The Image of the

Judaeo-Christians in
Ancient Jewish and
Christian Literature
Edited by PETER J. TOMSON
a d DORIS LAMBERS-PETE

Wissenschafiliche Untersuchungen
aum Neuen Testament
158

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament
Herausgeber / Editor
Jorg Frey
Mitherausgcber I Associate Editors
Friedrich Avemarie . Judith Gundry-Volf
Martin Hengel - Otfried Hofius - Hans-Josef Klauck

The Image of the

Judaeo-Christians in
Ancient Jewish and
Christian Literature
Edited by
Peter J. Tomson
and
Doris Larnbers-Petry

Mohr Siebeck

P E ~ EJ.RTOWSON,
born 1948; Professor of New Testament and Patristics, Protestant
Theological Rculty, Brussels (Flemish Section); President of the lnstitutum ludaicum
Belgium.
DORISLAMBERS-PETRI,
born 1955; curre~itlyteaching History and 1,iterature of the
Second Temple Period and Patristics at the Protestant Theological Rculty in Brussels
(French Section).

ISBN 3-16-1J8(fc)4-5
ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche lJntersuchungcn Turn Neuen Tcstan~cnt)
Dic Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliopaphie;
detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at hrrp:/llnh.ci(lh.tII:

O 2003 by J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.0 . Box 2040, D-71010'rubingcn.

This book may not be reproduced, In whole or In part,rn any form (beyond that perni~tted
by copyright law) without the publisher's wrttten permlr\lon.Thls applle\ part~cularlyto
reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and prtxe\sing In electronic \)stern\.
The book was printed by Ciulde Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper and bound by
Spinner in Qttersweier
Printed in Germany.

The following chapters are the elaborated form of the papers read at the
colloquium held in Brussels under the auspices of the Institutum Iudaicum
of Belgium on 18 and 19 November, 2001. We regret not being able to
print two of the lectures read; conversely, we are happy to publish a paper
that could not be presented. As distinct from the colloquium program, the
papers are arranged more or less chronologically. We have left some variation in bibliographical format in place.
The Institutum ludaicum is an interfaith, inter-university working group
aiming at fostering the study of Judaism at institutions of higher education
in Belgium. It is financially supported on a regular basis by the Jewish,
Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Belgium, and incidentally,
for larger colloquiums, by the governmental institutions for scholarly
research. Every year it organises a colloquium, inviting not only specialists
but also a wider audience. Subjects vary from Jewish Bible exegesis, via
the universal savant Abraham ibn Ezra and a theme like "Surviving after
the Shoah", to the position of the Jews, next to Christians and Muslims, in
modem Western European society.
The subject of 'Judaeo-Christianity'deserves some explanation. To the
mind of the editors, it was motivated by the same aim as the other themes
we have studied: the interest in Judaism in itself in its various appearances
in past and present. The ancient Judaeo-Christians are a forgotten element
both in the history of Judaism and in Church history. The editors grow ever
more convinced that the re-discovery of this element can lead us not only
to a more nuanced understanding of ancient history but also to a new insight into obscured, essential aspects of both Judaism and Christianity.
The theme, however, carries some ambivalence. On the one hand, the
disappearance of the Judaeo-Christians from the history and the consciousness of Jews and Christians must be remedied, but on the other, the revived
interest in the phenomenon tends to be monopolised by evangelical Christians in the framework of heightened eschatological expectations and with
outspoken missionary intentions.
It is only logical that this ambivalence plays its part when scholars in
our day unite to study the ancient Judaeo-Christians. There is no totally
detached or 'objective' science here any more than elsewhere. All scholars
have their personal motivations and serve particular aims and interests, and

