Clifford Denton looks at the growing distinction between Jewish and Christian communities in the first century AD, and the Roman persecution which propelled it.

In the last few studies we have reviewed the initial factors that disturbed the unity of the early Christian Church from its Hebraic heritage. This week we will consider how the parting of the ways was effected by the middle of the second century.

Recap

In Our Father Abraham, Dr Marvin Wilson summarises the factors that led to the early separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots:

• There was inevitable tension over the proclamation that Jesus was the expected Messiah, both in terms of Messianic expectation and of theological interpretation.
• Though one has to deal carefully with the reaction of the Synagogue, it seems wise to conclude that at first, there was only general resistance to Christians from this quarter, rather than total exclusion.
• The rising alternative Messianic expectations in the Jewish Revolts brought another element to separation. Followers of Jesus did not form an alliance with those in revolt against Rome, and so were further alienated from the general Jewish community.
• Meanwhile, the failure of the revolts brought catastrophe to the Jewish nation, the fall of the Temple and of the city of Jerusalem, the Diaspora, the rise of the Synagogues and the move to codify the Oral traditions and consolidate Judaism. Both Church and Synagogue were contributing to their parting of ways.

Understanding this early divergence and the separation which followed is not just a useful history lesson. It helps us to understand even the current situation relating to Christianity and Judaism - not so much to allocate blame, but to better appreciate what needs to be repaired in their relationship.

1st Century Jews and Christians differed because of their theologies, their Messianic expectations and the fallout from the Jewish revolts.

Growing Diversion

Clues to the degree of separation between the Christian Church and the Synagogue can be pieced together from available historical evidence. For example, a comment is made by the Roman historian Suetonius concerning a dispute between Jews and Jewish Christians in Rome in 49 AD. Claudius expelled both groups as if there were no distinction between them:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Christus. (From Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonias. Available as a Wordsworth Classic, 1997)

However, by the time of Nero in 64 AD, there was a distinction between Christians and Jews - and it was the Christians who were blamed by Nero for the burning of Rome. The Emperor NeroRoman historian Tacitus discusses this in his Annals of Imperial Rome. Following a description of a night of debauchery involving Nero we read:

Disaster followed. Whether it was accidental or caused by criminal act on the part of the emperor is uncertain – both versions have supporters. Now started the most terrible and destructive fire which Rome has ever experienced. It began in the Circus, where it adjoins the Palentine and Caelian hills. Breaking out in shops selling inflammable goods, and fanned by the wind, the conflagration instantly grew and swept the whole length of the Circus...First, the fire swept violently over the level spaces. Then it climbed the hills...

Terrified, shrieking women, helpless old and young, people intent on their own safety, people unselfishly supporting invalids or waiting for them, fugitives and lingerers alike – all heightened the confusion. When people looked back, menacing flames sprang up before them or outflanked them. When they escaped to a neighbouring quarter, the fire followed – even districts believed to be remote proved to be involved...

The fire raged for several days and only four of Rome's fourteen districts remained intact. Nero looked for a scapegoat. Tacitus describes this clearly:

...neither human resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated. To suppress rumour, Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital.

First, Nero had self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned – not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies. Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animals' skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowd – or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer. Despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man's brutality rather than to the national interest. [emphases added]

Thus, from descriptions of the flow of history we find that observers have given us evidence as to the timing of the separation between Jewish and Christian communities. Between the middle and end of the first century, this separation was becoming more noticeable – Jews and Christians were treated as two distinct groups. We now turn to another clue which will help us understand their growing divergence.

By the end of the first century AD, Jews and Christians were being treated as two separate communities.

From Sabbath to Sunday

In his extensive analysis, From Sabbath to Sunday (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome, 1977), Samuele Bacchiocchi traces the details of when Christian celebrations of the Sabbath became Sunday meetings. This is a major clue to how far the Church had become separated from the Jewish community. His analysis confirms the view given by Wilson in Our Father Abraham that by the time of Justin Martyr (around 160 AD), "the parting of the way seems to be largely finalized" (p83).

Bacchiocchi notes that early Christians celebrated the Sabbath in the tradition of Judaism:

...analysis of the New Testament sources regarding the Jerusalem Church has firmly established that the primitive Christian community there was composed primarily of and administered by converted Jews who retained a deep attachment to Jewish religious customs such as Sabbath-keeping. It is therefore impossible to assume that a new day of worship was introduced by the Jerusalem Church prior to the destruction of the city in A.D. 70. We might add that in view of the enormous influence exerted on the Church at large by the Jewish Christian leadership and membership, it would have been practically impossible for any Church anywhere to introduce Sunday observance prior to A.D. 70. W.D. Davies, a well-recognized specialist on early Christianity, concisely and sagaciously summarizes the religious situation at the time:

'Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the Jews. They took it for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last Supper with his disciples and sealed by his death, did not mean that the covenant made between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the dominant element in the Christian movement.' (p151, with a quote from WD Davies, Paul and Jewish Christianity, 1972. Emphases added)

Even up to 135 AD, despite the flight to Pella by Christians after the fall of Jerusalem, there is evidence of continued observance of the Jewish traditions among those in the Jerusalem congregations. Yet, various other factors gradually eroded this adherence to biblical custom. This seems particularly to be the case when Gentiles came to be the majority in the Christian Church and when congregations developed outside of the Land of Israel.

