m e a n i n g as a d i s e m b o d i e d s u b s t a n c e e x i s t s p r i o r t o its i n c a r n a t i o n in l a n g u a g e - t h a t is, in a d u a l i s t i c s y s t e m in w h i c h s p i r i t p r e c e d e s a n d is primary over body.

1 2 4

Emphasizing the »extraordinary alliance between hatred of Jews and hatred of women«, the author asserts in particular the presence in Philo and in Paul of a strong devaluation, even if it is not really a rejection, of the body. »The very same discursive moment, found in both Philo and Paul, which produced the devaluation of the ethnic body - Jewish - as the corporeal, produced also the devaluation of the gendered body - female - as the corpo­ real, and this is how the Universal Subject becomes male and C h r i s t i a n s Paul is thus considered to be a complete product of the Greek Diaspora and seen as a radical Hellenistic Jew, of the same sort as Philo. Let us thus examine briefly the validity of these hypotheses. 125

121

A radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1994. T h e fact that the a u t h o r is aware of having written a p r o v o c a t i v e b o o k is p r o b a b l y already clear f r o m the q u e s t i o n that he himself asks o n p . 1: » W h a t m o t i v a t e d a scholar of T a l m u d , virtually untrained in N e w T e s t a m e n t scholarship, to p r o d u c e an e s s a y a b o u t Paul?« Op. cit., 13: » P a u l i n e religion s h o u l d itself be u n d e r s t o o d as a religio-cultural f o r m a ­ tion c o n t i g u o u s w i t h other Hellenistic J u d a i s m s . A m o n g the m a j o r s u p p o r t s for such a c o n s t r u c t i o n are the similarities between Paul and P h i l o « . Op. cit., 7,13-14. Op. cit., 14. Op. cit., 17, 3 7 - 3 8 . A s the author himself s a y s , the principal thesis of the b o o k is that » P a u l is m o b i l i z e d b y as t h o r o u g h g o i n g a d u a l i s m as that of P h i l o « , even if »it d o e s not i m p l y a rejection of the b o d y « and even if » P a u l is, however, not quite a p l a t o n i s t « {op. cit., 59, 61). 122

123

124

125

92

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

The affirmations of Davies can for the most part be shared. Paul's was certainly not the conversion from one religion to another. In recognizing Jesus as the Lord and the saviour of the world, Paul thought he was bringing his previous faith to its complete fulfilment. And even in the most radical aspects of his criticism of the Mosaic Law, he did not think at all of putting himself outside the Jewish tradition. His discussions with the Jews show in fact that both he and his adversaries considered the Christian movement as something within J u d a i s m . This affirmation seems that much more convincing, in my opinion, because Davies emphasizes quite rightly that the criticism of the apostle Paul toward the L a w was only a consequence of the place Paul attributed to Jesus as the Messiah, thus of his conviction that the history of the Jewish people had reached its long-awaited completion. »The messiahship of Jesus is the point of departure for Paulinism«. And I, too, am convinced that to understand the thought of Paul, but also of all the Christians of the time, the decisive point lies precisely in this strict connection that appears in them between the christology resulting from the experience of the resurrection and the awareness of their new identity. But it is precisely here, in my opinion, that the weakness, or at least the insuf­ ficiency, of the hypothesis of Davies is shown. F r o m the point of view that we are considering, of the relationship of Paul with the Jews and Judaism, to say that the messiahship of Jesus was the point of departure for Paulinism, thus emphasizing only the continuity with the Jewish tradition, can actually be misleading. This is because the christological faith of Paul was oriented much more toward the Lord than toward the Messiah. Jesus was for him much more the Lord of Jews and Gentiles, thus the saviour of all men and the head of a new creation, than the Messiah of Israel. And this introduced into the Jewish tradition a strong element of discontinuity. Beginning from the experience of Damascus and however his preaching was carried out (whether it was first to the Jews or from the start to the Gentiles), Paul had conceived of his mission as addressed not only and not so much to the 126

127

128

1 2 6

It is interesting, indeed, to see h o w even E . P . Sanders, w h o , as I will say at once, rightly criticized the p o s i t i o n of D a v i e s , shares this point. In Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, cit., 192, regarding the p u n i s h m e n t s received b y Paul f r o m the J e w s , which he r e ­ calls in 2 Cor. 11:24, his assertion is well f o u n d e d when he says, » T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t point to be derived f r o m 2 C o r . 11:24 is that b o t h Paul and the J e w s w h o p u n i s h e d him regarded the Christian m o v e m e n t as falling within J u d a i s m . [...]. Punishment implies inclusion. If Paul had considered that he had w i t h d r a w n f r o m J u d a i s m , he w o u l d not have attended s y n a g o g u e . If the m e m b e r s of the s y n a g o g u e had considered him an outsider, they w o u l d not have punished h i m « . B u t this is precisely the area of dissent between Paul and the J e w s , which w a s m a d e into a dispute, if not a crisis b y the openness to the Gentiles. Op. cit., 5. Cfr. also Sanders, op. cit., 57 n. 63 (with regard to the affirmation b y D a v i e s ) » C h r i s t is, for Paul, universal L o r d : he is as Gentile savior as J e w i s h savior. T h e J e w s as such are not already in the new creation. T h e y m u s t enter«. 127

1 2 8

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

proselytism

93

Jews, but also, and principally, to the Gentiles. And this fact is enormously important. I concluded the section on the early community by referring to the assumption on the part of the believers of Antioch of the name of Christians in the sense of belonging to Christ as their Lord. Paul did not use the term Christian (he did not as a matter of fact use any specific term to indicate the disciples of Christ). But among the N e w Testament authors he is the one that made the most use and gave the strongest meaning to the title of xupio<;. The experience of Damascus, as an experience of the risen Christ, had also evidently been an experience of the lordship of Christ. For the first believers, as we have seen above, there was in fact no experience of the resurrection of Jesus that was not also at the same time an experience of the exaltation of Christ. And in Paul this conviction is completely clear. The experience of the risen Christ is an experience of the glory of the risen Christ. What speaks in the clearest way in this direction is probably the hymn that has already been mentioned, in the letter to the Philippians, with its reference to the attribution to Christ by G o d of an >high exaltation< over all the creatures and to the giving of the name (of lord) that is above every other name. One may certainly discuss whether or not, in reporting this hymn passed on to him by tradition, Paul attributed to Jesus a true divine nature. In fact, Dunn is not wrong to remind u s that the category of the exaltation to divine functions (with ascensions, apotheoses, judgment and dispatching of the spirit) is not completely extraneous to the Judaism of the time. And that calling Jesus L o r d did not mean identifying him with G o d . Paul and the first Christians maintained that »the one G o d had shared his lordship with the exalted C h r i s t « . Therefore, their language did not nec­ essarily offend the monotheistic Jews. It is, however, certain that making his own, and probably further accentuating, the images of glorious exaltation of this hymn to Christ, Paul attributed to him characteristics and powers that were traditionally not those of the Messiah of Israel but were those of G o d . Christ was in fact the only Lord of all and to him were given power and glory. The synthesis of these convictions can be found in any case in the passage of 1 Cor. 8:5-6: »For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many >gods< and many >lords< - yet for us there is one G o d , the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist«. Here, too, there is no identification of Jesus with G o d . There is instead a clear distinction between the one G o d , the Father, and the one Lord, the Christ. But to the Christ is attributed a lordship that goes far beyond the powers customarily recognized to the Messiah of Israel, 1 2 9

130

The Partings of the Ways, Op. cit., 191.

185-206.

94

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

in any of his forms. Can one thus say like Dunn that »PauVs christology and the devotional language of the earliest Christian worship did not cause any offence to monotheistic Jews«} It's difficult to maintain this. In any case, we can see here the clear beginning of a process that would soon enough lead to the attribution to Jesus of a real divine nature. Just as the consequence of these reflections is precisely the >belonging< of the believ­ ers not only to G o d (as in particular Judas the Galilean asserted) but also to Christ: »You are Christ's« (1 Cor. 3:23; Gal. 3:29). And in Christ there is neither J e w nor Greek any more (Gal. 3:28). The privilege of Israel is necessarily questioned. m

132

133

134

131

Op. cit., 206. A t the c o n v e n t i o n in D u r h a m it w a s u n d o u b t e d l y P. S t u h l m a c h e r w h o maintained the m o s t traditional p o s i t i o n , insisting, as I have m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , on the division i n t r o d u c e d in J u d a i s m already f r o m the time of the first c o m m u n i t i e s that J e s u s is L o r d and M e s s i a h . F o r h i m the Pauline letters (in particular Rom. 1:3-4; 3:25-26; Phil. 2:6-11) s h o w in an u n e q u i v o c a l w a y that f r o m the beginning c h r i s t o l o g y p o s s e s s e d four aspects: pre-existence, incarnation, death on the c r o s s and exaltation. T h i s m e a n s that with Paul the p r o c e s s of division b e t w e e n J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s , w h i c h b e g a n with the p r o f e s s i o n of faith of the early c o m m u n i t i e s and the m a r t y r d o m of Stephen, b e c a m e irreversible. Das Christusbild der Paulus-Schule - eine Skizze, cit., 1 5 9 - 1 7 5 . A l t h o u g h I u n d o u b t e d l y contest s o m e exaggerations (it is d e b a t a b l e to attribute all this w e i g h t to Rom. 1:3-4 and Phil. 2:6-11 and s p e a k already not o n l y of pre-existence but also of incarnation), I believe that he is essentially right in identifying the deep r o o t s of the division in the historical p r o c e s s b e g u n with the christological affirmations resulting f r o m the experience of the resurrection. E v e n if I d o not believe one can s p e a k for Paul, as C a p e s d o e s , 1 8 1 - 1 8 3 , of a c o m ­ plete identification of J e s u s with G o d and thus assert that there w a s n o distinction between the >low< c h r i s t o l o g y of Paul and the >high< one of J o h n . E v e n if this conviction that the p o s i t i o n of Paul o n the L a w w a s caused b y his experience of the l o r d s h i p of C h r i s t is contested b y very few scholars, a different p r o b l e m is whether it w a s the i m m e d i a t e c o n s e q u e n c e of the experience of D a m a s c u s or whether is w a s instead the fruit of a d e v e l o p m e n t of his theological t h o u g h t and w a s thus his p o s i t i o n on the L a w that c a u s e d the o p e n n e s s to the p a g a n s or, vice versa, the o p e n n e s s to the p a g a n s that caused his p o s i t i o n o n the L a w . In taking u p again the p o s i t i o n s of A . Schweitzer e di W. Wrede, scholars like E . P . S a n d e r s , H . R a i s a n e n e J . D . G . D u n n see in the experience of D a m a s c u s a b o v e all the v o c a t i o n of Paul to the m i s s i o n a m o n g the Gentiles and in his p o s i t i o n o n the L a w a later theological d e v e l o p m e n t . After having a s ­ serted that the m i s s i o n of a p o s t l e to the Gentiles w a s for Paul strictly tied to the revelation of C h r i s t that he had had at D a m a s c u s , Sa nders writes, for e x a m p l e , 152: » T h u s w e c o m e to the f o l l o w i n g train of experience and thought: G o d revealed his s o n to Paul and called h i m to b e apostle to the Gentiles. C h r i s t is not only the J e w i s h M e s s i a h , he is savior and L o r d of the universe. If salvation is b y C h r i s t and is intended for Gentile as well as J e w , it is not b y the J e w i s h L a w in any case, n o matter h o w well it is d o n e , and w i t h o u t regard to one's interior attitude. Salvation is b y faith in C h r i s t , and the L a w d o e s not rest o n faith«. I believe instead that the c o n t r a r y is true: while salvation c o m e s f r o m C h r i s t , it d o e s not c o m e f r o m J e w i s h L a w , and it is thus d e v o t e d b o t h to the J e w s and to the Gentiles. T h e s a m e is believed b y V o u g a , 95: » P a u l m a y be the apostle of the p a g a n s (Gal. 2:9) b e c a u s e n o b o d y can be just before G o d b y m e a n s of the w o r k s of the L a w , and b e c a u s e G o d w h o has called him justifies t h r o u g h a justice that is b y faith (Gal. 2:15—21)«. B u t for the 1 3 2

1 3 3

1 3 4

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

95

proselytism

It is legitimate at this point to ask oneself what Paul thought about his being a Jew, or to say it with the title of a fine article by J . D . G. Dunn, who Paul thought he w a s . It is obvious, and can appear to be banal, to affirm that Paul never repudiated his Jewish faith and for this reason he thought that he was fully a Jew. But things are not so simple. In his article Dunn reached two conclusions that in my opinion can be shared completely. Paul certainly did not think he was in >Judaism< any longer. The reference of Gal. 1:13-14 to Judaism, and more precisely, to his past life in it (»For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of G o d violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers«), is clear. That >Judaism< is not simply the one we can now indicate as Judaism of the second temple, that is, the set of convictions and positions that constitute the multi-faceted and varied body of the Jewish re­ ligion of the time, but instead it is the particular direction of Judaism aiming at promoting >zeal< for the Mosaic Law and the traditions of the fathers, and, that is, the ethnic-religious orientation assumed by Judaism starting from the Maccabean revolt, which led to Pharisaism: that ethnic-religious orien­ tation that considered the scrupulous observance of the Mosaic Law as the best instrument of reconciliation and the principal identity marker. This is the form of Judaism in which Paul strived to excel before his conversion. And with this >Judaism< of zeal for the Law (and not, however, with all of Judaism) he broke definitively. As he himself wrote in the autobiographical passage in Phil. 3:8-9: 135

136

I n d e e d I c o u n t e v e r y t h i n g as l o s s b e c a u s e o f the s u r p a s s i n g w o r t h o f k n o w i n g C h r i s t J e s u s m y L o r d . F o r his s a k e I h a v e s u f f e r e d t h e l o s s o f all t h i n g s , a n d c o u n t t h e m as r e f u s e , in o r d e r t h a t I m a y g a i n C h r i s t a n d b e f o u n d in h i m , n o t h a v i n g a r i g h t e o u s ­ n e s s o f m y o w n , b a s e d o n L a w , b u t t h a t w h i c h is t h r o u g h faith in C h r i s t .

Coming from G o d , the L a w is certainly good, but as a salvific principle of justification and reconciliation Christ and the L a w cannot go together. F r o m this point of view Christ is in fact TSXO^ VOJJLOU (Rom. 10:4), that is, however this passage is interpreted exactly: whether >end< means the conclu­ sion, or the aim, Christ has replaced the Law. As G. Eichholz has written very well, »the encounter with Christ had the consequence for Paul that p u r p o s e s of m y d i s c u s s i o n the p r o b l e m is not very i m p o r t a n t . In any case, the p o s i t i o n of Paul o n the L a w c o m e s f r o m his faith in the l o r d s h i p of C h r i s t . J . D . G . D u n n , Who did Paul think He was f A Study of Jewish Christian Identity: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 45 (1999) 1 7 4 - 1 9 3 . T h i s is the p o s i t i o n of D u n n also in The Theology of Paul the Apostle, cit., 346 ff: >Judaism< is the >zealot< t e n d e n c y of the Pharisees, w h i c h f o u g h t against the o p e n n e s s of the Hellenists t o w a r d the Gentiles. A n d this is the p o s i t i o n also of Barclay, 410: »>Judaism< is m u c h closer to an ethnic d e s c r i p t o r than its s u p p o s e d equivalent >Hellenism<«. 1 3 5

1 3 6

96

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

Christ became the centre of his theology, just as the Torah must have been before t h a t « . But did Paul think that he was in any case still a Jew? Here the answer, apparently obvious, is actually less simple. That in Christ the ethnic differ­ ences are preserved, as Davies asserts, is in fact only partially true. The most characteristic mark of Jewish ethnicity, circumcision, is interpreted by Paul in an entirely symbolic manner: that manner which Philo in de specialihus legibus criticized in the mere >allegorists< (and Paul is thus completely dif­ ferent from Philo). And while it is true that Paul became a Jew with the Jews and a Gentile with the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:20-21), in the communities of Jews and Gentiles he interpreted Jewishness not in an ethnic sense, but in a spiritual sense. Actually, Paul thought he was still a Jew, but not on the basis of the material indicators of the L a w or of circumcision, but by power of the Spirit that produces circumcision in the heart. The entry into and the belonging to the people of G o d , to the Israel of G o d , did not in fact depend on the L a w and on circumcision, but only on faith. Real Jews were thus not simply the sons of Abraham, but only those who believed in Christ. The interpretation of Boyarin can be seen, on the other hand, as an op­ portune reaction to that reading of Paul within the picture of Palestinian Judaism which I mentioned above (and which was in its turn a reaction to the reading of Paul within the picture of Hellenistic Judaism that was typical of liberal theology). Just as the first Christians of Jerusalem were nothing more than a new orientation of Palestinian Judaism, so Paul could be considered as a new orientation of (Hellenistic) Judaism of the Diaspora. While it is correct, in fact, not to contrast Hellenistic Jews and rabbinic Jews in the first century, it is also true that there were tendencies that would lead »in the end to a sharp division between Hellenizers, who became absorbed into Christian groups, and anti-Hellenizers, who formed the nascent rab­ binic m o v e m e n t s Paul, in this view, was definitely a >radical Jew< (he, too, therefore, was not yet a Christian) not too different from Philo of Alexan­ dria in his research for a synthesis between Palestinian traditions and Hel­ lenistic culture. But this is not the case. I mentioned above the orientation 137

138

139

137

Die Theologie des Paulus im Umriss, N e u k i r c h e n / V l u y n 1972, 2 2 5 . Rom. 2:28-29: » F o r he is not a real J e w w h o is one outwardly, n o r is true circumci­ sion s o m e t h i n g external and physical. H e is a J e w w h o is o n e inwardly, and real circumci­ sion is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal«. Op. cit., 14. H o w e v e r , if I u n d e r s t a n d the t h o u g h t of the a u t h o r well, this is a description of the J e w i s h reality of the first century that s o u n d s decidedly reductive and simplified; as if Hellenistic J u d a i s m h a d evolved t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n i t y and anti-Hellenistic (Palestinian) J u d a i s m t o w a r d s R a b b i n i s m . A n d it is interesting to note that, a l t h o u g h he follows a c o m p l e t e l y different r o u t e , B o y a r i n merges in this w a y w i t h the scholars w h o identify the m o m e n t of the separation of C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m J u d a i s m in the t r i u m p h of R a b b i n i s m a n d the d i s a p p e a r a n c e of J e w i s h Christianity. 138

139

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

proselytism

97

adopted by the >Hellenists< that put them in contrast with the >Hebrews<. We have seen, in fact, that with their criticism of the L a w and their mission to the pagans they »gave to the Christian movement a character different from that of any other Jewish sect of the t i m e « . But the orientation of the Hellenists did not depend so much on a cultural openness that made them more >liberal< than the Hebrews as on a more radical way of understanding the lordship of the risen Christ. It is from the recognition of the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of G o d that those Hellenists drew, as I have said, the practical consequences that placed them in contrast with the Jews of J e ­ rusalem. And Paul took this position (which is precisely the one that he had earlier fought against) to its extreme consequences. We see it clearly if from the exclusively conceptual level of Christian faith we shift to the concrete social reality of the Pauline communities. As a matter of fact, Paul was not at all inclined to make that synthesis between Palestinian traditions and Hel­ lenistic culture that Boyarin speaks of. At a uniquely cultural level, he was much less open than Aristeas or Philo. His theology was after all influenced very little by Hellenism. The Hellenists of Luke cannot be described at all as >liberal< Jews, or as not very orthodox Jews. But Paul fits these descriptions even less, since he was not even really a Hellenist, but rather an E(3pouo£ E(3pauov, and to be more precise, a Pharisee zealous about the Law. >Hebrew from Hebrews<, and a Pharisee zealous about the Law, Paul, as Barclay has rightly emphasized, was thus not so much a >radical< J e w as an >anomalous< Jew. And his anomaly consists in the fact that, although he was less open than Aristeas or Philo to influences of Hellenistic culture, he broadened the territory of the Christian community far beyond that of the synagogue of the D i a s p o r a . While, in fact, the Jewish communities of the Diaspora accepted only proselytes and God-fearers, Gentiles who by adhering to the Mosaic L a w in some way joined the Jewish people, Paul and the other Christian evangelizers with him adopted a much more radical position. Entry into the people of G o d was allowed not only to those who adhered to the Mosaic L a w and thus joined the Jewish people, but to all those who accepted the lordship of Christ. 140

f

f

141

1 4 0

M e e k s , The first urban Christians, 9 1 . Barclay, 387ff. A n d , b y the s a m e author, Paul among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate ?: J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of the N e w Testament 60 (1995) 8 9 - 1 2 0 ; Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25-9 in social and cultural Context: N e w Testament Studies 44 (1998) 5 3 6 - 5 6 6 . B u t precisely for this reason, I w o u l d not s a y either, like M e e k s , 177, that a r e m a r k a b l e affinity can be seen instead between Paul and Q u m r a n . It is in fact true, as M e e k s says, that b o t h left behind them fundamental institutions of the J u d a i s m of the time. B u t at the s a m e time they did s o , as M e e k s recognizes, in o p p o s i t e directions: Q u m r a n for the r i g o r o u s application of the L a w , and Paul for the a b r o g a t i o n of p r e s c r i p t i o n s . A n d a b o v e all, the respective theological motivations w e r e c o m p l e t e l y different: for Q u m r a n the exclusive insistence on the L a w , a n d for Paul the faith in C h r i s t d e a d a n d risen. 1 4 1

98

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

Of course, here there is a problem, amply discussed among the scholars. Who was Paul addressing in his preaching? And who thus made up the Pauline churches? Luke recounts, in a well-known story, that in all the Hel­ lenistic cities where he arrived, Paul looked for the Jewish community first of all, and thus, if there was one, the synagogue. And he asserts that only after the Jews had refused to receive the preaching of the Christ dead and risen would Paul turn to the Gentiles. But he also adds that the people who were the connection between the two communities must have been those that he calls the <po(3ou(ji£voi or ae^ofxevot TOV t k o v , that is, the pagan >Godfearers<, who gravitated to the synagogues. Davies maintains for this reason that, although we do no possess letters that Paul sent to Jews or to Jewish Christians, the communities that he addressed were composed largely of Jews and Gentiles attracted to Judaism. But it is difficult to accept this opin­ ion. Paul speaks of himself as the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13; Gal. 1:16). And, with very rare exceptions, which are not even certain, those that were converted by him were in fact Gentiles, not Jews. The testimony of the letters is completely clear and corrects the picture suggested by Luke. The way in which Paul speaks of these converted people identifies them in real­ ity as pagans. The Galatians, in fact, worshipped »beings that by nature are no gods« (Gal. 4:8). The Thessalonians had abandoned their idols (1 Thess. 1:9). And the Corinthians prayed to dumb idols (1 Cor. 12:2). But more in general, the theme of these letters clearly reveals that their addressees, like those in the letter to the Philippians, came in decidedly prevalent numbers from the ranks of paganism. The Pauline churches (the cases of Antioch and Rome were different) were thus made up mostly of Gentiles, and if some of them already gravitated to the synagogue before, we still cannot, however, maintain that they were all God-fearers. Luke's account, for as much as it is generally credible, doubtless contains a generalization. But even if this were not so, even if, that is, we were to think of communities primarily made up of Jews and God-fearers, this would not be very important. In any case, the traditional signs of ritual demarcation of the Jewish community (circumcision, kashrut, Sabbath) were abandoned by them. Their value was considered purely symbolic. And this had an enormous consequence socially. The Pauline churches had a completely new way of perceiving and manifesting their identity. In fact, 142

w h e n Paul b e c a m e a Christian, n e w rituals had already been created to c o m m e m o r a t e the d y i n g a n d r i s i n g o f J e s u s a n d t o i n c o r p o r a t e b e l i e v e r s i n t o his >body< [...] T h e s e rituals a n d a n e w set o f h u m a n r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e r e p l a c i n g c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d o t h e r 1 4 2

Sanders, 296 ff. T h e s a m e view is held b y V o u g a , 9 0 - 1 : » T h e c o n s e q u e n c e is the appearance of p u r e l y p a g a n - C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t i e s , as at T h e s s a l o n i c a and C o r i n t h , but also in Galatia. T h e c o m m u n i t i e s of the Pauline m i s s i o n were not tied to the s y n a g o g u e , nor were they b o r n in its b o s o m ; they e m e r g e d in the p a g a n w o r l d « .

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

proselytism

99

h a l a k i c o b s e r v a n c e s as t h e d i s t i n c t i v e b o u n d a r y m a r k e r s o f t h e p e o p l e o f t h e o n e God.

1 4 3

If D . J . Verseput were to be right in maintaining that Gal. 1:13-24 should be interpreted not as the refusal of Paul of any human instruction on the part of the apostles, but rather as an affirmation of the independence of Paul from the Judaeo-Christian community of Jerusalem, this would make the detachment of the Pauline churches from the Jewish community even deeper. The autobiographic reference of Paul would in fact not be intended to defend his right to preach the gospel or his authority over the Galatian church, but to support the validity of the salvation of his converts without being incorporated into the ranks of the Judaeo-Christian community. This inevitably poses the problem of whether the appearance of the Pauline churches did not constitute the birth of a new social entity alongside those of the Jews and the Gentiles. It is in fact true that Paul seems not to have had a specific definition for these churches of his. It is true that the contrast with respect to Jews and Gentiles appears only rarely in his letters (for example, in 1 Cor. 10:32; Gal. 3:28). And it is true that only once (Gal. 6:16: »the Israel of G o d « ; but see also Rom. 9:6: »not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel«) does he speak about believers as the >true Is­ r a e l i And yet the affirmation that it is not the observance of the L a w and the practice of circumcision, but it is only faith in the Christ dead and risen that determines the belonging to the people of G o d , cannot avoid leading to the consequence that alongside the Jews and the Gentiles a new social entity has really emerged, the one that would later be defined the x p i x o v yevo^, the tertium genus, the >new< or the >true Israek For even if Paul thought that the church was nothing more than the realization of the hope of Israel, that affirmation in fact implied the separation of the Christian community from 144

145

1 4 3

M e e k s , 168. Cfr. also, in particular o n circumcision, Barclay, Paul and Philo on Circumcision, cit., 543 ff. D . J . Verseput, Paul's Gentile Mission and the Jewish Christian Community: New T e s t a m e n t Studies 39 (1993) 3 6 - 5 8 . H o w e v e r , in order to s u p p o r t this thesis, it d o e s not s e e m at all necessary, and it is indeed a little contradictory, to assert that » A t this early date m a n y of Paul's fellow C h r i s t i a n had scarcely b e g u n to see themselves as anything b u t a sect within first-century J u d a i s m . T h e y w e r e in their o w n m i n d s s i m p l y the >believing< element within the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y w h i c h h a d distinguished themselves o r g a n i z a t i o n ­ ally and b e g u n e m b r a c i n g m o r e and m o r e G o d - f e a r i n g Gentiles. B u t at heart they w e r e still p a r t of the J e w i s h D i a s p o r a , with J e r u s a l e m still serving as the centre of their faith and h o p e « . Op. cit., 3 7 - 3 8 . T h e J e w i s h nature w a s that of the church of J e r u s a l e m and of the adversaries of Paul b u t not, as I have said, of the Pauline c o m m u n i t i e s , w h i c h w e r e for the greater p a r t of Gentile origin. T h e e x p r e s s i o n d o e s not yet a p p e a r in Paul, of course; and even the »Israel of G o d « is interpreted b y s o m e scholars as a reference either to Israel itself or to the C h r i s t i a n s of J e w i s h origin. I believe, however, that there can be n o d o u b t that with this e x p r e s s i o n Paul w a n t e d to indicate the C h r i s t i a n s in general, as o p p o s e d to »the p e o p l e of I s r a e k of 1 Cor. 10:18. 1 4 4

1 4 5

100

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from

30 CE to 100

CE

146

the Jewish o n e . There is a passage in Paul that is not usually taken into consideration in connection with this, but to which, in my opinion, the greatest importance must be given, when we evaluate this awareness of the apostle Paul that the Christian communities constituted a new political-so­ cial entity. And it is the famous passage of the letter to the Philippians: »But our commonwealth (TcoXtTeufxa) is in heaven« (Phil. 3:20). Following Jerome (conversatio), that 7toXiTeu[i.a is sometimes translated with >conduct<, >way of life<. And it is an absolutely misleading translation. The use of a political terminology (TZOXIQ, 7COXLT£U£X(X, aufATioXIxoa) on the part of the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters is absolutely no accident. Instead, it reveals the strong awareness of the >political< nature that the new communities had. Their >way of life< did not in fact have a simply personal, individual nature, but gave origin to social groups with their own precise identities and gifted with their own, autonomous, organization. But even the translation with >citizenship< can be misleading. In that passage, by no accident addressed by a Roman citizen to the inhabitants of a Roman colony, Paul does not in fact say TtoXixeia, right, constitution, but 7COXLT£U(JKX, urban community. 147

148

1 4 6

T h i s is maintained also b y S a n d e r s , 178: » P a u l , then, w e c a n n o t d o u b t , t h o u g h t of the church as the fulfilment of the p r o m i s e s to A b r a h a m . In that sense it w a s not at all a new religion. J e w s w h o entered the C h r i s t i a n m o v e m e n t d i d n o t have to convert in the w a y the Gentiles did: they d i d not have to r e n o u n c e their G o d , nor, at least in theory, o b s e r v a n c e of the L a w . N e v e r t h e l e s s in v e r y i m p o r t a n t w a y s the church w a s , in Paul's view and even m o r e in his practice, a third entity. It w a s not established b y admitting Gentiles to Israel a c c o r d i n g to the flesh [...] T h e w o r s h i p of the church w a s not w o r s h i p in the s y n a g o g u e ( t h o u g h quite conceivably s o m e m e m b e r s c o u l d have d o n e b o t h ) [...] Paul' v i e w of the church, s u p p o r t e d b y his practice, against his o w n c o n s c i o u s intention w a s substantially that it w a s a third entity, n o t j u s t b e c a u s e it w a s c o m p o s e d of b o t h J e w and G r e e k , b u t also b e c a u s e it w a s in i m p o r t a n t w a y s neither J e w i s h nor G r e e k « . F o l l o w i n g the frequent tendency a m o n g p r e s e n t - d a y scholars t o w a r d a critical d e m o l i t i o n of the L u k a n data, S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n have also q u e s t i o n e d the attri­ b u t i o n t o Paul of R o m a n citizenship, w h i c h w o u l d basically c o r r e s p o n d , a c c o r d i n g to them, to an a p o l o g e t i c a t t e m p t b y L u k e to m a k e Paul a p p e a r to b e l o n g to a social elite: this is a d a t u m that they claim w a s contradicted also b y Paul's m a n u a l labour. Op. cit., 2 9 7 - 3 0 2 (302: » I n o u r view, the L u k a n picture of Paul represents a literary fiction [...] T h e historical Paul w a s a citizen of neither R o m e nor T a r s u s « ) B u t such a refutation of the i n f o r m a t i o n in L u k e is a p a r t , in m y o p i n i o n , of the a b e r r a t i o n s of criticism. A g u i r r e is m u c h m o r e right w h e n he asserts in Del movimiento de Jesus a la Iglesia cristiana, cit., 1 7 3 - 1 7 4 , that, w i t h its nature of n o n - o b l i g a t o r y choice, Paul's w o r k d o e s n o t contradict, but confirms his lofty origins. N o r d o w e have a n y r e a s o n to think that he uses 7ioXiTeu[jia as a s y n o n y m for TToXixeia, as v a r i o u s a u t h o r s (in m y o p i n i o n , a l m o s t always w r o n g l y ) claim is d o n e b y J o s e p h u s in Contra Apionem. See for e x a m p l e T. R a j a k , The Against Apion and the Con­ tinuities in Josep h us's political Thought, in Understanding Josephus. Seven Perspectives ed­ ited b y S. M a s o n , Sheffield 1 9 9 8 , 2 2 8 . Actually, o n l y in C. Ap. 2,165 is 7ioXiTei>[j.a u s e d w i t h certainty as a s y n o n y m for TcoXixeia. O n the v a r i o u s meanings of TcoXixeufjia see, however, G . L u d e r i t z , What is the Politeuma ?, in Studies in early Jewish Epigraphy, edited b y J . W. Van H e n t e n - P.W. Van der H o r s t , L e i d e n - N e w Y o r k - L o n d o n 1994, 1 8 3 - 2 2 5 . 1 4 7

1 4 8

4. The mission of Paul to the Gentiles

and Christian

proselytism

101

H e is thus not thinking of an individual status of the citizen, but of a social community of TCOXITOU. The disciples of Christ did not belong to an urban community of Jews or of Gentiles regulated by their own laws, but to a heavenly community of Jews and Gentiles, whose only law was Christ him­ self. »PauPs politeuma is not in Alexandria (or any other city) but in heaven (Phil 3 : 2 0 ) . What is more, its members are both Jews and Gentiles, whose common identity is defined not by the Law but by their shared allegiance to C h r i s t « . And this creates a clear separation from the synagogue. One can judge in various ways, as I have said, Luke's affirmation that, in all the Hellenistic cities in which he arrived, Paul looked first of all for the Jewish community, and thus, if there was one, for the synagogue. Since this seems to be contradicted by almost all the Pauline letters, most authors believe that it is a generalization of Luke's that was meant to emphasize the gradual passage from Jews to Gentiles. But Luke's affirmation is so credible (and Rom. 1 1 : 1 1 - 1 2 seems after all to confirm it) that it could also reflect the real behaviour of the apostle: in that case the passage to Gentiles would have be essentially the result of the refusal of the Jews. And it would have been prepared by the adhesion in ever growing numbers of the God-fearers. The result of Paul's preaching, as his letters themselves testify, is that in any case communities sharply distin in the Pauline letters is that there is no visible connection or even contact between them and the s ct from the Jewish ones were born. »Socially the most striking thing about the communities revealed ynagogues«. »The groups of believers were linked to one another but were entirely independent of the s y n a g o g u e s « . If we want to use the references and the language of Sanders and of Dunn, this can only mean that Paul questioned two fundamental >pillars< of the Judaism of his time: the election of Israel and the Mosaic L a w . And it is impossible not to share Barclay's 149