these are bound to colour their observations and presentations in some way
or another. The best we can do is be frank about these, so that our listeners
or readers are able to cross-check our presentations on our motivations and
draw their own conclusions. That is why we had the Colloquium start with
a special section on present-day Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews and
on the mission to the Jews.
In the printed form, such a separate section did not seem preferable. The
respective contributions were moved to the back of the book, by way of
outlook on modern times. They largely accord with the view of the organisers that the presence of Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews in our midst
is to be welcomed as an important fact both theologically and historically,
but that in our post-Shaah era, more than ever, relations between Jews and
Christians must be based on mutual respect and abstention from mission
and active proselytism.
Otherwise, the contributions are printed at the sole responsibility of the
authors. While many converging lines reflect a common interest, points of
disagreement are not absent. This includes the first paper that aims at outlining a synthesis of the early history of Jews and Christians which could
accommodate for the Judaeo-Christians - instead of excluding them - by
building on the Jewish basis of the message of Jesus and his disciples.
Readers can see for themselves that the contributors have their own views
there. So let it be. Scholarship is a democratic process in which discussion
is vital. It is our fervent hope that the debate on the present subject may
grow in depth, in substance and in candidness, and that in such a way a
better understanding of the common history of Jews and Christians and of
their mutual traditions will come within reach.
It remains for us to thank all those who participated in the colloquium, in
the first place, and most heartily, the authors who took so much effort to
give their papers and to prepare them for publication. In the second place
we wish to thank the institutions who gave their material support: the
Jewish, Roman Catholic and Protestant communities in Belgium, the
VIaams Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onder~oek,the Fonds National de
Recherche Scientifique, and the Comrnunaute Frangaise de Belgique.

Peter Tomson
Doris Lambers-Petty

Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PETERTOMSON
The wars against Rome, the rise of Rabbinic Judaism and of
Apostolic Gentile Christianity, and the Judaeo-Christians:
elements for a synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A paradigm for the early history of Jews and Christians 1
The social impact of the Great War 5
The regime of Rabban Gamliel (Mt 6; Did 8) 8
The separation of Christians from the community (Jn 9:22) 14
Evidence of enduring continuity (Luke-Acts, IClement) I8
The radical separation process after Bar Kokhba 22
The Judaeo-Christians within Jewish and Christian history 25
DORISLAMBERS-PETRY
Verwandte Jesu als Referenzpersonen fiir das Judenchristentum
Die Jakobusklauseln 32
Der Jakobusbrief 35
Der Judasbrief 3 7
Traditionen llber das Martyrium des Jakobus und des Symeon 38

. ... .

Die BrOder Jesu in den Schriften judenchristlicher Gemeinschaften des

zweiten Jahrhunderts 41
Das Nazargerevangelium 42
Das Ebioniierevangelium 43
Das Hebrtierevangelium 44
Die Judas-Thomas-Tradition 45
Das Thomasevangelium 46
Thomasbuch und Thomasakten 46
Gnostische Jakobustraditionen 47
Der Apokryphe Jakobusbrief 48
Die Jakobusapokalypsen 49
Jakobus in den judenchristlichen Traditionen der Pseudoklementinen 49
Schlussbemerkungen 51

DANIEL
STOKLBENEZRA
'Christians' observing 'Jewish' festivals of Autumn

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Paul and Hebrews: No call for abandoning the Fast of Yom Kippur
Luke-Acts: Christian God-fearers observing Yom Kippur 61
Hegesippus: Christian Jews reinterpreting Yom Kippur 63

57

VIII

Contents

Origen and John Chrysostom: Gentile Christians observing Yom Kippur 66

'Abd al-Jabbiir and his Judaeo-Christian Source: Jesus observed
Yom Kippur 70
Conclusions 72

FOLKER
SIEGERT
Vermeintlicher Antijudaismus und Polemik gegen Judenchristen
imNeuenTestament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Das Problem 74
Johameisches 75
Matthaus und seine paradoxe Verwendung in der Kirche 78
Judenchristen als Gegner des Paulus 80
Die Lage in den ersten christlichen Gemeinden 80

74

Abwehr judenchristlicher Korrelchiren der paulinischen Mission im

Galaterbrief 81
Die V e r h m n g der Fronten 82
Einfluss und Legitimation des Herrenbruders Jakobus 83
Zurn Konflikt zwischen Jakobus und Paulus 86
Lukanische Kompromissversuche 86
Das Aposteldekret und andere ,Nachbesserungen" 87
Die Brtiskierung des Paulus durch die Judenchristen in J e ~ s a l e m 87
Die Nachtr2glichkeit des Aposteldekrets 91
aerlegung zu den doktriniiren Komponenten des Konflikts 92
Distanznahmen vom Jerusalemer Judenchristentum 96
Seitenblicke auf andere neutestamentliche Texte 99
Der HebrZLerbrief 99
Der Jakobusbrief 101
Bemerkung m 1Kor 14,34 102
Die Apokalypse des Johannes 102
SchIuss 103

