The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

[iskander]

iskander asked:

Did the failure to return end Jewish Christianity?

I've been thinking about what ended Jewish Christianity and I think the process started in the late second century CE when Irenaeus branded them as heretics. Irenaeus is the first Church father to mention Jewish Christians, and he does so in a negative light. Prior to this it was possible for a Jewish Christian like Hegesippus to say:

And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus.

I think a Jewish Christian could say this in the mid second century CE (if perhaps with a touch of wishful thinking) given that the most popular gospel (and the one placed first in the canon) was Matthew, which is considered to be Jewish Christian, and I reckon that the letters of James and Jude and 1 Peter (which I view as being Jewish Christian as well) could also have been in use by this time (or in any event they were ultimately included in the canon), along with Revelation (which also seems Jewish Christian to me).

In this light, a considerable chunk of the NT is Jewish Christian, and I reckon that the James vs. Paul (i.e., works vs. faith) issue wasn't settled (at least for Orthodox Christians) until after Acts was written (which I view as being as late as c. 140 CE).

So by the late second century CE, Irenaeus (who, if I recall correctly, is the first to mention Acts and to promote a four gospel canon) was saying in Against Heresies 1.26.2:

Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

So this was the beginning of the end of Jewish Christianity, in my view (in tandem with being labeled as heretics in Rabbinic Judaism). What fate could be more fitting for people who followed someone who said, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

Thank you John.
James D. G. Dunn in his book The partings of the ways page 312 , writes that after the first revolt ( 66-70 ) it could be said that all was still to play for. But after the second revolt ( 132-135 ) the separation of the main bodies of Christianity and Judaism was clear-cut and final.


What is the distinguishing characteristic that all and every Christian must have to qualify as one belonging to the religion of Christianity? Answer , baptism .


Did circumcision play the same function in Judaism?

[John2]

iskander asked:

Did circumcision play the same function in Judaism?

I suppose it depends on who you ask. Josephus mentions that a Jew named Ananias told a convert that they could "worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision."

Ant. 20.3-4:

Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion ... it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them ... And when he [Izates] perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not be thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew ... And when he [Izates] had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king's instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he [Ananias] said that he [Izates] might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Ananias.

But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, "Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now." When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do ... But it was God himself who hindered what they feared from taking effect; for he preserved both Izates himself and his sons when they fell into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed to be impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish as to those that have regard to him, and fix their faith upon him only.

So according to this I reckon Ananias would have said "no" and Josephus would have said "yes."

It seems like a complicated question though. In my view, Jews are commanded in the OT to wash themselves as part of ritual purification so they don't pollute the sanctuary/Temple. I can't think of any references to immersion for converts in the OT. I think it is a post-OT development.

As this blogger says:

Every conservative and orthodox convert (and an exponentially increasing number of reform converts) will go to the mikvah (also spelled mikveh) to complete the conversion.

Just in case no one has spelled it out explicitly for you, emerging from the mikvah is when you actually become "Jewish." For a more mystical perspective, some say the immersion in the mikvah is when your "Jewish soul" descends into your body. Some disagree with that characterization (the most common being that converts are born with a Jewish soul in a non-Jewish body), but it's a nice idea/visual.

http://crazyjewishconvert.blogspot.com/ ... shell.html

But this is not the case in Karaite Judaism (which is based on the OT).

Question: What do I need to do in order to convert to Karaite Judaism?

Answer: In order to convert to Karaite Judaism you must first accept the three fundamental principles of Karaism as expressed in the Karaite Confession:

1.I believe in YHWH of Hosts as the only God, and renounce all others.

2.I believe in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scripture, as the word of YHWH and the only religious authority and renounce all other writings, creeds, and doctrines as the words of men.

3.I undertake to study and keep the Tanach, striving to interpret it according to its "plain meaning".

You must also accept the principles expressed in the ancient Karaite Vow:

•"By the covenant of Mt. Sinai and the statutes of Mt. Horev I will keep the holy appointed times of YHWH according to the New Moon and the finding of the Aviv in the Holy Land of Israel, when possible."

If the believer is a male he must be circumcised. Circumcision can be performed by any qualified health-care professional. It does not need to be performed by a religious leader or ‘Rabbi’.