150

151

1 4 9

Barclay, The Jews, 393. O n e can u n d e r s t a n d in this w a y w h y in 1 Cor. 6:1-4 Paul can u r g e the C h r i s t i a n s of C o r i n t h not to u s e the civil justice s y s t e m , but to resolve their o w n conflicts instead within the church ( » W h e n o n e of y o u has a grievance against a brother, d o e s he dare g o to law before the u n r i g h t e o u s instead of the s a i n t s ? « ) , even t h o u g h the theological m o t i v a t i o n a d o p t e d b y Paul is that »the saints will j u d g e the w o r l d « . M e e k s , 168. Cfr. also I d e m , Breaking away, cit., 106: » S o c i a l l y the Pauline g r o u p s w e r e never a sect of J u d a i s m . T h e y o r g a n i z e d their lives independently f r o m the J e w i s h associations of the cities w h e r e they were f o u n d e d , and apparently, s o far as the evidence reveals, they h a d little o r n o interaction with the J e w s « . T h i s affirmation (like the first o n e cited in the text) is p r o b a b l y t o o strong. We cannot rule o u t the h y p o t h e s i s that, like Paul, s o m e m e m b e r s of the Pauline c o m m u n i t y , being J e w s b y birth or G o d - f e a r e r s , still w e n t to the s y n a g o g u e and thus p r e s e r v e d a tie with the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y of the place. O n the whole, however, this is the situation as it w a s . Sanders, 2 0 7 - 2 0 8 (on the b r e a k of Paul w i t h J u d a i s m ) : » T h e r e are, nevertheless, t w o p o i n t s at w h i c h the b r e a k is clearly perceptible. O n e is the traditional J e w i s h doctrine of the election, w h i c h Paul denies. H e appeals, to be sure, t o G o d ' s covenant with A b r a h a m , and thus his l a n g u a g e is often a p p r o p r i a t e to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the church as >the true I s r a e k But his a r g u m e n t that the covenant >skips< f r o m A b r a h a m to C h r i s t , and n o w includes 1 5 0

1 5 1

102

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

conclusion: »Thus, mostly unwittingly, Paul fostered the fateful division between Christianity and J u d a i s m « . 152

5. The gospels of Matthew and of John and the problem of Judaeo-Christianity The principal areas of the Pauline mission are those of Asia Minor and Greece. In these areas the Christian communities, made up prevalently of Gentiles, already from the decade between 50 and 60, were thus clearly distinct and separate from the Jewish ones. But what was the situation in the Syro-Palestinian area? Did Christianity remain longer in this area as a phe­ nomenon within Judaism? Must we speak in this area of the existence of a Jewish Christianity as a Christianity that did not intend to give up its Jewish identity and which therefore still was present within the synagogue? D o the gospels of Matthew and John bear witness to a phenomenon of this s o r t ? 153

t h o s e in C h r i s t , b u t not J e w s b y descent, is in fact a flat denial of the election of Israel. T h e s e c o n d p o i n t at w h i c h the b r e a k is especially clear is his insistence that is t h r o u g h faith in C h r i s t , not b y accepting the L a w , that one enters the p e o p l e of G o d . T h u s he denies t w o pillars c o m m o n to all f o r m s of J u d a i s m : the election of Israel and faithfulness to the M o s a i c L a w « . See also H . R a i s a n e n , Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism: New Testament Studies 31 (1985) 5 4 3 - 5 5 3 . D u n n is m o r e v a g u e , in The Partings of the Ways, 117-139: for Paul o n e cannot s p e a k of a s e p a r a t i o n that had already o c c u r r e d t o w a r d the J e w i s h religion. In fact there is n o >anti-Judaism< in Paul, and even less s o a >break< with J u d a i s m . With his contrast between the M o s a i c L a w and faith in C h r i s t as the decisive element for being a m e m b e r of the p e o p l e of G i s , he in fact did not attack the L a w or the pact, b u t an extreme i m p o r t a n c e given to the n o r m s within the pact, w h i c h created a b o r d e r a r o u n d Israel, separating it f r o m the Gentiles. A n d yet with that contrast Paul » w a s beginning to m a k e a distinction within J e w i s h identity w h i c h his fellow J e w s s i m p l y c o u l d not see« (p. 138). In this w a y »it w a s Paul w h o effectively u n d e r m i n e d this third pillar of s e c o n d T e m p l e J u d a i s m « (fidelity to the M o s a i c L a w n. d. r.) and » m a d e a p a r t i n g of the w a y s inevitable« (p. 139). The Jews, 395. Cfr. M e e k s , Breaking away, 107-108: » T h e a p o s t l e himself w a s deeply conc e r ne d a b o u t the relation between C h r i s t i a n i t y and >the Israel of G o d < . Yet he and his associates h a d created an o r g a n i z e d m o v e m e n t that w a s entirely independent of the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s in the cities of the northeastern M e d i t e r r a n e a n b a s i n « . F r o m o n e p o i n t of view that is certainly different and certainly a matter of o p i n i o n , w h i c h is that of considering Hellenistic J u d a i s m as >liberal< J u d a i s m , and thus tending to be universal, this already w a s , for that matter, the conviction of H a r n a c k , 6 3 - 6 4 , a c c o r d i n g to w h o m Paul >dethroned< the p e o p l e of Israel and the religion of Israel; » h e tore the gospel f r o m J e w i s h g r o u n d and planted it in the g r o u n d of h u m a n i t y « . T o be c o m p l e t e , m y investigation s h o u l d also deal with the theme of the Didache. T h e m o s t recent studies tend, in fact, to date this test, t o o , at the end of the first century and c o m p a r e it with the g o s p e l of M a t t h e w as a further e x a m p l e of J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y . See in particular the conference o r g a n i z e d b y the T i l b u r g F a c u l t y of T h e o l o g y o n A p r i l 7 - 8 , 2003, significantly entitled The Didache and Matthew: two Documents from the same Jewish-Christian Milieu ?, and the careful reading of this fascinating d o c u m e n t b y M . D e l Verme, D i d a c h e and Judaism. Jewish Roots of an ancient Christian-Jewish 152

1 5 3

5. The gospels of Matthew

and of John

103

Here without a doubt the historiography on the relations between Jews and Christians has gone through a decisive turning point in recent years. This turning point can be dated to the 1960's and is in relation to the rapid, enthusiastic but at times even a little acritical advancement in N e w Testament exegesis of redaction criticism of the gospels. Until that moment, for as much as they were obviously aware of the contribution given to the narration by the writers of the gospels, scholars still investigated mainly the historical and traditional elements of their stories. Thus, in spite of the de­ clared, explicit support of the hypothesis of the two sources for the solution of the synoptic problem, E . Kasemann in 1953 still constructed his image of the historical Jesus on the basis of the gospel of Matthew, in particular of the antitheses of the sermon on the mount; and thus, by applying the method of formcriticism to the gospel of John, C H . D o d d in 1963 could still pose the problem of the presence of historical traditions in the fourth gospel. But in 1963 W. D . Davies on Matthew and in 1968 J . L . Martyn on J o h n advanced more strongly a hypothesis that seriously questioned prior research. According to Davies, the sermon on the mount as reported by Matthew presupposed a context completely different from the one of the preaching by Jesus. And this context was offered by the contrast after the fall of Jerusa­ lem between the community of the evangelist and the emerging Rabbinism of Iamnia. The re-organization of Judaism as rabbinic Judaism after 70, and not the presence of the Pharisees as the dominating group before 70 (but it must be kept in mind that for Davies »the shattering of the Jewish state made possible the emergence of the Pharisaic party, which had hitherto only been one among many others, as the leading force in Judaism«, so that the reorganization of rabbinic Judaism was truly >the triumph of Pharisaic Judaism<) was the situation in which the sermon on the mount can be 154

155

156

157

158

Work, N e w Y o r k 2004. I believe in any case that it is a theme that deserves further close examination. Das Problem des historischen Jesus: Zeitschrift fur T h e o l o g i e u n d K i r c h e 51 (1954) 125-153. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, C a m b r i d g e 1963. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, C a m b r i d g e 1963. Cfr. also I d e m , A differ­ ent Approach to Iamnia: the Jewish Sources of Matthew's Messianism, in The Conversation continues. Studies in Paul and John in H o n o r of J . L o u i s M a r t y n , R o b e r t T. F o r t n a and B e v e r l y R . G a v e n t a editors, N a s h v i l l e 1990, 3 7 8 - 3 9 5 . History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, N e w Y o r k 1968. M a r t y n further d e v e l o p e d his d i s c o u r s e s o m e years later in Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community, in UEvangile de Jean. Sources, redaction, theologie, edite p a r M . D e J o n g e , L e u v e n 1977, 1 4 8 - 1 7 5 . Op. cit., 256, 258. See also G e o r g i , The early Church, 5 3 - 5 4 , w h o also s p e a k s of >pharisaic rabbis<. 154

155

156

157

158

104

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE 159

collocated, with its radicalization of the theme of the L a w . But this meant for Davies that the community of Matthew had been, until a short time before, an orientation within the synagogue, which only by the emergence of Rabbinism was now forced to distance itself from the Jewish community. More precisely, it was the introduction, toward 85, into the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions, of a curse against heretics (the birkat ha-minim), directed also, or specifically, against the Jewish Christians, that caused the change. »The Birkath ha Minim makes it unmistakable clear that the sages at Jamnia regarded Jewish Christians as a menace sufficiently serious to warrant a liturgical i n n o v a t i o n s 160

It is c e r t a i n l y d a n g e r o u s l y t e m p t i n g t o d i s c o v e r C h r i s t i a n i n f l u e n c e s , w h e n w e a r e s o i n c l i n e d , w h e r e n o n e e x i s t e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h i l e w e h a v e e x e r c i s e d as m u c h cir­ c u m s p e c t i o n as p o s s i b i l e , t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e c l a i m t h a t J a m n i a n J u d a i s m w a s c o n s c i o u s l y confronting Christianity. G i v e n the solid g r o u n d of the B i r k a t h h a M i n i m f o r s u c h a s t a t e m e n t , o t h e r less c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e g a i n s in p o s s i b i l ­ ity, if n o t in p r o b a b i l i t y . [...] C u m u l a t i v e l y it s u g g e s t s t h a t it is r e a s o n a b l e t o i n q u i r e whether Matthew was also consciously confronting Jamnian J u d a i s m .

1 6 1

As a matter of fact, one may consider the sermon on the mount as »the Christian answer to Jamnia«. »It was the desire and necessity to present a formulation of the way of the N e w Israel at a time when the rabbis were engaged in a parallel task for the Old Israel that provided the outside stimu­ lus for the Evangelist to shape the sermon on the m o u n t « . The gospel of Matthew thus bore witness to a break between Jews and Christians that had occurred only a few decades after 70. The gospel of John, on the other hand, according to Martyn, was based entirely on the projection onto the time of Jesus of the evangelist's own situ­ ation. But it also allowed a glimpse of a phase of the life of the community prior to this situation. Jn 9 in particular (the episode of the man born blind) can be considered a formal drama that takes place on two different historical planes, but which seems to be made up of pieces of real life. And Jn 9:22 (»His parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if any one should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out 162

163

159

Op. cit., 256 ff. See also M . H e n g e l , Zur matthaischen Bergpredigt und ihrem judischen Hintergrund, in I d e m , Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schriften I I , T u b i n g e n 1 9 9 9 , 2 1 9 - 2 9 2 ( 2 6 6 - 2 6 7 : the identification of scribes a n d Pharisees indicates for M a t t h e w a date a r o u n d 90). Op. cit., 276. Op. cit., 286. Op. cit., 315. See also A different Approach to Iamnia, cit., 392, in which, with respect to M a t t h e w it is asserted that »the necessity to f o r m u l a t e a parallel attraction to P h a r i s a i s m at J a m n i a w a s a m o n g the factors that led to his p r e s e n t a t i o n of a N e w M o s e s with a new messianic t o r a h « . History and Theology, cit., 17ff. 160

161

162

163

5. The gospels of Matthew

and of John

105

of the synagogue«) is proof of »a formal agreement or decision reached by some authoritative Jewish group [...] at some time prior to John's writing« and »intended to separate the two rivals«, which in this view was noth­ ing more than the decision of the sages of Iamnia to expel the Christians from the synagogue. The Jews of 9:22 were really the academy of Iamnia that proceeded to separate the Jewish Christians, until that moment united with the synagogue, from it. The last draft of the gospel, at the end of the first century, is in fact certainly marked by a radical opposition to the Jews and the Jewish Christians. But the passages in which there is mention of the danger of being driven out of the synagogues (9:22; 12:42; 16:2) show that there was a period in the life of the Johannine community in which it was still an integral part of the Jewish community. The break took place, in this view, because of the elaboration on the part of John's group of a christology that was incompatible with the Jewish tradition, and this was made concrete precisely in the decree of expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue, of which the birkat ha-minim, the twelfth of the Eighteen Benedictions, is proof. »Thus the Fourth Gospel affords us a picture of a Jewish community which has been (recently?) shaken by the introduction of a newly formulated means for detecting those Jews who want to hold a dual allegiance to Moses and to Jesus as M e s s i a h « . In Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community Martyn has in fact distinguished three periods of that community: a first in which the community was only a »messianic group within the community of the synagogue« and in which christology did not yet pose any problem to Jewish monotheism; a second in which the group separated from the synagogue following a double trauma: the excommunication from the synagogue by the birkat ha-minim and the martyrdom of some members of the community; and a third, later on, in which this group was by then in total contrast with the Jews and the Jewish Christians. Matthew and John in this view were thus witnesses to a phase in the history of (Syro-Palestinian) early Christianity in which the Christian com­ munity still constituted an orientation within the Jewish synagogue: a phase that was in contrast with the re-organization of rabbinic Judaism, carried out by the synod of Iamnia, which culminated in approximately the year 85 with the birkat ha-minim, and which in Matthew had not completely ended, and in John had ended only a short time before. And it is precisely this phase 164

165

166

164

Op. cit., 1 8 , 1 9 - 2 0 . Cfr. also 21: » A t s o m e time p r i o r to J o h n ' s writing, an authorita­ tive b o d y within J u d a i s m reached a formal decision regarding messianic faith in J e s u s « . Op. cit., 4 0 - 4 1 . Op. cit., 151 ff. B u t for a view of this s e c o n d p e r i o d as being t o o late, see R . E . B r o w n , The Community of the beloved Disciple. The Life, Loves and Hates of an individual Church in New Testament, N e w Y o r k - T o r o n t o - L o n d o n 1979, 174. 165

166

106

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

that draws the attention of many scholars, who believe that the separation of the Christians from the Jews took place later than what is commonly affirmed, and certainly after the Jewish war of 66-74, and that Christianity was thus for a long time J e w i s h Christianity<, if not in fact >Christian J u d a ­ i s m s Let us thus stop here and take a closer look at this phase. What is meant, first of all, by Jewish Christianity? The scholars still have trouble finding a unanimous agreement on the definition of this phenom­ enon, even if a certain consensus seems by now to be taking shape among them. I have attempted to avoid until now the use of this term to indicate simply Christianity of Jewish origin, in contrast with that of Gentile ori­ gin, as is rather frequent among the scholars of Christian antiquities. It 167

168

1 6 7

O n the gospel of Matthew, see, for example, J . G n i l k a , Das Matthausevangelium, F r e i b u r g i . B . 1988 (11,534: » T h e c o m m u n i t y w a s trying to b r e a k off f r o m the s y n a g o g u e . B u t the tie with it is not yet c o m p l e t e l y b r o k e n « ) ; J . A . O v e r m a n , Matthew's Gospel and formative Judaism. The social World of the Matthew Community, M i n n e a p o l i s 1990, a c c o r d i n g to w h o m M a t t h e w contrasted with J u d a i s m which after 70 r e - o r g a n i z e d itself under Pharisaic influence, b u t » n o w h e r e is the shared matrix of C h r i s t i a n i t y and emer­ gent rabbinic J u d a i s m m o r e evident than in Matthew's G o s p e l . T h e s e t w o m o v e m e n t s are fraternal t w i n s « (p. 160), and a b o v e all A . J . Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, C h i c a g o 1994, a c c o r d i n g to w h o m M a t t h e w expresses a deviant m i n o r i t y g r o u p within the b r o a d e r J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y (196: » A t t e n t i o n to ancient f o r m s of a s ­ sociation, m o d e r n sociological categories, gospel data concerning positive and negative relationships and the varieties of J e w i s h g r o u p s m a k e it p o s s i b l e to u n d e r s t a n d Matthew's g r o u p of be lie ve r s-in-Je sus as a part of the larger J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . T h e conflict between Matthew's g r o u p and other J e w s , including the c o m m u n i t y authorities, s u g g e s t s that the larger c o m m u n i t y sees Matthew's g r o u p as deviant. T h a t is, they are not o u t s i d e the J e w ­ ish c o m m u n i t y , b u t they are o b j e c t i o n a b l e to the m a j o r i t y of the c o m m u n i t y « ; 198: » T h e G o s p e l of M a t t h e w a d d r e s s e s a deviant g r o u p within the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y in greater Syria, a reformist J e w i s h sect seeking influence and p o w e r (relatively unsuccessfully) within the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e « ) . See also G . N . Stanton, Matthew's Christology and the Parting of the Ways, in Jews and Christians, cit., 9 9 - 1 1 6 ; M . B . D u r a n t e M a n g o n i , La polemica contro i giudei nel Vangelo di M a t t e o , in Giudei e cristiani nel I secolo. Con­ tinuity, separazione, polemica, cit., 1 2 7 - 1 6 1 . A n d on the gospel of J o h n , see in particular R . E . B r o w n , The Gospel according to John (I-XII), N e w Y o r k 1966, L X X - L X X V ( w h o at p. L X X I V h y p o t h e s i z e s » o n e g r o u p of J e w s that the G o s p e l a d d r e s s e d with a certain hope-fulness; namely, the small g r o u p of J e w s w h o believed in J e s u s b u t as yet had not severed their relationship with the S y n a g o g u e « ) ; F. M a n n s , L'Evangile de Jean, reponse chretienne aux decisions de Jabne, in I d e m , L'Evangile de Jean a la lumiere du Judaisme, J e r u s a l e m 1991, 4 6 9 - 5 0 9 ( w h o takes u p the h y p o t h e s i s of M a r t y n of the b r e a k o c c u r r i n g at Iamnia); J . M c H u g h , >In Him was Life<: John's Gospel and the Parting of the Ways, in Jews and Christians, cit., 1 2 3 - 1 5 8 , and, with m u c h greater attention to the history p r i o r to the drafting of the gospel, the article cited a b o v e b y M . Pesce, / / Vangelo di Giovanni e le fasi giudaiche del giovannismo. T h e s e often easily shift f r o m the area of ethnic origin to that of theological orien­ tation, as has been rightly n o t e d b y R . E . B r o w n , Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish / Gentile Christianity: C a t h o l i c Biblical Q u a r t e r l y 45 (1983) 7 4 - 7 9 , w h o precisely for this r e a s o n p r o p o s e s speaking, on a theological plane, not of J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y and Gentile Christianity, but of different t y p e s of J e w i s h - G e n t i l e Christianity. 1 6 8

5. The gospels of Matthew

107

and of John

is evident that in the very early times the disciples of Jesus were all Jews, just as it is evident that with the departure of the Hellenists from Jerusalem began the mission among the pagans. Thus, there existed already a few years after the death of Jesus a Jewish Christianity, made up, that is, of believers of Jewish origin, and a Gentile Christianity, made up, that is, of believ­ ers of Gentile origin. But rather than call them Judaeo-Christianity and Pagano-Christianity, as is the widespread custom among Italian scholars, it seems opportune to call them Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christian­ ity. The discussion regarding the value of the Law and the Pauline mission among the pagans have posed, however, a problem of greater theological and sociological importance. Did their faith in the. risen Christ, Lord and Messiah, thus the acquisition of a truly >Christian< identity, mean for the Jews the renouncement of their Jewish identity? Did becoming Christians mean for them to stop being Jews? H a d the Mosaic Law in particular lost its salvific value? And did the pagans who believed in Christ no longer have to join the people of Israel? We have seen the position of Paul earlier, and that he felt he had broken completely with his past life in >Judaism<, which was the Pharisaic version of the Jewish tradition, and that his being a Jew had itself undergone a radical transformation with faith in Christ as the only source of salvation. But most Jews who had recognized Jesus as the Lord and Messiah did not believe that they had to give up their Jewish identity for this reason, nor did they think that they had to abandon the observance of the Law. They thus continued not only to feel completely Jews but also to follow the norms of the Torah (Paul would have said to live >in Judaism<). And many of them also thought that the pagans who believed in Christ had in any case to join the Jewish people and observe the Mosaic prescriptions. B y introducing a distinction between Judaeo-Christianity and Jewish Christianity, I define for this reason Judaeo-Christianity as that form of Christianity, almost always of Jewish origin, but which could also be of Gentile origin, which did not intend to give up Jewish identity and in particular did not intend to give up the observance of the Mosaic Law. We may undoubtedly define as Judaeo-Christian a disciple of Christ who did not want to abandon his Jewish identity; but since this raises the problem of the nature and the extension of the J e w i s h identitys it is necessary to add that a Judaeo-Christian was a disciple of Christ who does not want to abandon the practice of the Law. This criterion of observance, 169

170

171

1 6 9

T h i s is a distinction, once again, that the E n g l i s h language n o r m a l l y ignores, limiting itself to calling b o t h the p h e n o m e n a I have mentioned J e w i s h Christianity, or using J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y and J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y as s y n o n y m o u s terms. T h i s is the case in O . Skarsaune, The Prooffrom Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, theological Profile, L e i d e n 1987, 247. T h i s is o b s e r v e d quite rightly b y C a r l e t o n Paget, Jewish Christianity, 741. 1 7 0

171

108

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100

CE

172

as M. Simon first recognized, and as is already asserted, for that matter, in the ancient sources, beginning with the fundamental passage of the Dialogue with Trypho by J u s t i n , is the only one that allows us to identify with suf­ ficient precision the phenomenon of Judaeo-Christianity. We may define as Judaeo-Christians, that is, all those who have recognized Jesus as the Lord and Messiah, but who want to preserve a Jewish identity and in particular continue to observe the L a w . Which Christian groups, and in which historical moments, can thus be identified properly as Judaeo-Christians? At the very first, of course they all were. The first disciples of Jesus were in fact all Jews and all of them observed the Law. But, as Luke knew well, with the appearance of the Hel­ lenists and of Paul the first divisions also appeared. In particular, the prob­ lems of the value of the L a w and of the mission to the pagans were posed. From the fifth decade of the first century the definition of Judaeo-Christian includes above all the members of the group of James, who were not nec­ essarily the whole church of Jerusalem (the group of Peter was certainly different), but more probably a part of it, and from approximately 50 (with 173

174

1 7 2

M . S i m o n , Verus Israel. A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire AD 135-425, L o n d o n 1996 (I ed. 1948), 2 3 7 - 2 4 0 . Cfr. I d e m , Problemes du Judeo-Christianisme, in Aspects du Judeo-Christianisme. C o l l o q u e de S t r a s b o u r g , 2 3 - 2 5 avril 1964, Paris 1 9 6 5 , 1 - 1 7 ; Reflexions surle Judeo-Christianisme, in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults. Studies for M o r t o n Smith at Sixty I I . E a r l y Christianity, edited b y J . N e u s n e r , L e i d e n 1975, 5 3 - 7 6 . Dial. 47,2: » B u t if, t h r o u g h w e a k - m i n d e d n e s s , a l o n g with the h o p e in this C h r i s t , and the o b s e r v a n c e of the eternal and natural acts of r i g h t e o u s n e s s and piety, they w i s h to o b s e r v e s u c h institutions as w e r e given b y M o s e s , w h i c h w e believe w e r e a p p o i n t e d b y r e a s o n of the h a r d n e s s of the people's heart, yet c h o o s e to live w i t h the C h r i s t i a n s and the faithful, as I said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or to keep the S a b b a t h , or to o b s e r v e a n y other such ceremonies, then I h o l d that w e o u g h t to j o i n ourselves to such, and associate w i t h t h e m in all things as k i n s m e n and b r e t h r e n « . M y definition is thus very similar to the one, t o d a y often cited, of S . C . M i m o u n i , Pour une definition nouvelle du judeo-christianisme ancien: N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 38 (1992) 184, n o w also in I d e m , Le judeo-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques, cit., 15: » A n c i e n t J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y is a recent f o r m u l a t i o n that designates the J e w s w h o r e c o g n i z e d the messianity of J e s u s , w h o r e c o g n i z e d or did not recognize the divinity of the C h r i s t , b u t w h o all continued to o b s e r v e the T o r a h « . H o w e v e r , it is different, b e c a u s e o n the one h a n d it leaves aside c o m p l e t e l y reference to the divinity of J e s u s and o n the other hand, it d o e s not s a y that J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s cannot be of Gentile origin. O n this last p o i n t see also B r o w n , Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish /Gentile Christianity, cit., 7 4 - 7 9 , b r o u g h t u p again in R . E . B r o w n - J . P. Meier, Antioch and Rome New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity; N e w York 1983,2-9; and J . E . Taylor, The Phenomenon of early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or scholarly Inven­ tion ?: Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e 44 (1990) 314, 320, 327 w h o , a l t h o u g h she also includes in her definition the p r o s e l y t e s , holds essentially the s a m e p o s i t i o n as M i m o u n i (the p r o s e l y t e s were in fact Gentiles converted to J u d a i s m , thus w h o had b e c o m e J e w s ) and w h o , although rightly d e n y i n g to Paul the status of J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n , defines h i m as a C h r i s t i a n J e w (315: » P a u l w a s therefore not a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n even t h o u g h a C h r i s t i a n J e w « ) . 173

1 7 4

5. The gospels of Matthew

109

and of John

Peter disappearing from the scene) the most significant part of it. The events of the conflict with the positions of the Hellenists first, and of Paul later, are sufficiently clear. The orientations of the >party of James<, aside from the historical information contained principally in the letters of Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are essentially transmitted by the source of the logia, by the sermon on the m o u n t and by the letter of J a m e s . For the party of James the L a w preserved all its validity. The justification by faith in Christ dead and risen had not annulled the justice founded on the working of the L a w (Mt. 5:17; Lk. 16:17). Christ was not >the end< of the L a w (Rom. 10:4). The salvific valency of Jesus, more than in his death and resurrection, was contained, for that matter, in his teaching, in that c o m p l e t i o n s and thus in that radicalization, of the L a w in which the >justice< of his disciples was to be expressed (Mt. 5:20) and to which his resurrection itself had provided incomparable authority. And the Jewish people thus preserved the privilege of the election. The mission to the pagans, which the group of James did not exclude, still meant, however, their aggregation in some way to the people of Israel. And thus it could happen only in the respect of some minimal norms, 175

176

177

1 7 5

178

See, however, the very different interpretation that is given b y R . B a u c k h a m , James and the Jerusalem Church, cit., 4 1 5 - 4 8 0 , and J . Painter, Just James. The Brother ofJesus in History and Tradition, C o l u m b i a 2 0 0 4 . While B a u c k h a m in fact tends to attenuate all the contrasts (between H e b r e w s and Hellenists, between J a m e s and Paul, b e t w e e n the A c t s and G a l a t i a n s ) , insisting b o t h o n the fact that the church of J e r u s a l e m and J a m e s , t o o , a d m i t t e d a m i s s i o n to the Gentiles and o n the fact that these Gentiles w e r e r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e m to be free f r o m circumcision {op. cit. 4 5 0 - 4 6 7 ) , Painter asserts that » J a c o b s a w that Paul's style of m i s s i o n to the Gentiles spelled the end of C h r i s t i a n J u d a i s m - indeed, the end of a viable m i s s i o n to the J e w s - b e c a u s e it w a s a m i s s i o n f r o m o u t s i d e of J u d a i s m « (op. cit., 331). A n d cfr. also M . H e n g e l , Jakobus der Herrenbruder - der erste >Papst< ?, in Glaube und Eschatologie. Festschrift fur W. G . K i i m m e l z u m 80. G e b u r t s t a g h e r a u s g e g e ben v o n E . G r a s s e r u n d O . M e r k , T u b i n g e n 1985, 7 1 - 1 0 4 , n o w also in I d e m , Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften I I I , T u b i n g e n 2002, 5 4 9 - 5 8 2 . A s regards the logia see a b o v e all H a r t i n , James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 1 2 - 1 3 7 . O n e s h o u l d keep in m i n d , however, that here is n o reference to the >party of James< b y this author, b e c a u s e H a r t i n , like m o s t scholars, b y >James< m e a n s not the b r o t h e r of J e s u s b u t the epistle w i t h the s a m e n a m e . H . D . B e t z , Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia 1985; The Sermon on the Mount, M i n n e a p o l i s 1995 (the s e r m o n on the m o u n t g o e s b a c k to a J e w i s h - C h r i s t i a n d o c u m e n t f r o m the m i d d l e of the first century that M a t t h e w f o u n d in his recension of Q); Hartin, 144-172. T h e p r o b l e m of the letter of J a m e s is really very delicate. It d o e s not seem to d e p e n d either o n the g o s p e l s or o n the s o u r c e of the logia. It s h o w s , however, a clear similarity to s o m e s a y i n g contained in this s o u r c e . See in particular, besides H a r t i n , D . B . D e p p e , The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James, C h e l s e a 1989, w h o at p p . 2 1 9 - 2 2 0 , 2 2 2 - 2 2 3 indicates at least eight allusions in J a m e s to sayings of J e s u s contained in Q, and W H . W a c h o b - L . T. J o h n s o n , The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James, in Authenticating the Words of Jesus, edited b y B . C h i l t o n and C . A . E v a n s , L e i d e n 1 9 9 9 , 4 3 1 - 4 5 0 , w h o at p . 438 conclude: p r o b a b l y » J a m e s w a s familiar with a collection of J e s u s logia similar to t h o s e in the p r e - M a t t h e a n S M (i. e. s e r m o n o n the m o u n t ) a n d / o r Q - M a t t h e w « . 2

1 7 6

1 7 7

1 7 8

110

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

equal probably to those that were applied in ancient Israel to the gerim, foreigners resident in the country. It is likely that this was the decision made in 49, after the council of the apostles and the incidents of Antioch, by the authorities of Jerusalem in the so-called apostolic decree. And shortly after 70 the definition of Judaeo-Christian had to include another group as well, which we cannot identify simply with the party of James, even if this group had much in common with it: the group of the Nazoreans. Among the Judaeo-Christian groups the ancient sources refer to (Epiphanius in particular) it seems in fact to be the only one that can be dated back to the first decades of Christianity. The information in Panarion 29, stripped of the more clearly argumentative elements, possesses traits that are surely reliable. More than the Ebionites did, and more than the Hebrews did, this group showed a continuity with the first disciples of J e s u s . And they do not in fact reveal anything heretic. Epiphanius himself has to admit that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah and that their only fault was that they observed »the Law, the circumcision, the Sabbath, and the other things«. This, still in the age of Epiphanius, was the only difference from the other Christians. Luke, on the other hand, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles presumably in the decade after 80, and in any case certainly after 70, in the trial against Paul at Caesarea in front of the procurator Felix, has Tertullus describe Paul as »a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans« (Acts 24:5), with the same term ortpsoic, with which Josephus indicated the groups of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. This is thus evidence of a usage on the part of the Jewish authorities of defining the Christians of Jerusalem as those Jews who were called in particular Nazarenes, just as other Jews were 179

180

181

182

1 7 9

B a u c k h a m , 4 6 2 - 4 6 7 ; J . Wehnert, Die Reinheit des >christlichen Gottesvolkes< aus Juden und Heiden. Studien zum historischen und theologischen Hintergrund des sogenannten Aposteldekrets, G o t t i n g e n 1997, 2 6 3 - 2 7 3 ; >Falsi fratelli, attori, superapostoli<. Per una storia della missione giudeocristiana aipagani nel I e II secolo d. G , in Verus Israel, 2 6 5 - 2 7 9 . A m o r e restrictive interpretation of the p o s i t i o n of J a m e s is given b y Painter, a c c o r d i n g to w h o m » H a d the w a y of J a m e s prevailed it is unlikely that Christianity w o u l d have e m e r g e d as a religion separate f r o m J u d a i s m « (op. cit., 326). Taylor, op. cit., 326. A . F . J . Klijn - G . J . Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, L e i d e n 1 9 7 3 , 4 4 - 5 2 , 1 6 9 - 1 7 5 ; R . A . P r i t z , Nazarene Jewish Christianity from the End of the New Testament Period until its Disappearance in the fourth Century, J e r u s a l e m - L e i d e n 1988, 122 ff.; A . Pourkier, Uheresiologie chez Epiphane de Salamine, Paris 1 9 9 2 , 4 1 5 - 4 7 5 ; M . C . de Boer, UEvangile de Jean et le christianisme juif(nazoreen), in Le dechirement, 179-202; S. C . M i m o u n i , / nazorei a partire dalla notizia 29 del Panarion di Epifanio di Salamina, in Verus Israel, 1 2 0 - 1 4 6 . Panarion 29,7,5: » O n l y in this respect they differ f r o m the J e w s and Christians: with the J e w s they d o not agree b e c a u s e of their belief in C h r i s t , with the C h r i s t i a n s b e c a u s e they are trained in the L a w , in circumcision, the S a b b a t h and the other t h i n g s « (trans. A . F . J . K l i j n - G . J . Reinink). 1 8 0