JONATHAN
DRAPER
A continuing enigma: the 'Yoke of the Lord' in Didache 6.2-3
and early Jewish-Christian relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
The question of redaction 107
The textual evidence 108
Scholarly options 111
The origin and extent of the Two Ways 111
The origin and nature of Didache 6.2-3 112
The Doctrina Apostolorum 114
Earliest form and redaction of 6.1-7.4 and 13.3-7 115
A Jewish sub-structure? 118
An instruction of the Apostles 120
MARKUSBOCKMUEHL
Syrian memories of Peter: Ignatius, Justin and Serapion . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Tradition, memory and the 'House of Peter' 124

Contents
Three named individuals 127
Serapion 128
Justin 132
Ignatius 136
The Letter to Smyrna I38
The Letter to Rome 140
What else might Ignatius know?

141

WILHELM
PRATSCHER
Der Herrenbruder Jakobus bei Hegesipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Die Funktionen des Jakobus I48
Jakobus als Priester 148
Jakobus der Missionar 151
Die Titel des Jakobus 153
Der Gerechte 153
,,Obliasm 156
Die theologische Wertung des Martyriums 15 7
Zusammenfassung I60

1Rrcw BAUCKI-IAM

The origin of the Ebionites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Who were the Ebionites? 162
Patristic reports of the Ebionites (excepting Epiphanius) 162
The Gospel of the Ebionites 163
The Ascents of James 164
The origin of the Ebionites 172
The Ebionite literature 172
Christology 175
Anti-Paulinism 1 76
On sacrifices 176
The name 'Ebionites' 177

JOSEPH
VERHEYDEN
Epiphanius on the Ebionites

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . .

Jewish-Christian 'sects' in the Panarion

The dangers of syncretism 186
A singular theology and false arguments
Confronting Jesus and the Law 200
Conclusion 205

182

184
187

SIMONC. MMOUNI
Les elkasaiites : ktats des questions et des recherches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
&tatdes questions 209
&tat des sources 212
Les temoignages chretiens 213
Les temoignages manicheens 214
Les tkmoignages islmiques et mazdkens 214

Contents
Le probleme de l'origine du mouvement elkasaite 215
Le fondateur du rnouvement 216
La genkse du mouvement 21 7
Le problbme de l'histoire du mouvement elkasayte 220
La localisation geographique du mouvement 221
La litthatme du mouvement 222
Les pratiques et les croyances du mouvement 223
Msentation d'un 6crit elkasa'ite : 17Apocalypsed'Elkasai ou Rkvelation
d'ElkasaP 225
Conciusion 228

GUYG. STROUMSA
A nameless God:Judaeo-Christian and Gnostic
'theologies of the Name' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
The unutterable Name 23 1
Kyrios 233
Early Christian speculation on the Name 235
Jesus and the Name 238
Gnostic speculations 240

ZEEVSAFRAI
The house of Leontis 'Kaloubas' - a Judaeo-Christian?
The structure 245
The mosaic and the inscriptions 245
The o m e n t a t i o n 246
The nature of the house 24 7
Kaloubas 248
The Judaeo-Christians 249
The Judaeo-Christian hypothesis 250
Judaeo-Christian centres in the 4th-5th Century 255
Conclusion 259

. . . . . . . . . . 245

Appendix: Rabbinic sources about minim from the Amoraic Period

Figures 1-3 264

GIDEON
BOHAK
Magical means for handling minim in rabbinic literature
Stereotyped stories 268
Unusual stories 2 72
Conclusion 276
WILLIAMHORBURY

260

..... . ...

267

The depiction of Judaeo-Christians in the Toledot Yeshu: . . . . . . . . . 280

Toledot Yeshu 280
Images of the followers of Jesus 281
Reflections of Jewish-Christian relations 286

Contents

RANCorn-SHERBOK
Modern Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism . . . . . . . , . . . . . 287
Modem Missions to the Jews 287
Hebrew Christianity 288
Messianic Judaism 290
Critical reactions 292
Responding to criticism 296

SIMON
SCWOON
Christians and Jews after the Shoa and the Mission to the Jews
Christians after the Shoa 299
A new paradigm? 301
Church documents 302
A worldwide change 304
Forms of dissent 306
Beyond the Mission to the Jews? 308
The 'Parting of the Ways' 309
Jewish Christians today 31 1
Indexofsources

.. ..

