Second century Judæo-Christian relations

Lara Brown

Supplement №3, Volume II

It was inevitable from the moment Jesus began his ministry that there would be a textual conflict between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. In particular, there was the overwhelming issue of Jesus’ messianic status. As neither a warrior nor someone who brought peace or salvation to the Jewish people, it was impossible to even consider his claim to be the messiah. The very manner of Jesus’ death—on the cross, as a common criminal—presented another stumbling block. Furthermore, Jesus’ attitude to the Old Testament had the potential to be hugely problematic; he argued himself to be fulfilling and through some interpreters eyes, superseding the laws of the Torah. Mathew 5:17 highlights this tension when Christ argued: ‘[d]o not think I have come to abolish the Laws or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them’¹. This caused followers of Christ to view the laws of Moses through a completely different lens. These theological differences could, at first interrogation, appear to make Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity irreconcilable from the moment Christianity was established. However, the two sects appeared to coëxist throughout, at the minimum, the second temple period. At this early point in Christian history the Jews were described as merely baffled by Christians’ belief in Jesus’ messiahship. Rabbinic literature barely addressed Christianity, presenting it as an irrelevant sect.

Due to the coëxistence of the two religions in the first century despite these theological contradictions, this essay his given less weight to a view of textual conflict as the source of the split, instead considering the two religions’ perceptions of each other, and when and how they dealt with and recognised underlying textual differences, not when and how these differences arose. In particular, recognition of these differences seems not to have occurred during the first and possibly the second century, as there was an seemingly blurred division between the two sects.

In answering this question, the period which will be examined ranges from 64 c.e. when the Christians were persecuted by Nero as a distinct group after the great fire of Rome, to 170 c.e. as Josephus ends his narrative. It may appear unusual that these chosen dates extend so far into the second century, as it is often assumed that the division was complete by the end of the second temple period, with the sack of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. acting as a consolidating point. This fails to recognise the blurred lines between the two groups which existed long after the Jewish-Roman war and overestimates the significance of the fall of the temple.

Judaism in the period addressed by this essay is too diverse to be dealt with as a distinct entity. Rabbinic Judaism is therefore the focus. Throughout the first and second centuries it was a way of life formulated by the rabbis with the majority of its written sources finalised after around 100 c.e. onwards. Its teachings were rooted in the Hebrew Bible and it is widely considered the foundation of all forms of Judaism which exist today. Rabbinic Judaism typically dealt with the Torah as well as the ‘oral law’ (tradition). When dealing with rabbinic sources, several contentious issues arise. They tend to address a very limited range of issues and very rarely regard or acknowledge contemporary historical events. Neither the Jewish-Roman wars nor the rise of Christianity are extensively engaged with. This is likely because they were written chiefly for internal consumption. Rabbinic texts are also likely to have been censored by both Jews and Christians, meaning the few original allusions to Jesus and the Christians in the texts may have been removed by the Jews for their own protection. It is further important to remember that Rabbinic Judaism was not representative of Judaism at the time; it has been chosen for this study because after the Jewish war it became the dominant and representative strain. It is also arguably the only group possible to study, as they authored the few sources we have.

The traditional view of the Judæo-Christian split views the Jewish-Roman war as the primary cause of the divide. A. von Harnack argues that ‘[i]t was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which seems to have provoked the final crisis, and led to a complete breach between the two parties.’² The Roman persecution of the Jews which followed the temple’s fall is often seen to have motivated Christians to distance themselves from the Jewish faith so as to protect themselves. Further, the two strains of belief interpreted the cause of the temple’s destruction differently. Christians saw the fall of the temple to be a rejection of the Jews by a vengeful God and a punishment for the killing of Christ; Jews, on the other hand, viewed it as a correction by a still loving God for their failure to adequately follow his laws. Moreover, the sack of Jerusalem is believed by many scholars to have marked the beginning of a period of oppression of the Jews by the Romans, leaving adherence to the Jewish sect by Christians less appealing. This scholarly tradition is reliant on the view that the sack of Jerusalem was calamitous, which is certainly true to an extent. We know that thousands were held captive, sold into slavery and killed, large parts of the city and of course the temple (a place many Jews felt God supremely dwelt) were destroyed, Judea ceased to be any sort of political entity, and the Roman hold over it was tightened. Josephus’s Bellum Judaicum tells us that ‘[Caesar] did assign to eight hundred veterans discharged from the army a place of habitation called Emmamaus, distant thirty furlongs from Jerusalem’³. Furthermore, the reach of the temple tax was extended. These impacts are recorded in Ezra 4, Baruch 2, and Josephus’s Bellum Judaicum.⁴