Before converting, the believer must begin to live by the Torah so that by the time he converts he will have internalized day-to-day commandments such as daily Torah study, prayer, Shabbat, Kashrut, and family purity.

https://www.karaite-korner.org/conversion_faq.htm

[John2]

Epiphanius says of Jewish Christians in Pan. 30.16.1 that, "They too receive baptism, apart from their daily baptisms," but whatever this means, baptism does not appear to have replaced circumcision because Pan. 30.26.1-2 says:

Again, they are proud of having circumcision, and boast, if you please, that this is the sign and mark of the patriarchs and the righteous men who have lived by the Law; and they think that it makes them their equals. And indeed they want to give the proof of this from Christ himself, as Cerinthus did. Echoing his silly argument they too say, ' 'It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master. Christ was circumcised; you be circumcised too!'

[John2]

I'm still trying to figure out what Epiphanius means by, "They too receive baptism, apart from their daily baptisms." I'm inclined to see it the same way immersing has become part of the conversion process in Rabbinic Judaism, i.e., as a development of post-OT Judaism. Ferguson notes (on pg. 264) that:

Absence of comment about their one-time or intiatory baptism indicates either a lack of information on his [Epiphanius'] part or perhaps the absence of significant differences.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xC9GA ... us&f=false

I definitely think it did not replace circumcision though, given Epiphanius' statement that "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master. Christ was circumcised; you be too!"

This is all the more significant considering what Epiphanius says in Pan. 30.18.7 about this particular branch of Jewish Christianity (i.e., the Ebionites):

Nor do they accept Moses' Pentateuch in its entirety; they reject certain sayings. When you say to them, of eating meat, 'Why did Abraham serve the angels the calf and the milk? Why did Noah eat meat, and why was he told to by God, who said, 'Slay and eat?' Why did Isaac and Jacob sacrifice to God—Moses too, in the wilderness?' he will disbelieve those things and will say, 'What need for me to read what is in the Law, when the Gospel has come?'

The rejected sayings appear to be only those that pertain to sacrifice though, since this post-70 CE branch of Jewish Christianity was vegetarian and anti-sacrifice (and I think it is therefore likely that this is the branch whose writings were incorporated into the Clementine literature, which is also anti-sacrifice and espouses vegetarianism).

Pan. 30.2.7:

Their origin came after the fall of Jerusalem.

But Epiphanius says that the other branch had a pre-70 CE origin and kept the whole Torah.

Pan. 29.1.3:

But at that time all Christians alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called 'Jessaeans' for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch.

Pan. 29.6.5-7.5:

In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth—there was no other usage of the name at the time. And so people gave the name of 'Nazoraeans' to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, 'because he shall be called a Nazoraean' ... Thus Christ's holy disciples too called themselves 'disciples of Jesus' then, as indeed they were. But when others called them Nazoraeans they did not reject it, being aware of the intent of those who were calling them that. They were calling them Nazoraeans because of Christ, since our Lord Jesus was called 'the Nazoraean' himself—as the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles say ... But they are Jews in every way and nothing else. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do. For they do not repudiate the legislation, the prophets, and the books which are called Writings by the Jews and by themselves. They have no different views but confess everything in full accord with the doctrine of the Law and like the Jews, except that they are supposedly believers in Christ.

For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and that all things have been created by God, and they declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ.

They are perfectly versed in the Hebrew language, for the entire Law, the prophets, and the so-called Writings—I mean the poetic books, Kings, Chronicles, Esther and all the rest—are read in Hebrew among them, as of course they are among the Jews.

They are different from Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following ways. They disagree with Jews because of their belief in Christ; but they are not in accord with Christians because they are still fettered by the Law—circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest ...

But they too are wrong to boast of circumcision, and persons like themselves are still 'under a curse,' since they cannot fulfil the Law. For how will they be able to fulfil the Law's provision, 'Thrice a year thou shalt appear before the Lord thy God, at the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Tabernacles and Pentecost,' on the site of Jerusalem?

For since the site is closed off, and the Law's provisions cannot be fulfilled, it must be plain to anyone with sense that Christ came to be the fulfiller of the Law—not to destroy the Law but to fulfil the Law—and to lift the curse that had been pronounced on transgression of the Law.