299

.........................................

315

Index of modem authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1

The wars against Rome, the rise of Rabbinic Judaism

and of Apostolic Gentile Christianity, and the JudaeoChristians: elements for a synthesis
Peter Tomson

The aim of this first contribution is to try and gain an overview of the
period of history in which the phenomenon of Judaeo-Christianity saw the
light. The underlying assumption is that up till now, partial views of this
history predominate among scholars, and that it is only in a more inclusive
perspective that we can really begin to understand Judaeo-Christianity.
Consequently, the task of this paper is anything but a summing up of wellknown facts all agree on. Rather, it will have to consist of an inventory of
major problems that must be tackled and of a sketch of some elements for
a synthesis: building blocks for an inclusive overview of the first centuries
of common Jewish and Christian history in which the Judaeo-Christians
can be naturally accounted for.

A paradigm for the early history of Jews and Christians

The problems we are dealing with have to do not just with the nature of the
sources and the way we read them, but, even more fundamentally, with the
way we view it all together, or in other words, with the paradigm by which
we interpret the period and its events and work them into a synthesis. In
various ways, this includes both early Christian and early Jewish history,
by themselves, and taken together.
As to early Christianity, we have been taught to view it as an entity
whose splendid isolation vis-8-vis Judaism was not impaired by the rather
incidental encounters between church fathers and rabbis. Reports of
clashes between Jesus or Paul and the Jewish leaders, or bctween rabbis
and Christian heretics, only reinforce our idea of separateness. If we come
to think of the Judaeo-Christians, however, they seem to be hard to fit in.
They are something of an anomaly, and this is revealing.'

'

I am referring to Ku~IN's
description of the process of a scientific 'paradigm shifi'
being prepared by the gradual identification of 'anomalies', i.e. observations that remain
unexplained and that finally lead to the breakthrough of a more adequate overall theory.

The term Judenchristen - Jewish Christians or Judaeo-Christians - "was

brought to prominence by F.C. Baurna2He was the founding father of historical criticism, and the novel method he explored made it necessary to
posit a middle ground between the separate entities of Judaism and Christianity. Baur had put himself to the task of finding a historical explanation
of the rise of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish cradle, rather than content himself with the traditionally presumed theological difference between
the two religion^.^ Without the intermediate term of Judaeo-Christianity,
such a historical explanation could not be given. Baur's 'Judenchristen"
may be seen as a first breach in the traditional paradigm. But it was not
sufficient.
The point is that while the earliest followers of Jesus, like their master,
were all Jews, it would be absurd to designate them by terms like 'JudaeoChristians'or 'Jewish Chri~tians'.~
Yet in what sense would Peter, James
or Paul be so different from their second-century counterparts that such
terms would be unfitting for the former yet perfectly acceptable for the
latter? There is something fundamentally wrong with the traditional paradigm. Even with Baur's adaptation, it does not take account of the Jewishness of Jesus and his apostles. Incidentally, I suspect this also explains
why scholars find so much difficulty in defining Judaeo-Chris~ianity.~
Apart from the aspect of diversity, which is prominent also in mainline
ancient Judaism and Christianity, the characteristic feature of the JudaeoChristians is precisely that they continued to live Christianity just as it had
started with Jesus and his disciples, i.e. as a 'sect' of Judaism.
'The crucial part of Baur" approach which is still widely supported by
scholars both Christian and Jewish, concerns the pivotal role of Paul. Baur
assumed a primordial opposition between Paul and the Jewish apostles and
even could speak of "the opposition of Paulinism and Judaism"."n
his
terminology, 'Pauline' law-free Christianity came up against law-observant, 'Petrine'Judaeo-Christiani~y,~
and in that sense Paul would have

CARLETON
PAOEI73 1 , referring to BAIJR'S
ground-breaking study of 183 1 .
Thus the task of historical criticism since BAURas SCHWEITZER perceived it in his
history of Pauline research.
Cf SCHOFPS 356. DE BOER interestingly focusses on the much more adequate
1998a.
appellation 'Nazoraeans', tracing it back to the NT. Cf also MIMOUNI
1998b: 3 1-72; BLANCIIEKLIJN;KHIEGEL;
CARLETON
PAGFT73 1-74 1 ; MIMOUNI
~ C R 95-83;
E
HOWARDp4 n5. See also n30.
BAUR1863/1: 42, chapter title: 'Das Christenthum als allgemeines Heilsprinzip, der
Gegensatz des Paulinismus und Judaismus, und seine Ausgleichung in der ldee der
katholischen Kirche.'
The importance of these concepts o f Raur's is correctly underlined by DUNN 1992:
viii -ix.