Academics such as G. Alon⁵ argue the war was less impactful: he notes that the rest of Judea had already been pacified leaving the final siege to only affect Jerusalem, that there was no change in the legal status of the Jews and that the diaspora was barely affected. Jewish observance, Alon remarks, was not banned and neither was the rebuilding of the temple. Alon argues that the Jews suffered at the hands of the Romans briefly, but were able to restore their relationship fairly rapidly and without lasting damage. This left them in a comparatively strong political position, with the umbrella of Jewish privilege and protection remaining an appealing one to Christians. The Fiscus Judiacus, a tax introduced by Vespasian after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 c.e. is often pointed to as further motivation for the Christians to exercise self-determination in order to demonstrate allegiance to Rome and avoid the tax. However, it is important to note that even at the height of the tax and other Roman oppression of Judaism, the status of the Jews was still far higher than that of the Christians. Profession of Christianity at this time was outlawed and Christians were routinely exiled, as Eusebius tell us: ‘[i]n the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla … was banished with many others to the island of Pontia as testimony to Christ’⁶. In the immediate wake of the Jewish-Roman war Judaism still offered Christians a wealth of privileges and protections which compensated for the tax. As G.W.H. Lampe observes, ‘[t]he capture of Jerusalem by Titus and the burning of the Temple seem, so far as we can judge from the literature of the succeeding century and a half, to have made a surprisingly small impact on the Christian communities’⁷.

An often overlooked consequence of the Jewish-Roman war is that the Yavnean sages were able to found their academy with Roman approval. A popular line of argument follows that after 70 c.e. the actions of the rabbis at Yavneh showed increasing hostility towards the Christians, manifesting in the prohibition of Christian books, closure of the cannon, banishment from the synagogue, as observed in John 8:22 ‘the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue’⁸ and John 12:42 ‘because of the Pharisees they would not properly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue’⁹, and cursing in the liturgy. Further, the development of the sifre minim (‘heretical books’), which were said to cause contamination and had to be burnt has been seen as evidence for the specific targeting of Christian modes of worship. Heretics were considered worse that Pagan idolaters because they knew God but denied him. In the past the sifre minim have been taken to have been exclusively Christian books, although further examination of rabbinic usage has shown that minim is a general word for heretic and would not have been limited to Christians. Gnostics, apocalyptics and Helenizers would have also been targeted by the sifre minum. Here, it becomes important to recognise that the sifre minum was not about distancing the Jewish faith from Christianity, but simply preserving its purity. The measures taken by the Yavnean Sages were necessitated by the damage to Jewish identity caused by the war with Rome. Stephen G. Wilson argues that the negative impact on Christians as well as the degree to which they were impacted by these doctrines has likely been overstated: ‘[i]n recent works, however, there has emerged a largely persuasive consensus that the anti-Christian motives of the Yavnean rabbis have been considerably exaggerated’¹⁰.

The banning of texts was known as the Birkat ha-minim (‘benediction against heretics’). The story of the malediction’s origin dates back to around 80-95 c.e. and was recorded in rabbinic writings: ‘Simon ha-Pakuli ordered the Eighteen Benedictions before Rabban Gamaliel in Yavneh. Rabban Gamaliel said to the sages: Is there no one who knows how to compose a benediction against the minim? Samuel Ha-Qatan stood up and composed it’¹¹. These, paired with Johannine references to the Christians being cast out from the synagogue, would support the idea that a major schism took place around this point; just after the sack of Jerusalem. However, it is important not to overlook the fact that the only Christians criticised by Yavnean sages would have been Jewish; people who were increasingly in the minority. Further Stephen G. Wilson emphasises that ‘[t]hese teachings were designed not to attack the Christians but to preserve the stability and purity of the Jewish community’¹².