Not that there wasn't some form of vegetarianism in pre-70 CE Jewish Christianity. Hegesippus says that James did not eat meat, and Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:25-30:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

And Rom. 14:2-3:

One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

So the issue (pre-70 CE) seems to be related to eating meat that was (or was thought to be) sacrificed to idols, and after 70 CE a doctrine of total vegetarianism was developed by the Ebionites (to such an extent that the parts of the Torah that pertained to sacrifices were rejected), perhaps in response to the destruction of the Temple.

[John2]

That this vegetarian/anti-sacrifice doctrine of the Ebionites (which they ascribed to Jesus) is a post-70 CE development is supported by Jesus in Mt. 5:17-24:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven ... if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

[John2]

Now that I think about it, the anti-sacrifice stance of the Ebionites (if not their vegetarianism) is more or less similar to the response to the destruction of the Temple that most non-Orthodox Jews have today, in the sense that the parts of the Torah that pertain to sacrifice are rejected (or downplayed, or ignored, or interpreted to mean something else, or suspended for the time being for this or that reason). All Jews have been in this same boat since 70 CE, i.e., deciding one way or another how to live without the Temple, and I guess the Nazarenes (my preferred spelling) were the Orthodox Jewish Christians (like Jesus seems to be in Matthew 5).

The belief remains strong in Orthodoxy that these prayers will be answered by God and the sacrifices restored. Prayers for the restoration of the sacrifices are scattered through the traditional liturgy. Especially in the Additional service, Musaf, on Sabbaths and festivals, the prayer is recited for Israel to be restored to its homeland, the Temple to be rebuilt, and the sacrifices offered.

Reform Judaism, in the last century, reinterpreted the Messianic hope in universalistic terms and rejected not only prayers for the restoration of sacrifices but the whole idea of Israel’s return to its homeland.

While Reform Judaism today has a much more positive attitude to the return, the Reform attitude is still too universalistic to permit references to the old sacrificial system in prayer. Sacrifices were, indeed, once highly significant but they have now been superseded under divine guidance.

Conservative Judaism, on the other hand, believes that to delete from the Prayer Book all references to the sacrifices is to ignore the significant role the sacrifices played in Jewish history. And yet, since many Jews do not believe that the sacrificial system will one day be restored, to pray for its restoration is to engage in double-think.

To cope with this problem, the Conservative Prayer Book retains the references to the system but substitutes for the words ‘and there we will offer’ the words: ‘and there our forefathers offered.’

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/sacrifice/

[John T]

Perhaps the tax on Jews or fiscus Iudaicus has not yet been discussed on this thread or needs to be brought up again.

"The tax was initially imposed by Roman Emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War of 66–73 AD (first Jewish revolt) (Josephus BJ 7. 218; Dio Cassius 66.7.2)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Judaicus

Jews and Jewish-Christians were required to pay the tax, all other Christian sects were not.
The restitution tax of two denarii was equal to the temple tax that would normally go for the maintenance of the Jewish temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D.

Christians were exempt from paying the tax to the procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum and indicates that the split between Christianity and Judaism was recognized by the Roman Empire as early as 70 A.D.

[DCHindley]

Perhaps the tax on Jews or fiscus Iudaicus has not yet been discussed on this thread or needs to be brought up again.

The tax was initially imposed by Roman Emperor Vespasian as one of the measures against Jews as a result of the First Roman-Jewish War of 66–73 AD (first Jewish revolt) (Josephus BJ 7. 218; Dio Cassius 66.7.2).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscus_Judaicus

Jews and Jewish-Christians were required to pay the tax, all other Christian sects were not.
The restitution tax of two denarii was equal to the temple tax that would normally go for the maintenance of the Jewish temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D.

Who paid or did not pay the tax to the procurator ad capitularia Iudaeorum would indicate that the split between Christianity and Judaism was recognized by the Roman Empire as early as 70 A.D.

JT,

I do not seem to have saved any of it on my hard drive, but I think it was brought up on the predecessor board (FRDB) or perhaps that board's predecessor (IIDB), and again before that on the YahooGroup Crosstalk2 (XTalk).

The discussion boards above should still be searchable through Peter Kirby's search engine on one of the subforums here.