The wars against Rome

been the founder of exclusive Gentile Chri~tianity.~

As a result, the 'parting of the ways'between Christianity and Judaism, as it has become usual
to call it,9 would be the necessary consequence of theological dijff'erences
over the validity of the Jewish law. This is where the old paradigm is still
in place. Neither Judaeo-Christianity nor the beliefs and practice of Jesus
and his disciples can have a legitimate place in it.
Baurb assumption about Paul, while being part of his historical approach, was fully in line with traditional Protestant theology, which should
not surprise us.I0 On another level, it makes apostolic Christianity's struggle against Marcionism and Gnosticism and for the preservation of the
Jewish scriptures as the basis of Christianity hard to comprehend." The
decisive shortcoming, however, is that Baur's assumption is an anachronism when read into the pre-70 situation as it appears from a large part of
the evidence. Both Paul himselP2 and his historian, Luke,I3 emphasised
that the Church envisaged by Paul and the other apostles embraced both
law-abiding Israelites and 'law-Sree'Gentiles and presupposed mutual
respect within the overarching salvation perspective. A similar perspective
was apparently still entertained by the authors or editors of such definitely
un-Pauline documents as the Didache and the Revelation of John.I4
Hence we must begin rebuilding our paradigm by taking fully serious
the Jewish basis of the earliest Christian m o ~ e m e n t . 'This
~
sounds as a
commonplace, but beyond the stage of lip service being paid to it, it is not.
It means that subsequent Christian history consists of continuations of - or
of reactions against - the original Jewish beginnings of Christianity. It
means that Jesus'own views and law interpretations are part and parcel of
what is termed 'New Testament theology' and not, as Baur and his immensely influential latter-day follower Bultmann would have it, a mere 'Jewish

Thus also ALON 25f, identifying 'Pauline'and 'Gentile" (anti-Jewish) Christianity;

SIMON91 and SCI~IFFMAN
155f, who hold that the Bar Kokhba revolt completed what
Paul had started. Classically, William WRcDE termed Paul, not Jesus, the 'actual founder'
of Christianity.
See LIEUfor criticism of the narrow theological-doctrinalbasis of the concept.
l o For discussion of these insights see TOMSON1990: 1-8.
I ' The explanation by means of 'early Catholicism' as the synthesis of Paulinism and
Judaism (cf above n6) is unconvincing since it supposes both the victory and the defeat
of Gentile Paulinism. Nonetheless, central parts of this theory have been prominent in
such Protestant theologians as HARNACK
(cf below nl12) and BULTMANN
(below n16).
l2 Gal 2:l-10; Rom 4:10-12; lCor 7:17-20.
l 3 Acts 106 15f; 21. On Luke's 'disinterested' presentation see below.
l 4 Did 1.1, second title: 'Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles" 6.2-3 on food laws
and idol offerings (for the un-Pauline character see FLUSSER1987; cf below n43); Rev
7:4 10.
l 5 A similar approach seems implied by ALEXANDER.