The apparent rejection of much of the fabric of Christianity as sifre minum may lead some to assume that a definitive split had taken place by around 85 c.e. Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan, however, highlights the lack of clarity of any such division or rejection. Pliny wrote to Trajan in around 112 c.e. after a number of Christians were brought before him on charges lodged (often anonymously through pamphlets) by the local populace. He mentions that he was not present at the trial of the Christians, informing the reader that one occurred. He further tells Trajan: ‘I do not know the methods or the limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them [Christians]’¹³. Pliny outlines his method for the identification of Christians, explaining: ‘I asked them personally whether they are Christians, if they confessed it, I repeated the question a second and a third time, adding the threat of capital punishment; those who persisted, I ordered to be executed.’¹⁴ The crudeness of this method highlights the difficulties of identifying Christians and demonstrates that the Romans were far more preoccupied with punishing defiance of the party line than actual Christian belief. In his letter to Trajan, Pliny identifies three potential types of Christian: those who confess to Christianity; those who deny it; and those who confess to having been Christians but have since defected. Pliny is certain that the first should be executed (unless they are Roman citizens—a further sign of the uncertain identity of Christianity) and the second set free. He is writing to Trajan for advice on his attitude to the third. Trajan’s response is that Christians should be executed unless they recant, leaving the third group Pliny identified (those who have defected) safe. Trajan also stressed the Pliny should ignore anonymous charges found in pamphlets and that ‘no search should be made for these people’¹⁵. The Romans see nothing particularly unique about Christians and are not interested in seeking them out so much as punishing defiance when they are confronted with it. It is also important to note that Christianity, unlike Judaism, was outlawed, leaving those of the Christian faith with motivation to attach themselves to Judaism on account of the protection on it afforded them, delaying the split further.

One major risk, in the writing of this essay, is the tendency to answer the question from a Christian position. This danger emerges from the abundance of Christian sources in comparison to rabbinic ones. One could therefore easily consider only the changes in Christianity and the theological disputes which emerge from this. It is crucial, however, to consider the evolution of Rabbinic Judaism after the establishment of the Javneh Sanhendrin.

When one considers the state of Judaism in the first century, the traditional rabbinic view of Christianity as a paganized form of Jewish ethical monotheism starts to fall apart. In order to gain a better understanding of the position of first century Judaism it is helpful to analyse the genesis of Christianity; crucially, one must recognise that Jesus’ ministry was just one of many influences—both Judaism and Paganism were arguably equally important. The Judaism which acted as a key source of early Christianity was not the consolidated and clearly monotheistic religion which was finalised and secured at the Yavneh Sanhendrin in the second century. Israelite polytheism was far more pervasive; this championed the view that ‘God was one, eventually the king, of a larger pantheon, a king who had reigned with a divine queen, who had a son, or been a son’¹⁶. This polytheistic view is likely to be the source of Christianity’s trinity. As Segal notes, ‘[h]idden within the texts [rabbinic writings] is the Jewish witness to the rise of Christianity…they indicate that the nascent Christian faith began to differentiate and define itself somewhere on the evolving continuum from earlier pluralistic Judaism to radical Gnosticism’¹⁷. It is only when Rabbinic Judaism moved away from this earlier pluralistic Judaism, rejecting it in the Orthodox synthesis at Yavneh Sanhendrin, that Christianity began to look separate. By observing changes to Judaism and lifting the focus of exclusively Christianity’s evolution, one can locate the split between the two religions much later, in the second century.

One of the most obvious signs that actual division had taken place appeared in Christian apologetic writing. Here, it is important to remember that Christianity was outlawed. The majority of these writings were therefore written to remain within the community; in the cases where they were read by Roman officials their authors tend to have been executed. Three apologetic writings which depict a real shift in the Christian attitude towards the Jews are the Epistle to Diognetus, The First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho. These were all written in the late second century and demonstrate an attitude of aggressive hostility towards the Jewish faith. Epistle to Diognetus tends to be dated between around 130-200 c.e. and immediately poses the question of why Christians do not worship in the same manner as Jews. The author dismisses the Jewish people as foolish for offering sacrifices to a God who does not need them and argues them to be impious for favouring some days, months and foods over others when God created all things equal. The First Apology, generally dated between 150-155 c.e., is even more hostile, positing that ‘Jews are the enemy, denying Jesus and persecuting Christians’ and that ‘despite their devastating defeats by the Romans they do not understand their own fate’¹⁸. Dialogue with Trypho dated between 155-156 c.e. expresses the same sentiment in the form of a Socratic debate. There is a clear change in the Christian attitude towards Rabbinic Judaism towards the end of the second century. Decisive action to alienate themselves from Judaism appears to be taken by Christians. This sudden shift in attitude would suggest the point of the split’s finality to be the first half on the second century. The question now arises: which events provoked this final separation?

