After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:13 am

It would be expected that after the 70 the Christians of the Diaspora were more in strict contact - and not less - with Christians came from Jerusalem with the strong intention of judaizing the Christians of the Diaspora. This new invasion of Judaizers was provoked by the same Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which caused therefore not an irrealistic (and often apologetical) division between Christianity and Judaism, but at contrary a second judaization of Jewish sects of the Diaspora that until to that moment were progressively de-judaizing themselves succesfully and would have continued to do so if Jerusalem wasn't fallen (and most of his inhabitants weren't moved to abandon Judaea).

Therefore we should see more freedom from Judaism at the same pre-70 origins of Christianity and vice versa more fabricated links with Judaism after the 70 and the 135. Read: the ebionites and other Jewish-Christian sects were a late phenomenon.

Before the 70 a James the Pillar wouldn't have had no interest to send his Judaizers among the Galatians. But AFTER the 70 the Judaizers had necessarily to abandon Jerusalem and therefore to judaize the communities of the Diaspora. Therefore the Epistle of Galatians fits more a post-70 context.

Therefore it is more probable that the god of the Jews was hated by some Jews of the Diaspora a lot more in a time BEFORE than a time after the 70.

Hence the question is:

1)was also the name "Jesus" a result of that post-70 judaization?

2) was Marcion a "proto-catholic" insofar he wanted to find a first timid accord between previous Christian gentiles and the later Judaizers?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:31 am

I confess that I am partial here to the problems of the our same time: what some call an "invasion" of Europe by the Islamic refugees and the relative problems of integration, the populism, racism etc. The wars in Syria and in Libia may be compared to the Fall of Jerusalem since both the events provoked new migrations of people to Europe. The Apologists as Aristides would be the equivalent of modern preachers of the need of a defence against or pro the acceptation of Islam in the West (think about the preaching of modern fundamentalist imams). And the populist movements may be compared to Pagan reactions against this Jewish missionary zeal under the form of a new religion called Christianity.

But naturally it is difficult to know what happened before the war.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2008
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by DCHindley » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:27 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:31 am
I confess that I am partial here to the problems of the our same time: what some call an "invasion" of Europe by the Islamic refugees and the relative problems of integration, the populism, racism etc. The wars in Syria and in Libia may be compared to the Fall of Jerusalem since both the events provoked new migrations of people to Europe. The Apologists as Aristides would be the equivalent of modern preachers of the need of a defence against or pro the acceptation of Islam in the West (think about the preaching of modern fundamentalist imams). And the populist movements may be compared to Pagan reactions against this Jewish missionary zeal under the form of a new religion called Christianity.

But naturally it is difficult to know what happened before the war.
I think that the only major migrations of Islamic immagrants would be from Syria/Iraq due to the ISIS war against all non-Sunnis. While in the past Shia Islam had been associated with radical Islam, due to the Iranian revolution, happenings in the Lebanon civil war and the Israeli-held Ghaza strip, Sunni Islam has long had its extremists too. Osama Bin-Laden and various Egyptian clerics are examples.

I don't think we are seeing Islamic extremists expanding their exposure through forced immigration from Syria and Iraq. No, the extremists who were hiding in Europe for the right moments to rise up and strike targets exemplifying what they consider decadent western culture and one-sided economic exploitation, were not war refugees. These are almost exclusively Sunni, but they are not refugees. They were carefully planted in those places, and then supported, or at least had their cost of living subsidized, by radical Islamic groups, until opportune targets and means to attack them presented themselves. They lived in the slums where they could "blend in" and plot their plots, free from most scrutiny. However, places like France had once annexed the North African nations that comprised part of their empire, and these that have immigrated to France from North Africa are all officially French citizens. In UK realms, Muslims from India/Pakistan had immigrated to the British Isles after the partition, retaining their religious heritage, if only in a westernized form.

So, transferred to the Greco-Roman world circa 70 CE, you would have probably seen some Judeans, especially Hellenized ones, leave Judaea for less dangerous areas, in the decade or so just before hostilities broke out. However, these were not hot heads or radicals. The only radicalized converts to Judaism that I am aware of were the Adiabene princes. Later, Justin seems to recount conversations he had had with a Judean expatriate who left to get away from an unpleasant situation, and most believe that this likely occurred in the Bar Cochba rebellion (although some do think the account was borrowed from a work written by someone else during the first Judean rebellion). The man in Justin's account is not a radical at all, but a Judean quite comfortable in a Hellenized environment.

The place where Judean radicalism was the biggest problem was in lower Syria and Gentile occupied areas in Judea, Samaria and Galilee (and there were quite a few there). This is where the inter-ethnic violence and attempts at ethnic cleansing, by Greek as well as Judean factions/militias, was the greatest. After the war, almost all Judeans in Egypt and Cyrene were wiped out when Judean extremists who had escaped there created a backlash against all Judeans, guilty as well as innocent. In regions like Europe, Greece and Asia Minor, it seems that Judeans of the Diaspora were not as seriously affected. If any war refugees reached there, they did not seem to bring radicalism with them. But the Judean oriented Sibylline Oracles do seem to suggest that some Hellenized Judeans were looking forward for a day of revolution and regime change where Judeans would come out on top, and rule the empire justly.

DCH

John2
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:45 am

Giuseppe wrote:
It would be expected that after the 70 the Christians of the Diaspora were more in strict contact - and not less - with Christians came from Jerusalem with the strong intention of judaizing the Christians of the Diaspora.
While I think Christianity was "Judaized" from the beginning and only became less so over time, your statement nevertheless reminds me of Josephus' comment about the Sicarii in War. 7.10.1:
Yet did this war afford disturbances and dangerous disorders even in places very far remote from Judea; for still it came to pass that many Jews were slain at Alexandria in Egypt; for as many of the Sicarii as were able to fly thither, out of the seditious wars in Judea, were not content to have saved themselves, but must needs be undertaking to make new disturbances, and persuaded many of those that entertained them to assert their liberty, to esteem the Romans to be no better than themselves, and to look upon God as their only Lord and Master.
I wonder if refugees like this participated in or inspired the Kitos Revolt (as Wikipedia puts it, "major uprisings by ethnic Judeans in Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Egypt" in 115-117 CE).