181

182

5. The gospels of Matthew

111

and of John

183

called Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes. And it thus confirms the real af­ finity of these Judaeo-Christian groups with the other Jewish groups. We may thus reasonably hypothesize that, whereas before 70 in Palestine the followers of Jesus, because of the origin of their founder, were all called Nazarenes (but, in a closer relationship with their messianic faith, they defined themselves also as Nazoreans), after they emigrated to Pella in 70, a part of them preserved that name in the version N a z o r e a n s . Luke in fact knows them this way (Acts 24:5). And they must have radicalized the positions of the party of James. N o t only, in fact, did they observe the Law, the circumcision, the Sabbath, and all the rest, but they also gave origin to a new >Jewish< version of the gospel of Matthew, which they had originally adopted, but in which they did not recognize themselves entirely. However, the gospels of Matthew and of J o h n place before us, as I have mentioned, other forms of Judaeo-Christianity that must also have come into existence up before 70, but which according to some scholars may have continued to be active also after 70 and which only the advancement of Rabbinism would lead to extinction. It is in fact true that both the gospels show a break with Judaism that had already taken place. They are even representative of the strongest anti-Judaism in ancient Christianity. But that break was in some way still within the common Jewish tradition. And it presupposed above all a phase in which the break had not yet taken place. N o t only in fact does this appear to have been caused, as I have said, according to Davies and Martyn, essentially by the decision of the synod of Iamnia and by the introduction of the birkat ha-minim. But the gospel of Matthew develops an argument with the scribes and Pharisees that seems to be an internal dispute within the Judaism of his time (23:2); the community to which the exhortation in 24:20 is addressed seems to observe the Sabbath still; and the community to which the passage of 17:24-27 is addressed still pays the tribute to the temple of Jerusalem. And the gospel of J o h n is evidence of a phase in the life of his group in which the Mosaic prescrip­ tions were faithfully respected. The celebration of the Jewish holidays still marked the time of the community. And the cult of the temple was still 184

1 8 3

F o r Tertullian, adv. Marc. 4,8,1, even still in his time » n o s Iudaei N a z a r e n o s a p ­ pellants Panarion 29,1,2-3: » T h e y did not give themselves the n a m e of C h r i s t , or that of J e s u s , but they called themselves N a z o r a e a n s . All C h r i s t i a n s were called N a z o r a e a n s o n c e « . F o r E p i p h a n i u s they did it because J e s u s in the gospel w a s called N a z a r e n e . Panarion 29,6,7. N o t e also that for E p i p h a n i u s the N a z o r a e a n s » d i d not keep the n a m e J e w s ; they did not call themselves C h r i s t i a n s , but N a z o r a e a n s , taking this n a m e f r o m the place N a z a r e t h « {Panarion 2 9 , 7 , 1 , trans. A . F . J . Klijn - G . J . Reinink). While they did not consider themselves s i m p l y J e w s , they did not think of themselves as >Christians<, either. 184

112

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

considered legitimate. Circumcision and Sabbath probably still co-existed with >rebirth< and >Sunday<. Essentially: the gospels of Matthew and of John, written between 85 and 100 C E , are seen as evidence of the break between Jews and Christians caused by the re-organization of Judaism after 70 in the synod of Iamnia and expressed in a particularly violent way in the birkat ha-minim. But this break would have been a very recent fact and would demonstrate that until a short time before the drafting of the two gospels their community had only been a group within J u d a i s m . It is very difficult to accept this explanation entirely. Whatever D a v i e s and M a r t y n may think, the birkat ha-minim cannot be considered to have such a tight connection with the gospels of Matthew and J o h n . And so it cannot be used to assert that until approximately 85 the communities of Matthew and J o h n were made up of Judaeo-Christians. A s I have already mentioned previously, the >heretics< it refers to are not necessarily JudaeoChristians, and it was directed against them probably at a later time. The Palestinian version of the twelfth benediction, the birkat ba-Nosrim, is cer­ tainly directed against the Judaeo-Christians. And along with M. C . de Boer, one could maintain both that this was the oldest version of the benediction 185

186

187

188

189

1 8 5

Pesce, / / Vangelo di Giovanni e le fasi giudaiche del giovannismo, 53 ff. A typical e x p o n e n t of this p o s i t i o n , it s e e m s t o me, is V o u g a . H e a d m i t s , in fact, that »at the time of the drafting of the gospel, the J o h a n n i n e g r o u p certainly w a s n o t u n d e r the disciplinary authority of the s y n a g o g u e a n y l o n g e r « (p. 160), j u s t as he recognizes that »the s e p a r a t i o n between the c o m m u n i t y of M a t t h e w and the s y n a g o g u e b e l o n g s t o the p a s t with respect t o the drafting o f the g o s p e l « (p. 161). B u t he c o n c l u d e s his d i s c u s s i o n of the p r o b l e m this way: » b o t h the g o s p e l of M a t t h e w and that of J o h n are e x p r e s s i o n s of C h r i s t i a n i t y that, until a s h o r t time before their drafting, h a d d e v e l o p e d within the s y n a g o g u e s . T h e i r respective s y s t e m s of conviction meant a d o u b l e loyalty: o n the o n e hand, t o w a r d the J e w i s h tradition and the J e w i s h community, and o n the other, t o w a r d the eschatological authority of the risen C h r i s t « (p. 162). A l t h o u g h they d e n y a direct d e p e n d ­ ence o n the birkat ha-minim a similar p o s i t i o n o n the g o s p e l s of M a t t h e w and J o h n is also e x p r e s s e d b y S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n , The Movement of Jesus, 2 2 7 - 2 4 7 . In addition t o the citations m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , see in particular the affirmations in The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 2 7 5 - 2 7 6 (on the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o w a r d 85 of the birkat ha-minim) and 286 ( o n the » s o l i d basis of the birkat ha-minim« f o r asserting that »the J u d a i s m of I a m n i a k n o w i n g l y c o n f r o n t e d C h r i s t i a n i t y « ) . S e e in particular Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community, 151 ( r e ­ garding s o m e p o i n t s that are relatively certain f r o m which the analysis of J o h n begins): » O n e of these relatively secure p o i n t s is surely the highly p r o b a b l e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o the 1 8 6

1 8 7

1 8 8

Birkath-ha-Minim

of the e x p r e s s i o n s aTtocruvaYcoYo? yevia^cuL

ov

a n d a7ioauvaY<*>Y TCOIETV of

Jn. 9:22; 12:42 a n d 16:2«. A n d in a note: » T h e s t a r t i n g point< of m y analysis [...] is Jn. 9:22«. See a b o v e all K i m e l m a n , B i r k a t H a - M i n i m and the Lack of Evidence for an antichristian Jewish Prayer in late Antiquity, cit., 2 2 6 - 2 4 4 ; M e e k s , Breaking away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity's Separation from the Jewish Communities, 102-103; and Vana, La birkat h a - m i n i m e una preghiera contro i giudeocristiani?, cit., 1 4 7 - 1 8 9 . 1 8 9

5. The gospels of Matthew

113

and of John 190

and that the Nazoreans were very close to the community of J o h n . But is still rather debatable that there was a very old version of the birkat ha-Nosrim and in any case the Nazoreans were not the community of John. They were most likely a particular group in the community of Jerusalem, who after the Jewish war, radicalizing the positions of the party of James, put themselves into a marginal situation with respect to the rest of Christianity. And the curse against them, introduced probably into the Palestinian liturgy towards the end of the first century, does not seem either to be directed against the messianic ideas of the group or identify itself with an exclusion from the synagogue, as was the case in the community of John. Just as debatable is the generic reference, which has become almost a commonplace, to the >period of Iamnia< in order to identify the historical context of many passages of the gospels of Matthew and John. Since the socalled >synod of Iamnia<, in which the re-organization of Judaism as rabbinic Judaism supposedly took place, today seems to fade away more and more, because there is no precise historical moment in which the reorganization of Judaism was decided, it is necessary to think of the emergence of rab­ binic Judaism as a process taking a long time, which was protracted at least until the outbreak of the second Jewish revolt. It is completely unlikely that already in the decade after 80, with the small group of the first sages of Iamnia, Judaism had realized that transformation of its organization and that re-thinking of its traditions that would make up (but much later) rab­ binic Judaism. And it is even more unlikely that only a few years after 85 from Syria and from Asia Minor Matthew and John should be considered as the Christian response to this transformation and this reconsideration. It is no accident that in order to justify this answer, Vouga feels obliged to make reference more than once to something (the synod? the birkat}) that would have happened »at the beginning of the Iamnia p e r i o d « . But the idea that 191

192

193

194

190

UEvangile de Jean et le christianisme juif (Nazoreen), in Le dechirement, 179-202. T h i s is maintained b y Blanchetiere, Comment le meme est-il devenu Vautre ?, cit., 2 8 - 3 0 , and S. C . M i m o u n i , La B i r k a t H a - M i n i n r une priere juive contre les judeo-chretiens: R e v u e des Sciences Religieuses 71 (1997) 296. B u t it is p o s s i b l e that o n e m u s t set the date a little later. Schafer, Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne. Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr., 4 5 - 6 4 ; Stemberger, Die sogenannte >Synode von Jabne< und dasfruhe Christentum, 1 4 - 2 1 ; K a t z , Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E., 43-76. Stemberger, 16: the idea of a s y n o d of J a b n e that decided a series of p r o b l e m s of J u d a i s m finds n o s u p p o r t in the rabbinic s o u r c e s . It is better to refer t h o s e decisions to the entire p e r i o d f r o m 70 to 132. B u t p r o b a b l y it is necessary to set the date even later. Cfr. also Schafer, 62: the s e p a r a t i o n of the J e w s and the C h r i s t i a n s w a s not an effect of the decisions of the s y n o d of J a b n e b u t the result of a p r o c e s s that went o n for a longer time, on w h i c h b o t h sides had an influence. Op. cit., 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 . Cfr. also S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n , 2 2 7 - 2 4 7 , w h o , in o r d e r to resolve 191

1 9 2

1 9 3

194

114

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

in any of their more significant parts the gospels of Matthew and John were the immediate response to a transformation of Judaism that had already been accomplished by the sages of Iamnia has very little credibility. But more in general it may not necessarily be correct to identify the J u ­ daeo-Christian context to which some traditions of the gospels of Matthew and John seem really to refer with the contrast between their community and the emerging Rabbinism of Iamnia. In spite of what Davies may think, >the setting of the sermon on the mounts with its intransigent reaffirmation of the validity of the L a w (Mt. 5:17-18), is much more probably that of the dispute between the group of James, and thus the Source Q, and the positions of the Hellenists and of Paul, than that of the conflict between the community of Matthew and the academy of Iamnia. And, whatever Martyn may think, the threat of exclusion from the synagogue of the com­ munity of John, motivated as it was by the recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, more likely goes back to a time prior to the war of 70, when the messianic problem was really acute, than to the introduction of the bir­ kat ha-minim toward 85, when the main problems were problems of disci­ pline. The interpretation of the gospels of Matthew and John as a reaction to the decisions of the synod of Iamnia, and in particular to the introduction of the birkat ha-minim, in order to maintain that until approximately 85 C E the communities of the two evangelists were made up of Judaeo-Christians, thus has little foundation. It seems to me that the conclusions of Stemberger on this question should be shared completely: the hypothesis that the gospels of Matthew and John, written only a few years after 85, contain a reaction to the attitude adopted at Iamnia also against Christianity is not to be excluded. But certainly this is not the primary interest of the two gospels. And certainly one cannot deduce from the reformulation of the birkat haminim the moment of the break between Jews and Christians: 195

196

T h i s n e w f o r m u l a t i o n m a y o f c o u r s e h a v e s t r u c k in S y r i a , p e r h a p s e v e n in P a l e s t i n e , J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s as w e l l , b u t this c e r t a i n l y d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e t h e definitive b r e a k i n g

the o b v i o u s difficulty, p r o p o s e in any case the convenient w a y o u t of a Palestinian origin for b o t h g o s p e l s . T h i s view is shared, as I have said, b y H . D . B e t z , P . J . H a r t i n e J . T . Sanders. A l s o K . Wengst, Bedrangte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus. Der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlussel zu seiner Interpretation, Neukirchen/Vluyn 1 9 8 3 , 4 8 - 6 1 , 6 2 - 7 3 , believes that b o t h the J e w i s h m e a s u r e s against the c o m m u n i t y w e r e not to be seen in the birkat ha-minim but in a m o r e general c o n d e m n a t i o n of J e w i s h Christians as heretics on the part of the Pharisaic o r t h o d o x y , and that the theological reasons for the exclusion of the C h r i s t i a n s f r o m the s y n a g o g u e consisted basically in their affirmation of the messianity of J e s u s , exactly as I have maintained so far. B u t , differently f r o m m e , he identifies this p r e s s u r e of the Pharisaic o r t h o d o x y o n the J o h a n n i n e c o m ­ munity with the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of J u d a i s m that was being realized at J a b n e . 1 9 5

1 9 6

2

5. The gospels of Matthew

and of John

115

o f ties b e t w e e n J e w s a n d C h r i s t i a n s ; t h e s e p a r a t i o n h a d a l r e a d y t a k e n p l a c e f r o m t h e C h r i s t i a n p o i n t of v i e w b e c a u s e of the particular weight of p a g a n C h r i s t i a n i t y .

1 9 7

And thus the Judaeo-Christianity in the two gospels is not the one imme­ diately preceding 85. With respect to this question another observation seems necessary. The belonging of traditions in Matthew and John to the >period of Iamnia< is often confirmed by the presence, thought not very credible for the period prior to 70, of Pharisees in the mention by Matthew of >scribes and Pharisees< and in that by John and also Matthew of >the high priests and Phari­ sees^ The references, more frequent and in any case different from those in Mark, to the Pharisees are interpreted as a confirmation that the discussions and the conflicts in question are those that took place after the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, when the Pharisaic element had supposedly acquired predominance over the whole nation. I have mentioned above, for example, the fact that for Davies the emergence of rabbinic Judaism was really >the triumph of Pharisaic Judaisms But this is a very debatable interpretation. The predominance over the Jewish nation was acquired after 70 not by the Pharisees, but rather by the rabbis; and the rabbis were not the successors of the Pharisees, but perhaps (but not exclusively) of the scribes; those scribes who before 70, on the other hand, Mark already knew as the most relentless adversaries of Jesus. And it was in fact the scribes, not the Pharisees, that Matthew added with respect to Luke in his utilization of the Source Q (23:23. 25. 27. 29). One may answer, of course, that before 70 the scribes were of a prevalently Pharisaic orientation, and therefore the succession of the rabbis to the scribes can only have confirmed the Pharisaic orientation as well. But it is precisely this confirmation that cannot easily be proven. In the Mishna, for example, the priestly element is strongly present, so that the rabbis appear as successors not only of the scribes, but also of the priests. The more frequent allusion by Matthew to the Pharisees is actu­ ally simply the product of the fact that the gospel focuses on the problem of the Law, whereas the reference by John to the high priests and the Pharisees shows with all probability a historical record that is not unfounded. O f course the Judaeo-Christianity that seems to appear behind the gospels of Matthew and John as a tradition from which the two communi­ ties separated at a certain point must be explained. However, with respect to the explanation that it lasted until the decisive conflict with rabbinic Judaism, which was by then emerging, I think another hypothesis is much more probable. It is completely evident that Matthew and John represent 198

197

Op. cit., 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 1 . Cfr. also, in a slightly different way, Schafer, 62. Stemberger, Pharisaer, Sadduzder, Essener, 1 2 8 - 1 3 5 (131: » T h e priestly element in the M i s h n a is surely m u c h s t r o n g e r than w h a t w e expected f r o m the P h a r i s e e s « ) . 1 9 8

116

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from 30 CE to 100 CE

Christian communities that were already separate from the synagogue, and (almost) no scholars actually contest this. The mentions Matthew makes of >your< and >their< synagogues and the way John refers to >the Jews< would be enough to demonstrate it. It seems just as evident that the separation can­ not have taken place because of some clamorous event that happened after the Jewish war. Aside from the particular relevance of the birkat ha-minim and of the synod of Iamnia, there were no events of that sort in the slow reorganization of Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem. There were, instead, two events prior to 70 that can explain the >rift< that had occurred between Jews and Christians or, rather, the >break< made by the Palestin­ ian followers of Jesus with respect to their Jewish fellow countrymen: the condemnation of James the brother of Jesus in 62 and the outbreak of the Jewish war in 66. Unfortunately, the sources, both Jewish and Christian, contain only very few elements regarding these two events. For this reason one can only formulate hypotheses. However, those few elements in any case suggest something. H o w did these events affect the relationships between Jews and Christians? The condemnation of James was significant even for Josephus, who, after having been silent about it in the Jewish War, decided to mention it in his Jewish Antiquities (20:200-203), and evidently attributed to it considerable importance for the history of the Palestinian Jewish community. This con­ demnation was destined to be a decisive turning point in the relationships between Jews and Christians. The party of James was, as is well-known, 199

200

201

1 9 9

F o r J o h n see W. A . M e e k s , >Am I a Jew ?< - Johannine Christianity and Judaism, in Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults. Studies for M o r t o n Smith at Sixty I, L e i d e n 1975, 1 6 3 - 1 8 6 (182: » I t s e e m s clear that at the time of c o m p o s i t i o n of the G o s p e l the j o h a n n i n e c o m m u n i t y is separate f r o m >the Jews< and n o longer expects >Jews< to c o n v e r t « ) . F o r M a t t h e w see below. C a r l e t o n - P a g e t , 7 4 6 - 7 4 9 , is also convinced of it and thinks the flight of the C h r i s ­ tians to Pella can also p r o v e the persistence of the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t i e s at J e r u s a l e m until the revolt of B a r - K o k h b a . T h i s is the conviction of a l m o s t all the scholars regarding the relationships between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s . Recently, however, J . S. M c L a r e n , Ananus, James, and earliest Chris­ tianity. Josephus' Account of the Death ofJames: J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i c a l Studies 52 (2001) 1-25, has q u e s t i o n e d it, maintaining that the p a s s a g e of J o s e p h u s d o e s not s p e a k of the conflict between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s , n o r of the one between S a d d u c e e s and Pharisees, but of the one between rival aristocratic factions. I have the i m p r e s s i o n , however, that the right a m o u n t of p r u d e n c e t o w a r d traditional interpretations of the p a s s a g e o n the part a b o v e all of the historians of C h r i s t i a n i t y leads this author to minimalist conclusions that are even m o r e hypothetical. It is certainly true that for J o s e p h u s the p r o t a g o n i s t of the epi­ s o d e is A n a n u s , not J a m e s , and that he tells it to criticize the b e h a v i o u r of the S a d d u c e a n aristocracy, not to recall J e w i s h hostility t o w a r d the C h r i s t i a n s . T h i s takes nothing away, however, f r o m the fact that this e p i s o d e had great i m p o r t a n c e in the relationship between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s . See also H e n g e l , Jakohus der Herrenbruder - der erste >Papst< f, cit., 7 3 - 7 5 , 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , w h o rightly c o n s i d e r s the m a r t y r d o m of J a m e s a >catastrophe< for the c o m m u n i t y of J e r u s a l e m . 2 0 0

2 0 1

5. The gospels of Matthew

117

and of John

the most traditionalist part of the Christian community of Jerusalem. It represented that form of Christianity (Judaeo-Christianity) which, for as much as it, too, was born out of the faith in the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of G o d , did not intend in any way to give up its Jewish identity, and in particular the observance of the Mosaic Law. Thus, as Luke explicitly asserted, it had not only been able to remain in Jerusalem even after the expulsion of the Hellenists from the holy city; but in addition, as the Acts of the Apostles seem basically to suggest, and the tradition, for as much as it may be legendary, of Hegesippus confirms, it must have had relation­ ships with the Pharisees and with the Jewish authorities themselves that were not conflictual. The condemnation of James, for as much as it was desired by the Sadducean high priest Ananus and not shared by the heads of the Pharisees, tragically put an end to this situation. Even this form of Judaeo-Christianity was revealed to be unacceptable to the Jewish authori­ ties. But for what reason? For as much as Josephus alludes to an accusation of transgression of the L a w of Moses brought against the Christians on the part of Ananus (Ant. 20:200: » H e accused them of having transgressed the L a w and delivered them up to be stoned«), the problem could not have been a question of the respect for the moral prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, which the group of James not only preserved, but probably radical­ ized. James was in fact known as >the Just< and tradition remembers him as a rigorous ascetic. And the sources that we can in some way connect back to him (the sermon on the mount, the source of the logia, the letter from James) contain not a criticism, but a re-affirmation of the Law. The account by Eusebius of the death of J a m e s , which uses both the Jewish Antiquities by Josephus and the Memoirs of Hegesippus, is, on the other hand, entirely centred around the confession of Jesus as Messiah. And, for as much as it is strongly legendary, it may well contain a historical record. 202

203

204

205

2 0 2

F o r M c L a r e n , op. cit., 1 4 - 1 9 , not o n l y there w a s n o transgression of the L a w on the p a r t of J a m e s , but o n l y a behaviour claimed t o be illegal b y his adversary, b u t there w a s even not >religious< crime, but o n l y a struggle between rivals, and J a m e s w a s the rival of A n a n u s . B u t the interpretation seems u n f o u n d e d to me. M o r e convincing, a l t h o u g h a bit t o o fanciful, is R . B a u c k h a m , For what Offence was James put to death «*, in James the Just and Christian Origins edited b y B . C h i l t o n and C . A . E v a n s , L e i d e n 1999, 1 9 9 - 2 3 2 , w h o e m p h a s i z e s the role that the confession of J e s u s b y J a m e s m u s t have had in the c o n d e m n a ­ tion, and is inclined to believe that J a m e s w a s p u t to death as a maddiah. Hist. Eccl. 2 , 2 3 , 1 - 1 8 . Hist. Eccl. 2,23,2: » T h e y [...] d e m a n d e d a denial of the faith in C h r i s t b e f o r e all the p e o p l e s 2,23,9: » O w i n g to this s o m e believed that J e s u s w a s the C h r i s t « ; 2,23,10: » T h e w h o l e p e o p l e w a s in d a n g e r of l o o k i n g for J e s u s as the C h r i s t « ; 2,23,13: »>Why d o y o u a s k m e concerning the S o n of Man?<«; 2,23,18: » H e b e c a m e a true witness b o t h to J e w s and to G r e e k s that J e s u s is the C h r i s t « (trans. K . L a k e , LCL). See in particular the confession r e c o u n t e d in Hist. Eccl. 2,23,13: » A n d he a n s w e r e d with a l o u d voice, >Why d o y o u a s k m e concerning the S o n of M a n ? H e is sitting in heaven on the right hand of the great Power, and he will c o m e o n the c l o u d s of heaven<«, w h i c h 2 0 3

2 0 4

2 0 5

118

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from

30 CE to 100

CE

The problem, once again, must have consisted, therefore, in the recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord and Messiah, at a time in which, when facing the danger of a war against the Romans, the Jewish aristocracy, for as much as it was divided into contrasting groups, tried to eliminate any messianic unrest from the nation. The difficulties were certainly accentuated upon the outbreak of the Jewish war. Even if it probably emerged in rather high priestly circles (the zealot circles of the captain of the temple Eleazar), the revolt very soon took on (with the grandson of Judas, Menahem, and his Sicarii) an accentuated messianic nature. Josephus himself, who tended to systematically minimize the religious inspiration of the various movements of liberation, had to admit it. In particular the opinion was widely spread that this was the time when there would be the realization of a famous prophecy of the coming of the Messiah (the same one alluded to, as is well-known, by Tacitus and Suetonius ), which can probably be identified with Num. 24:17. And figures such as Menahem and Simon bar Giora surely exploited the excite­ ment of the people, presenting themselves as royal, and perhaps messianic claimants. There is thus no reason to wait for the second Jewish revolt, with the recognition of the Messiah in Simon bar Kokhba on the part of rabbi Aqiba, to set Jews and Judaeo-Christians against each other, as in particular D u n n and Wilson do. Jews at this point already either distrusted any messianic prospect, as I think almost all the aristocracy of Jerusalem did, in its desperate attempt to avoid the war against Rome, or instead welcomed the messianic promises borne in some way by figures like Menahem and Simon bar Giora. The Christian community of Jerusalem was thus at this point already completely isolated. They had recognized Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. B y asserting that Jesus had been exalted to the right hand of 206

207

209

208

210

clearly repeats the a n s w e r m a d e b y J e s u s to the high priest a c c o r d i n g to the very ancient tradition of Mk. 14:62. A n d cfr. B a u c k h a m , op. cit., 201 ff. Hist. 5,13,2: » T h e m a j o r i t y firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the p r o p h e c y that this w a s the very time w h e n the E a s t s h o u l d g r o w s t r o n g and that m e n starting f r o m J u d a e a s h o u l d p o s s e s s the w o r l d (profectique Iudaea rerum potirentur)« (trans. C . H . M o o r e , LCL). Cfr. M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism I I , J e r u s a l e m 1980, 6 1 - 6 2 . Vesp. 4,9: » T h e r e had s p r e a d over all the O r i e n t an old and established belief, that it w a s fated at that time for m e n c o m i n g f r o m J u d a e a to rule the w o r l d (Iudaea profecti rerum potirentur)« (trans. J . C . R o l f e , LCL). Bell. 6,312: » B u t what m o s t incited them to the w a r w a s an a m b i g u o u s oracle, likewise f o u n d in the sacred scriptures, a c c o r d i n g to which in that time o n e f r o m their c o u n t r y w o u l d b e c o m e ruler of the w o r l d (ap^ei TYJ? olxou[xevY]^)« (trans. H . S t . J . T h a c k ­ eray, LCL). The Partings of the Ways, 243: »For the first time within Judaism since Jesus there was a widely accepted alternative to the Christian claim that Jesus was Messiah«. T h e J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s » h a d to c h o o s e b e t w e e n J e s u s and bar K o c h b a « . Related Strangers, 2 - 1 1 , 2 8 5 - 2 8 8 . 2 0 6

2 0 7

2 0 8

2 0 9

2 1 0

5. The gospels of Matthew

119

and of John

God, they attributed to this Messiah divine honours and functions. But both with the kerygma of death and resurrection and with that of the Source Q, they had already clearly refused every invitation to violence. The Messiah in whom they believed was not the Son of David, victorious over his enemies, but the suffering servant of Jahve. A war against the Romans marked by such strong political and nationalistic components was absolutely impos­ sible for them. The flight of the Christians from Jerusalem and the gospels of Matthew and John are particularly meaningful expressions of this break. Matthew and John certainly bear witness to a prior situation in which the Christian community was still part of the Jewish one. In the gospel of Matthew not only is the eternal value of the Mosaic Law reaffirmed (Mt. 5:17-19), but there is reference to the observance of the Sabbath as well (Mt. 24:20) and of a payment of the tribute to the temple (Mt. 17:24-27) on the part of the disciples of Jesus. And in the gospel of John the threat of excluding the believers in Christ from the synagogue is mentioned three times (Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2); thus, their lives were evidently still measured by the Mosaic observances. Until not long before the drafting of the two gospels, the com­ munities of Matthew and of John were thus Judaeo-Christian communities. With regard to the gospel of Matthew, J . P. Meier maintains for this reason, as I have said, that the break of the community with the synagogue took place only between 70 and 85 and that it was caused in part precisely by the effect on the church of Antioch of the martyrdom of James and the destruction of Jerusalem. But an effect of this sort, difficult to think of for the church of Antioch, from which the gospel of Matthew probably came, becomes almost impossible to imagine for the regions of Asia Minor where it is sup­ posed the final draft of the gospel of John was written. And it is for this reason that Stegemann-Stegemann hypothesize instead for both the gospels 211

212

213

2 1 1

F o r the gospel of Matthew, this also is the opinion, although with a few differences (the p r o b l e m is considered f r o m the point of view of the church of A n t i o c h , not the church of J e r u s a l e m ) , of B r o w n - M e i e r , Antioch and Rome, cit., 4 6 - 4 9 . F o r Meier, the a u t h o r of this part of the b o o k , the m a r t y r d o m of J a m e s a n d the destruction of J e r u s a l e m in fact had a considerable effect o n the church of A n t i o c h , where he things the gospel of M a t t h e w had its origin. A n d the b r e a k of the c o m m u n i t y with the s y n a g o g u e can be placed between 70 and 85 and has nothing to d o with the s y n o d of Iamnia and the birkat ha-minim. F o r J o h n see, for example, M e e k s , >Am I a Jew ?< - Johannine Christianity and Juda­ ism, cit., 1 6 3 - 1 8 6 . B u t for Matthew, t o o , as for J o h n , one can in fact say that » a c o n s e n s u s is e m e r g i n g that the M a t t h e a n c o m m u n i t y went t h r o u g h several stages of interaction with the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s close to it, and that these stages have left fossils in the strata of tradition and r e d a c t i o n s M e e k s , Breaking away, 110. It is certain that the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y of A n t i o c h had suffered s t r o n g l y f r o m the events that t o o k place in those years in Palestine. In fact J o s e p h u s s p e a k s at length a b o u t it in Bell. 7 , 4 1 - 6 2 . A n d w e w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y like to k n o w if and h o w m u c h the C h r i s t i a n s w e r e involved in it. We have n o reason, however, to think that at A n t i o c h it w a s precisely t h o s e events that c a u s e d the b r e a k between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s . 2 1 2

2 1 3

120

Chapter

two:

The Christians

from

30 CE to 100

CE

a Palestinian origin that would explain both their Judaeo-Christian nature and their break with the Judaism of Iamnia. But this is just a convenient solution, which is in contrast with all the facts of tradition. Rather than put off these elements to the period after the war, identified immediately with the emergence of rabbinic Judaism, I prefer for this reason to place them in the period preceding the revolt, when the condemnation of James on the part of Ananus and the messianic excitement that was spreading among the people must have made it more and more difficult for the Nazarenes to live in Palestine with the other Jews. Certainly the discussion on the obligation to pay the tribute to the temple of Jerusalem refers to a situation in which the temple was still standing and the fiscus Iudaicus, instituted by Vespasian after its destruction, did not yet exist. And the threat to exclude the disciple of Jesus from the synagogue »if he should confess (6(JLOXOYT]CTY]) him to be Christ« (Jn. 9:22) is connected more easily to the killing of J a m e s and to the situation of messianic excitement at the outbreak of the war than to the too-often cited birkat ha-minim. Therefore, what presumably happened in Palestine after the condemna­ tion of James and the outbreak of the revolt? A flight to Pella, across the Jordan, of at least a part of the community is mentioned explicitly by Eusebius and Epiphanius. And we have no particularly serious reason to doubt this information. It is extremely probable that the group of Christians of Jerusalem that would later be identified with the name of Nazoreans settled at Pella, and that they were the object of the birkat ha-Nosrim. But other groups of believers in Christ fled from Jerusalem (and perhaps also from Galilee) toward Syria and Asia Minor. Two phases, the first one Palestinian, the second Syrian (and for John, probably Asiatic), are recounted both in the gospel of Matthew and in the gospel of John. The tradition that they often report is relative to the period of the discussions that took place among Christians on the observance of the Mosaic L a w and of the conflicts of the Christian community with their fellow countrymen in Palestine. But the situation in which they wrote was already that of the separation after the Jewish war. For this reason, it is extremely probable that both the communi­ ties, after having existed for a certain amount of time as a new orientation within the Palestinian Jewish community, after the condemnation of James and the outbreak of the revolt, separated from it, abandoning the land of Israel. Judaeo-Christianity certainly did not disappear (nor can we be 214

215

216

2 1 4

A n d Wengst, op. cit., 7 7 - 9 3 , 9 4 - 9 6 , thinks the location for the g o s p e l of J o h n is in Gaulanitis or B a t a n e a , b e t w e e n 80 and 90. T h i s m a n , a c c o r d i n g to the account of E u s e b i u s , Hist. Eccl. 2,23,2, » c o n f e s s e d (6{jLoXoyY](javTo^) that o u r L o r d and S a v i o u r J e s u s w a s the S o n of G o d « . Cfr. also M e e k s , Breaking away, 99ff., 113. A s for the h y p o t h e s i s that the flight f r o m J e r u s a l e m t o o k place even b e f o r e the o u t b r e a k of the war, see below, p p . 133, 135. 2 1 5

2 1 6

5. The gospels of Matthew

and of John

121 217

completely sure that Matthew did not still feel in some way a part of it ). It was to last for centuries still, and not only in Palestine, but also in Syria, in Egypt and in other regions inside and outside the Roman Empire, but it remained a group numerically smaller and smaller and pushed more and more to the edges of the >great Church<.