presupposition'.I6 It also means that second century Judaeo-Christians can

be fully accommodated for. The need to call them by that peculiar name is
only because we have been taught to view Gentile Christianity as it rose to
prominence in the same century as 'normative'.
On the side of Judaism," the historiographical problems are of a different nature. A fundamental question is which degree of continuity and
change we may assume between the situation before and aAer the Roman
wars, in particular the Great War of 66-70. To a large extent, it had been a
civil war which deeply changed Jewish society. Of the three 'parties' in the
Land of Israel described by Josephus, two disappeared. The Sadducees,
previously in command of the resources of the Temple, lost this political
and financial basis, and the Essenes saw their spiritual centre at Qumran
wiped out and being used as a Roman garrison for some time. The loss of
these social landmarks must have strongly reduced the sense of diversity
that we get from Second Temple Judaism. In the impoverished social landscape, the Pharisees remained in place and it now befell to them to fill the
gaps. The precise nature and the measure of uniformity of the subsequent
Pharisaic-rabbinic regime will occupy us in further sections.
On this side of the paradigm as well, we must take the Jewish beginnings of Christianity fully serious. For students of Judaism who view
Christianity as being totally foreign to Judaism, not only the Judaeo-Christians but also Jesus and his disciples must remain outside their scope.
Aided in particular by the evidence of the Dead Sea scrolls, they should
widen their view of Second Temple Judaism and try to put such 'nonconformist'Jews somewhere on its social map. The big question for us is
how much of this diversity was left after 70 and what that meant for the
followers of Jesus.
A methodological problem is that whereas for the pre-war period we are
l 6 BAUK1864: 45, "Wenn man die Lehre Jesu ais cinen eigenen Bestandtheil der ntl.
Theologie betrachtet, so ist dabei wohl zu beachten, dass sie n~itden verschiedenen 1,ehrbegriffen, in welche die ntl. Theol. sich theilt, nicht in eine Keihe zusammengestellt wcrden kann. (Sie) ist das Prinzipielle, ...sie ist die Grundlage und Vorausseuung ...; sie ist
[fberhaupt nicht Theologie, sondern Religion;" p128, "...In der ursprllnglichen l,ehrc Jesu
(zeigt sich) der innere Zusammenhang und die wesentliche Identitat des Christenthums
mil der atl. Religion...; so ist dagegen der Paulinismus der entschicdenste Bruch des
christl. Bewusstseins mit dem Gesetz und dem ganixn auf den AT' beruhenden Juden(unmistakably influenced by BariK but adding the history-of-religions
thum." BLJLTMANN
phraseology) opening sentence p I: "Die Verkllndigung Jesu geh6rt zu den Voraussetzungen der Theologie des NT und is: ein Teil dieser selbst;" p3, "Mit solcher VerkUndigung
steht Jesus im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang der judischen End- und Zukunftserwartung;" p190, "Die Theologie des Paulus ist der Predigt Jesu gegenilber eine neue Bildung, und das demonstriert nichts anderes als ebcn dieses, dass Paulus seine Stellung
innerhalb des hellenistischen Christenturns hat."
1 follow the historical perspective proposed by A 1 . o ~ .

The wars against Rome

in the comfortable possession of Josephus' historical accounts, for the

post-war period we must do with snippets of information culled from
church fathers and rabbis, in addition to what is available from Roman
sources. 'I'he conclusion that Josephus correctly ranged himself in the vicinity of Pharisaic tradition is only a partial remedy.I8 The problem is especially important far studying the Bar Kokhba war that ensued in 132-135
CE. Apart from Roman sources and brief passages in Eusebius and other
Christian writers, our information must be carefully gleaned from rabbinic
literature, without forgetting of course the important archaeological finds
of 'Bar Kokhba letters'. The result is at least that the image of post-70
Palestinian Judaism as a community in retreat from history - a view
strongly influenced by Eusebius'thoroughly Gentile Christian Church
History - is wrong.I9 Even after 135, rabbinic leadership in Galilee was
vigorous. It was only the privileged position of Christianity under Constantine the Great that ushered in the gradual decay of Palestinian Jewry.
We are exploring the outlines of a historical paradigm. It includes both
a view of early Christianity that integrates the essential Jewish beginnings
of the new movement, and a perspective on ancient Judaism that accounts
for early Christianity as a dissident movement among others. If we want to
accommodate for Jesus and his early followers and for the second century
Judaeo-Christians, we must keep both sides of the paradigm in view. Basically, we are dealing with one inclusive paradigm by which to read the
first two centuries of common Jewish and Christian history.

The social impact of the Great War

Another basic hunch to be expressed here is that the separation between
Jews and Christians and the consequent isolation of the Judaeo-Christians
was not the necessary result of theological dissent over the law, let alone
of 'the essential difference' between two religions. Differences between
religions can not be measured by the standard of doctrines or 'essences',
but by the shifting social patterns they are embedded in and express themselves by, and doctrinal disputes must always be understood in relation to
their social ba5is. The double separation, of Gentile Christianity from Judaism, and of both of them from Judaeo-Christianity, must have resulted
from a historical amalgam in which doctrinal differences coalesced with
enormous socio-political processes of change to become insuperable ideological b o u n d a r i e ~ . ~ ~
Is
l9

20

For Josephus' position vis-a-vis Pharisaic halakha see TOMSON2002.