The Bar Cochba rebellion in 133-135 c.e. is one good candidate. The revolt was by the Jews against Hadrian, probably in reaction to a ban on circumcision and the building of Aelia Capitolina, a Pagan colony on the site of Jerusalem. Their goal was to overthrow the Romans and reëstablish an independent Judea. The potential restoration of the Temple was another key motive of the revolt, highlighting the importance of the Sack of Jerusalem in the narrative of the split. This goal was epitomised by the Bar Cochba coins which spoke of the liberation of Jerusalem. Here it is important to note that Hadrian would have been unlikely to have been trying to aggravate or persecute the Jews; the wealth of concessions made to the Jewish people by the Roman Empire at this time demonstrates this. The ban on circumcision was part of a wider ban on castration which the Romans viewed as barbaric, and the building of Aelia Capitolina was not intended as an affront to Jerusalem. During the initial rebellion Bar Cochba came to be viewed as a messianic figure; born Simon ben Kosevah his name was changed in the literature to Bar Cochba, ‘son of star’. After the revolt failed Rabbinic writing often refers to him as Bar Coziba, ‘son of lies’¹⁹. There is ample evidence to suggest Bar Cochba attempted to force Christians to accept his messianic status, requiring them to deny Jesus. Those who refused to do this were executed. This is the first evidence of Christian belief in Jesus’ messiahship causing serious friction with Judaism. The Apocalypse of Peter records that ‘[t]hey will promise that “I am Christ who has come into the world”…But this liar was not Christ and when they have rejected him he will kill with his sword and many will become martyrs’²⁰. Bar Cochba’s claims forcibly brought to light this key point of dispute between Jews and Christians for the first time. In 132 c.e. Bar Cochba established an independent Jewish state. He ruled as Nasi—‘Prince’—for three years before its conquest by the Romans in 135 c.e. . After the failed rebellion the Jews faced a period of oppression far heavier than anything they had experienced before. They were banned from Jerusalem and there is evidence in Rabbinic literature that Jewish observance was banned, including observance of the Sabbath²¹, the ordination of rabbis²² and the study of the Torah²³. The date the schism, which had been in progress since the sack of Jerusalem, was finalised, is arguably the point at which this oppression began in 135 c.e. In refusing to recognise Bar Cochba as the Messiah the Christians were directly persecuted by the Jews for the first time. Further, the oppression of the Jews by the Romans left them unattractive as a group for the Christians to ally themselves with. As Lampe argues, the events of the Jewish war were ‘remembered in association with, and to some extent only as a prelude to, the ever more final and crushing judgement of God executed in 135 against the opponents of the church’s claim to be the authentic Israel’²⁴.

The addition of the notzrim²⁵ (Nazerenes, i.e, Christians) to the malediction in what many scholars have suggested was around 135 c.e. significantly strengthens the case for the Bar Cochba revolt. At this point the Christian church would have been increasingly gentile meaning they would no longer have fallen under the minum (curse against heretics). Urbach suggests that Nazarenes would have needed to have been added to those included in the minum after the Bar Cochba revolt as the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church would have been replaced by gentiles, demonstrating the increasingly gentile nature of the Christian church and exemption of the vast majority of Christian liturgy from the old malediction. This was symbolic of a major turning point in Judæo-Christian relations, caused by the Bar Cochba revolt and subsequent oppression. It is the first example of a formal, liturgical malediction, approved by Yavnean leaders and read out in synagogues to specifically condemn Christians.

It is easy to adopt the simple narrative that the division between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity was finalised by the fall of the temple, addressing the sack of Jerusalem as a final and decisive event. This approach must be avoided due to its lack of appreciation for the nuanced relationship between Judaism and Christianity throughout much of the second century. There is an undeniable shift in Judæo-Christian relations after the fall of the Temple, but this change is not sufficiently definitive to be labelled as a split. There are some instances of Christians being identified as a distinct group before 70 c.e., Nero’s persecution of the Christians by way of scapegoat after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 c.e. being the most prominent example. This provides evidence that Christians could be identified by both the local people they were disliked by and Nero’s régime at a very early point. It does not demonstrate that Christians were in any way separate from Judaism. The ongoing changing relationship between Christianity and Judaism after 70 c.e. is evidenced by the increasingly hostile attitude adopted by the Yavnean Sages, who congregate as a consequence of the sack of Jerusalem. Despite this, the temptation to view the division as complete after or even solely caused by the Jewish-Roman war must be avoided. There was no clear or decisive separation at that early point and Pliny’s letter clearly demonstrates that Christians were yet to establish a unique identity. The point when the split became irreversible is therefore most likely to have been after the Bar Cochba revolts. This was the first time Jews actively persecuted Christians, and the addition of the notzrim malediction marks the first formal liturgical separation from Christianity by Rabbinic sources. Furthermore, Christian apologetic writings after 135 c.e. support this view of separation.