T h i s of c o u r s e d o e s not rule o u t the p o s s i b i l i t y that the p h a s e s that b o t h the g o s p e l and M a t t h e w and that of J o h n w e n t t h r o u g h w e r e m o r e than t w o , as m a n y scholars think. H o w e v e r , it sets u p a particularly s t r o n g hiatus after the death of J a m e s and the o u t b r e a k of the revolt. T h i s is true if one w i s h e s to accept the o p i n i o n of Saldarini, op. cit., 196, a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h it is » p o s s i b l e to u n d e r s t a n d Matthew's g r o u p of believers-in-Jesus as a part of the larger J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y . T h e conflict between Matthew's g r o u p and other J e w s , including the c o m m u n i t y authorities, s u g g e s t s that the larger c o m m u n i t y sees Matthew's g r o u p as d e v i a n t « . 2 1 7

Chapter Three

Jews and Christians as seen by the Romans I have mentioned in the preface that the separation of the Christians from the Jews is not a phenomenon that concerned only the Jewish community, because it necessarily also involved the Gentiles. There is first of all, as is obvious, the problem of Christian proselytism among the Gentiles. The Christian communities (the Pauline ones above all) were communities made up of Jews and of Gentiles. And their identity, as we have seen, was strongly affected by that participation of the Gentiles. But there is another problem, which is no less important in making an evaluation of the relationships between Jews and Christians: and it is about the impression that external observers had of these relationships. When was it that the Romans began to perceive with clarity the distinction between the Jews and the Christians? When, that is, did they realize that Christianity was not only a further ori­ entation within the varied and composite world of the Judaism of the time, but a new religion that, although it was born out of Judaism, had rapidly detached itself and even placed itself in a position of clear antagonism with Judaism? The perception of the phenomenon on the part of external observ­ ers is not, in fact, less important than the one the protagonists themselves may have had. The Christians (or at least some of them) may have thought for a long time that they preserved their Jewish identity, that they were thus still >Jews<. But this does not mean that at a certain point they did not appear to the Romans as distinct and separate from the Jews. Where can this point be set? An absolutely clear formulation that the separation had already taken place and that the hostility already existed is attributed by Sulpicius Severus to the general Titus and to his counsellors who in 70 C E discussed the opportuneness of destroying the temple of Jerusalem. But it is difficult to believe that such a clear perception was already had by Titus and did not perhaps belong to Sulpicius Severus or at least to his source (Tacitus?). As a matter of fact, whereas until about forty years ago the awareness of this distinction was set in the first years of Christianity or in any case not after the persecution by N e r o , most scholars of Roman history seem today to be inclined to believe instead that this awareness made its way slowly, only when the dispute between the two groups became harsher. First of all, the Jewish war of 66-74 and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 indicated, with the non-participation of the Christians in the war and the essential disap-

124

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

pearance of Jewish Christianity, that Christianity had separated from its Jewish origins. And a further push toward the awareness of this separation was given, according to some, within the general picture of the reconstruc­ tion of Judaism after 70 as rabbinic Judaism, by the policy followed by the emperors Domitian and Nerva toward the Jews, in particular with the measures related to the so-called fiscus Iudaicus. But there are also those who are convinced that the persecution by N e r o in 64, directed, as it was, exclusively against the followers of Jesus, demonstrates in an unequivocal manner that in the eyes of Rome the Christians were by then a group clearly distinguished from the Jews and that this awareness by the Roman authori­ ties already had its roots in the tumults that broke out in 49, under the rule of Claudius. And there are those who believe that the Romans already perceived clearly from its beginnings the different nature of Christianity with respect to Judaism. M. Sordi, for example, on the basis of a discussed piece of information by Tertullian: 1

2

3

T i b e r i u s e r g o , c u i u s t e m p o r e n o m e n C h r i s t i a n u m in s a e c u l u m intravit, a d n u n t i a t a sibi ex S y r i a P a l a e s t i n a , q u a e illic v e r i t a t e m i s t i u s d i v i n i t a t i s r e v e l a v e r a n t , d e t u l i t a d s e n a t u m c u m p r a e r o g a t i v a s u f f r a g i i sui. S e n a t u s , q u i a n o n i p s e p r o b a v e r a t , r e s p u i t ; C a e s a r in s e n t e n t i a m a n s i t , c o m m i n a t u s p e r i c u l u m a c c u s a t o r i b u s C h r i s t i a n o r u m ,

4

thinks that only a few years after the death of Jesus the prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate had reported to the emperor Tiberius regarding the facts that had occurred in Palestine during his prefecture, and that Tiberius had drawn the conclusion that the new sect constituted a completely different orienta­ tion of the Jewish religion and thus had to be supported and encouraged, to the point of proposing public recognition on the part of the Roman Senate. What is the best way to orient oneself among these divergent positions? 5

6

1

B u t this p o s i t i o n is often b o r n precisely out of the insistence with which the scholars of J u d a i s m t o d a y e m p h a s i z e the p e r m a n e n c e of Christianity within the J e w i s h w o r l d . It is in this way, for example, that L . Troiani reached the elaboration of his hypothesis for re-reading the origins of Christianity. See in particular Ilperdono cristiano e altri studi sul cristianesimo delle origini. T h i s is the case in particular for M . G o o d m a n , Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple, in Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways, 3 2 - 3 3 . T h i s is so, for e x a m p l e , for S. M a z z a r i n o , Uimpero romano I, R o m a - B a r i 1973, 2 0 1 , and P. Siniscalco, II cammino di Cristo nelVimpero romano, R o m a - B a r i 1983, 23. Apol. 5,2: » I t w a s in the age of T i b e r i u s , then, that the C h r i s t i a n n a m e w e n t o u t into the w o r l d , and he referred to the Senate the news which he had received f r o m Syria P a l e s ­ tine, which had revealed the truth of Christ's divinity; he did this exercising his prerogative in giving it his e n d o r s e m e n t . T h e Senate had not a p p r o v e d beforehand and s o rejected it. C a e s a r held to his o p i n i o n and threatened danger to accusers of the C h r i s t i a n s « (trans. T . R . Glover, LCL). / cristiani e Vimpero romano, M i l a n o 1 9 8 4 , 2 1 ff. N o t e , however, that s p e a k i n g later of Titus and Vespasian, S o r d i herself asserts that the >new religion< »still m u s t have presented itself to their eyes as a sect within J u d a i s m « (pp. cit., 50). T w o b o o k s in E n g l i s h at first sight deal with m y theme: R. L . Wilken, The Christians 2

3

4

5

6

1. From Tiberius

to

Claudius

125

1. From Tiberius to Claudius The Romans had inherited from the Greeks, as is well-known, their aver­ sion to the Jewish people: an aversion, however, different from that of the Greeks, founded as it was more on the fear that the Jewish customs might spread among the population of Rome, than on contempt for the religion founded by Moses. And, even before the appearance of Christianity, the more and more numerous presence of Jews in the capital of the empire had already been a serious problem of public order. We know, in fact, that in 19 C E , when faced with a growing penetration of Jewish elements in the Roman population, the emperor Tiberius had already ordered a massive expulsion of Jews from R o m e . The appearance of Christian preaching obviously could only further complicate the situation. I will not stop to discuss the hypothesis proposed by M. Sordi that I have mentioned above, according to which, informed by Pilate of the events in Palestine regarding the person of Jesus, the emperor Tiberius immediately perceived the difference between the purely religious messianism of the Christians and the national and political messianism of the Jews, and for this reason thought of exploiting the propitious occasion to propose to the Senate a recognition of the new religion that could contribute to the pacifi­ cation of a difficult province like Judaea. For as much as this hypothesis is defended with great intelligence and erudition, it is not in fact credible. The 7

8

as the Romans saw Them, N e w H a v e n - L o n d o n 1984, and, already cited, Wilson, Related Strangers. Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., 1-35. B u t the b o o k b y Wilken (a L a b r i o l l e for students in the E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e , as the author himself asserts) deals with the theme substantially o n l y f r o m Pliny the y o u n g e r o n w a r d ; and Wilson's b o o k reconstructs (very rapidly) the political-social situation of J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s , but w i t h o u t p a y i n g particular attention to the p r o b l e m of distinguishing between them. A t least in P. Schafer, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the ancient World, C a m b r i d g e M A 1997. B u t it is a debatable distinction, which deserves at least s o m e further clarification. T a c , Ann. 2,85,4: » A n o t h e r debate dealt with the p r o s c r i p t i o n of the E g y p t i a n and J e w i s h rites, and a senatorial edict directed that four t h o u s a n d d e s c e n d a n t s o d en­ franchised slaves, tainted with that superstition and suitable in p o i n t of age, w e r e to be s h i p p e d to Sardinia and there e m p l o y e d in s u p p r e s s i n g b r i g a n d a g e : if they s u c c u m b e d to the pestilential climate, it w a s a cheap loss. T h e rest had o r d e r s to leave Italy, unless they h a d r e n o u n c e d their i m p i o u s ceremonial b y a given d a t e « (trans. J . J a c k s o n , LCL). Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, cit. I I , 6 9 - 7 3 . Suet., Tib. 36: » T h o s e of the J e w s w h o w e r e of military age he a s s i g n e d to provinces of less healthy climate, ostensibly to serve in the a r m y ; the others of the s a m e race or of similar beliefs he banished f r o m the city, on pain of slavery for life if they did not o b e y « (trans. J . C . R o l f e , LCL). C . D i o 57,18,5a: » A s the J e w s flocked to R o m e in great n u m b e r s and w e r e converting m a n y of the natives to their w a y s , he banished m o s t of t h e m « (trans. E . C a r y , LCL). F o r D i o the cause of the expulsion w a s the intense p r o s e l y t i z i n g activity carried o u t b y the J e w s a m o n g the R o m a n s . Tacitus and S u e t o n i u s d o not instead m e n t i o n p r o s e l y t i s m explicitly, b u t all the s a m e m e n t i o n the w i d e s p r e a d presence of J u d a i s m in the city of R o m e . 7

8

126

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

N e w Testament news mentioned by Sordi regarding »trials and unlawful executions«, like that regarding the »spreading in the whole province of the new faith«, already in the first years of life of Christianity cannot lead to misinterpretation. Those events certainly did not have the relevance and the widespread political interest that the Christian sources (that is, essentially the Acts of the Apostles) attribute to them, and they must be put consider­ ably back into perspective. The incidents involving the first Christians were rather marginal incidents in an eastern province and were just the continu­ ation of the problems that had always been posed to R o m e by the Jewish population. It is thus unthinkable that Tiberius was able to distinguish immediately the Christians from the Jews to the point of proposing to the Senate the recognition of their founder as a god. Instead, the appearance, in the decade after 40, at Antioch, of the name of Xpicmavoi for the disciples of Jesus (Acts 11:26) is more significant. As I have already mentioned, whatever was the origin of this name, in it the awareness was expressed that alongside, and facing, the social groups of the Caesarians and the Herodians, a new group of followers of Jesus had arisen. These followers thus appeared already characterized by their own specific identity, which distinguished them both from the >Romans< and from the >Jews<. But, aside from the fact that until the end of the first century the use of the term was extremely rare (in the whole N e w Testament there are only three references to it, and that is, in addition to Acts 11:26, we find it in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16), the importance of the designation appears very dif­ ferent according to whether it is used by the Christians or by the Romans. Whereas, in fact, in defining themselves as Christians, the disciples of Jesus wanted to affirm their >belonging< to Christ as their only lord, the Romans, by using that designation, wanted only to say that, just as there were some Jews who were followers of Herod, there were also some Jews who were followers of Christ. Whereas the Christians were undoubtedly identified clearly, no distinction was yet made between Jews and Christians. This distinction would make its appearance for the first time in Rome. 9

10

9

Op. cit., 24. It is thus excessive to assert with H a r n a c k , 5 9 - 6 0 , that »this designation is in itself evidence that the new c o m m u n i t y at A n t i o c h separated violently f r o m the J e w s « or maintain, like H e n g e l , Acts and the History of earliest Christianity, 103, that the new designation of the disciples of J e s u s , p r o b a b l y received f r o m the local R o m a n authorities, i n d i c a t e s that they had b e c o m e an independent o r g a n i z a t i o n over against the J e w i s h s y n a g o g u e c o m m u n i t y . T o the outsider, the successful messianic sect c o u l d n o w a p p e a r as a g r o u p o n its o w n , w h i c h had detached itself f r o m J u d a i s m « (but see now, b y M . H e n g e l , Das fruheste Christentum als eine judische messianische und universalistische Bewegung, in I d e m , Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schriften I I , T u b i n g e n 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 7 ) . T h i s is also the p o s i t i o n of S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n , The Jesus Movement, 317. T h e later events of Paul narrated b y the A c t s s p e a k instead in the o p p o s i t e direction. A n d thus G e o r g i , The early Church, 3 9 - 4 1 , is right to say that in n o n e of these p a s s a g e s , and not in Did. 12,4, 1 0

1. From Tiberius

to

127

Claudius

Unfortunately, we do not know either when the first disciples of Jesus appeared in Rome or what their position was with respect to the Jewish community in Rome. When Paul arrived in Rome, at the beginning of the decade after 60, but already before that, when he wrote his Letter to the Romans, probably in 57, a Christian community had already existed for some time and there was considerable unrest not only within the Christian community but also within the Jewish community. But how was this unrest perceived by the Roman authorities? The first evidence of a Christian presence in the city of Rome and of the problems it created for the Jewish community and the Roman authorities was, as is well-known, that of Suetonius regarding the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, on the part of the emperor Claudius, because of the tumults that a certain Chrestus continually provoked among them. But it is evi­ dence that is anything but simple and clear. The first problem is the date of the order made by Claudius. Suetonius does not indicate it, but in the fifth century the Christian writer Orosius, speaking certainly about the same measure, assigns it to the ninth year of Claudius, thus to the year 49. And a confirmation of this date seems to come also from the Acts of the Apostles of Luke, which, recalling the en­ counter of Paul with the J e w named Aquila at Corinth, assert that they had arrived there shortly before (7rpocr<paTco<;) from Italy because of the edict of expulsion of the Jews from Rome on the part of Claudius, an affirmation that, since the stay of Paul in Corinth is dated with certainty in the years 50-51, proved as it is by the Gallio inscription, appears thus to confirm the 11

12

13

either, is the term >Christian< u s e d to indicate m e m b e r s h i p in a certain religious c o m m u ­ nity, and even less in a separate religion, even if he, t o o , then goes t o o far in asserting that L u k e d o e s not indicate w h e n the believers were called Christians, and for this reason leaves s p a c e until the end of the first century (?) for the origin of the term, and even maintains, w i t h respect to >Christian< and >Christianity<, that Paul » d o e s not use the terms b e c a u s e he did not k n o w t h e m « (?). Claud. 25,4: » I u d a e o s i m p u l s o r e C h r e s t o assidue tumultuantes R o m a e x p u l i t « . T h i s is the interpretation of the p a s s a g e shared b y a l m o s t all scholars. See Stern, op. cit., 1 1 3 - 1 1 7 . Recently, however, H . D . Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the early im­ perial Repression of Judaism at Rome, A t l a n t a 1997, 151 ff., has maintained that C h r e s t u s w a s not the instigator of the tumults of the J e w s , but rather the p e r s o n w h o s u g g e s t e d the m e a s u r e of C l a u d i u s . B u t this is against all the rules of syntax and of logic. Adv. pag. 7,6,15: » A n n o eiusdem n o n o e x p u l s o s per C l a u d i u m u r b e I u d a e o s I o s e p h u s refert, sed m e magis S u e t o n i u s movet, qui ait hoc m o d o « . T h e f o l l o w i n g citation of the p a s s a g e r e p o r t e d a b o v e b y S u e t o n i u s d e m o n s t r a t e s clearly that O r o s i u s k n e w a b o u t the m e a s u r e taken b y C l a u d i u s r e p o r t e d b y S u e t o n i u s , to which he assigns the date of 49 o n the basis of an indication b y F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s . N o t e , however, that since in the w o r k s remaining to us b y J o s e p h u s there is n o indication of the sort, w e d o not really k n o w w h e r e O r o s i u s t o o k this integration of his of S u e t o n i u s f r o m . Acts 18:2: » A n d he f o u n d a J e w n a m e d A q u i l a , a native of P o n t u s , lately c o m e f r o m Italy w i t h his wife Priscilla, b e c a u s e C l a u d i u s h a d c o m m a n d e d all the J e w s to leave R o m e . A n d he w e n t to see t h e m « . 11

12

13

128

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

date of Orosius. But the only order by Claudius with respect to the Jews mentioned by the historian Cassius D i o is placed by him in relation to the advent of Claudius to the throne, therefore, in 41. And in his Annals Tacitus, too, does not register any edict of the emperor against the Jews in the year 49. Some scholars for this reason think that there was a single order on the part of Claudius against the Jews and that this order was made not in 49, but in 4 1 . The indication given by Orosius is not credible, in this view. Since, however, Cassius Dio, for the year 41, does not speak of an expulsion, which he in fact rules out explicitly, bur rather only of a prohibition to meet together imposed by Claudius on the Jews, it seems much more logical to suppose that there were two edicts on the part of Claudius, the first in 41, which provided only that the Jews of R o m e were prohibited from meeting together, because of the continual unruliness that they caused to take place, and the second in 49, which contained the order of expulsion from the city of Rome, for the disturbances provoked in particular by Chrestus. But who was this order about exactly: the Jews only or also the Chris­ tians? And what were the exact motivations? O n the basis of the text of Suetonius, most scholars are convinced that the occasion of the turmoil of the Jews in the city of Rome was precisely the arrival of the disciples of Jesus in the Jewish community and that the order of expulsion was against both Jews and Christians. The text of Suetonius speaks, however, of Chrestus, not of Jesus, and seems to believe that this Chrestus was a person present in R o m e in the year 49. Various scholars think for this reason that there is no reason to speak of an involvement of the Christians in the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Convinced that the Roman authorities not only dis­ tinguished the Christians from the Jews immediately, but even considered them in a substantially favourable light, M. Sordi, for example, maintains that Chrestus was an unknown Jewish agitator and that the expulsion by Claudius had nothing at all to do with the Christians. But it is true that the name Chrestus was widespread among the Roman freedmen (not, however, 14

15

16

17

1 4

C a s s i u s D i o 60,6,6. D i o d o e s not s p e a k , however, of an e x p u l s i o n of the J e w s f r o m R o m e , w h i c h he even rules o u t explicitly, b u t o n l y of a p r o h i b i t i o n f r o m meeting together i m p o s e d o n them b y C l a u d i u s : TOIK; TE 'IOU8OUOU^ ... o u x e^yjXaae p i v , TCO 8YJ noixpicd (3uo Xpcofiivou*; exeXetNTE [XY] a u v a & p o t ^ e a & o u ( » A s for the J e w s [...], he d i d not drive them out, but o r d e r e d them, while continuing their traditional m o d e of life, not to h o l d m e e t i n g s « [trans. E . C a r y , LCL]). F o r e x a m p l e Stern, op. cit., 116. T h e m a j o r i t y of scholars express their agreement with this p o s i t i o n , and a m o n g t h e m are A . M o m i g l i a n o , E . M . S m a l l w o o d a n d J . M . G . Barclay. See the accurate e x p o s i t i o n b y R. Riesner, Die Fruhzeit des Apostels Paulus. Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie, T u b i n g e n 1994, 1 3 9 - 1 8 0 . Op. cit., 31 ff. A n d Slingerland, as I have said, even thinks that C h r e s t u s w a s not the instigator of the turmoil of the J e w s , b u t rather the p e r s o n w h o s u g g e s t e d the m e a s u r e to C l a u d i u s . 1 5

1 6

17

1. From Tiberius

to

129

Claudius

among the Jews). And it is true that that impulsore Chresto makes one think of an actual presence of the agitator in Rome. But it is terribly difficult to imagine that Suetonius (or rather the source from which he gathered his information) attributed to an unknown Chrestus the responsibility for continuous turmoil within the Jewish community of Rome. And anyone who knows the Christian language of the time (above all of Paul and of Luke) will have no difficulty admitting that the Roman police could have thought that the Christ, who the disciples of Jesus asserted they belonged to exclusively as their lord, and in the name of whom they claimed they could not take part in the political life of the empire, was an agitator present at that time in R o m e . That the turmoil of 49 was thus brought about by Christian preaching, or, more exactly, that the periodic turmoil of the Jewish community of Rome was in some way intensified by the arrival of the Christian preachers, seems to me to be indisputable. As we will see at once, in all the cities of the empire where they came to bring their message (the kerygma) the Christian mis­ sionaries provoked heated discussions in the Jewish communities and often caused the intervention of the Roman authorities. This, however, does not mean that the Roman authorities expelled Jews and Christians from Rome, putting together knowingly the two groups, by then clearly distinct from one another. All the sources in our possession are aware exclusively of one order against the Jews. It is probable that some Christians were also involved in the edict of Claudius, but as Jews, not because they were Christians. A q ­ uila and Priscilla themselves, whom Paul would meet later at Corinth, in all probability were not yet Christians at the time of their expulsion. There is thus nothing to make one think that Claudius had knowingly distinguished the Christians from the Jews. His order was directed simply against the turmoil in the Jewish community. The silence of Tacitus and D i o regarding the expulsion could perhaps indicate that, differently from what the Acts of the Apostles affirm, only a few Jews were object of the expulsion order of Claudius, and that the passage of Suetonius thus should be interpreted in the sense that only those Jews (some of them Christian) who were continually in turmoil because of the instigation of Chrestus were expelled. The situation in Rome was only the most visible and evident aspect of a phenomenon that was occurring in almost all the principal cities of the empire. In these cities larger and larger numbers of Jewish communities had posed for some time a problem of public order for the Roman authorities. And the appearance of Christian preaching could only aggravate the situa­ tion further. The events involving Paul narrated in the Acts of the Apostles 18

19

1 8

Riesner, Die Fruhzeit des Apostels Paulus, cit., 1 4 4 - 1 4 8 . In the p a s s a g e of the A c t s cited a b o v e , L u k e refers yet to A q u i l a s i m p l y as >a Jew< ( x i v a 'IouSalov). 1 9

130

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

are a clear confirmation of this. Let us consider only some particularly meaningful cases. Let us remember first of all that, for as much as he felt he was the apostle of Christ among the Gentiles because of the call of G o d on the road to Damascus, in all the cities of the empire in which Paul arrived, he first of all, according to Luke, looked for the Jewish community of the place and preached to them on the Sabbath in the meeting in the synagogue. This information, for as much as it was a clear generalization and stylization on the part of Luke, is basically credible. The synagogue in the Greek language, with its meetings of the >sons of Abraham< and the >God-fearers<, had been the principal means for conveying the Christian message to the Gentiles. This preaching, consisting essentially of the affirmation that Jesus of N a z a ­ reth was the Messiah promised to Israel in the Scriptures, which had also prophesized his death and resurrection, caused, however, great agitation and strong resistance. Whereas some of the Jews let themselves be convinced, most of the community reacted negatively instead. And sometimes they turned to the Roman authorities to ask them to intervene in the question. At Thessalonica, for example, toward the end of 49, Christian preaching caused strong opposition in the Jewish community of the place, who turned to the city magistrates (the politarchs) to stop Paul and Silas from continuing their activity (Acts 17:1-19). At Corinth, a short time later, the Jews reacted again in a negative manner to the preaching of Paul and again turned to the authorities of the place, the proconsul Gallio, brother of Seneca, to make him stop (18:1-17). And in Jerusalem, when faced with the lively discussions which, according to Luke, Paul caused also within the Sanhedrin between Pharisees and Sadducees, the military tribune himself, Lysias, intervened and arrested Paul in order to end the tumult (22:30-23,10). In whatever way one judges the credibility of the single episodes narrated by Luke, we may surely conclude that this was the outcome of the Christian mission in almost all the cities of the empire. The arrival of the disciples of Jesus, with their extraordinary preaching, created strong agitation in the Jewish communi­ ties. And the Roman magistrates were forced to intervene to bring back 20

21

2 0

G . J o s s a , Gli ellenisti e i timorati di Dio negli Atti degli Apostoli, 105-131. T h i s p r o b l e m of the J e w i s h accusations against the C h r i s t i a n preachers in the D i a s p o r a is of c o u r s e difficult to evaluate. It is certainly p o s s i b l e that L u k e exaggerated and generalized their i m p o r t a n c e , a c c o r d i n g to w h a t the theological p o i n t of view of his narration w a s . B u t to maintain with J . T . S a n d e r s , 180 ff., that these stories of L u k e are o n l y an e x p r e s s i o n of his aversion to the J e w s , or, along the s a m e lines, even s u p p o s e , as S t e g e m a n n - S t e g e m a n n d o , 353, »that D i a s p o r a J u d a i s m coexisted h a r m o n i o u s l y with C h r i s t - c o n f e s s i n g c o m m u n i t i e s « , that it even » w a s in the main officially hardly aware of their existence as s u c h « ( ? ) , is frankly arbitrary. I d o not believe that the stories of L u k e (on m o r e than one o c c a s i o n confirmed b y Paul) can be c o m p l e t e l y deprived of any historical value. 2 1

2. The Christian

persecution

by Nero (64 CE) and the Jewish

war (66-74)

131

order. But this intervention does not prove at all that the Roman authorities distinguished clearly between the Christians and the Jews. It rather proves the opposite. Whereas in fact in Thessalonica the politarchs settled for just the payment of money as security by Paul and allowed him to go free to continue preaching, without expressing an evaluation of the case (17:9), in Corinth, instead, the proconsul refused even to listen to the delegation of the Jews, affirming that he did not want to intervene in internal questions of Jewish law (18:15). And the same attitude would be found in Jerusalem in the tribune Lysias, who wrote to the procurator Felix that he had found Paul accused by the Jews in questions regarding their law, but he did not think he was guilty of any crime (23:29). The Roman authorities evidently considered the Christians a particular group of Jews who provoked frequent discussions within the local Jewish community. And in affronting these discussions, while at times they felt they had to intervene in order to protect public order, more often they preferred to let the Jews resolve their own problems. Only with the persecution by N e r o would the Christian question be put, at least in Rome, in different terms.

2. The Christian persecution by Nero (64 CE) and the Jewish war (66-74) Before dealing with the persecution by Nero, let us mention, however, two other episodes. In Rome, a few years after the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius, there was another event that is not very clear and should be noted. In fact, Tacitus narrates that in 57 C E Pomponia Graecina, a woman from a noble family married to Aulus Plautius, held to be guilty of having joined a superstitio externa, on the basis of an ancient judicial institution was entrusted to the judgment of her husband. Tacitus does not say what precisely this superstitio externa was that Pomponia was accused of. The definition and the description itself by Tacitus, who insists on the particu­ larly severe habits of the woman, have made most scholars think that the sympathies of the Roman matron were for the Jewish religion. M. Sordi has maintained strongly that it was instead adherence to Christianity. It is not necessary to discuss these hypotheses at length here. That it was Christianity is obviously not impossible, but there are no truly serious reasons to support it. The attitude of the matron is felt to be Christian by Sordi, because of her conviction that Christianity appeared to the Romans as a particularly rigid and strict religion, but the attitude really has nothing 22

23

Ann. 13,32,2: »superstitionis externae rea, mariti iudicio p e r m i s s a « . Op. cit., 3 3 - 3 4 .

132

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

that qualifies it as specifically Christian. And the later events in the family of Plautius, with their relationships with the families of the Petronii and the Vitellii, cannot be used as confirmation of this hypothesis because they are vague and happened much later. An adhesion to Judaism by Pomponia, considering how much the Jewish religion was liked among the aristocrats, seems undoubtedly more probable, although this cannot be proved, either. The Jewish religion was certainly considered a superstitio externa and its customs were in fact thought, in particular by Tacitus, to be extremely lugu­ brious, but other religions, too, could be defined this way. For our discourse only one thing in any case seems important. There is nothing in the episode that permits speaking of a Christianity already distinct from Judaism. Even if the religion in question was Christianity or Judaism, Tacitus does not in the least authorize us to think that these religions were already perceived by the Roman government as separate. Instead, the killing of James, the brother of the Lord in Jerusalem in 62 C E must have had greater weight. In the account by Josephus it appears to have been, and so doubtless it was, an event completely within the Jewish community. Josephus in fact asserts that it was the Sadducean high priest Ananus, son of Ananus who, as soon as he was nominated to the high office, taking advantage of the temporary vacancy of the office of procurator, had James and some others (Christians) put to death, accusing them of having disobeyed the Mosaic Law. And this condemnation caused deep irritation in the citizens who were meekest and most rigorous in the observance of the laws (and these in the language of Josephus are normally the Pharisees), who denounced what had happened both to the new Roman procurator Albinus and to the king of the Jews Agrippa II, even obtaining from him the dismissal of the high priest. It was thus a conflict among the various cur­ rents of Palestinian Judaism prior to 70, in which the Sadducees persecuted the Christians, while the Pharisees took up their defence. And the episode goes perfectly with what we know from the Christian sources (Paul and Luke in particular) about the >observant< and precisely >Judaeo-Christian< nature of the church of Jerusalem and of its leader James. But the event must have had considerable consequences on the Christian community and on its relationships with the Jewish authorities. Whereas in the era of Stephen and of the >Hellenists< they were the only ones to be attacked by the Sanhedrin, while the apostles and the >Hebrews< had been able to remain undisturbed in Jerusalem, now it was precisely the group of James that was being persecuted. And this must have caused a very severe crisis within the community. Its traditionalist, observant, and that is Judaeo-Christian nature was no longer sufficient to keep it protected from the attacks of the Jewish 24

2 4

Ant. 2 0 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 . G . J o s s a , Ilprocesso

di Gesu, cit., 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 .

2.