See QPPFNHEIMI.K,
esp. the first essay written by the editor.
Cf similar emphasis by RIC~~AKDSON
33-47.

Logically, we could view Christianity as a messianic movement that originated and spread among Jews but quickly also began to attract nonJews,
not unlike the 'Godfearing' Gentiles who in antiquity aff~liatedwith Judaism. Certainly, there were clashes with synagogues over the messianic
significance of Jesus, but these can be well understood as inner-Jewish
conflicts. As from the late first century, however, we observe a different
phenomenon. Christian writings began to affirm Christianity over against
Judaism,and this development became overwhelming over the course of
the second century. It was also during this century that representatives of
Gentile Christianity increasingly began to denounce Christians who kept to
Jewish customs. Apparently a decisive part of JesusVoilowers had meanwhile become deeply estranged from the Jewish basis of their tradition.
Moreover because the estrangement contradicted their basic tradition, it
must be associated with external factors. What could be the cause? It is
dificult not to think of the wars against Rome as a factor of social change.
A good case in point is Antioch. This important city, where close interaction between Jews and non-Jews is evidenced over the ~enturies,~'
also
witnessed the first major i n f l u of Gentile members to what - going by
Acts -- was up till then basically a Jewish movement. If this presentation of
the facts seems to idealistically oppose later developments, this does not as
such justify the assumption that it was created to that aim. It is at least as
plausible that the tradition of a Jewish movement which had gradually
begun to accept nonJews is authentic. It is also likely that the Latinism
Xpto~tavoi,which according to Acts 11:26 was first used in Antioch, originally denoted members from both communities. Confirmation may be
found in the information Paul gives in passing - in a letter that reflects
rising tensions between Jews and non-Jews in the churches in the 50"s -- to
the effect that in preceding years, the Jews had managed without problems
to eat together with non-Jews within the Antiochian church (Gal 2: 12f).22
The apostolic project of one Church embracing Jews and Gentiles was
bound to run aground, however. Some two generations later the bishop of
the same city of Antioch, writing while under way to become a martyr in
Rome following his great examples Peter and Paul, could bluntly present
Xptottavtop6q as the antithesis of 'IouGaiop6& or being Christian as the
opposite of being Jewish: "It is improper to speak of Christ and to live
-

Cf on Antioch BOCKMUEHL
49-83, and, succinctly, TOMSON1990: 2f.
This first-hand repon agrees with the harmony in the Antiochian church around
Peter, Barnabas and Paul as presented by Acts 1 1 :26. Similarly lPet 4: 16 Xpioriav6q,
possibly addressing Gentiles (4:3), needs not exclude Jews; cf the priesthood imagery
807, an
2 5 , 9. In view of Roman synagogues named after prominent persons, SCHRAGI.:
erstwhile ovvayoyq Xpioriavdjv in Antioch embracing Jews and non-Jews is not
unthinkable. On the whole see the informative study of TAYLOR.
21
22