But my take from Paul (and other early Christian writings) is that Christianity in the diaspora was already plenty Jewish before 70 CE.
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:30 pm

Gerd Ludemann betrayes partially this same my idea, even if obviously he doesn't derive a more radical scenario. I quote him:

Here we find a development which is by no means rare in history, namely that a concern for unity at almost any price (and therefore really of no use) revives the opposed forces which had first sparked off the conflict. This obviously became true in the Pauline communities, which were invaded by Jewish Christian missionaries after the Conference.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8012.shtml

So also a conservative scholar is inclined to image an invasion of Judaizers in the Diaspora communities AFTER the last Conference and thus towards the end of the life of Paul. Towards 70 CE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:41 pm

John2 wrote:
Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:45 am

While I think Christianity was "Judaized" from the beginning and only became less so over time,
with "de-Judaized" I mean that before the 70 the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem were satisfied about the status quo and ignored totally what a Paul was doing in Galatia (or any apostle so independent like Paul in any other place). In other terms, I doubt especially about the authenticity of Galatians 2.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:50 am

Giuseppe wrote:
with "de-Judaized" I mean that before the 70 the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem were satisfied about the status quo and ignored totally what a Paul was doing in Galatia (or any apostle so independent like Paul in any other place). In other terms, I doubt especially about the authenticity of Galatians 2.
I was going to say, for me it comes down to Galatians 2 (which I think is authentic), with the key part regarding the Jewish Christian (or at least James') position on Gentile Torah observance being 2:11-16:
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified ..."
And Gal. 3:1-9:
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham
: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
It also comes down to James 2:8-11:
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
And James 2:20-24:
You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:03 am

My problem for accepting Galatians 2 (at least only the 'so-called 'incident of Antioch'') is the so-called ambiguity of Peter. If Peter was a Judaizer, he should have not shared the banquet with the Gentiles since from the first moment, without awaiting these ''came from James'' to guard him.

But so the story is only a post-70 proto-Catholic propaganda of the kind : ''when Judaizers arrive, you don't imitate Peter''. Real incidents of this kind happened really, only not before 70 CE, but when the Judaizers came from Jerusalem (following the destruction of 70) started to impose their customs on the Christians already in the Diaspora.

Richard Dawkins complained that in the university the Theory of Intelligent Design was taught again since it was filled by Islamic students. You can not agree with Dawkins, but I think that something of very similar happened when Jews (not necessarily Christians) were forced to abandon Jerusalem for the usual motive (wars and destructions) and to meet the Jews of the Diaspora, where they met the Christians too much ''free'' from their point of view.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by John2 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:09 am

Giuseppe wrote:
If Peter was a Judaizer, he should have not shared the banquet with the Gentiles since from the first moment, without awaiting these ''came from James'' to guard him.
I reckon that Paul had some influence on Peter (and/or Cephas, if they are different people), but not, ultimately, as much as the "circumcision group" did (which is what Paul is so angry about in Gal. 2).

It reminds me of the account of Queen Helena and her son Izates, who converted to Judaism in the first century CE under the persuasion of "a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Ananias" and "a certain other Jew," who:
... taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. He [Ananias] ... became known to Izates, and persuaded him ... 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. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear.

And when he had related what she had said to Ananias, he confirmed what his mother had said ... 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 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.

He then sent for his mother, and Ananias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; upon which they were presently struck with astonishment and fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly discovered and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so zealous in another religion; and lest they should themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of his so doing. 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.

(Ant. 20.2.1-4)
Both Helena and Izates were "highly pleased with Jewish customs" and the latter "made haste ... to embrace them entirely" before being persuaded by his mother and some Jews who said that he "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," but he was then persuaded by another Jew to be circumcised.

In both instances I don't question Izates' reverence for and desire to observe the Torah, i.e., he isn't any less gung ho for observing the Torah either way, it's just that under certain conditions, under the persuasion of others, for a limited period of time, Izates was willing to be flexible about circumcision. But then, under the persuasion of another Jew who was "esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country," he decided to have it done. The same goes for Cephas/Peter being flexible about eating with Gentiles for a limited period of time under the spell of Paul and then regretting his lapse when the James party arrived.
Sometimes the light's all shining on me, other times I can barely see.

Giuseppe
Posts: 2370
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: After the 70 was the Christianity more (and not less) judaized?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:18 pm

But then, under the persuasion of another Jew who was "esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country," he decided to have it done. The same goes for Cephas/Peter being flexible about eating with Gentiles for a limited period of time under the spell of Paul and then regretting his lapse when the James party arrived.
The analogy doesn't work at all. It is assumed by both Josephus and the readers that the young Izates had reverence for a figure more old than him (in virtue of the authority deriving from his old age, at least). While why should Peter be ''under the spell'' of Paul? On the basis of which reason Peter had to show a bit of submission towards Paul? His action is explicable only if both the author of the episode and his readers agree on two points:
1) that Peter was a good Christian, after all, i.e., true friend of Paul before and after the incident of Antioch.
2) that Paul was faithful to Peter, after all, i.e. true friend of Peter before and after the incident of Antioch.

In other words, pure proto-catholicism worthy of Acts.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MrMacSon, rakovsky, Secret Alias, Steven Avery and 38 guests