The Christian

persecution

by Nero (64 CE) and the Jewish

war (66-74)

133

authorities. In spite of the defence of the Pharisees (which most probably, more than support for the Christians, was intended as a criticism of the Sadducees), the possibility of peaceful co-existence with the other Jews was decreasing drastically. It cannot even be ruled out that the famous flight of the Christians to Pella, beyond the Jordan, recounted by Eusebius, prob­ ably taking the news from Hegesippus, had been determined not so much by the outbreak of the war against the Romans as by the killing of James by Ananus. In any case the Romans must have perceived that in Jerusalem, too, those groups of Christians were something profoundly different from the other Jewish groups. They certainly perceived it in those same years in Rome. I have men­ tioned previously, in fact, the episode of Pomponia Graecina to emphasize the fact that, however it is interpreted, it does not make it possible to see any distinction between Jews and Christians on the part of the Romans. But a few years later a new event would show a different situation. In fact, Tacitus recounts in his Annals that in 64 in R o m e a very serious fire broke out and that the emperor N e r o , to dispel suspicions that he himself had provoked the fire, gave orders to look for and condemn the Christians that lived in the city. This is not the place for commenting on the very famous passage by Tacitus, about which, as we know, entire rivers of ink have flowed. What is interesting for us is only the relationship between the Jews and the Christians. O n this relationship Tacitus is sufficiently clear. H e knew very well that the Christians had their origin in Palestine (15,44,3: »Iudaeam, originem eius mali«) and thus from the Jewish religion. H e was convinced that already at the time of N e r o they were objects of the same aversion (and 25

26

2 5

T h e killing of J a m e s a n d the o u t b r e a k of the w a r are not o n l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y very close b u t already tied together b y H e g e s i p p u s . After finishing the s t o r y of the killing of J a m e s , he writes, in fact, x a l eutKx; Oue(T7Ta(Tiav6<; 7toXLopxei auxou<; ( » A n d at once Vespasian besieged t h e m « ) . Hist. Eccl. 2,23,18. B u t a b o v e all the flight of the J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n s f r o m J e r u s a l e m t o o k place, a c c o r d i n g to E u s e b i u s , b e c a u s e of a p r o p h e c y a d d r e s s e d to the heads of the church 7ip6 xou TioXefxou ( » b e f o r e the w a r « ) . Hist. Eccl. 3,5,3. See in particular J . Wehnert, Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen nach Pella - historisches Faktum oder theologische Konstruktion ? Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Buch: Zeitschrift fur Ki rch enge sc hic hte 102 (1991) 2 3 1 - 2 5 5 . Cfr. also C a r l e t o n Paget, 7 4 6 - 7 4 9 . In a v e r y recent article this a u t h o r maintains, however, that »it is p r o b a b l e that H e g e s i p p u s ' statement that Vespasian's siege of J e r u s a l e m f o l l o w e d immediately after J a m e s ' death h a d m o r e to d o with a d e v e l o p i n g C h r i s t i a n view that the siege and J a m e s ' death w e r e directly connected than w i t h any kind of historical reality«. Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity: J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i c a l Studies 52 (2001) 548. Ann. 15,44,2: » e r g o a b o l e n d o r u m o r i N e r o s u b d i d i t reos et quaesitissimis p o e n i s adfecit, q u o s p e r flagitia invisos v u l g u s C h r i s t i a n o s a p p e l l a b a t « ( » T h e r e f o r e to s c o t c h the r u m o u r , N e r o substituted as culprits and p u n i s h e d w i t h the u t m o s t refinements of cruelty a class of men, loathed for their vices, w h o m the c r o w d styled C h r i s t i a n s « [trans. J . J a c k s o n , LCL]). Stern I I , 8 9 - 9 3 . 2 6

134

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

for the same reason: the odium generis humani of Ann. 15,44,4 correspond­ ing to the adversus omnes alios hostile odium of Hist. 5,5,1) that the Jews were also subjected to. If the passage of the so-called >war councih held by Titus to decide the destiny of the temple of Jerusalem reported by Sulpicius Severus were also his, it would demonstrate that he was in fact well aware of the relationship that still existed (and still now, one might say, exists) between the two social groups. In fact the elimination of one of them could only be the elimination of the other. But at the same time Tacitus knew well that the Christians at that time already had a particular physiognomy of their own that everyone recognized. They were not simply Jews. Tacitus in fact does not say that N e r o had those Jews arrested that where called Christians. H e says instead that he had arrested »quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat«, people, therefore, whose identity did not consist simply in being a particular type of Jew. If the passage cited above from Sulpicius Severus is his, he knew very well that the Jewish and the Christian religions, though they came from the same origins, had for a long time (since at least the Jewish war) been two religions >sibi contrarias<. The relationship that still tied them to each other thus did not prevent them from appearing separate from, and even hostile to, each other by now. It is of course possible to maintain both that this is only the opinion of Tacitus at the time of Trajan and that this is only the situation in Rome, 27

28

29

30

27

Chron. 2,30,7: » A t contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in p r i m i s t e m p l u m censebant, q u o plenius I u d a e o r u m et C h r i s t i a n o r u m religio tolleretur: q u i p p e has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, i s d e m tamen ab a u c t o r i b u s profectas; C h r i s t i a n o s ex Iudaeis extitisse: radice s u b l a t a s t i r p e m facile p e r i t u r a m « ( » O n the other hand, others, and Titus himself, expressed their o p i n i o n that the T e m p l e s h o u l d be d e s t r o y e d w i t h o u t delay, in o r d e r that the religion of the J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s s h o u l d be m o r e completely exterminated. F o r those religions, t h o u g h o p p o s e d to o n e another, derive f r o m the s a m e f o u n d e r s ; the C h r i s t i a n s s t e m m e d f r o m the J e w s and the extirpation of the r o o t w o u l d easily c a u s e the offspring to p e r i s h « [trans. M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors]). A n d therefore D u n n is w r o n g , 2 4 1 , to state that »his fuller description of them [...] suggests that he himself t h o u g h t of these C h r i s t i a n s as J e w s « and to maintain that »in G r a e c o - R o m a n writers the recognition that Christians are different f r o m J e w s o n l y begins to b e c o m e clear in the early s e c o n d c e n t u r y « , with Pliny and S u e t o n i u s . T h e correct view, instead, is that of V o u g a , 153: »the edict of C l a u d i u s [...] implies that [...], f r o m the R o m a n p o i n t of view, n o distinction w a s yet m a d e between C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m « . B u t »in his account of the p e r s e c u t i o n b y N e r o , Tacitus p r e s u p p o s e s that in 64 the R o m a n p o p u l a t i o n and the imperial h o u s e h a d b o t h b e c o m e a w a r e of the specific existence of C h r i s t i a n i t y « . T h i s w a s first a r g u e d b y J . B e r n a y s , Uber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, Berlin 1861, 55 ff. B u t see the d o u b t s e x p r e s s e d in particular b y H . M o n t e f i o r e , Sulpicius Severus and Titus' Council of War: H i s t o r i a 11 (1962) 1 5 6 - 1 7 0 . T h i s for the p a s s a g e of Sulpicius Severus s h o u l d be c o m p l e t e l y o u t of the question. It is i m p o s s i b l e for Titus to have already s p o k e n a b o u t J u d a i s m and C h r i s t i a n i t y as t w o religiones sibi contrariae, j u s t as it is a b s u r d to think that he s a w the destruction of the temple a b o v e all as a m e a n s to extirpate Christianity. T h e o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d b y E . L a u p o t , Tacitus' Fragment 2: the anti-Roman Movement of the C h r i s t i a n i and the Nazareans: Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e 54 (2000) 2 3 3 - 2 4 7 , w h o , on the basis of an imaginative statistical rela2 8

2 9

3 0

2. The Christian

persecution

by Nero

(64 CE) and the Jewish

war (66-74)

135

where the existence of a strong and well-known Jewish community and the presence of a favourable opinion toward it in the imperial court, through Poppaea, could have caused a precocious distinction between the two social groups. However, even if this were so, the persecution by N e r o could not avoid being a precedent of enormous importance for the entire empire. I do not believe that it gave rise to a specific legislation against the Christians. Since the time of J . P. Borleffs nobody has thought any longer that the institutum Neronianum in Tertullian stood for a legislative measure about them, and thus a precise non licet esse christianos. But in any case the politi­ cal measure had been taken and it was exclusively about the Christians, con­ sidered to be a social group with its own identity that, although it was still tied in some way to its Jewish origins, now appeared distinct and separate. F r o m that moment on, whether Christianity had been explicity declared illicit, as most scholars maintain, or was instead still lacking precise judicial norms, as seems more probable to me, it could not, however, still develop sub umbraculo insignissimae religionis certae licitae, as Tertullian reminds us it had done up to that time. The protection, or, if one likes, the >cover< of Judaism had instead disappeared and the two religions (as the source of Sulpicius Severus would write) appeared separate by now. Further pressure toward this separation came in any case, in the eyes of the Romans, a few years later, from the events of the Jewish war. Eusebius of Caesarea left us, as is well known, a piece of information probably going back to the historian Hegesippus, according to which, before the outbreak of the revolt, the Judaeo-Christian community of Jerusalem emigrated to the other side of the Jordan, to the city of Pella, and thus among the Gen­ tiles. It is a piece of information that is strongly contested. Various scholars 31

32

33

34

tionship b e t w e e n the terms stirps, Na&opodo^ and Na&xp-yjvo^, maintains that the f r a g m e n t is a p r i m a r y historical s o u r c e , t h r o u g h Tacitus, on the C h r i s t i a n s as a J e w i s h g r o u p heavily involved in the revolt against R o m e , d o e s not deserve a n y credit. Institutum Neronianum: Vigiliae C h r i s t i a n a e 6 (1952) 1 2 9 - 1 4 5 . Ad nat. 1,7,9: » E t tamen mansit erasis o m n i b u s h o c s o l u m institutum N e r o n i a n u m , i u s t u m d e n i q u e ut dissimile sui a u c t o r i s « . Apol. 2 1 , 1 : » B u t n o w that w e have stated that this s c h o o l rests on the v e r y ancient b o o k s of the J e w s - this s c h o o l w h i c h m o s t p e o p l e k n o w to be rather m o d e r n , as dating f r o m the reign of T i b e r i u s - a fact w e ourselves admit - p e r h a p s s o m e q u e s t i o n m a y be raised as to the st an d i n g of the school, o n the g r o u n d that, u n d e r cover of a v e r y f a m o u s religion (and one certainly p e r m i t t e d b y law), the school insinuates quietly certain claims of its o w n « (trans. T . R . Glover, LCL). E u s e b i u s , Hist. Eccl. 3,5,3: » O n the other hand, the p e o p l e of the church in J e r u s a l e m w e r e c o m m a n d e d b y an oracle given b y revelation before the w a r to t h o s e in the city w h o w e r e w o r t h y of it to d e p a r t and dwell in o n e of the cities of Perea w h i c h they called Pella. T o it t h o s e w h o believed o n C h r i s t migrated f r o m J e r u s a l e m , that w h e n h o l y m e n had altogether deserted the royal capital of the J e w s and the w h o l e land of Israel, the j u d g e ­ ment of G o d might at last o v e r t a k e them for all their crimes against the C h r i s t and his A p o s t l e s « (trans. K . L a k e , LCL). 31

3 2

33

3 4

136

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans 35

maintain that it was in fact invented for apologetic p u r p o s e s . 1 do not see the reason to share this opinion. The record of this flight to Pella can also be found in Epiphanius and in Pseudo-Clement. But for the purposes of my discourse it is not very important to know if the Christians of Jerusalem really fled across the Jordan, to the city of Pella. This, among other things, as I have said already, could have happened already before the outbreak of the revolt, after the killing of James. What is certain is that they did not take part in the war. There is not the least hint in the sources of their participation in the revolt. The Davidic messianism of the national sort, which, play­ ing above all on the prophecy of Numbers 24:17, excited the hearts of the insurgents, could not be shared any longer by the Christians of Jerusalem, who, in particular with the story of the temptation of Jesus contained in the source of the logia (Mt. 4:1-11 = Lk. 4:1-13), had clearly refused every prospect of political royalty. The Messiah that they professed was Jesus of Nazareth, who, although he was of Davidic origin (or perhaps precisely because he was of Davidic origin), had died on the cross condemned by the Romans (Acts 2:36). And they openly identified the gift that he had made of his life as the servant of Jahve as a sacrifice of expiation of sins (Mk. 10:45). As would be confirmed also by the second Jewish war under Hadrian, with Simon bar Kosiba, participation in a messianic revolt of the Jews of an openly >nationalistic< nature had become impossible for the Christians. 36

37

38

39

40

3 5

T h i s is a r g u e d for e x a m p l e , b y G . L u d e m a n n , The Successors of pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A critical Evaluation of the Pella-Tradition, in Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition I. The Shaping of Christianity in the second and third Centuries, edited b y E . P. Sanders, L o n d o n 1 9 8 0 , 1 6 1 - 1 7 3 , a c c o r d i n g to w h o m the tradition a r o s e in a J e w i s h - C h r i s ­ tian c o m m u n i t y that w a s trying to connect its existence to the C h r i s t i a n i t y of J e r u s a l e m (p. 172: » I a m inclined to c o n c l u d e that the Pella-tradition a r o s e in a J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y which in the second century still thought it w o r t h deriving its existence f r o m a type of Christianity at J e r u s a l e m that w a s to b e c o m e suspect for catholic Christianity f r o m the m i d d l e of the s e c o n d c e n t u r y « ) ; and J . Verheyden, The Flight of the Christians to Pella: E p h e m e r i d e s T h e o l o g i c a e L o v a n i e n s e s 66 (1990) 3 6 8 - 3 8 4 , w h o maintains that E p i p h a n i u s was entirely d e p e n d e n t o n E u s e b i u s and that E u s e b i u s ' a c c o u n t w a s a theological s t o r y b a s e d o n the N e w Testament, excellently refuted b y Wehnert, Die Auswanderung der Jerusalemer Christen nach Pella, cit., 2 3 1 - 2 5 5 . Panarion 29,7,7; 30,2,7; de mens, etpond. 15. Recognitiones 1,39,3. N o matter w h a t in the article cited a b o v e , on the basis of extremely w e a k evidence, is believed b y L a u p o t . P. H o f f m a n n , Die Versuchungsgeschichte in der Logienquelle. Zur Auseinandersetzung der Judenchristen mit dem politischen Messianismus: Biblische Zeitschrift 13 (1969) 215 ff.; G . J o s s a , Gesu e i movimenti di liberazione della Palestina, 237ff. A n d for this reason the evaluation of Titus r e p o r t e d b y Sulpicius Severus is not credible. B u t this m e a n s that there is n o need to wait for the revolt of 1 3 2 - 1 3 5 to see the c o m p l e t e realization of the s e p a r a t i o n of the C h r i s t i a n s f r o m the J e w s . A c c o r d i n g to D u n n , 2 4 2 - 2 4 3 , for the J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s in J u d a e a the decisive factor of the separation w a s the recognition of the leader of this revolt as Messiah: »for the first time within Juda­ ism since Jesus there was a widely accepted alternative to the Christian claim that Jesus was 3 6

37

3 8

3 9

4 0

2. The Christian

persecution

by Nero (64 CE) and the Jewish

war (66-74)

137

Another story from Hegesippus transmitted to us by Eusebius, although it is amply legendary, further confirms this situation. In Hist. Eccl. 3,12 Eusebius writes that »after the capture of Jerusalem« the emperor Vespa­ sian issued an order to find all the descendents of David so that nobody of royal descent would remain among the J e w s . The information, although reported only by Eusebius and without any reference to the source from which it is taken, expressed only with an »it is said«, sounds likely. Given the role played in the Jewish war by the messianic, and more specifically D a ­ vidic hope, it was only natural for Vespasian to take care to eliminate every possible royal claim on the part of the members of the family of David. And in this information there is nothing that concerns the Christians. Eusebius himself in Hist. Eccl. 3,17, speaking of the persecution by Domitian, even affirms explicitly that his father had never conceived of anything hostile towards the Christians. But in Hist. Eccl. 3,19-20 Eusebius reports an­ other piece of information, taken from the work of Hegesippus, according to which an analogous search for the descendants of David was carried out by Domitian after an accusation of certain >heretics< and involved two grandsons of Judas, the brother of the Lord. Having ascertained, however, the condition of these relatives of Jesus as simple farmers and the absolutely non-political nature of their faith in Christ, the emperor let them g o . This information is probably not much more than the re-telling of the previous 41

42

43

Messiah«. T h e J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s » h a d to c h o o s e between J e s u s and bar K o c h b a « . B u t this had really already h a p p e n e d in the first revolt, w i t h respect to the v a r i o u s leaders of the insurrection ( M e n a h e m and S i m o n bar G i o r a a b o v e all). T h e view that the s e c o n d revolt is m o r e i m p o r t a n t than the first with respect to the relations between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s is shared, as I have already said, b y Wilson, 2 - 1 1 , 2 8 5 - 2 8 8 . Hist. Eccl. 3,12: Vespasian » o r d e r e d a search to be m a d e for all w h o were of the family of D a v i d , that there might be left a m o n g the J e w s n o o n e of the r o y a l family and, for this reason, a very great p e r s e c u t i o n w a s again inflicted o n the J e w s « (trans. K . L a k e , LCL). Hist. Eccl. 3,17: » H e w a s the s e c o n d to p r o m o t e p e r s e c u t i o n against us, t h o u g h his father, Vespasian, had p l a n n e d n o evil against u s « (trans. K . L a k e , LCL). Hist. Eccl. 3 , 1 9 - 2 0 : » T h e s a m e D o m i t i a n gave o r d e r s for the execution of t h o s e of the family of D a v i d and an ancient s t o r y goes that s o m e heretics accused the g r a n d s o n s of J u d a s ( w h o is said to have been the brother, a c c o r d i n g to the flesh, of the S a v i o u r ) s a y i n g that they w e r e of the family of D a v i d and related to the C h r i s t himself. H e g e s i p p u s relates this exactly as follows. > N o w there still survived of the family of the L o r d g r a n d s o n s of J u d a s , w h o w a s said to have been his b r o t h e r a c c o r d i n g to the flesh, and they were delated as being of the family of D a v i d . T h e s e the officer b r o u g h t to D o m i t i a n Caesar, for, like H e r o d , he w a s afraid of the c o m i n g of the C h r i s t . H e a s k e d them if they were of the h o u s e of D a v i d and they admitted it. T h e n he asked t h e m h o w m u c h p r o p e r t y they had, or h o w m u c h m o n e y they controlled, and they said that all they p o s s e s s e d w a s nine t h o u s a n d denarii between them. [...] T h e y w e r e asked concerning the C h r i s t and his k i n g d o m , its nature, origin, and time of a p p e a r a n c e , and explained that it w a s neither of the w o r l d n o r earthly, b u t heavenly and angelic, and it w o u l d be at the end of the w o r l d , w h e n he w o u l d c o m e in g l o r y to j u d g e the living and the d e a d and to r e w a r d every m a n a c c o r d i n g to his deeds. A t this D o m i t i a n did not c o n d e m n them at all, but d e s p i s e d t h e m 41

42

43

138

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

story, extending to Domitian, held to be a persecutor of the Christians, an action that was really Vespasian's, or possibly, if one wants to maintain the Eusebian indication of a time after the taking of Jerusalem, an action taken by Titus. Although it is mostly legendary, it is in any case interesting because it shows the tie and also the distinction that there was at this time between Jews and Christians. Directed as it was to discovering possible descendants of David, and since among these there were some relatives of Jesus, the imperial search was concentrated not only on the Jews but also on the Christians. The messianic-Davidic nature of their faith is thus a possible element of connection between the two social groups. The sharp refusal of any nationalistic prospect on the part of the messianic faith of the Christians easily excluded them, however, from imperial persecution. The distinction between the two groups evidently appeared clear to the Romans.

3. The exaction of the Jewish tax and the persecution by Domitian Among the other dramatic effects that it had, the Jewish war meant also that the tax that the Jews up to that point had paid for the temple of Jerusalem was now paid for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. Josephus in fact says that Vespasian »imposed on all the Jews, wherever they resided, a tax of two drachms to be paid annually to the Capitol, as formerly they had paid it to the temple at Jerusalem« (trans. H . S t . J . Thackeray, LCL). Among these Jews were there also Christians of Jewish origin? Until 70 these Christians, or at least those among them who, because they were still tied to the Mosaic prescriptions, we define more exactly Judaeo-Christians, must in fact have paid the tribute to the temple of Jerusalem. Did they now also pay the tribute to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus? Did the Romans still consider them Jews and claim they were thus subject to the tax? Unaware for the most part of the subtle discussions of the N e w Testament exegetes on the birkat ha-minim of the Eighteen Benedictions and of the aTioauvaywyog of the gospel of John, scholars of Roman history thought they did not. Cassius D i o was in fact explicit, even more so than Josephus, in recalling that the tax was paid by those who observed the Mosaic Law: » F r o m that time forth it was ordered that the Jews who continued to observe their ancestral customs should pay an annual tribute of two denarii to Jupiter Capitolinus« (trans. 44

as simple folk, released them, and decreed an end to the persecution against the church<« (trans. K . L a k e , LCL). Bell. 7,218: cpopov 8e zoZq 67IOUSY]7IOTO0V OUCTLV 'IouSodoi^ snifiaCksv, 8uo ftpa/fia^ exacrcov 44

xeXeiNTOo; a v a 7iav exoq eiq TO Koc7t£TtoXiov cpepeiv, tocjTcep 7ipoTepov eiq TOV ev l e p o a o X u f x o i ^ vecov (juvexeXouv.

3.

The exaction

of the Jewish

tax and the persecution

by Domitian

139

45

E. Cary, LCL). These were thus the observant Jews and proselytes, but not the apostates. And, however one evaluates the birkat ha-minim and the oc7roauvaytoyo^, we must believe that after the persecution by N e r o and the Jewish war, the Christians were now considered apostates not only by the Romans, but by the Jews themselves. We have no reason to believe that the Jewish communities of the imperial cities still included them in their lists of contributors. But if >all the Jews< were obliged to pay the tax, or at least all the >observant< Jews, the problem becomes more complex. The more and more widely held conviction, the very one I am discussing, according to which Christianity until 135 was only a current within Judaism should have meant in reality, even though nobody seems to realize it, that after 70 the Christians also paid the tax for Jupiter Capitolinus, just as before 70 they had paid for the temple of Jerusalem. The Judaeo-Christians in particular, as people who observed the Mosaic Law, should not have been exempted from the new tribute. And yet no source, not even those of Syro-palestinian and Judaeo-Christian origin, ever hints at the payment of this tribute on the part of the Christians. The gospel of Matthew, as a matter of fact (and it is certainly not an accident that it is precisely this gospel, with its probable Antiochene origin and its >Judaeo-Christian< problems) reports, as I have mentioned, a saying of Jesus on the payment of the tax for the temple. It does so, as is obvious, in relation to the behaviour of Jesus, but, written as it is after 70, it could be considering more the practice of the disciples at the time of writing than that of the teacher in approximately the year 30. This is what seems to be the position of H . Montefiore who, although he is convinced that the saying in substance goes back to Jesus, thinks that it was in any case adapted by Matthew to the new situation. »Jewish Christians 46

47

45

Hist. Rom. 66,7,2: x a l arc' exeivou Sl8pa^(xa STOC^OT] TOIX; x a rcaTpia auxwv E9T) 7iept,CTTeXAovTa<; TW Ka7UTcoXuo Ad, x a x ' etoq arcocpepeiv. Mt. 17:24-27: » W h e n they reached C a p e r n a u m , the collectors of the temple tax c a m e to Peter and said, >Does y o u r teacher not p a y the temple tax?< H e said, >Yes, he does<. A n d w h e n he c a m e h o m e , J e s u s s p o k e of it first, asking, >What d o y o u think, S i m o n ? F r o m w h o m d o kings of the earth take toll or tribute? F r o m their children or f r o m others?< W h e n Peter said, >From others<. J e s u s said to him, T h e n the children are free. H o w e v e r , s o that w e d o not give offence to them, g o to the sea and cast a h o o k ; take the first fish that c o m e s u p ; and w h e n y o u o p e n its m o u t h , y o u will find a coin; take that and give it to t h e m for y o u and me<«. T h a t it is a q u e s t i o n of the tax for the temple is the a l m o s t u n a n i ­ m o u s o p i n i o n of the scholars. R . J . C a s s i d y , M a t t h e w 17:24-27 - A Word on civil Taxes: C a t h o l i c Biblical Q u a r t e r l y 41 (1979), 5 7 1 - 5 8 0 , has, however, maintained that the p a s s a g e w a s a i m e d at civil taxes. A n d A . Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, R e g e n s b u r g 1986, 362, has f o l l o w e d him. B u t not o n l y the explicit reference to the d i d r a c h m , b u t also the m e n t i o n s b y J e s u s of the scandal and the liberty of the children s h o w clearly that it is a q u e s t i o n of the religious tax for the temple. See also P. B o n n a r d , UEvangile selon saint Matthieu, G e n e v e 21982, 2 6 4 - 2 6 6 (with s o m e perplexity); and R . F a b r i s , Matteo, R o m a 1982,374-377. Jesus and the Temple Tax: N e w Testament Studies 11 ( 1 9 6 4 - 6 5 ) 64 ff. 4 6

47

140

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

seem to have had the worst of both worlds. They were not regarded as members of the religio licita of Judaism, and so they could not enjoy the privileges that this afforded. O n the other hand they were not exempted from the fiscus Iudaicus levied on all J e w s « . However, the passage, as is obvious and cannot be denied by the author himself, refers to the payment of the tribute for the temple of Jerusalem, not for that of Jupiter Capitoli­ nus. Even though the reason for which Matthew decided to report it in his gospel is not completely clear (after 70 that payment did not occur any longer), it thus reflected the discussion that must have occurred around the Judaeo-Christian groups before 70 on the obligation to continue paying the tribute to the temple, but there is nothing to make one think that the evangelist also knew about the existence of an obligation on the part of the Christians to pay the two drachms to the fiscus Iudaicus. Even about the Judaeo-Christian groups, who still continued to observe the Mosaic Law, it is never said that they paid the Jewish tax. And if what Montefiore writes is true, that they were not considered members of the Jewish community, they were not in fact obliged to pay. The situation, however, changed under the government of Domitian. This was because at a moment that is not known, but which probably can be set toward the end of the decade between 80 and 90, the emperor began to require the Jewish tax in a much more rigid way, extending the obligation of contribution to new categories of citizens. Suetonius in fact says that under him »Praeter ceteros Iudaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est; ad quern deferebantur qui vel improfessi Iudaicam viverent vitam vel dissimulata 48

49

50

4 8

O p . cit., 64. A l s o for N . M c E l e n e y , Mt 17:24-27 - Who paid the Temple Tax?: C a t h o l i c Biblical Q u a r t e r l y 38 (1976) 1 7 8 - 1 9 2 , the p e r i c o p e m a k e s sense o n l y after 70, as a w o r k of M a t t h e w that with it d e v e l o p s his christology. T h e conviction that the s a y ­ ing goes b a c k to J e s u s and is to be explained as a p o s i t i o n taken in the d i s c u s s i o n of the legitimacy of p a y m e n t of the temple tax b y J e w s , the children of G o d , is held, instead, b y W. H o r b u r y , The Temple Tax, in Jesus and the Politics of his Day, edited b y E . B a m m e l and C . F . D . M o u l e , C a m b r i d g e 1992, 2 6 5 - 2 8 6 . T h e reference to the 8i8paxfJta (Mt. 17:24) really w o u l d not allow us to decide if the tribute u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is the o n e to the temple of J e r u s a l e m or the one to the temple to J u p i t e r C a p i t o l i n u s , since the a m o u n t of b o t h tributes is t w o d r a c h m s . B u t the reference of J e s u s to the >children< (Mt. 17:25.26), and, m o r e generally, the attribution of the e p i s o d e to J e s u s d o n o t leave a n y d o u b t s that it is a q u e s t i o n of the p a y m e n t of the tribute to the temple of J e r u s a l e m . Cfr. also J . G n i l k a , Das Matthausevangelium I I , 1 1 3 - 1 1 8 (115: » O b viously, o u r evangelist is not thinking of the fiscus I u d a i c u s (v. 2 5 b ) , b u t of the tribute to p a y to the temple of J e r u s a l e m « , b e c a u s e the p r o b l e m continued to be d e b a t e d a m o n g the J e w s also after 70. T h e r e is instead n o t m u c h to be f o u n d in the article b y J . D . M . Derrett, Peter's Penny: fresh Light on Matthew XVII24-7: N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m 6 (1963) 1-15. A n d it also reveals the w e a k n e s s of the interpretations, typical of a certain a b u s e of the redaction criticism, w h i c h claim to be able to explain the t r a n s m i s s i o n of all the evangelical material exclusively t h r o u g h the evangelist's interest at that time. 4 9

5 0

3. The exaction

of the Jewish

tax and the persecution

by

Domitian

141

51

origine imposita genti tributa non pependissent«. It is a very difficult pas­ sage, which has been object of the most diverse interpretations. According to A. Momigliano Domitian did not broaden the categories of taxpayers at all, but simply collected the tax in a more hateful way. But this is an evidently strained interpretation of the text. Suetonius seems to indicate clearly that new people were subjected to the tribute. It is more difficult to establish which new people. The proselytes were not the ones, because they were already subject to the tax. And so which ones? According to L. A. T h o m p s o n in either case it would be a question of apostates, until that mo­ ment exempted from the payment of the tax. But, whereas those who dis­ simulated their origins (and were thus Jews by birth) were really apostates, those who instead >lived a Jewish life< were not (apostates in general did not live a Jewish life). They could not be anything other than the >Judaizers<, those who, without becoming proselytes, observed the Mosaic L a w or at least showed a liking for Judaism. For the purpose of our discourse the interesting thing, however, is something else. In either case the Christians, too, risked being subjected to the tribute. This was because the Christians who were of Jewish origin could be accused of dissimulating their origins in order not to pay the tribute. And the Christians who observed the Mosaic Law could also be charged with living a Jewish life. And yet none of the sources in our possession ever hints at an imposition of the Jewish tax on these Christians. Although it is always debatable to use the argumenta e silentiOy in all probability even the Christians of Jewish origin, and even the very Christians who continued to observe the Law, were not held to paying the tribute. This should mean that the social separation between Jews and Christians, and the belonging in particular of the Christians to a different community from the Jewish one, was by then so evident that it did not occur to any imperial official to subject a Christian to the fiscus Iudaicus, even if he was of Jewish origin or observed the Mosaic L a w . 52

53

54

51

Dom. 12,2: » B e s i d e s other taxes, that on the J e w s w a s levied w i t h the u t m o s t vigour, and t h o s e w e r e p r o s e c u t e d w h o w i t h o u t p u b l i c l y a c k n o w l e d g i n g that faith yet lived as J e w s , as well as those w h o concealed their origin and did not p a y the tribute levied u p o n their p e o p l e « (trans. J . C . R o l f e , LCL). Ricerche sulVorganizzazione della Giudea sotto il dominio romano (63 a. C. - 70 d. C), A m s t e r d a m 1967 ( = Pisa 1934), 8 8 - 8 9 . Domitian and the Jewish Tax: H i s t o r i a 31 (1982) 3 2 9 - 3 4 2 . A n d thus J . C . R o l f e , Suetonius I I , L o n d o n 1950, 366, is w r o n g to maintain that t h o s e w h o hid their origins » w e r e d o u b t l e s s C h r i s t i a n s , w h o m the R o m a n s c o m m o n l y c o n f o u n d e d with the J e w s « . A n d M . G o o d m a n , Nerva, the Fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity: J o u r n a l of R o m a n Studies 79 (1989) 4 0 - 4 4 ; Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple, cit., 2 7 - 3 8 , is also w r o n g , or at least exaggerates w h e n he asserts that it w a s precisely the events related to the fiscus I u d a i c u s that h a p p e n e d with D o m i t i a n and N e r v a that m a d e evident the s e p a r a t i o n between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s (the s a m e is maintained b y D u n n , 242: with those events »a clearer definition of apostasy could become possible«) and 52

53

5 4

142

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

The situation became more difficult some years later, when Domitian took the J e w i s h life< as a pretext not for subjecting to the tribute even the simple >Judaizers<, but for condemning to death (or in some cases to exile) his political opponents. Whereas in fact Suetonius affirms only that D o m i ­ tian »Flavium Clementem patruelem suum contemptissimae inertiae, cuius filios etiam turn parvulos successores palam destinaverat abolitoque priore nomine alterum Vespasianum appellari, alterum Domitianum, repente ex tenuissima suspicione tantum non in ipso eius consulatu interemit«, C a s ­ sius Dio reminds us instead that Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, together with many others who were inclined towards Jewish customs (e^oxeXXovxe^ elc; x a xwv 'IouSodwv e&Y)), were condemned by the emperor for >atheism<. Here Jewish life was no longer the condition indicated by the imperial authority for making its subjects pay the tribute, but it was the pre­ text adopted by the emperor for condemning his opponents to death. The problem is not only of a fiscal nature, but it takes on political importance. And in this case we cannot rule out the possibility that some Christians were involved in the repression. In the infinite discussion on the existence or not of a Christian persecution on the part of Domitian, I believe, in fact, that one must recognize that Domitian did not persecute the Christians, but the opponents to his regime, that the pretext for this persecution was found, however, in a Jewish way of life (the inertia of which Suetonius accuses Flavius Clemens?) that could be considered >atheism< (and thus be consid­ ered laesa maiestas), and that in the persecution for this reason even some Christians could find themselves involved (for example, Flavia Domitilla). But the possible involvement of Christians in the persecution does not mean in any way that Jews and Christians were still confused in the eyes of Rome. It only means that the abstention from political life and the refusal of the imperial religion, which were probably the signs of their inclination towards Jewish customs and the pretext for their condemnation for maiestas, may have been imputed to some personages of the imperial court who favoured 55

56

57

to maintain for this r e a s o n that » a clear distinction between J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s begins regularly to a p p e a r in p a g a n R o m a n texts after A . D . 9 6 « (p. 33). Dom. 15,1: » F i n a l l y he p u t to death his o w n c o u s i n F l a v i u s C l e m e n s , s u d d e n l y and on a v e r y slight s u s p i c i o n , a l m o s t b e f o r e the end of his consulship; and yet Flavius w a s a m a n of m o s t c o n t e m p t i b l e laziness and D o m i t i a n had besides o p e n l y n a m e d his sons, w h o were then very y o u n g , as his s u c c e s s o r s , changing their f o r m e r n a m e s and calling the one Vespasian and the other D o m i t i a n « (trans. J . C . R o l f e , LCL). Hist. Rom. 6 7 , 1 4 , 1 - 2 : » A n d the s a m e year D o m i t i a n slew, along with m a n y others, Flavius C l e m e n s the consul, a l t h o u g h he w a s a c o u s i n and h a d to wife Flavia D o m i t i l l a , w h o w a s also a relative of the emperor. T h e charge b r o u g h t against them b o t h w a s that of atheism, a charge o n w h i c h m a n y others w h o drifted into J e w i s h w a y s were c o n d e m n e d « (trans. E . C a r y , LCL). G . J o s s a , / cristiani e Vimpero romano. Da Tiberio a Marco Aurelio, R o m a 2000, 73-82. 55

56

5 7

3. The exaction

of the Jewish

tax and the persecution

by

Domitian

143

Christianity. But the distinction of Christians from Jews was clear to the Romans already before the persecution. An analogous evaluation can be made, in my opinion, of that testimonium Flavianum, which in the same years 93-94 appeared in the Jewish Antiqui­ ties by Josephus: A b o u t this t i m e t h e r e l i v e d J e s u s , a w i s e m a n , if i n d e e d o n e o u g h t t o call h i m a m a n . F o r he w a s o n e w h o w r o u g h t s u r p r i s i n g feats a n d w a s a teacher o f such p e o p l e as a c c e p t t h e t r u t h gladly. H e w o n o v e r m a n y J e w s a n d m a n y o f t h e G r e e k s . H e w a s the M e s s i a h . W h e n Pilate, u p o n hearing h i m accused b y m e n o f the highest s t a n d i n g a m o n g s t u s , h a d c o n d e m n e d h i m t o b e c r u c i f i e d , t h o s e w h o h a d in t h e first p l a c e c o m e t o l o v e h i m d i d n o t g i v e u p their a f f e c t i o n f o r h i m . O n t h e t h i r d d a y h e a p ­ p e a r e d t o t h e m r e s t o r e d t o life, f o r t h e p r o p h e t s o f G o d h a d p r o p h e s i e d t h e s e a n d countless other marvellous things a b o u t h i m . A n d the tribe of the Christians, s o c a l l e d after h i m , h a s still t o this d a y n o t d i s a p p e a r e d ( t r a n s . L . H . F e l d m a n ,

5

LCL). *

In fact, when Josephus writes that Jesus »won over many Jews and many of the Greeks« and adds that »the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared«, he shows that he already knows that tripartition of humanity into pagans, Jews and Christians that a few years later would find its explicit formulation in the Kerygma Petri (»The things of the Greeks and the Jews are old, but we are the Christians and we vener­ ate him in a new way as a third t y p e « ) and in the Apology by Aristides (»In this world there are three kinds of men: the worshippers of those called gods by you, the Jews, and the Christians«). Since the beginning of the second century, the literary sources have not shown any hesitation about the identity of the followers of Jesus. In the Didache the name of >Christians< was a natural choice (»But if he has no craft provide for him according to your understanding, so that no man shall live among you in idleness because he is a Christian« [trans. K. Lake, L C L ] ) and Ignatius of Antioch also coined the word >Christianity< (»For 59

60

61

5 8

Ant. 18,63-64: r i v s T a i Se x a x a TOUTOV TOV X P

0 V 0 V

Itq^joG?
a u T o v X s y s i v jpr\' yjv y a p 7tapa86£
jpiaxoq

OOTO^ 9jv. x a l a u T o v EV8EI£EI TWV 7tpel(ov 7upoTou ftaufjiao-ia elpyjxoTcov. eiq ETI TE VUV TWV XpLCTTLavwv OCTUO TOOSS (ovo[xaa(i.£V(ov o u x ene'kme

TO
Flavi-

anum see n o w G . J o s s a , Jews, Romans and Christians: From the B e l l u m J u d a i c u m to the A n t i q u i t a t e s , in Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and beyond, edited b y J . Sievers and G . L e m b i , L e i d e n - B o s t o n 2005, 3 3 1 - 3 4 2 . C l e m . Alex., Strom. VI,5,41,6: TOC y a p 'EXXYJVWV x a l 'Iou8al
a u T o v TpLTw y e v e t CTE|36(ji£VOI X p i a T i a v o i . 6 0

A r i s t . , Apol.