Unfortunately, YahooGroups have been emasculated by the current owners of Yahoo, but posts can still be searched. The old links are now dead, but a live link to Crosstalk2 is here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crosstalk2/info

Let's just say that everyone pretty much ignored the evidence and jumped to conclusions that confirmed whatever they wanted the evidence to mean. A lot of the discussion about Christian participation, or non-participation, in paying the tax centers around the Gospel story (Matthew 17:24-27) of Jesus having Peter catch a fish which will conveniently have a coin in its mouth with enough to pay temple tax for both of them.

FJ was imposed on the Judeans by the Romans as a collective penalty. The Romans would have nothing to do with letting Judeans, wherever they were, have a (modest) burden removed because of the folly of their fellow countrymen in Judea & Galilee, so the FJ was imposed as a replacement. In some places Jews who tried to conceal their circumcision (they never used the baths, etc.) to avoid paying it were cruelly humiliated by publically exposing their privates to see if they were circumcised. The same would apply to "Jewish christians" (who I suppose were circumcised), but would it have applied, or have been enforceable, to "gentile Christians" (who I suppose were not). Looking for signs of circumcision was not effective with them. Should the test be "following Judaic ways" (like observance of the dietary laws and festivals/Sabbath have bee realistically enforceable? Lots of people, including Roman citizens, had adopted Judean ways to a certain degree.

To the Romans, the Judean God was just a form of Jupiter, so the money was collected and deposited in the Temple of Peace in Rome and may have served more than one purpose:
1) To repay Rome for the loss of life and the cost of the campaign, which must have been enormous.
2) To defray the cost of its rebuilding, when this might occur, if ever.

I don't think the Romans were necessarily against reviving the client kingdom of the late Herod the Great, as Agrippa II was given pretty much all of it for a few years until his death. But Herod was a financial and strategic genius, while Agrippa II was simply lucky as hell (thanks to his connections within the imperial household, including emperors), a mere shadow of his father.

I think the Romans were willing to entertain the idea. While in the outcome of the war Judea/Galilee became the private property of the emperor ("spear-won" was the term used by the Macedonian Greeks), he may have considered himself as holding it in trust to be delivered, should this become advisable, to a suitable client king. This money on deposit could be appropriated and used to rebuild a new Judean temple to help the popularity of any new client king.

There just weren't any stand-out Herodians, or even Hasmoneans, available to set up as "puppets."

The key words of that Matthean pericope are when Jesus asks Simon Peter:

25 ... "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?" 26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free." 27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."

This can be taken a number of ways. Who exactly are the "sons" who are free? Judeans? Jewish christians (note the little "c")? Gentile Christians (note the big "C")? Who are the kings of the earth? Judeans? Romans? The original temple tax was not a government tax, but a religious one paid to the temple. So there should not be any "kings" involved, although in Jesus' time Judea was in the emperor's trust in that period, considered part and parcel the emperor's private property and thus administered by the emperor, who governed indirectly through a Procurator who was given the powers of a Prefect. This governor was also the overseer of the temple apparatus, which included collecting religious dues. I just don't think the Judeans would consider the HPs of Jesus' time as "kings".

DCH

[John T]

Here is an interesting link that summarizes when the Roman Empire formally acknowledged that Judaism and Christianity were two different religions.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/rev ... -the-ways/

In summary; Emperor Domitian taxed anyone suspected of having a Jewish heritage. However, Nerva in 96 C.E. reformed the tax and imposed it only on, “Jews who continued to observe their ancestral custom". Under Nerva, the fiscus Judaicus applied to neither gentile Christians nor Jewish Christians, according to: "The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways", by Marius Heemstra.

[John2]

John T,

I read Cohen's review and what I can see of Heemstra's "Fiscus Judaicus" on Google books and my impression remains the same as I had from reading the primary sources, that the distinction between Jews and Christians wasn't clear to Romans as late as Domitian's reign, as Cohen summarizes in his review:

Heemstra argues that gentile Christians and Jewish Christians alike were persecuted and punished by Domitian for their failure to pay the fiscus Judaicus.

And Heemstra adds Rev. 13:15 and 20:4 to the list of possible allusions to the persecution of (Jewish) Christians by Domitian.

The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I think orthodox Christians attempted to make this distinction clearer (in a process started by Paul) in the same manner as other writings that Josephus says were created after 70 CE in his preface to the Jewish War:

... some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but no where the accurate truth of the facts ...