Bacchiocchi identifies trends in this way with the Church in Rome. We have rehearsed some of the historical factors regarding Christians and Jews in both Israel and Rome and the various pressures that were evident on these communities. Bacchiocchi concludes:

The introduction of Sunday worship in place of "Jewish" Sabbath-keeping- the latter being particularly derided by several Roman writers of the time – could well represent a measure taken by the leaders of the Church of Rome to evidence their severance from Judaism and thereby also avoid the payment of a discriminatory tax. (p173)

Christian Anti-Judaism

Bacchiocchi also identifies a broad range of Christian writers who wrote against the Jews in the second century:

...how different at that time was the attitude of many Christian writers towards the Jews! A whole body of anti-Judaic literature was produced in the second century condemning the Jews socially and theologically...

...The following list of significant authors and/or writings which defamed the Jews to a lesser or greater degree may serve to make the reader aware of the existence and intensity of the problem: 'The Preaching of Peter', 'The Epistle of Barnabus', Quadratus' lost 'Apology', Aristides' 'Apology', 'The Disputation between Jason and Papiscus concerning Christ', Justin's 'Dialogue with Trypho', Miltiades' 'Against the Jews' (unfortunately lost), Apollinarius' 'Against the Jews' (also perished), Melito's 'On the Passover', 'The Epistle to Diognetus', 'The Gospel of Peter', Tertullian's 'Against the Jews', Origen's 'Against Celsus'. (p179)

Justin, in particular, is singled out to demonstrate the issue:

The Sabbath to Justin is a temporary ordinance, derived from Moses, which God did not intend to be kept literally, for He Himself "does not stop controlling the movement of the universe on that day." He imposed it solely on the Jews as "a mark to single them out for punishment they so well deserved for their infidelities." The acceptance of this thesis makes God guilty, to say the least, of discriminatory practices, inasmuch as He would have given ordinances for the sole negative purpose of singling out the Jews for punishment.

Thus we can trace the general trend of Church leaders in the Gentile world, particularly in Rome, to react against their Jewish roots and to demonstrate this through ignoring the Sabbath day. This in turn led to Christians distinguishing themselves by meeting on the first day of the week instead. This was very clear by the middle of the second century.

The general trend amongst Church leaders in the Gentile world, and particularly in Rome, was to react against their Jewish roots.

Summary

In the years in which we now live, distant from the beginning of the new movement in the world of Judaism that came to be called Christianity, both Jews and Christians are looking back to discover how their ways parted. David Flusser, an eminent scholar of Judaism and the origins of Christianity, confirms the view that we have considered in this study:

The Jewish origin of Christianity is an historical fact. It is also clear that Christianity constituted a new community, distinct from Judaism. Thus, Christianity is in the peculiar position of being a religion which, because of its Jewish roots, is obliged to be occupied with Judaism, while a Jew can live his Jewish religious life without wrestling with the problems of Christianity.

From its very beginnings, Christianity understood itself more or less as the heir of Judaism and as its true expression, at the same time that it knew itself to have come into existence through the special grace of Christ. As the vast majority of Jews did not agree with their Christian brethren in this claim, Christianity became a religion of Gentiles to whom, from the second century on, it was forbidden to fulfill the commandments of the Law of Moses – a book which was, at the same time, a part of their Holy Scriptures.

Already then the majority of Christians thought that the Jewish way of life was forbidden even to those Jews who had embraced Christianity, an attitude which later became official in the Church. While anti-Semitism existed before Christianity, Christian anti-Judaism was far more virulent and dangerous. The latter rejected most of the motifs of Greco-Roman anti-Semitism, as these were used also against Christians, but invented new arguments. Most of these existed as early as the first century – some of them have their own roots already in the New Testament – and by the second century we can recognize more or less clearly the whole direction of Christian anti-Judaism. (pp617-618, Origins of Christianity, Magnes Press, 1988, emphases added)

The consequences of Christianity's severance from its roots are apparent not just in differences in community lifestyle but also in the bad fruit of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. This can be tracked back to the early days of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, gradually strengthening to a parting of the ways by the mid-second century. Wilson puts it this way in Our Father Abraham:

Although a few Jewish Christians apparently still attended synagogue in Jerome's day (ca. A.D. 400), the parting of the way seems to have been finalized by around the middle of the second century. By the time of Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 160) a new attitude prevailed in the Church, evidenced by it appropriating the title "Israel" for itself. Until that time the Church had defined itself more in terms of continuity with the Jewish people; that is, it was an extension of Israel. (p83)

For Reflection and Comment

What can Christians do, without compromising the Gospel message, to restore the perception that disciples of Jesus are joined to the Israel of God?

Next time: Replacement Theology.