2,2: T p i a ysvy) e l a l v av&p
X s y o p i v c o v &£(ov TipoaxuvYjTal, x a l ' I o u S a T o i , x a l ^piCTTiavol. 6 1

Did.

12,4: EL 8E OUX E^EL TE^VYJV, x a T a TYJVCTUVECTLVupiov TipovoyjaaTE, n&q fir) a p y o ^ [AE&'

UfXCOV ^Y)0"£TaL XpiOTiaVO^.

144

Chapter

three:

Jews and Christians

as seen by the

Romans

this cause let us be his disciples, and let us learn to lead Christian lives. For whoever is called by any name other than this is not of G o d « . »Christian­ ity is not the work of persuasiveness, but of greatness, when it is hated by the w o r l d « . »For it is better to hear Christianity from the circumcised than Judaism from the uncircumcised« [trans. K. Lake, L C L ] ) . In the same time Pliny the Younger (»Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui n u m q u a m « ) and Trajan (»Actum, quern debuisti, mi Secunde, in excutiendis causis eorum, qui Christiani ad te delati fuerant, secutus e s « ) spoke with the same ease of trials against the Christians, without making any reference to their realationship with the Jews. In their eyes, as well, as in the Kerygma Petri and in Aristides, humanity seems to be divided into Romans, Jews and Christians. 6 2

63

6 4

65

66

6 2

Magn. 10,1: Scot xouxo, [xa£hr)xai auxou yevojxevoi, fxa&wfxev x a x a Xpicrciaviafxov £9jv oq yap aXXw ovofxaxi xaXelxoa TiXeov xouxou, o u x SCTXCV XOU ikou. Rom. 3,3: ou mLG\Lovr\q xo epyov, otXXa [xeye&ou^ eaxlv 6 Xpi(rxi.avia[x6£, oxav [ i i a 6 3

Yjxoa. 64

0 V T 0

Philad. 6,1: a[X£i.vov y a p eercxv 7 t a p a avSpo^ 7repi.xo(XY]v e x ? X p t a T t a v t a j j i o v axouecv, T) Trapa otxpopuaxou 'IouSaiatxov. E v e n G e o r g i a d m i t s that » I g n a t i u s clearly uses these w o r d s to define the J e s u s c o m m u n i t y and its m e m b e r s as separate f r o m J e w s and G e n t i l e s « . The early Church, 39. Plin., Epist. 10,96,1. See also 10,96,2.3.5.6. Plin., Epist. 10,97,1. O n the attitude of the R o m a n s t o w a r d s the J e w s and the C h r i s t i a n s at the time of Trajan and H a d r i a n , see in particular E . B i c k e r m a n , Pliny, Trajan, Hadrian and the Christians: R i v i s t a di F i l o l o g i a e i s t r u z i o n e classica 96 (1968) 2 9 0 - 3 1 5 , n o w also in I d e m , Studies in Jewish and Christian History I I I , L e i d e n 1986, 1 5 2 - 1 7 1 ; M . H e n g e l , Hadrians Politik gegenuber Juden und Christen, in Idem, Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I, cit., 3 5 8 - 3 9 1 ; and J o s s a , / cristiani e Vimpero romano, cit., 9 7 - 1 2 1 . 6 5

6 6

Bibliography A g u i r r e , R . , Del sociolbgica

Movimiento

de Jesus

del cristianismo

A l e x a n d e r , P . S . , >The Parting in Jews

and

a la Iglesia

primitivo,

of the Ways< from

Christians.

cristiana.

Ensayo

de

exegesis

Estella 1998.

The Parting

the Perspective

of the

Ways

A. D.

of rabbinic 70 to 135.

Judaism,

The second

D u r h a m - T u b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest Christianity and J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, 1-25. A l o n , G . , Jews, Times

Judaism

of the Second

and

the classical

Temple

A n d e r s o n , J . S . , The

and

internal

World.

Talmud,

Studies

in Jewish

History

in

the

J e r u s a l e m 1977.

Diversification

of Second

Temple

Judaism,

Lanham

2002. A r c a r i , L . , Uidentita Dinamiche Giudei

degli

e dialettiche

e cristiani

awersari

del

in alcuni

gruppi

nel I secolo.

veggente

di Patmos

delVAsia

Continuita,

minore

separazione,

in A p o c a l i s s e del I secolo

polemica,

2-3.

d. C , in

a cura di B .

Durante Mangoni e G . Jossa, Trapani 2 0 0 6 , 1 7 3 - 2 1 1 . Aux origines

juives

du christianisme,

edite p a r F. B l a n c h e t i e r e et M . D . H e r r , J e r u s a l e m

1993. B a l z , H . R . , Methodische

Probleme

der

neutestamentlichen

Christologie,

Neukir-

c h e n / V l u y n 1967. B a n k s , R . , Jesus and the Law

in the synoptic

Tradition,

C a m b r i d g e 1975.

B a r c l a y , J . M . G . , Paul among

Diaspora

Anomaly

or Apostate

Jews:

f: J o u r n a l f o r t h e

S t u d y o f the N e w T e s t a m e n t 6 0 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 8 9 - 1 2 0 . - Jews

in Mediterranean

Diaspora

from

Alexander

to Trajan

(323 BCE

in social

and

-117

CE),

E d i n b u r g h 1996. -

Paul

and

Philo

on Circumcision:

Romans

2.25-9

cultural

Context:

N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 44 (1998) 536-556. B a u c k h a m , R . , The

Worship

of Jesus

in apocalyptic

Christianity:

New

Testament

Studies 2 7 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 3 2 2 - 3 4 1 . -

The Parting

of the Ways:

what

happened

and why:

Studia Theologica 47 (1993)

135-151. - James

and the Jerusalem

The Book

Church,

of Acts in its Palestinian

in The Book Setting,

of Acts in its first Century

Setting

4.

edited b y R . B a u c k h a m , G r a n d R a p i d s

1995,415-480. B a u e r , B . , Kritik

der evangelischen

B a u m b a c h , G . , Jesus

von

Nazareth

Geschichte

der Synoptiker

im Lichte

2

I, L e i p z i g 1 8 4 6 .

der judischen

Gruppenbildungen,

Berlin 1971. B a u r , F. C , Paul, the Apostle

of Jesus Christ,

L o n d o n 1873.

B e l l e n , H . , SuvaywyY] TWV 'Iou8oawv x a l ©eoae^wv. Die Aussage Freilassungsinschrift

(CIRB

71) zum Problem

eines

bosporanischen

der >Gottesfurchtigen<:

J a h r b u c h fur

A n t i k e u n d C h r i s t e n t u m 8/9 (1965-66) 171-176.

146

Bibliography

B e r g e r , K . , Die

Gesetzesauslegung

und im Alten

Testament

B e r n a y s , J . , Uber

die Chronik

B e t z , H . D . , Galatians:

Jesu.

I. Markus

Ihr historischer

und Parallelen,

des Sulpicius

A Commentary

Severus,

on Paul's

Hintergrund

in

Judentum

N e u k i r c h e n 1972. Berlin 1861.

Letter

to the Churches

in

Galatia,

Philadelphia 1979. -

Essays

-

Wellhausen's

on the Sermon

Scholarship: -

The

Birth

on the Mount,

Dictum

Jesus

was

Philadelphia 1984.

not a Christian,

but a Jew< in Light

of

present

of

Origin:

Studia Theologica 45 (1991) 83-110. of Christianity

as a Hellenistic

Religion:

Three

Theories

J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i o n 74 ( 1 9 9 4 ) 1 - 2 5 . -

The Sermon

on the Mount:

A Commentary

the Sermon

on the Plain

(Matthew

on the Sermon

5:3-7:27

and

on the Mount,

Luke

6:20-49),

including

Minneapolis

1995. B e t z , O . , What -

Probleme

do we know

about

des Prozesses

Jesus f, L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1 9 6 8 .

Jesu,

in Aufstieg

und

Niedergang

der

romischen

Welt

11.25.1, h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n W. H a a s e , B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 2 , 5 6 5 - 6 4 7 . - Jesus,

der Messias

Israels,

T u b i n g e n 1987.

B i c k e r m a n , E . , The Name

of Christians:

1 0 9 - 1 2 4 , n o w a l s o in I d e m , Studies

H a r v a r d Theological Review 42 (1949)

in Jewish

and

Christian

History

III, Leiden

1986, 1 3 9 - 1 5 1 . -

Pliny,

Trajan,

Hadrian

and

the

Christians:

R i v i s t a di F i l o l o g i a e d i i s t r u z i o n e

c l a s s i c a 9 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 2 9 0 - 3 1 5 , n o w a l s o in I d e m , Studies History

B l a n c h e t i e r e , F., Comment nazareens -

in Jewish

and

Christian

III, L e i d e n 1986, 1 5 2 - 1 7 1 .

Enquete

se sont-ils

le meme

separesf):

sur les racines juives

B o c c a c c i n i , G . , Middle

est-il

devenu

Vautre*

(ou

comment

juifs

et

R e v u e d e s S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s 71 ( 1 9 9 7 ) 9 - 3 2 . du mouvement

Judaism:

Jewish

chretien

Thought,

(30-135),

300 BCE

Paris 2001.

- 200 CE,

Minneapolis

1991. B o c k , D . L . , Blasphemy Jesus.

and

Exaltation

A philological-historical

Study

14:61-64:

in Judaism

and

the final

of the Key Jewish

Themes

Examination impacting

of Mark

T u b i n g e n 1998.

B o d i n g e r , M . , Les >Hebreux<

et les >Hellenistes<

dans le livre

des >Actes des

della

B r e s c i a 1994.

apotres<:

H e n o c h 19 ( 1 9 9 7 ) 3 9 - 5 8 . B o f f o , L . , Iscrizioni

greche

B o n n a r d , P., UEvangile B o r g , M . J . , Portraits

e latine per lo studio

selon saint Matthieu, of Jesus in contemporary

Bibbia, 2

Geneve 1982. North

American

Scholarship:

Harvard

T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 84 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 1 - 2 2 . B o r l e f f s , J . P., Institutum

Neronianum:

B o u s s e t , W., Jesus Predigt - Jesus, -

Kyrios tums

in ihrem

Vigiliae Christianae 6 (1952) 1 2 9 - 1 4 5 . Gegensatz

zum Judentum,

G o t t i n g e n 1892.

2

Tubingen 1907. Christos.

Geschichte

bis Irenaeus,

des Christusglaubens

B o w k e r , J . , Jesus and the Pharisees, B o y a r i n , D . , A radical

von den Anfangen

des

Christen-

2

Gottingen 1921. Jew:

C a m b r i d g e 1973.

Paul and the Politics

of Identity,

Berkeley-Los Angeles-

L o n d o n 1994. -

Dying 1999.

for God.

Martyrdom

and the Making

of Christianity

and Judaism,

Stanford

147

Bibliography

B r a n d o n , S. G . R , The Fall of Jerusalem - Jesus

and

the Zealots.

A Study

and the Christian

of the political

Church,

Factor

L o n d o n 1951.

in primitive

Christianity,

M a n c h e s t e r 1967. -

The Trial ofJesus

Brother

(The)

of Nazareth,

of Jesus. James

L o n d o n 1968. the Just

and

his Mission,

edited b y B . Chilton and

J. Neusner, Louisville 2002. B r o w n , R . E . , The Gospel -

of the Messiah.

and Luke,

N e w Y o r k 1977.

The Community dual

-

according

The Birth

Not

Church Jewish

of the beloved

in New

Disciple.

Testament,

Christianity

Christianity:

to John

and

N e w Y o r k 1966.

on the Infancy

Narratives

The Life, Loves

and Hates

in

Matthew

of an

indivi­

N e w Y o r k - T o r o n t o - L o n d o n 1979. Gentile

Christianity

but

Types

of

Jewish/Gentile

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983) 74-79.

B r o w n , R . E . - M e i e r , J . R , Antioch Christianity,

and Rome

New

Testament

Cradles

of

Catholic

N e w Y o r k 1983.

B u l t m a n n , R . , The History -

Theology

-

of the New

The primitive

of the synoptic

Testament

Christianity

C a p e s , D . B . , Old The early

Roman

Tradition,

O x f o r d - N e w Y o r k 1963.

I—II, N e w Y o r k 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 5 5 ; L o n d o n 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 .

in its contemporary

Testament

Yahweh

C a r l e t o n P a g e t . , J . N . , Jewish III.

(I-XII),

A Commentary

Christianity,

Period,

Setting,

Texts in Paul's

L o n d o n 1983.

Christology,

in The

T u b i n g e n 1992.

Cambridge

History

of

Judaism

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y , W. D . D a v i e s a n d J . S t u r d y ,

C a m b r i d g e 1999, 7 3 1 - 7 7 5 . -

Some

Observations

on Josephus

and

Christianity:

Journal of Theological Studies

52 ( 2 0 0 1 ) 5 3 9 - 6 2 4 . C a s s i d y , R . J . , M a t t h e w 1 7 : 2 4 - 2 7 - ^ 4 Word on civil Taxes: C a t h o l i c B i b l i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 41 ( 1 9 7 9 ) 5 7 1 - 5 8 0 . C a t c h p o l e , D . R . , The >Triumphal

Entry<,

in Jesus and the Politics

of his Day,

edited

b y E . B a m m e l a n d C R D . M o u l e , C a m b r i d g e 1984, 3 1 9 - 3 3 4 . C h a r l e s w o r t h , J . H . , The historical him,

in Aufstieg

Jesus in Light

und Niedergang

of Writings

der rbmischen

contemporaneous

with

Welt 11.25.1, h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n

W. H a a s e u n d H . T e m p o r i n i , B e r l i n 1 9 8 2 , 4 5 1 - 4 7 6 . Christianity

and

Development,

Rabbinic

Judaism.

A parallel

History

of their

Origins

and

early

edited b y H . S c h a n k s , L o n d o n - W a s h i n g t o n 1993.

C h u n P a r k , E . , Either

Jew

or Gentile.

Paul's

unfolding

Theology

of

Inclusivity,

Louisville-London 2003. C o h e n , S . J . D . , The Significance Sectarianism: -

From

-

Crossing

of Javneh:

Pharisees,

Rabbis,

and the End of

Jewish

H e b r e w U n i o n C o l l e g e A n n u a l 55 (1984) 2 7 - 5 3 .

the Maccabees the

to the Mishnah,

Boundary

and

Philadelphia 1987.

becoming

a Jew:

Harvard Theological Review

82

(1989) 13-33. -

The Temple early

and

Roman

the Synagogue,

Period,

in The Cambridge

History

of Judaism

III.

The

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y , W. D . D a v i e s a n d J . S t u r d y , C a m ­

bridge 1999, 2 9 8 - 3 2 5 . -

The Beginnings

of Jewishness.

Boundaries,

Varieties,

Uncertainties,

Berkeley-Los

A n g e l e s - L o n d o n 1999. C o l l i n s , J . J . , The Scepter ancient

Literature,

and the Star: the Messiahs

N e w Y o r k 1995.

of the Dead

Sea Scrolls and

other

148 -

Bibliography

Between

Athens

and Jerusalem.

Jewish

Identity

in the Hellenistic

Diaspora,

Grand

2

Rapids 2000. C o l l i n s , R . R , The Birth first Christian

C o o k , M . J . , Mark's Costruzione

of the New

Generation,

Testament:

The Origin

and Development

of the

N e w Y o r k 1993.

Treatment

of the Jewish

(La) dell'identita

cristiana

Leaders,

(I-VII

L e i d e n 1978.

secolo)

= Annali di storia dell'esegesi

20/1 (2003). C r o s s a n , J . D . , Four other

Gospels:

Shadows

on the Contours

of Canon,

Minneapolis

1985. -

The historical

Jesus.

The Life

of a Mediterranean

Jewish

Peasant,

San Francisco

1991. -

The Birth after

of Christianity.

Discovering

the Execution

of Jesus,

D a u b e , D . , The New

Testament

im Neuen

happened

and Rabbinic

D a u t z e n b e r g , G . , Gesetzeskritik Gesetz

what

in the

Years

immediately

S a n F r a n c i s c o 1998. Judaism,

L o n d o n 1956.

und Gesetzesgehorsam

Testament,

in der Jesustradition,

in Das

h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n K . K e r t e l g e , F r e i b u r g i. B . - B a s e l -

Wien, 1986, 4 6 - 7 0 . D a v i e s , W . D . , The Setting -

Paul and the People

-

Paul and Rabbinic

-

A different

on the Mount,

C a m b r i d g e 1963.

N e w Testament Studies 24 (1977) 4 - 3 9 . 4

Judaism,

Approach

The Conversation

of the Sermon

of Israel:

Philadelphia 1980.

to Iamnia:

continues.

the Jewish

Studies

Sources

of Matthew's

in Paul and John

Messianism,

in

in H o n o r o f J . L . M a r t y n ,

R . T . F o r t n a and B . R . G a v e n t a editors, Nashville 1990, 3 7 8 - 3 9 5 . -

Paul: from The

early

the Jewish Roman

point

of View,

Period,

in The Cambridge

History

of Judaism

III.

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y , W . D . D a v i e s a n d J . S t u r d y ,

C a m b r i d g e 1999, 6 7 8 - 7 3 0 . D a v i e s , W . D . - S a n d e r s , E . P . , Jesus: from bridge

History

of Judaism

III.

the Jewish

The early

Roman

Point

of View,

Period,

in The

Cam­

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y ,

W . D . D a v i e s and J . Sturdy, C a m b r i d g e 1999, 6 1 8 - 6 7 7 . D e B o e r , M . C . , L'Evangile rement.

Juifs et chretiens

de Jean

et le christianisme

au premier

juif

(nazoreen),

in Le

dechi-

siecle,

edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e 1996,

au premier

siecle, e d i t e p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e

179-202. Dechirement

(Le). Juifs et chretiens

1996. D e i s s m a n n , A . , Light from recently

discovered

the Ancient

Near

East:

The New

Texts of the Graeco-Roman

D e J o n g e , M . , Christology

in Context:

World,

The earliest

Testament

illustrated

by

G r a n d R a p i d s 1980.

Response

to Jesus,

Philadelphia

1988. D e l V e r m e , M . , Giudaismo -

e Nuovo

D i d a c h e and Judaism.

Jewish

Testamento.

Roots

Il caso delle

of an ancient

decime,

N a p o l i 1989.

Christian-Jewish

Work,

New

York 2004. D e p p e , D . B . , The Sayings D e r r e t t , J . D . M . , Peter's

of Jesus in the Epistle Penny:

fresh

Light

of James,

on Matthew

C h e l s e a 1989. XVII24-7:

N o v u m Testa-

m e n t u m 6 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 1-15. D i c k s o n , J . P., Mission-Commitment nities,

in ancient

Judaism

Tubingen 2003.

D o d d , C . H . , According

to the Scriptures,

L o n d o n 1952.

and in the Pauline

Commu­

149

Bibliography

-

Historical

Tradition

D o n a h u e , J . R . , Are

in the Fourth you

the

Gospel,

Christ

f The

C a m b r i d g e 1963. Trial Narrative

in the

Gospel

of

Mark,

M i s s o u l a 1973. D o w n i n g , F. G . , Christ Century

Tradition,

and

D u n n , J . D . G . , Unity Character - Jesus, -

Preface,

Cynics.

Diversity

and

other

radical

Preachers

in

first

Studies

in Mark

and Galatians,

Christianity

of Christianity, and

Testament.

An

Inquiry

into

the

2

London 1990.

of the Ways between

in Jews

Jesus

in the New

Christianity,

Paul and the Law.

for the Character -

and

of earliest

The Partings

the

Sheffield 1988.

L o n d o n 1990.

and Judaism

and their

Significance

London-Philadelphia 1991.

Christians.

The Parting

of the

Ways

A. D. 70 to 135.

The

s e c o n d D u r h a m T u b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, VII-X. -

The Question

of Anti-semitism

Jews and Christians.

in the New

The Parting

Testament

Writings

of the Period,

in

of the Ways A. D. 70 to 135. T h e s e c o n d D u r h a m -

T i i b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest Christianity and J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, 1 7 7 - 2 1 1 . -

The Theology

-

Who did Paul think He was ? A Study

of Paul the Apostle,

E d i n b u r g h 1998. of Jewish

Christian

Identity:

N e w Testament

Studies 45 (1999) 174-193. - Jesus

and

Purity:

An

ongoing

Debate:

N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 48 ( 2 0 0 2 ) 4 4 9 -

467. - Jesus remembered,

G r a n d Rapids 2003.

D u r a n t e M a n g o n i , M . B . , La polemica Giudei

e cristiani

nel I secolo.

contro

Continuita,

i giudei

nel V a n g e l o d i M a t t e o , in

separazione,

polemica,

a cura di M . B .

Durante Mangoni e G . Jossa, Trapani 2 0 0 6 , 1 2 7 - 1 6 1 . Early

Christian

Thought

in its Jewish

Context,

edited b y J . M . G . Barclay and

J . Sweet, C a m b r i d g e 1996. E i c h h o l z , G . , Die

Theologie

E l b o g e n , I . , Der judische

des Paulus Gottesdienst

im Umriss, in seiner

N e u k i r c h e n / V l u y n 1972. geschichtlichen

Entwicklung,

Hil-

desheim 1962. E s l e r , P h . F . , The first

Christians

E t i e n n e , S., Reflexion

sur Vapostasie

in their social

World,

de Tiberius

Julius

L o n d o n - N e w Y o r k 1994. Alexander:

The Studia Philo-

n i c a A n n u a l 12 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 1 2 2 - 1 4 2 . E v a n s , C . A . , Messianic

Claimants

and his Contemporaries. -

Was Simon raries.

-

Ben Kosiba

Comparative

In what

Sense

recognized

Studies,

>Blasphemy<

F a b r i s , R . , Matteo, Lettera

and second

Studies,

as Messiah

Centuries,

in I d e m , Jesus

Leiden 1995, 5 3 - 8 1 . f, in I d e m , Jesus and his

Contempo­

Leiden 1995, 1 8 3 - 2 1 1 . f Jesus

Jesus and his Contemporaries. -

of the first

Comparative

before

Comparative

Caiaphas Studies,

in Mark

14:61-64,

in I d e m ,

Leiden 1995, 407-434.

R o m a 1982.

di Giacomo,

F e l d m a n , L . H . , Jewish

B o l o g n a 2004. >Sympathizers<

in classical

Literature

and Inscriptions:

Trans­

a c t i o n s o f t h e A m e r i c a n P h i l o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 81 ( 1 9 5 0 ) 2 0 0 - 2 0 8 . -

Proselytes

and >Sympathizers<

in the Light

of the new Inscription

R e v u e d e s E t u d e s j u i v e s 148 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 2 6 5 - 3 0 5 .

from

Aphrodisias:

150

Bibliography

- Jew and Gentile to Justinian, -

Studies

in the ancient

World:

Attitudes

and Interactions

from

Alexander

Princeton 1993.

in Hellenistic

F l u s s e r , D . , Judaism

Judaism,

L e i d e n 1996.

and the Origins

F r a n k f u r t e r , T>.,Jews

of Christianity,

or not ? Reconstructing

J e r u s a l e m 1988.

the >Other< in Rev 2:9 and 3:9: H a r v a r d

T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 94 ( 2 0 0 1 ) 4 0 3 - 4 2 5 . F r e n d , W . H . C . , The Rise of Christianity, F r e n s c h k o w s k i , M . , Galilaa Hintergrunde

L o n d o n 1984.

oder Jerusalem

der Logienquelle,

? Die

in The Sayings

topographischen Source

und

politischen

Q and the historical

Jesus,

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n 2 0 0 1 , 5 3 5 - 5 5 9 . F r e y n e , S., The Christian

Geography

Experience:

F u s c o , V., Gesu -

Gesu

of Restoration:

Galilee-Jerusalem

in early Jewish

and

N e w Testament Studies 47 (2001) 2 8 9 - 3 1 1 .

e la legge: R a s s e g n a d i T e o l o g i a 3 0 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 5 2 8 - 5 3 8 .

e le Scritture

di Israele,

in La Bibhia

nelVantichita

Origene,

a cura di E . N o r e l l i , B o l o g n a 1993, 3 5 - 6 3 .

Le prime

comunita

cristiane.

Tendenze

e tradizioni

cristiana

I. Da

nel cristianesimo

delle

Gesu

a

origini,

B o l o g n a 1997. G a g e r , J . G . , The Origins Christian

Antiquity,

of Anti-Semitism.

G a r r i b b a , D . , La presentazione delXXsec:

Attitudes

towards

Judaism

in pagan

and

N e w Y o r k - O x f o r d 1983. del giudaismo

del secondo

Tempio

nella

storiografia

R a s s e g n a di t e o l o g i a 4 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) 7 3 - 8 8 .

G a s t o n , L . , No Stone in the synoptic G e o r g i , D . , Der

on Another.

Gospels,

Studies

in the Significance

of the Fall of

Jerusalem

L e i d e n 1970.

vorpaulinische

Hymnus

Phil 2,6-11,

in Zeit

und

Geschichte.

Dan-

k e s g a b e a n R u d o l f B u l t m a n n z u m 80. G e b u r t s t a g , h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n E . D i n k i e r u n d H . T h y e n , T u b i n g e n 1964, 2 6 3 - 2 9 3 . -

The early

Church:

internal

Jewish

Migration

or new

Religion?:

Harvard Theo­

l o g i c a l R e v i e w 88 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 3 6 - 6 8 . G i a n o t t o , C , Giacomo Apostoli:

e la comunita

storiografia

e biografia.

cristiana

di Gerusalemme,

in Gli Atti

degli

A t t i d e l P V I I I C o n v e g n o di S t u d i n e o t e s t a m e n t a r i

( T o r r e g l i a , 8 - 1 1 S e t t e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) , a c u r a di A . P i t t a ( = R i c e r c h e s t o r i c o - b i b l i c h e 13,2001), 83-101. -

77 movimento

di Gesu

Cristianesimo.

Una guida,

Giudaismo Giudei

tra la Pasqua

e antigiudaismo

e cristiani

e la missione

di Paolo,

in Le origini

del

a c u r a di R . P e n n a , R o m a 2 0 0 4 , 9 5 - 1 2 7 . = A n n a l i di s t o r i a d e l l ' e s e g e s i 1 6 / 2 ( 1 9 9 9 ) .

nel I secolo.

Continuita,

separazione,

polemica,

a c u r a di M . B .

Durante M a n g o n i e G . Jossa, Trapani 2006. Giudei

o cristiani?

Quando

nasce

il cristianesimo,

a c u r a d i D . G a r r i b b a e S.

Tanzarella, Trapani 2005. Giudeo-cristianesimo

(II) nel I e II sec. d. C. A t t i del I X c o n v e g n o di s t u d i n e o t e ­

s t a m e n t a r i ( N a p o l i , 1 3 - 1 5 S e t t e m b r e 2 0 0 1 ) , a c u r a di A . P i t t a = R i c e r c h e s t o r i c o b i b l i c h e 15 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . G n i l k a J . , Das Matthausevangelium, G o o d m a n , M . , Nerva,

F r e i b u r g i . B . , 1988.

the F i s c u s J u d a i c u s and Jewish

Identity:

J o u r n a l of R o m a n

S t u d i e s 79 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 4 0 - 4 4 . -

Diaspora Parting

Reactions of the

Ways

to the Destruction A. D.

70 to 135.

of the Temple,

in Jews

and

Christians.

The

The second Durham-Tubingen Research

151

Bibliography

S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 9 ) , edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, 2 7 - 3 8 . -

Mission

and

Empire,

O x f o r d 1994.

Conversion.

Proselytizing

G o u r g u e s , M . , A la droite 110:1

de Dieu.

dans le Nouveau

Resurrection

Testament,

G r u e n , H . S . , Diaspora:

Jews

in the

religious

History

of the

de Jesus et actualisation

Roman

du

Psaume

Paris 1978.

amidst

Greeks

and Romans,

Cambridge M A - L o n d o n

2002. G u n d r y , R . H . , Mark.

A Commentary

on his Apology

for the Cross,

Grand Rapids

1993. -

Spinning 12.22b-31

the

Lilies

and

and P. Oxy

unravelling

the Ravens:

An

alternative

Reading

of

Q

655: N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 48 ( 2 0 0 1 ) 1 5 9 - 1 8 0 .

H a h n , R , Christologische

Hoheitstitel.

Ihre

Geschichte

im fruhen

Christentum,

5

Gottingen 1995. H a r n a c k ( v o n ) , A . , Die Mission

und Ausbreitung

des Christentums

in den ersten

drei

4

Jahrhunderten

I, L e i p z i g 1 9 2 4 .

H a r t i n , P. J . , James

and the Q Sayings

H a y , D . M . , Glory

at the right

of Jesus,

Hand:

Sheffield 1991.

Psalm

110 in early

Christianity,

Abingdon

1973. H e i t m i i l l e r , W., Zum Problem

Paulus

und Jesus: Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d i e n e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e

W i s s e n s c h a f t 13 ( 1 9 1 2 ) 3 2 0 - 3 3 7 . H e m e r , C . J . , The Book H e n g e l , M . , Judaism the early -

Der

Sohn

Hellenistic Gottes.

Period Die

Greeks

Christian - Jakobus

History,

Encounter

T u b i n g e n 1989.

in Palestine

during

I—II, P h i l a d e l p h i a 1974.

Entstehung of earliest

and Barbarians.

Period,

in their

der Christologie

und die

judisch-hellenistische

Tubingen 1977.

Acts and the History

- Jews,

of Hellenistic

Studies

2

Religionsgeschichte, -

of Acts in the Setting

and Hellenism.

Christianity, Aspects

L o n d o n 1979.

of the Hellenization

of Judaism

in the

pre-

L o n d o n 1980.

der Herrenbruder

- der erste >Papst<

in Glaube

und Eschatologie.

Fest­

s c h r i f t f u r W. G . K u m m e l z u m 80. G e b u r t s t a g h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n E . G r a s s e r u n d O . M e r k , T u b i n g e n 1 9 8 5 , 7 1 - 1 0 4 , n o w a l s o in I d e m , Paulus Schriften -

und Jakobus.

Kleine

III, Tubingen 2002, 549-582.

The >Hellenization<

of Judaea

in the First Century

after

Christ,

in c o l l a b o r a t i o n

w i t h C . M a r k s c h i e s , L o n d o n 1989. -

The pre-Christian

-

Aufgaben

Paul, in c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h R . D e i n e s , L o n d o n 1 9 9 1 .

der neutestamentlichen

Wissenschaft:

N e w Testament Studies 40 (1994)

321-357. - Jesus, the Messiah

of Israel,

in I d e m , Studies

in Early

Christology,

E d i n b u r g h 1995,

1-72. -

>Sitz at my God

and

right

Psalm

Hand!< 110:1,

The

Enthronement

in I d e m , Studies

of Christ

in Early

at the

Christology,

right

Hand

of

E d i n b u r g h . 1995,

119-225. -

Das

fruheste

Bewegung,

Christentum

als eine judische

in I d e m , Judaica,

T u b i n g e n 1999, 2 0 0 - 2 1 8 .

Hellenistica

messianische et

Christiana.

und Kleine

universalistische Schriften

II,

Bibliography

152

-

Zwischen 6,1-15;

Jesus

und Paulus.

7,54-8,3),

Die

> Hellenist

in I d e m , Paulus

en<, die >Sieben< und

und Jakobus.

Kleine

Stephanus

Schriften

(Apg

III, Tubingen

2002,1-67. -

Praexistenz

bei

Paulus

?, in I d e m , Paulus

und

Jakobus.

Kleine

Judaism<,

Jesus,

Schriften

III,

Tubingen 2002, 262-301. 3

H e n g e l , M . a n d D e i n e s , R . , E. P. Sanders sees. A Review

Article:

M . H e n g e l , Kleine

Schriften

and the

Phari­

I, T u b i n g e n 1996, 3 9 2 - 4 7 9 .

H e n g e l , M . a n d S c h w e m e r , A . M . , Paul known

>Common

J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s 4 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 1 - 7 0 , n o w a l s o in between

Damascus

and Antioch.

The

un­

Years, L o n d o n 1 9 9 7 .

H i l l , C . C , Hellenists

and Hebrews.

Reappraising

Division

within

the earliest

Church,

Minneapolis 1992. H o f f m a n n , P., Die zung

Versuchungsgeschichte

der Judenchristen

in der Logienquelle.

mit dempolitischen

Messianismus:

Zur

Auseinanderset-

B i b l i s c h e Z e i t s c h r i f t 13

(1969) 207-223. -

Mutmassungen Sayings

uber

Source

Q. Zum

Problem

Q and the historical

der literarischen

Jesus,

Genese

von

Q, in

The

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n 2 0 0 1 ,

255-288. H o m m e l , H.,Juden terinschrift, fruhen

und Christen

im kaiserzeitlichen

in I d e m , Sebasmata.

Christentum

Studien

Milet.

zur antiken

Uberlegungen

zur

Religionsgeschichte

Thea-

und

zum

II, T u b i n g e n 1984, 2 0 0 - 2 3 0 .

H o r b u r y , W., The Benediction

of the Minim

and early Jewish-Christian

Controversy:

J o u r n a l o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s 33 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 1 9 - 6 1 . -

The

Temple

Tax, in Jesus

and

the Politics

of his Day,

edited b y E . B a m m e l and

C R D . M o u l e , C a m b r i d g e 1992, 2 6 5 - 2 8 6 . -

Messianism

among

Jews

and

Christians:

Biblical

and

historical

Studies,

London

2003. H i i b n e r , H . , Law

in Paul's

Thought:

Studies

in the New

Testament

and its

World,

E d i n b u r g h 1983. H u r t a d o , L . W., One Monotheism, -

Lord Jesus

James

God,

one Lord.

Early

Christian

Devotion

and ancient

Jewish

Philadelphia 1988. Christ:

Devotion

the Just and Christian

to Jesus in earliest

Christianity,

G r a n d Rapids 2003.

Origins,

edited b y B . Chilton and C . A . Evans, Leiden

Theology

I. The Proclamation

1999. J e r e m i a s , J . , New Jesus

Testament

de Nazareth.

Nouvelles

approches

d'une

enigme,

of Jesus,

L o n d o n 1984.

edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , E .

N o r e l l i et J . - M . P o f f e t , G e n e v e 1 9 9 8 . Jesus' Jewishness:

Exploring

the Place

of Jesus within

early Judaism,

edited b y J . H .

Charlesworth, Philadelphia 1991. Jews,

Christians,

during Jews

and

and

the Greco

Polytheists

Roman

Christians.

in the

Period,

The Parting

ancient

Synagogue.

Cultural

Interaction

e d i t e d b y S. F i n e , L o n d o n a n d N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 9 . of the Ways A. D. 70 to 135. T h e s e c o n d D u r h a m -

T i i b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992. Jews

in a Graeco-Roman

J o h n s o n , L . T., Brother Rapids 2004.

World,

edited b y M . G o o d m a n , O x f o r d 1996.

of Jesus, Friend

of God:

Studies

in the Letter

of James,

Grand

Bibliography

J o s s a , G . , Gesu

e i movimenti al Cristo.

di liberazione

-

Dal Messia

Le origini

-

// cristianesimo

-

/ cristiani

e I'impero

romano.

-

Gli zeloti

e i sicari,

in I d e m , / gruppi

antico,

della

153

della Palestina,

Brescia 1980. 2

Cristologia,

Brescia 2000.

R o m a 2000. Da Tiberio

a Marco giudaici

Aurelio, ai tempi

R o m a 2000. di Gesu,

Brescia 2001,

11-78. -

/ farisei

di Marco

e Luca, in I d e m , / gruppi

giudaici

ai tempi

di Gesu,

Brescia 2001,

79-104. -

Gli ellenisti ai tempi

-

Sulproblema ai tempi

-

e i timorati

di Gesu,

dell'identita

di Gesu,

Ilprocesso

- Jews,

degli Apostoli,

in I d e m , / gruppi

giudaici

giudaica

nelVimpero

in I d e m , / gruppi

giudaici

romano,

Brescia 2 0 0 1 , 1 7 6 - 1 9 1 .

di Gesu,

Romans,

Josephus

di Dio negli Atti

Brescia 2001, 105-131.

Brescia 2002.

and

Christians:

and Jewish

History

From

the B e l l u m J u d a i c u m to the A n t i q u i t a t e s , in

in Flavian

Rome

and beyond,

edited b y J . Sievers and

G. Lembi, Leiden-Boston 2005, 331-342. -

La domanda (Gv

16,16).

di Gesu sulfiglio

di David:

Mc 12,35-37,

in >Il vostro

frutto

rimanga<

M i s c e l l a n e a p e r il L X X c o m p l e a n n o d i G i u s e p p e G h i b e r t i , a c u r a d i

A. Passoni Dell'Acqua, Bologna 2005, 231-239. -

Gesu

Messia

Judaisms

? Un dilemma

and their

storico,

Messiahs

R o m a 2006.

at the Turn of the Christian

Era, e d i t e d b y J . N e u s n e r ,

W.S. G r e e n and E . S . Frerichs, C a m b r i d g e 1987. K a s e m a n n , E . , Das

Problem

des historischen

Jesus:

Zeitschrift fur T h e o l o g i e u n d

K i r c h e 5 1 (1954) 125-153. - Jesus means

and

of Judaism

and

Christianity

after

70 C.E.:

A

J o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 103 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 4 3 - 7 6 .

K i m , S., The Origin Paul

Philadelphia 1982.

in the Separation

Reconsideration: -

7

Freedom,

K a t z , S . T . , Issues

of Paul's

the new

Gospel,

Perspective.

Tubingen 1981.

Second

Thoughts

in the Origin

of Paul's

Gospel,

G r a n d R a p i d s - C a m b r i d g e 2002. K i m e l m a n , R . , B i r k a t H a - M i n i m and Jewish

Prayer

in late

Aspects

of Judaism

Antiquity,

in the Graeco

the Lack

of Evidence

in Jewish Roman

and

Period,

for

Christian

an

anti-Christian

Self-Definition

II.

e d i t e d b y E . P. S a n d e r s w i t h A . I.

Baumgarten and A. Mendelson, L o n d o n 1981, 226-244. -

The

Messiah

of the Amidah:

A Study

in comparative

Messianism:

J o u r n a l of

B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e 116 ( 1 9 9 7 ) 3 1 3 - 3 2 0 . K l a u s n e r , J . , The Messianic the Mishnah,

Idea

in Israel:

from

its Beginning

to the Completion

of

N e w Y o r k 1955.

K l i j n , A . F . J . - R e i n i n k , G . J . , Patristic

Evidence

for Jewish-Christian

Sects,

Leiden

1973. K l o p p e n b o r g ( V e r b i n ) , J . S., The Formation Collection, -

The

Sayings

of Q.

Trajectories

in ancient

Wisdom

Philadelphia 1987. Gospel

Q. Recent

Opinion

on the People

behind

the

Document:

C u r r e n t s in R e s e a r c h : B i b l i c a l S t u d i e s 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) 9 - 3 4 . -

The Sayings

Gospel

Q and the Quest

of the historical

Jesus: H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l

Review 89(1996) 307-344. -

Excavating

Q. The History

and Setting

of the Sayings

Gospel,

Minneapolis 2000.

154 -

Bibliography

Discursive

Practices

in The Sayings

in the Sayings

Source

Gospel

Q and the Quest

Q and the historical

Jesus,

K o e s t e r , H . , G N O M A I D I A P H O R O I : The Origin in the History -

of early

through

early

Ancient

Christian

Christianity,

Christianity,

of the historical

Jesus,

Leuven 2001,149-190. and Nature

of

Diversification

in J . M . R o b i n s o n - H . K o e s t e r ,

Trajectories

Philadelphia 1971.

Gospels.

Their History

and Development,

London-Philadelphia

1990. -

The historical

Jesus and the Cult of the K y r i o s C h r i s t o s : H a r v a r d D i v i n i t y B u l l e t i n

24 (1995) 11-18. K r a a b e l , A . T . , The Disappearance

of the >God-feraers<:

K r a u s s , S., The Jews

of the Church

in the Works

N u m e n 28 (1981) 113-126.

Fathers:

Jewish Quarterly Review

5 (1893) 122-157. L a r s s o n , E . , Die Hellenisten

und die Urgemeinde:

N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 33 ( 1 9 8 7 )

205-225. L a u p o t , E . , Tacitus< Fragment the Nazareans:

L e g a s s e , S., Stephanos, L i e u , J . , Image Century, -

2: the anti-Roman

Movement

of the Christians

and

V i g i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 54 ( 2 0 0 0 ) 2 3 3 - 2 4 7 . and

Paris 1992. Reality.

The Jews

in the World

of the Christians

in the

second

E d i n b u r g h 1996.

Neither

Jew

nor Greek

L i f s h i t z , B . , Uorigine L i n d a r s , B . , New Testament

Testament

Quotations,

L i n d e m a n n , A . , Die The Sayings

f Constructing

early

du nom des chretiens:

Edinburgh 2003.

Apologetic.

The

doctrinal

Significance

of the

Old

Hypothese,

in

L o n d o n 1961.

Logienquelle

Source

Christianity,

V i g i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 16 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 6 5 - 7 0 .

Q and

Q. Fragen

the historical

an eine gut hegriindete

Jesus,

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n

2001, 3-26. L i n t o n , O . , The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation

of Psalm

CX: N e w T e s t a m e n t

Studies 7 (1960-61) 258-262. L o h s e , E . , aa(3(3aTov: T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 1 - 3 4 . L o n g e n h e c k e r , B . , Contours

of Christology

in the New

Testament,

Grand Rapids

2005. L u d e m a n n , G . , The Successors of the Pella

Tradition,

Christianity

in the second

ofpre-70

in Jewish and

Jerusalem

and third

Christianity:

Christian

A critical

Self-Definition

Centuries,

Evaluation

I. The Shaping

of

e d i t e d b y E . P. S a n d e r s , L o n d o n

1980,161-173. -

Paulus,

der Heidenapostel

II. Antipaulinismus

im fruhen

Christentum,

Gottingen

1983. -

The Resurrection

of Christ.

L i i d e r i t z , G . , What

An historical

is the Politeuma

Inquiry,

f, in Studies

Amherst 2004. in early Jewish

Epigraphy,

edited

b y J . W . V a n H e n t e n a n d P.W. V a n d e r H o r s t , L e i d e n - N e w Y o r k - L o n d o n 1994, 183-225. L i i h r m a n n , D . , Die Redaktion -

Die Logienquelle historical

Jesus,

Definition:

N e u k i r c h e n / V l u y n 1969. in The Sayings

Source

Q and

the

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , Leuven 2001, 191-206.

M a c k , B . L . , A Myth M a l i n a , B . , Jewish

der Logienquelle,

und die Leben-Jesu-Forschung, of Innocence:

Christianity

Mark

or Gentile

and Christian Christian

Origins,

Judaism:

Philadelphia 1988.

Toward

J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of J u d a i s m 7 (1976) 4 6 - 5 7 .

a

hypothetical

Bibliography

M a n n s , R , UEvangile UEvangile

de Jean,

reponse

de Jean a la lumiere

M a r g u e r a t , D . , Introduction,

155

chretienne

du Judaisme,

aux decisions

de Jabne,

in I d e m ,

Jerusalem 1991, 469-509.

in Le dechirement.

Juifs et chretiens

au premier

siecle,

edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e 1996, 7 - 2 2 . -

Paul

de Tarse.

Un homme

M a r t y n , J . L . , History -

Glimpses Sources,

-

into

aux prises Theology

the History

redaction,

Clementine God's

and

Paris 1999.

of the Johannine

theologie,

Recognitions

Christ

avecDieu,

in the Fourth

Gospel,

N e w Y o r k 1968.

Community,

in UEvangile

de

Jean.

edite p a r M . D e J o n g e , L e u v e n 1 9 7 7 , 1 4 8 - 1 7 5 .

1,33-71,

and His People.

Jewish

Christianity

and the Fourth

Gospel,

in

S t u d i e s in H o n o u r o f N i l s A l s t r u p D a h l e d i t e d b y J .

J e r v e l l a n d W. A . M e e k s , O s l o 1 9 7 7 , 2 6 5 - 2 9 5 . M a r x s e n , W., Der geliums,

M a s o n , S., Flavius -

Evangelist

Markus.

Studien

zur Redaktionsgeschichte

des

Evan-

G o t t i n g e n 1956.

Pharisaic 23:2-3):

Josephus

Dominance

on the Pharisees,

before

Leiden 1991.

70 CE and

3

the

Gospels

Hypocrisy

Charge

(Matt

H a r v a r d T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 83 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 3 6 3 - 3 8 1 .

M a z z a r i n o , S., Uimpero

romano

I, R o m a - B a r i 1 9 7 3 .

M c E l e n e y , N . J . , Authenticating

Criteria

and Mark

7:1-23:

Catholic Biblical Q u a r ­

terly 3 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 4 3 1 - 4 6 0 . -

Conversion,

Circumcision

and

the Law:

N e w Testament Studies 20 (1973-74),

319-341. -

Mt 17:24-27-

Who paid

the Temple

Tax*: C a t h o l i c B i b l i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 3 8 ( 1 9 7 6 )

178-192. M c H u g h , J . , >In Him and

Christians.

was Life<: John's

The Parting

of the

Gospel

and the Parting

of the Ways,

in

Jews

Ways A. D. 70 to 135. T h e s e c o n d D u r h a m -

T u b i n g e n R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1 9 9 2 , 1 2 3 - 1 5 8 . M c K n i g h t , S., A Parting James

within

the Just and Christian

the Way: Jesus Origins,

and James

on Israel

and Purity,

in

edited b y B . Chilton and C . E . Evans, L e i d e n

2000, 82-129. M c L a r e n , J . S . , Ananus, Death

of James:

James,

and

earliest

Christianity.

3

Josephus

Account

of

the

J o u r n a l of T h e o l o g i c a l Studies 52 (2001) 1-25.

M e e k s , W. A . , The Man from

Heaven

in Johannine

Sectarianism:

Journal of Biblical

L i t e r a t u r e 91 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 4 4 - 7 2 . -

>Am I a Jew ?< - Johannine and

other

Greco-Roman

Christianity Cults.

and Judaism,

in Christianity,

Judaism

S t u d i e s f o r M o r t o n S m i t h at S i x t y I , e d i t e d b y

J. Neusner, Leiden 1975,163-186. -

The first

urban

Christians:

Away:

Three

The social

World

Testament

Pictures

of the Apostle

Paul,

New

Haven

1983. -

Breaking the Jewish >Others<

New

Communities, in late Antiquity,

in >To see Ourselves

of Christianity's as Others

Separation

from

see Us<. Christians,

Jews,

edited b y J . N e u s n e r and E . S . Frerichs, C h i c o 1985,

93-115. M e i e r , J . P., A marginal

Jew.

Rethinking

the historical

Jesus

I - I V , N e w Y o r k 1991—

2004. -

The historical

Jesus and the Plucking

Q u a r t e r l y 66 ( 2 0 0 4 ) 5 6 1 - 5 8 1 .

of the Grain

on the Sabbath:

Catholic Biblical

156

Bibliography

Messiah

(The).

Developments

in earliest

Judaism

and

Christianity.

First Princeton

S y m p o s i u m on J u d a i s m and Christian O r i g i n s 1987, edited b y J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , Minneapolis 1992. Messiah

and

Christos.

Studies

in the Jewish

Origins

of Christianity

presented to D .

F l u s s e r o n t h e O c c a s i o n o f his s e v e n t y - f i f t h B i r t h d a y , e d i t e d b y I. G r i i n w a l d , S. Shaked and G . G . S t r o u m s a , T u b i n g e n 1992. M i c h a u d , J . P., Quelle(s)

communaute

Q and the historical

Jesus,

M i l d e n b e r g , L . , The Coinage M i m o u n i , S. C , Pour

(s) derriere

la source

Q f, in. The Sayings

Source

Leuven 2001, 577-606. of the Bar Kokhba

une definition

War, F r a n k f u r t a m M a i n 1 9 8 4 .

nouvelle

du judeo-christianisme

ancien:

New

T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 38 ( 1 9 9 2 ) 1 6 1 - 1 8 6 . -

La

B i r k a t H a - M i n i m : une priere

juive

contre

les judeo-chretiens:

Revue des

S c i e n c e s R e l i g i e u s e s 71 ( 1 9 9 7 ) 2 7 5 - 2 9 8 . -

Le judeo-christianisme

-

/ nazorei Israel.

ancien.

a partire

Nuove

dalla

Essais historiques,

notizia

prospettive

Paris 1998.

29 del P a n a r i o n di Epifanio

sul giudeocristianesimo.

di Salamina,

in

Verus

A t t i del c o l l o q u i o d i T o r i n o ( 4 - 5

n o v e m b r e 1999), Brescia 2 0 0 1 , 1 2 0 - 1 4 6 . M o m i g l i a n o , A . , Ricerche (63 a. C. - 70 d. C),

suWorganizzazione

della

Giudea

sotto

il dominio

romano

A m s t e r d a m 1967.

M o n t e f i o r e , H . , Sulpicius

Severus

and

Titus'

Council

of War:

H i s t o r i a 11 ( 1 9 6 2 )

156-170. - Jesus and the Temple

Tax: N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 11 ( 1 9 6 4 - 6 5 ) 6 0 - 7 1 .

M o w i n c k e l , S., He That Miiller, K . , Gesetz Neuen

Cometh,

und

Testament,

N a s h v i l l e 1954.

Gesetzeserfullung

im Fruhjudentum,

in Das

Gesetz

im

herausgegeben von K . Kertelge, Freiburg i.B.-Basel-Wien,

1986,11-27. N e u s n e r , J . , The Rabbinic

Traditions

about

the Pharisees

before

70 I—III, L e i d e n

1971. -

From

Politics

to Piety:

the

Emergence

of pharisaic

Judaism,

Judaism,

L e i d e n 1973.

Englewood

Cliffs

1973. -

The Idea

-

Das pharisaische

of Purity

in ancient

und talmudische

Judentum:

neue

Wege zu seinem

Verstandnis,

T u b i n g e n 1984. -

Varieties through

-

of Judaism the Middle

in the formative Ages,

The Jewish-Christian about

different

Environment, - Jews

and

Argument

Things

Age,

in Jewish

Spirituality

from

the

Bible

edited b y A. Green, N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 6 , 1 7 1 - 1 9 7 . in the first

to different

People,

Century.

Different

in The Law

People

in the Bible

talking

and

in

its

e d i t e d b y T. V e i j o l a , G o t t i n g e n 1 9 9 0 , 1 7 3 - 1 8 6 . Christians.

The Myth

of a Common

Tradition,

London-Philadelphia

1991. N i c k e l s b u r g , G . W. E . , Ancient and

Transformation,

Judaism

and Christian

Origins:

Diversity,

Continuity,

Minneapolis 2003.

N o d e t , E . - T a y l o r , J . , The

Origins

of Christianity.

An

Exploration,

Collegeville

1998. O e g e m a , G . S . , Messianic Development,

Expectations

in Qumran-Messianism.

in the

Qumran

Studies

Writings:

on the messianic

Theses

on

Expectations

their in

Bibliography

the Dead

Sea Scrolls,

157

e d i t e d b y J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , H . L i c h t e n b e r g e r a n d G . S.

O e g e m a , T u b i n g e n 1998, 5 3 - 8 2 . O v e r m a n , J . A . , Matthew's Matthew

Community,

P a i n t e r , J . , Just James. 2

Gospel

and formative

Judaism.

The social

World

of

the

M i n n e a p o l i s 1990. The

Brother

of Jesus

in History

and

Tradition,

Columbia

2004.

P a t t e r s o n , S. J . , The Gospel

of Thomas

P e a r s o n , B . A . , A Q Community

and Jesus,

in Galilee?:

S o n o m a 1993. N e w T e s t a m e n t Studies 50 (2004)

476-494. P e n n a , R . , Paolo -

di Tarso.

Cristologia

senza

piu

in Verus

antico,

Un cristianesimo

morte

redentrice:

Israel,

3

possibile,

Cinisello Balsamo 2000.

un filone di pensiero

Nuove

prospettive

del

giudeocristianesimo

sul giudeocristianesimo.

A t t i del

c o l l o q u i o d i T o r i n o ( 4 - 5 n o v e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e C . G i a n o t t o , Brescia 2001, 68-93. -

Che cosa significava poste,

essere giudeo

in Mysterium

Regni

al tempo

ministerium

e nella terra

di Gesu.

Problemi

e

pro-

Verbi (Mc 4,11; At 6,4): Scritti in o n o r e d i

m o n s . V i t t o r i o F u s c o editi d a E . F r a n c o , B o l o g n a 2 0 0 1 , 1 3 7 - 1 5 6 , n o w a l s o in R . P e n n a , Vangelo Nuovo

e inculturazione.

Testamento,

P e r r i n , N . , Mark

Studi

sul rapporto

tra rivelazione

e cultura

nel

Cinisello Balsamo 2001, 63-88.

14:62:

The End

Product

of a Christian

Pesher

Tradition?:

New

T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 13 ( 1 9 6 6 ) 1 5 0 - 1 5 5 . P e s c e , M . , / / V a n g e l o di G i o v a n n i e lefasigiudaiche in Verus Israel.

Nuove

prospettive

delgiovannismo.

sul giudeocristianesimo.

Alcuniaspetti,

A t t i del c o l l o q u i o di

T o r i n o ( 4 - 5 n o v e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e C . G i a n o t t o , B r e s c i a 2 0 0 1 , 47-67. -

Sul concetto

di giudeo-cristianesimo,

in 77 giudeo-cristianesimo

nel I e II sec. d. C.

A t t i del I X c o n v e g n o di s t u d i n e o t e s t a m e n t a r i ( N a p o l i , 1 3 - 1 5 S e t t e m b r e 2 0 0 1 ) , a cura di A . Pitta ( = R i c e r c h e storico-bibliche 15, 2003), 2 1 - 4 4 . -

Quando

nasce

dellefonti:

il cristianesimo

? Aspetti

deWattuale

dibattito

storiografico

e uso

Annali di storia dell'esegesi 20 (2003) 3 9 - 5 6 .

P e t e r s e n , A . K . , At the End of the Road in The Formation

of the Early

P e t e r s o n , E . , Christianus,

- Reflections

Church,

in Miscellanea

on a popular

scholarly

Metaphor,

e d i t e d b y J . Adna, T u b i n g e n 2 0 0 5 , 4 5 - 7 2 . Giovanni

1 9 4 6 , 3 5 5 - 3 7 2 , n o w a l s o in I d e m , Fruhkirche,

Mercati Judentum

I, C i t t a del V a t i c a n o und

Gnosis,

Freiburg

1959, 6 4 - 8 7 . P o m y k a l a , K . E . , The Davidic Significance

for Messianism,

P o u r k i e r , A . , Uheresiologie P r i t z , R . A . , Nazarene until

R a i n b o w , P. A . , Jewish Review

Article:

Christianity

in the fourth Monotheism

de Salamine, from

Its History

and

Paris 1992.

the End of the New

Century,

as the Matrix

of Jesus.

Testament

Period

J e r u s a l e m - L e i d e n 1988. for New

Testament

Christology:

a

von

Markus

Paul and the Law,

7,15,

in Logia.

Les paroles

de Jesus -

The

M e m o r i a l J o s e p h C o p p e n s edited b y J . Delobel, L e u v e n 1982,

477-484. -

in early Judaism.

N o v u m T e s t a m e n t u m 33 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 7 8 - 9 1 .

R a i s a n e n , H . , Zur Herkunft Sayings

Tradition

chez Epiphane

Jewish

its Disappearance

Dynasty

Atlanta 1995.

T u b i n g e n 1983.

Bibliography

158

-

Galatians

2.16 and Paul's

Break

with Judaism:

N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 31 ( 1 9 8 5 )

543-553. -

The >Hellenists< Christ,

-

- A Bridge

between

Jesus

and

Paul

in I d e m , The

Tor ah

and

H e l s i n k i 1986, 2 4 2 - 3 0 6 .

Paul's

Conversion

and the Development

of his View

of the Law:

N e w Testament

S t u d i e s 33 ( 1 9 8 7 ) 4 0 4 - 4 1 9 . -

Freiheit

-

Die >Hellenisten<

vom

Gesetz

im Urchristentum:

der Urgemeinde,

Studia Theologica 46 (1992) 55-67.

in Aufstieg

und Niedergang

der romischen

Welt

I I . 2 6 . 2 , h e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n W. H a a s e , B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 5 , 1 4 6 8 - 1 5 1 4 . R a j a k , T . , The A g a i n s t A p i o n and the Continuities Understanding

Josephus.

in Joseph us's political

Thought,

in

S e v e n P e r s p e c t i v e s e d i t e d b y S. M a s o n , S h e f f i e l d 1 9 9 8 ,

222-246. R e e d , J . L . , The social Literary,

rhetorical

Map

of Q, in J . S . K l o p p e n b o r g , e d . , Conflict

and social Studies

on the Sayings

Gospel

and

Invention:

Q, V a l l e y F o r g e 1 9 9 5 ,

16-36. R e y n o l d s , J . - T a n n e n b a u m , R . , Jews criptions

with

R i e s n e r , R . , Die strategie

Commentary, Fruhzeit

des Apostels

und Theologie,

R i v k i n , E . , A hidden

and

God-fearers

at Aphrodisias.

Greek

Ins­

C a m b r i d g e 1987. Paulus.

Studien

zur

Chronologie,

Missions-

T u b i n g e n 1994.

Revolution.

The Pharisees'

Search

for

the Kingdom

within,

N a s h v i l l e 1978. R o b i n s o n , J . M . , Introduction: of New

Testament

through -

early

The Dismantling

Scholarship,

Christianity,

the

Trajectories

Christianity,

History and

early

of Q Research,

critical

Edition

Thomas

Categories Trajectories

Gattung

of Q, in J . M . R o b i n s o n - H . K o e s t e r , Philadelphia 1971, 71-113.

in J . M . R o b i n s o n , P. H o f f m a n n , J . S. K l o p p e n b o r g ,

of Q. Synopsis with

of the

H . Koester,

Philadelphia 1971,1-19.

L O G O I S O P H O N : On through

and Reassembling

in J . M . R o b i n s o n -

English,

including

German,

the Gospels

and French

of Matthew

Translations

and Luke, of Q and

The Mark

Thomas,

Leuven-Minneapolis 2000, X I X - L X X I . R o l f e , J . C . , Suetonius

I I , L o n d o n 1950.

S a l d a r i n i , A . J . , Pharisees, -

Scribes

Approach,

E d i n b u r g h 1989.

Matthew's

Christian-Jewish

S a n d , A . , Das Evangelium

and Sadducees Community,

Society:

A

sociological

C h i c a g o 1994.

nach Matthaus,

S a n d e r s , E . P., Paul and Palestinian

in Palestinian

R e g e n s b u r g 1986.

Judaism:

A Comparison

of Patterns

of

Religion,

Philadelphia 1977. -

Paul, the Law

and Jewish

- Jesus and Judaism, - Jewish

Law from

- Judaism: -

La rupture d'une

Practice

Philadelphia 1983.

Jesus to the Mishnah: and Belief

de Jesus avec

enigme,

People,

L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1985. 63 BCE-66

le judaisme,

Five Studies,

L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1990.

CE, L o n d o n 1 9 9 2 . in Jesus

de Nazareth.

Nouvelles

approches

e d i t e p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , E . N o r e l l i et J . M . P o f f e t , G e n e v e 1 9 9 8 ,

209-222. S a n d e r s , J . T., Who is a Jew and who is a Gentile Studies 37 (1991) 4 3 4 - 4 5 5 .

in the Book of Acts f: N e w T e s t a m e n t

Bibliography

-

Schismatics,

Sectarians,

Jewish-Christian

Dissidents,

Relations,

S a n d m e l , S., Judaism

159

Deviants.

The first

one

hundred

Years

of

L o n d o n 1993.

and Christian

Beginnings,

N e w Y o r k 1978.

S c h a e d e r , H . H . , Not£apY]v6s, Na£wpoao<;: T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t 4 (1967) 874-879. S c h a f e r , P., Die sogenannte im ersten/zweiten Studien

zur

Synode

von Jabne.

Zur Trennung

von Juden

und

Christen

Jh. n. Chr.: J u d a i c a 31 ( 1 9 7 5 ) 5 4 - 6 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 2 3 , n o w a l s o in I d e m ,

Geschichte

und

Theologie

des rahbinischen

Judentums,

L e i d e n 1978,

45-64. - Judeophobia.

Attitudes

toward

the Jews

in the ancient

World,

Cambridge M A

1997. S c h a p e r , J . , The Roman

Pharisees,

Period,

in The

Cambridge

History

of Judaism

III.

The

early

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y , W. D . D a v i e s a n d J . S t u r d y , C a m b r i d g e

1999, 4 0 2 - 4 2 7 . S c h e c h t e r , S., Genizah S c h e n k e , L . , Die

Specimens:

Urgemeinde.

Jewish

Q u a r t e r l y R e v i e w 10 ( 1 8 9 8 ) 6 5 4 - 6 5 9 .

Geschichtliche

und theologische

Entwicklung,

Stutt­

g a r t - B e r l i n - K o l n 1990. S c h i f f m a n , L . H . , Who was a Jew f Rabbinic Christian

Schism,

S c h u l z , H . J . , Wie entstand geschichte,

das Johannesevangelium

Verfasserschaft

Schiirer, E . , The B. C - A.D.

and halakhic

Perspectives

on the

Jewish-

zur

Motiv-

H a b o k e n 1984.

History

und Datierung, of the Jewish

f Neue

Erkenntnisse

Wien 1998. People

in the

Age

of Jesus

Christ

(175

135) I—III. A n e w E n g l i s h V e r s i o n r e v i s e d a n d e d i t e d b y G . V e r m e s ,

F. M i l l a r , M . B l a c k a n d M . G o o d m a n , E d i n b u r g h 1 9 7 3 - 1 9 8 7 . S c h w a r t z , D . R . , Josephus

and

Nicolaus

on the Pharisees:

J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of

J u d a i s m 14 ( 1 9 8 3 ) 1 5 7 - 1 7 1 . -

>Scribes and Pharisees, in I d e m , Studies

Hypocrites<:

Who are the >Scribes< in the New

in the Jewish

Background

of Christianity,

Testament*,

Tubingen

1992,

89-101. S c h w e i t z e r , A . , The Quest S c r o g g s , R . , The earliest nity, Judaism

of historical

Christian

and other

Jesus,

L o n d o n 2000.

Communities

Greco-Roman

as sectarian

Cults.

Movements,

in

Christia­

S t u d i e s f o r M o r t o n S m i t h at S i x t y I I .

Early Christianity, edited b y J . Neusner, Leiden 1 9 7 5 , 1 - 2 3 . S e g a l , A . F . , Rebecca's

Children.

Judaism

and

Christianity

in the

Roman

World,

C a m b r i d g e M A 1986. -

Paul the Convert.

The Apostolate

and Apostasy

of Saul the Pharisee,

N e w Haven-

L o n d o n 1990. S e v r i n , J . - M . , Thomas, historical

Jesus,

Q et le Jesus

S h a n k s , H . , Christianity and early

de Vhistoire,

in The Sayings

Source

Q and

the

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n 2001, 4 6 1 - 4 7 6 . and

Development,

rabbinic

Judaism.

A parallel

History

of their

Origins

Washington 1992.

S i e g e r t , F., Gottesfurchtige

und Sympathisanten:

J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of J u d a i s m 4

(1973) 109-164. -

Le juda'isme chretiens

au premier

au premier

S i m , D . C , The Gospel Setting

siecle et ses ruptures

siecle,

of Matthew

of the Matthean

interieurs,

in Le dechirement.

Juifs

et

edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e 1996, 2 5 - 6 5 . and Christian

Community,

Judaism.

E d i n b u r g h 1998.

The historical

and

social

Bibliography

160

S i m o n , M . , Verus Israel. Roman

Empire

A Study

AD

of the Relations

135-425,

between

Christians

and Jews

in the

L o n d o n 1 9 9 6 (I e d . 1 9 4 8 ) .

-

St. Stephen

and the Hellenists

-

Problemes

du Judeo-Christianisme,

in the primitive

Church,

in Aspects

L o n d o n 1958.

du Judeo-Christianisme.

Colloque

d e S t r a s b o u r g , 2 3 - 2 5 avril 1 9 6 4 , P a r i s 1 9 6 5 , 1 - 1 7 . -

Reflexions Roman

sur le Judeo-Christianisme, Cults.

in Christianity,

Judaism

and other

Greco-

S t u d i e s f o r M o r t o n S m i t h at S i x t y I I . E a r l y C h r i s t i a n i t y , e d i t e d b y

J . Neusner, Leiden 1975, 53-76. S i n i s c a l c o , P., / / cammino S k a r s a u n e , O . , The Tradition:

di Cristo

Proof

from

nell'impero Prophecy.

Text Type, Provenance,

S l e e , M . , The Church

in Antioch

romano,

A Study

theological

in the first

R o m a - B a r i 1983.

in Justin

Profile,

Century

Martyr's

Proof

Text

L e i d e n 1987.

CE: Communion

and

Conflict,

L o n d o n 2003. S l i n g e r l a n d , H . D . , Claudian Judaism

at Rome,

S m a l l w o o d , E . M . , The Jews in political -

Relation,

The Diaspora Judaism

III.

Policymaking

and

the

early

imperial

Repression

of

Atlanta 1997. under

Roman

Rule from

Pompey

to Diocletian.

A

Study

L e i d e n 1976.

in the Roman The early

Period

Roman

before

Period,

CE 70, in The Cambridge

History

of

e d i t e d b y W. H o r b u r y , W . D . D a v i e s a n d

J . Sturdy, C a m b r i d g e 1 9 9 9 , 1 6 8 - 1 9 1 . S m i t h , D . M . , Judaism Past, Present,

and the Gospel

and Future,

S m i t h , M . , Palestinian in Civilization, -

The Pharisees

of John,

in Jews

and Christians.

Exploring

the

editor J . H . C h a r l e s w o r t h , N e w Y o r k 1990, 7 6 - 9 9 .

Judaism

in the first Century,

in M . D a v i s ( e d . ) , Israel.

Its

Role

N e w Y o r k 1956, 6 7 - 8 1 . in the

Gospels,

in I d e m , Jesus

the Magician,

New York-London

1978, 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 . S o r d i , M . , / cristiani

e Vimpero

romano,

S t a n l e y J o n e s , R , The Martyrdom and

Christian

Relations,

Apocrypha,

M i l a n o 1984.

of James

including

in Hegesippus,

Nag

Clement

Hammadi:

of

A Study

Alexandria,

of the

textual

A t l a n t a 1990.

S t a n t o n , G . N . , The Tradition

Origin

and

and Interpretation

f o r his 6 0

t h

Purpose

of Matthew's

in the New

Testament.

Sermon

on the

Mount,

in

E s s a y s in h o n o r o f E . E . E l l i s

B i r t h d a y edited b y G . R H a w t h o r n e with O . B e t z , G r a n d R a p i d s 1987,

181-192. -

Matthew's Parting

Christology of the

Ways

and the Parting A. D.

70 to 135.

of the Ways,

in Jews

and

Christians.

The

The second Durham-Tubingen Research

S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, 99-116. S t e g e m a n n , E . W . - S t e g e m a n n , W., The Jesus Movement. Century,

A social History

of its

first

M i n n e a p o l i s 1999.

S t e m b e r g e r , G . , Die

sogenannte

>Synode

von Jabne<

und

das fruhe

Christentum:

Kairos 19(1977) 14-21. -

Pharisder,

Sadduzaer,

-

Qumran,

die Pharisder

stentum.

Essener,

Stuttgart 1991.

und das Rabbinat,

in Antikes

Judentum

undfriihes

Chri­

Festschrift fur H a r t m u t Stegemann z u m 65. G e b u r t s t a g heraugegeben

v o n B . K o l l m a n n , W. R e i n b o l d u n d A . S t e u d e l , B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 9 , 2 1 0 - 2 2 4 .

Bibliography

S t e r n , M . , Greek

and

Latin

Authors

161

on Jews

and Judaism

I—III, J e r u s a l e m 1 9 7 4 -

1984. -

The Jews

in Greek

I.l.Compendia

and Latin

Rerum

Literature,

Iudaicarum

in The Jewish

ad Novum

People

in the first

Testamentum,

Century

e d i t e d b y S. S a f r a i

and M . Stern, Philadelphia-Assen 1 9 7 6 , 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 5 6 . S t r o u m s a , G . G . , Barbarian

Philosophy.

The religious

Revolution

of early

Christianity,

T u b i n g e n 1999. S t u h l m a c h e r , P., Gerechtigkeit

Gottes

-

Gerechtigkeit:

Versbhnung,

Gesetz

und

bei Paulus,

G o t t i n g e n 1965.

Aufsatze

zur

Skizze,

in Jews

biblischen

Theologie,

G o t t i n g e n 1968. -

Das

Christusbild

Parting

der Paulus-Schule

of the

Ways

A. D.

- eine

and

Christians.

The

70 to 135. T h e s e c o n d D u r h a m - T u b i n g e n R e s e a r c h

S y m p o s i u m o n earliest C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d J u d a i s m ( D u r h a m , September, 1989), edited b y J . D . G . D u n n , T u b i n g e n 1992, 159-175. T a y l o r , J . E . , The Invention

Phenomenon

of early

Jewish-Christianity:

Reality

or

scholarly

f: V i g i l i a e C h r i s t i a n a e 4 4 ( 1 9 9 0 ) 3 1 3 - 3 3 4 .

T c h e r i k o v e r , V., Hellenistic

Civilization

T h e i s s e n , G . - M e r z , A . , The

and the Jews,

historical

Jesus.

Philadelphia 1959.

A comprehensive

Guide,

London

1998. T h o m p s o n , L . A . , Domitian

and the Jewish

T o d t , H . E . , Der Menschensohn,

Tax: H i s t o r i a 31 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 3 2 9 - 3 4 2 .

G i i t e r s l o h 1959.

T r o i a n i , L . , Per una riconsiderazione

degli

"EXXrjvst; nel Nuovo

Testamento:

Athena­

dellTstituto

di

eum 66(1988) 179-190. -

// giudeo-ellenista Antica

-

e le origini

del Cristianesimo,

Ilperdono

cristiano

e altri studi

T u c k e t t , C . M . , Q and Thomas: to H. Koester: -

Storia

avant

Q and the History

-

The Son of Man Jesus,

siecle,

>Wisdom

Brescia 1999. Gospeh

?A

Response

of early and

Testament,

in Le dechirement.

Juifs

et

edite p a r D . M a r g u e r a t , G e n e v e 1996, 6 7 - 9 5 . Christianity:

Daniel

Studies

7: Q and Jesus,

on Q, E d i n b u r g h 1 9 9 6 . in The Sayings

Source

Q and

the

edited b y A . L i n d e m a n n , L e u v e n 2001, 371-394.

V a n a , L . , La b i r k a t h a - m i n i m e una preghiera Nuove

delle origini,

of a primitive

70 et le Nouveau

au premier

-

historical

sul cristianesimo

Evidence

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 67 (1991) 346-360.

Les Pharisiens chretiens

Israel.

in Contributi

(Universita Cattolica), vol. X V I I I , M i l a n o 1 9 9 2 , 1 9 5 - 2 1 0 .

prospettive

contro

sul giudeocristianesimo.

i giudeocristiani

f, in

Verus

A t t i del c o l l o q u i o d i T o r i n o ( 4 - 5

n o v e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e C . G i a n o t t o , B r e s c i a 2 0 0 1 , 1 4 7 - 1 8 9 . V e r h e y d e n , J . , The

Flight

of the

Christians

to Pella:

Ephemerides Theologicae

L o v a n i e n s e s 66 (1990) 3 6 8 - 3 8 4 . V e r m e s , G , Jesus the Jew, - Jesus and the World -

The Religion

Philadelphia 1973.

of Judaism,

of Jesus the Jew,

V e r s e p u t , D . J . , Paul's

Gentile

L o n d o n - P h i l a d e l p h i a 1983. M i n n e a p o l i s 1993.

Mission

and

the Jewish

Christian

Community:

New-

Testament Studies 39 (1993) 3 6 - 5 8 . Verus Israel.

Nuove

prospettive

sul giudeocristianesimo.

A t t i del c o l l o q u i o d i T o r i n o

( 4 - 5 n o v e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e C . G i a n o t t o , B r e s c i a 2 0 0 1 .

162

Bibliography

Vitelli, M . , Popolarita Giudei

e influenza

e cristiani

deifarisei

nel I secolo.

nel giudaismo

Continuita,

palestinese

separazione,

del I secolo,

polemica,

in

a c u r a di M . B .

Durante M a n g o n i e G . Jossa, Trapani 2006, 13-66. V o u g a , R , Les premiers

pas du Christianisme.

Les ecrits, les acteurs,

les debats,

Geneve

1997. W a c h o b , W . H . - J o h n s o n , L . T . , The Sayings thenticating

the

Words

of Jesus,

of Jesus

in the Letter

of James,

in

Au­

edited b y B . Chilton and C . A . Evans, Leiden

1999, 4 3 1 - 4 5 0 . W a h l d e ( v o n ) , U . C . , The Relationship Observations

between

on the Texts in Matthew,

Pharisees

and

John and Josephus:

Chief

Priests:

Some

N e w Testament Studies

42 (1996) 5 0 6 - 5 2 2 . W a n d e r , B . , Gottesfurchtige

und Sympathisanten.

von Diasporasynagogen, Ways

(The)

that

Studien

zum

heidnischen

Umfeld

T u b i n g e n 1998.

never

parted,

edited by A . H . Becker and A. Yoshiko Reed,

Tubingen 2003. W e h n e r t , J . , Die Auswanderung Faktum

oder

theologische

der Jerusalemer Konstruktion

Christen

nach Pella

f Bemerkungen

zu

-

einem

historisches

neuen

Buch:

Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r K i r c h e n g e s c h i c h t e 102 ( 1 9 9 1 ) 2 3 1 - 2 5 5 . -

Die

Reinheit

zum

historischen

des

>christlichen

Gottesvolkes<

und theologischen

aus Juden

Hintergrund

und

Heiden.

des sogenannten

Studien

Aposteldekrets,

G o t t i n g e n 1997. -

>Falsi fratelli, pagani

attori,

superapostoli<:

nel I e II secolo

nesimo.

d. C,

Per una storia

in Verus Israel.

della missione

Nuove

giudeocristiana

prospettive

sul

ai

giudeocristia­

A t t i del c o l l o q u i o d i T o r i n o ( 4 - 5 n o v e m b r e 1 9 9 9 ) editi d a G . F i l o r a m o e

C . Gianotto, Brescia 2001, 265-279. Weiser, A . , Zur Neuen

Gesetzes-

Testament,

und

Tempelkritik

der

>Hellenisten<,

in Das

herausgegeben von K . Kertelge, Freiburg

Gesetz

im

i.B.-Basel-Wien

1986, 1 4 6 - 1 6 8 . W e l l h a u s e n , J . , Israelitische -

Einleitung

und judische

in die drei ersten

W e n g s t , K . , Bedrangte des Johannesevangeliums 2

Berlin 1958 ( 4 8 9 4 ) . 2

Evangelien,

Gemeinde

9

Geschichte,

Berlin 1911.

und verherrlichter

als Schlussel

Christus.

Der

zu seiner Interpretation,

historische

Ort

Neukirchen/Vluyn

1983. 2

W i l c k e n s , U . , Das Evangelium

nach Johannes,

W i l c o x , M . , The >God-Fearers<

in Acts - A Reconsideration:

Gottingen 2000. J o u r n a l for the S t u d y of

t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t 13 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 1 0 2 - 1 2 2 . W i l k e n , R . L . , Judaism -

and the early

Christian

Mind,

The Christians

as the Romans

(and

Greeks)

Self-Definition

I. The Shaping

of Christianity

N e w H a v e n - L o n d o n 1971.

saw

Them,

in Jewish

in the second

and

and third

Christian Centuries,

edited b y E . P . Sanders, L o n d o n 1980, 1 0 0 - 1 2 5 . -

The Christians

as the Romans

saw

Will, E . - O r r i e u x , C , >Proselytisme W i l s o n , S. G . , Related

Strangers.

Them,

N e w H a v e n - L o n d o n 1984.

juif< ? Histoire Jews

and

y

d une

Christians

erreur, 70-170

Paris 1992. C.E.,

Minneapolis

1995. Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus, W o o d , J . H . , The Direction:

New

Berlin 1961.

Testament

Gospels

and

the

G o s p e l of T h o m a s : A

N e w T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s 51 ( 2 0 0 5 ) 5 7 9 - 5 9 5 .

new

Bibliography

W r e d e , W , Das Messiasgeheimnis standnis Context,

Zugleich

ein Beitrag

zum

Ver-

and its

social

Gottingen 1901.

and

in >To see Ourselves

Antiquity, -

in den Evangelien.

des Markusevangelium,

Y a r b r o C o l l i n s , A . , Insiders

163

Outsiders as Others

in the Book

of Revelation

see Us<: Christians,

Jews,

>Others<

in

late

edited b y J . N e u s n e r and E . S . Frerichs, C h i c o 1985, 190-212.

Vilification

and

Self-Definition

in the Book

of Revelation:

of Christianity

in Antioch:

Harvard Theological

Review 79(1986) 308-320. Z e t t e r h o l m , M . , The Formation proach

to the Separation

between

Judaism

and Christianity,

A social-scientific L o n d o n 2003.

Ap­

Index of Sources Biblical

6:28

O l d Testament Genesis 5,18-24

70

Numbers 24,17 2

118,136

Samuel

7,12-14

Literature

55

Psalms

62

7:21-23

89

8:20

86

8:22

61

9:11

48-49

11:19

86

11:27

60

12:32

86

17:24

140

17:24-27

111,119,139

17:25

140

17:26

140

110

56,58,59,69,70

21:9

55

110,1 Isaiah

58

21:45

35

23:2

111

45,23b

74

23:23

115

Daniel 7

70

7,9

69

7,13

58, 59

23:25

115

23:27

115

23:29

115

24:20

111,119

27:62

35

7,13-14

38

7,18

38

7,22

38

1:40-41

51

7,27 Zechariah 9,9

38

2:1-3:6

4 6 , 4 9 , 52

2:10

86

55,56

N e w Testament Matthew

Mark

2:15-3:6

53,84

2:16

48-49

2:23-28

52

2:27

5 2 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 8 1 , 83

4:1-11

136

2:28

5 3 , 54, 8 3 , 86

5-7

87

5:25-34

51

5:17

109

7:1-23

49

5:17-18

114

7:15

5 0 - 5 1 , 7 8 , 81

5:17-19

119

8:38

61

5:20

109

10:2-9

52

166

Index of Sources

10:45

136

18:15

131

10:45b

83

22:3

33

10:47

37

22:30-23:10

130

10:48

37

23:6

33

11:9-10

55

23:29

131

12:35-37

56,58

24:5

74,110,111

13:9

28

24:5-6

88

26:28

126

13:32

60

14:24

83

14:55-65

58

14:61

57

14:62

5 7 , 5 9 , 6 6 , 118

Luke 4:1-13

136

Romans 1:3-4

94

l:3b-4

65

2:14

26

2:28-29

96

3:19

26

7:34

86

3:25-26

82,94

9:58

86

4:25

82

9:59-60

61

9-11

90

10:22

60

9:3-11:1

90

12:10

86

9:6

99

12:27

62

10:4

109

16:16-17

87

10:12

1

16:17

109

11:11-12

101

19:38

55

11:13

98

22:69

83 1

John

Corinthians

3:23

94

7:45

35

6:1-4

101

7:48

35

8:5-6

93

9

104

9:20-21

96

9:22

104,105,119,120

9:20

26

11:47

35

9:21

26

12:13

55

9:22

90

12:42

105,119

10:18

99

16:2

28,105,119

10:32

90,99

18:3

35

12:2

98

Acts 2:36

6 5 , 136

5:34-40

33

12:13

1

15:3-7

67

15:3b

82-83

7:55-58

83

2

7:56

70

5:21

82

10:36

84

11:24

92

11:20

83

11:26

75,126

17:1-19

130

17:9

131

18:1-17

130

18:2

127

Corinthians

Galatians 1:13-24

99

1:13-14

95

1:13

1

1:16

98

1:22

85

Index

of

Sources

2:3

26

3:8-9

95

2:9

94

3:20

100, 101

2:15-21

94

3:28

1, 9 0 , 94, 9 9

3:29

94

4:8

98

6:16

99

Colossians 2:18

39

3:11

1,90

1

Thessalonians

1:9

Philippians 2:6-11

71,73,82,84,94

2:6-8

73

98

1:10

64

2:14

85

2:9-11

73

Hebrews

2:9

65

1:3-6

3:4

33

3:6

83

1

Aristeae

128-171

1QS 68

CD 68

1QM XIII,10

68

XVII,6-7

68

4QFlor(4Q174) 1,10-13 a

4QpGen

38 (4Q252)

V,l-4

38 a

4QpIsa (4Q161) 8-10,111,17-21

38

4QSerekHaMilhamah 5,1-6

38

4Q246 1,9-11,1

68

HQMelch 11,13

68

Literature

Antiquitates

Qumran

V,18

126

Josephus

25

111,20

Peter

4:16

Jewish Epistula

71

(4Q285)

Iudaicae

13,288-298

32

13,288

2

13,298

2

13,398-415

32

13,430-432

32

14,23

72

14,110

26

17,41

2

18,4

33

18,9

33

18,11-25

2

18,15

2,30

18,17

2,30

18,23

33

18,63

80

18,63-64

143

20,200-203

3 3 , 116, 132

20.200

117

20.201

48

Bellum

Iudaicum

2,118

72

2,119-166

2

2,409-417

35

2,411

34

2,444

40

2,445-448

40

168

Index

of

Sources

6,312

118

Henoch

7,41-62

119

37-71

38

7,218

138

62,5

68

Vita

Aethiopicus

70-71

70

71,14

41

1

30

12

30

3

17-23

34

12,5

68

21

35,48

30,3

68

190ff

33

38,3

68

196-197

34

197

48

Contra

Henoch

Apionem

2,145-219

31

2,165

100

Rabbinic jTa'anit

Literature Abot

68b

41

bBerakot 28b-29a

42

de-rabbi

42

B, cap.6

42

Mekilta

on

Exodus

31,13 (109b)

bGittin 56b

Nathan

A , cap.4

53

42

bSanhedrin 38b

69

Greco-Roman Aristides

and Christian

Literature

C l e m e n t of Alexandria

Apologia

Stromata

2,2

1,143 VI,5,41,6

1, 143

Cassius Dio Historia

Romana

Didache

37,17,1

26

12,4

57,18,5a

125

Epictetus

60,6,6

128

66,7,2

139

67,14,1-2

142

143

Dissertationes 2,9,19-20

25

Index Epiphanius

of Sources

169

Justin Martyr

Panarion

Dialogus

cum

Tryphone

29,1,2-3

111

16,4

29,6,7

111

47.2

108

29.7.1

111

93,4

42

29,7,5

110

95.3

42

29,7,7

136

96,2

42

29,9

43

108,3

42

30,2,7

136

123,6

42

133,6

42

De mensuris

et

15

ponderibus 136

Martyrium

42

Lugdunensium

1,20 Eusebius Historia

Martyrium Ecclesiastica

2,23,1-18

117

2,23,18

133

2.23.2

117,120

2.23.9

117

2.23.10

117

2,23,13

117

2,23,18

117

3,5,3

133,135

3,12

137

3,17

137

3,19-20

137

Evangelium 36

paganos

7,6,15

127

Plinius Epistulae 10.96.1

144

62

10.96.5

144

10.96.6

144

10,97,1

144

Pseudo-Clement Recognitiones

Philadelpbenses

6,1

Adversus

144

144

Ad

Orosius

144

Romanos

3,3

76

10.96.3

144

Ad

76

9.3

Thomae

Magnesios

10,1

Polycarpi

8.2

10.96.2

Ignatius of A n t i o c h Ad

76

144

1,39,3

136

Suetonius Tiberius

Jerome In

36

Isaiam

52,4 ff

125

Claudius 43

25.4 Vespasianus

127

4,9

118

170

Index

Domitianus

of Sources

Historiae

12,2

141

5,5,1

134

15,1

142

5,13,2

118

Sulpicius Severus

Tertullian

Cronicon

Ad

2,30,7

134

nationes

1,7,9 Adversus

Tacitus

4,8,1

Annales

135 Marcionem 111

Apologeticum

2,85,4

125

5,2

124

13,32,2

131

21,1

135

15.44.2

133

15.44.3

133

15.44.4

134

Index of Authors Aguirre, R.

10,100

D a u t z e n b e r g , G . 5 1 , 54

A l e x a n d e r , R S . 4, 5, 6, 2 7 , 4 2 , 4 4

D a v i e s , W . D . 3, 2 1 , 9 0 , 9 2 , 9 6 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ,

Balz,H.

DeBoer,M.C.

111, 112, 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 70

Barclay, J . M . G . 2 1 , 23, 24, 29, 95, 97, 99, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 , 1 2 8 Bauckham, R.

11,29,39,44,79,109,

110, 1 1 2 - 1 1 3

D e i n e s , R . 15 Deissmann, A.

26

D e J o n g e , M . 59 DelVerme,M.

110, 1 1 7

102

Bauer, B . 37

D e p p e , D . B . 109

Baur,RC.

1,77,80

DerrettJ.D.M.

Becker, H .

11

Dodd,C.H.

103

Bellen,H.

26

Donahue, J.

58

Bernays,J.

134

Betz, H . D .

1 7 , 1 8 , 4 9 , 8 0 , 87, 1 0 9 , 114

Betz, O.

D u n n , J . D . G . 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 1 3 , 2 1 , 2 7 ,

B i c k e r m a n , E . 7 5 , 144 Blanchetiere, R

11,113

134, 136, 141 D u r a n t e M a n g o n i , M . B . 106

57,58 Eichholz, G.

Boffo, L . 26 Bonnard,P. Borg,M.

29, 42, 46, 50, 5 1 , 53, 55, 60, 6 7 - 6 8 , 70, 7 1 , 8 0 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 3 , 9 4 , 9 5 , 1 1 8 ,

58

Bock,D.L.

140

139

54

95-96

E l b o g e n , I. 43 E r i k s o n , K . 11

BorleffsJ.P.

135

E t i e n n e , S. 23

B o u s s e t , W.

18,31,72,73

E v a n s , C . A . 4 0 , 4 1 , 58

Boyarin, D.

13,21,91,96

Brandon, S.G.R 4

Fabris,R.

B r o w n , R . E . 7 4 , 1 0 5 , 106, 108

F e l d m a n , L . H . 22, 23, 24, 26

139

B r o w n , R . E . - Meier, J.P. 108, 119

F r e n s c h k o w s k i , M . 8 5 , 86

Bultmann, R.

F r e y n e , S. 85

18,67,73

F u s c o , V. 5 4 , 6 2 , 6 7 , 7 8 , 8 0 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 8 3 , C a p e s , D . B . 3 9 , 7 1 , 7 3 , 7 4 , 94

8 8 , 89

C a r l e t o n P a g e t , J . N . 8, 6 4 , 107, 116, 133

Garribba,D.

Cassidy,R.J.

139

C o h e n , S J . D . 20, 24, 26, 27 Collins, J.J.

21,23,36

G e o r g i , D . 70, 82, 8 3 - 8 4 , 103, 1 2 6 - 1 2 7 , 144 GnilkaJ.

106,140

G o o d m a n , M . 2 6 , 124, 1 4 1 - 1 4 2

C o o k , M . J . 49 Crossan, J.D.

19

Gaston, L. 4

C a s e y , M . 28

61,62,63,85

172

Index of

G o u r g u e s , M . 56, 57 G u n d r y , R. 62 Hahn,R

19,50

Authors

M a r g u e r a t , D . 8, 3 6 , 7 7 MartynJ.L.

103-105,111,112

Marxsen,W.

54,67

M a s o n , S.

30,31,34

H a r n a c k ( v o n ) , A . 2, 4, 17, 2 4 , 3 1 , 126

M a z z a r i n o , S. 124

H a r t i n , R J . 8 6 , 8 7 , 1 0 9 , 114

McEleney,N.

Hay, D . M .

McHugh,J.

56,59

H e i t m i i l l e r , W. Hengel, M.

18,72

19,24,31,34,39,41,50,

55, 59, 65, 69, 70, 79, 80, 8 1 , 84, 85, 8 7 , 1 0 4 , 109, 1 1 6 , 1 2 6 , 1 4 4

140 106

McLaren, J.S.

116,117

M e e k s , W.A. 1 1 , 1 3 , 2 1 , 72, 80, 97, 99, 101,102,112,116,119,120 Meier, J.P.

13,52,119

H e n g e l , M . - D e i n e s , R . 34, 49

MichaudJ.P.

H e n g e l , M . - S c h w e m e r , A . M . 76

Mildenberg, L . 41

Hill,C.C.

M i m o u n i , S . C . 9, 13, 108, 110, 113

78,79

85

H o f f m a n n , P. 6 2 , 136

M o m i g l i a n o , A . 3 2 , 1 2 8 , 141

Hommel, H.

26

Montefiore, H .

H o r b u r y , W.

43,140

Muller,K.

134,139-140

19,50,53

H u r t a d o , L . W . 3 8 , 3 9 , 6 9 , 7 2 , 74 NeusnerJ. Jeremias,J.

18

3,20,21,27,32

N o d e t , E . - Taylor, J .

J o s s a , G . 9, 1 0 , 1 5 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 3 2 , 5 5 , 5 6 ,

64

N o r e l l i , E . 62

59, 6 0 - 6 1 , 65, 7 7 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 , 142, 1 4 3 , 144

O e g e m a , G . S . 36 Overman, J. A.

106

Kasemann, E. 49,81,103 K a t z , S . T . 4 3 , 4 4 , 113

Painter, J .

K i m e l m a n , R . 3 7 , 4 4 , 112

P a r i b e n i , R . 75

K l i j n , A . R J . - R e i n i n k , G . J . 110

P a t t e r s o n , S . J . 61

K l o p p e n b o r g (Verbin), J . S . 52, 62, 63, 6 5 , 8 5 , 86, 8 7 Koester, H .

P e a r s o n . B . A . 8 5 , 86, 8 8 , 89 P e n n a , R . 9, 2 7 , 2 8 , 8 7

61,62,66,86

Kraabel,A.T.

109,110

22

K r a u s s , S. 4 2

Perrin,N.

58

Pesce,M. 12,63-64, 106,112 P e t e r s o n , E . 75 Pomykala, K . E . 37

Laupot. E.

134-135,136

L i e b e r m a n , S. 19 Lieu, J.

Pourkier, A . Pritz,R.A.

110 110

43

Lifshitz,B.

R a i n b o w , P.A. 74

75

L i n d a r s , B . 56, 57 Linton, O .

58

102

L o h s e , E . 53 Liidemann, G. Liideritz, G .

R a i s a n e n , H . 50, 5 1 , 78, 80, 8 1 , 83, 94,

136

100

L u h r m a n n , D . 4 9 , 51

Rajak,T.

100

ReedJ.L.

85

Reynolds, J . - T a n n e n b a u m , R. 26 R i c h a r d s o n , P. 11 Riesner,R.

Maccoby, H .

27

M a c k , B . L . 62 Manns, R

106

128,129

R i v k i n , E . 34 Robinson, J.M.

61,62,66

Index

R o b i n s o n , J . M . - H o f f m a n n , P. - K l o p ­ penborg, J.S.

62

Authors

173

S t e m b e r g e r , G . 2 0 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 113, 1 1 4 - 1 1 5 S t e r n , M . 118, 1 2 5 , 127, 128, 133

R o b i n s o n , J . M . - K o e s t e r , H . 6 1 , 66 Rolfe, J . C .

of

S t u h l m a c h e r , P. Taylor, J . E .

108,110

T h e i s s e n , G . - M e r z , A . 5 0 , 54

S a l d a r i n i , A . J . 34, 106, 121 Sand, A.

71,94

141

Thompson, L A .

139

S a n d e r s , E . P . 3, 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 2 ,

Todt, H.E.

141

63

4 4 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 2 , 87, 89, 9 0 , 9 2 ,

T r o i a n i , L . 3, 2 2 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 1 2 4

94,

Tuckett,C.

98,100,101,130

7,8,61

S a n d e r s , J . T . 10, 1 1 , 7 2 , 8 7 , 1 1 4 Schaeder, H . H .

V a n a , L . 4 4 , 112

74

S c h a f e r , P. 4 1 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 113, 1 1 5 , 125

Verheyden,J.

S c h e c h t e r , S. 43

Verseput, D . J . 99

S c h e n k e , L . 78

V i d a l - N a q u e t , P. 3 2

Schiirer, E .

Vitelli,M.

2,15,16,17,18,19

Schwartz, D.R.

31

136

20,31,34

V o u g a , F. 12, 4 7 , 6 2 , 64, 6 6 , 6 7 , 8 5 , 94,

S c h w e i t z e r , A . 16, 3 7 , 4 0 , 94

98,112,113,134

S e v e n s t e r , J . N . 19 S i e g e r t , F. 7, 8, 2 6 , 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 36, 7 7

W a c h o b , W . H . - J o h n s o n , L . T . 109

Simon, M.

Wahlde (von), U . C

108

Simonetti, M .

9

Walter, N .

S i n i s c a l c o , P.

9,124

Skarsaune, O .

107

Slingerland, H . D .

35

24

Wander, B . 27 WehnertJ.

127,128

110,133,136

W e l l h a u s e n , J . 2 , 1 5 , 16, 17, 18, 4 5

S m a l l w o o d , E . M . 2 3 , 128

Wengst,K.

114

Smith, D . M .

Wilcox, M .

26

32

Smith, M .

20,32,34,47

Wilken,R.L.

Sordi, M.

9,124,126,128,131

Will, E . - O r r i e u x , C .

Stanton, G . N .

87,106

S t e g e m a n n , E . W . - S t e g e m a n n , W. 1 1 , 100, 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 , 126, 130 S t e g e m a n n , W.

28

124-125

W i l s o n , S . G . 4, 7 , 1 1 8 , 10,

Winter, P. Wood,J.H. W r e d e , W.

34,47 61 54,94

26 125,136

Index of Subjects Ananus

116-117,132-133

J e s u s a n d t h e L a w 4 6 ff

A n s w e r to C a i a p h a s 5 7 - 5 9

J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y 106 ff

A n t i j u d a i s m e 2, 1 1 1 , 1 2 5

J e w i s h i d e n t i t y 2 2 ff

Apocalypticism

15-16,20

J e w i s h m o n o t h e i s m 38 ff

A q i b a 4 1 , 60, 69

Jewish schools

A q u i l a 127, 129

Jewish wars 3-4, 5,118-119

2,15

J o s e p h u s 2 , 3 0 , 143 Birkat

ha-Minim

4 2 ff., 104 ff., 111 ff

J u d a e o - C h r i s t i a n i t y 106ff., 1 3 8 f f J u d a i s m 1, 9 5

C h r i s t o l o g y 5, 1 1 , 64 ff., 8 2 - 8 4 , 94

J u d a s t h e G a l i l e a n 2, 15

C i r c u m c i s i o n 96, 9 8 - 9 9

J u s t i f i c a t i o n 3, 89

C o m m o n Judaism

20-21,27

C o m m u n i t y o f Q u m r a n 3 8 f f . , 88, 9 7

K i l l i n g o f J a m e s 116 ff., 1 3 2 - 1 3 3

C o n t r o v e r s i e s o n t h e L a w 4 9 ff C o n v e r s i o n o f P a u l 8 9 - 9 0 , 9 2 ff

Liberal historiography

2,15,16-17

L o r d s h i p of C h r i s t 7 0 - 7 2 , 9 2 - 9 4 Diaspora

17,23-25,80-81 Mainstream Judaism

E i g h t e e n B e n e d i c t i o n s 4 2 ff., 104 Entry into Jerusalem

55-56

Maranatha

2,11

73

Means of reconciliation 8

Exaltation of J e s u s 6 5 - 6 6 , 8 3 - 8 4

Melchizedeq

E x p u l s i o n of the J e w s f r o m

M e s s i a h s h i p o f J e s u s 54 ff

R o m e 127 ff

39,68

Messianic claimants 4 0 - 4 1 , 5 9 - 6 0 M e s s i a n i s m 1 1 , 3 5 ff., 1 1 8 - 1 2 0 , 136

Fiscus Iudaicus

13 8 ff

M e t a t r o n 39, 6 8 - 6 9

Flight to Pella 1 1 9 - 1 2 0 , 133, 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 N a m e of C h r i s t i a n s Gamaliel II, 42-44

74-76,126

N a z o r e a n s 7 4 - 7 5 , 88, H O f f

G o d - f e a r e r s 2 2 , 2 6 - 2 7 , 98 G o s p e l of J o h n

102ff

G o s p e l of Matthew G o s p e l of T h o m a s

102ff 61-62

Palestinian J u d a i s m

P a r t y o f J a m e s 108 ff., 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 Paul and Philo

H e b r e w s 84 ff Hellenistic J u d a i s m

8-9,17,19,27

P a r t i n g o f t h e W a y s 4, 6, 8 , 1 2 91,96-97

Persecution by Domitian 19,22

H e l l e n i s t s 5 1 , 5 3 , 76 ff

Persecution by N e r o

142-143

133 ff

P h a r i s a i s m 2 - 3 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 2 7 - 2 8 , 31 P h a r i s e e s 15, 2 0 , 2 2 f f , 4 7 ff Politeuma

100-101

Index

Q u e s t i o n of the S o n of D a v i d

56-57

of

Subjects

175

S o n of M a n 3 7 - 3 8 , 5 9 - 6 0 , 6 4 - 6 5 , 68, 70, 86

R a b b i n i s m 2, 1 9 - 2 0

Stephen

82-83

S y n o d o f I a m n i a 4 2 ff., 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 S a b b a t h 52 ff S a d d u c e e s 15, 2 0 , 3 0 , 3 5 , 4 8 , 130,

T e a c h e r o f R i g h t e o u s n e s s 4 0 , 5 9 , 88 Tertium

132-133

genus

S a y i n g s S o u r c e Q, 6 2 , 6 5 , 6 6 - 6 7 , 85 ff

Testimonium

Scribes

T i t l e o f xupioq

115

1, 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 1 4 3 - 1 4 4 Flavianum

143

71-72,93

Search for the d e s c e n d a n t s of David

137-138

Variety of J u d a i s m s

3,28-29

S e r m o n o n t h e M o u n t 87, 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 , 114 S i m o n bar K o s i b a 4 1 , 60 S o n of D a v i d

36-37

Worship of J e s u s

72-74