The wars against Rome

Jewishly'" 'Do no longer keep Sabbath, but live from Sunday to Sunday."23 The bishop would certainly have taken care to voice the feelings of
large parts of his diocese.
In between lay the Great War against Rome, and all indications are that
as far as Antioch was concerned, it was this that precipitated the rupture.
Tensions between Jews and non-Jews had been existing all along, not least
in the Land of Israel, and they must have been an important factor in fuelling the war.24 The radicalisation process of the war gave these tensions a
fatal turn. Not only in ~ n t i o c h but
, ~ ~in many other cities in Palestine and
Syria as well, relations between Jews and Gentiles turned violent. This not
just involved Jews as against pagans. Josephus tells that at the outbreak of
war in the Syrian cities, even non-Jews who sympathised with Jewish
ceremonies (lou6ai(ovs~~)
were mistrusted by the pagans as foreigner^'.^^
It is therefore likely that the war has extremely aggravated existing tensions not only between Jews and non-Jews in general but also between
Gentile and Jewish Christians. The aftermath of the war must only have
consolidated this situation. For one thing, the fiscus judaicus, the Jewish
temple tax converted into a tribute to the emperor, symbolised the undesirable position of the Jews and their associates in the empire, especially
. ~about
~
the same years, it seems, Josephus
during the reign of D ~ m i t i a nIn
saw reason to write a pamphlet combatting the anti-Jewish ideas of the late
Alexandrian rhetorician Apion which were enjoying an upsurge in popularit~.~"uch developments made it not very attractive for Gentile believers
to keep associating with Jews.
1,ooking back from the second century, three entities emerged from the
post-war theatre. Firstly, Rabbinic Judaism began taking shape, being forged out of the material of Pharisaic tradition under the guidance first of the
gentle mystic Yohanan ben Zakkai and then, with unprecedented centralism, of Garnliel the Younger. Secondly, Gentile Christianity began distinguishing itself, setting itself off from the Jews while basing itself both on
the Jewish Scriptures and on writings tributary to the later 'New Testament'.29 In our latter-day eyes, these two powerfkl bodies appear as being
conditioned by their mutual rivalry. Thirdly, in between the two major
fronts we perceive the much less tangible entity we do call, for lack of a
better term, Judaeo-Christianity: followers of Jesus who like their Master
Ignatius, Rom. 4.3-5.1, cf Eph. 12.2; Magn. 9.1; 10.3; Phil. 6.1.
Cf RAPPAPORT,
who (p171f) especially refers to Bell. 2.457ff; his presentation is a
bit too pessimistic, cf ALON 548-564 for the post-war period.
2"osephus, Bell. 7.45-53.
26 Bell. 2 . 4 6 3 , b ~$&$aimq&icldcpuhov kcpo$&i~o.
27 Josephus, Bell. 7.218. See SMALLWOOD
371-376.
2R C. Ap. 2.223; more references in TOMSON
2002 at 11107.
29 Cf BAUER,
11107below. For the dynamics of the NT canon see TOMSON 1998.
23
24

and his apostles kept the law of Moses30 and for this combined allegiance
were considered heretics by both sides. Their precarious existence and that
of the writings they must have cherished was prejudiced by the tensions
between the two dominant bodies.
We have disqualified the paradigm according to which these communities are perceived as totally separate entities, and sketched the contours of
a more inclusive one that takes info account their common origins and their
intereonnectedness. We must now try to document the contours, especially
where we can find confirmation for the connections between the 'separate'
histories. What we must look for are overlaps between the extant rabbinic
and apostolic sources, reports of events within either corpus that can also
be found reflected in the other and that thereby can serve as reference
points for a historical synthesis.
A word about our sources is in place. Of the early Christian writings,
the letters of Paul predate the Great War and can be of little help, except
for crosschecking our results. If our paradigm is correct, we would not
expect them to reflect a breach between Christianity and Judaism. The
Gospel of Mark is usually dated towards the end of the war period and in
effect shows hardly any traces of the post-war situation. We must turn to
the three post-war canonical gospels and to early Patristic writings. These
must be compared with more or less contemporaneous Tannaic traditions.
A relatively reliable grid for dating the latter is found in the succession of
generations of Tannaim as preserved by rabbinic literature, in combination
with the layered structure of the main Tannaic document, the Mishna.ll
Far from claiming exhaustiveness, I would now like to sketch four distinct areas on the future map of common Jewish and Christian history.

The regime of Rabban Gamliel (Mt 6; Did 8)

Matthew 6:7 puts the prayer Jesus taught to his disciples, also known as
the Lord's Prayer, in opposition to the verbose prayers of the k0vt~oi.
'Gentiles'. Some mss. however read b n o ~ p ~ r a i ,which
"
in Matthew is the

"Ehnicity' (CAKI.E"ION
PAGET 7330 is hardly a defining category in view of the
For the definition problem see above n5
full possibility of proselytism, cf SCIIIFFMAN.
and cf BAUCKHAM,
VERHEYDEN, STOKI,and PRATSCI~ER
in the present work.
3 1 For a clear summary of this approach see GOI.DBERG,
integrating the ground work
done by J.N. EPSTEIN and Ch. ALRECK.
The teachings of one of our main characters,
Rabban Gamliel the Younger (first generation of Tannaim), are incorporated in the
second layer of the Mishna which was formulated by the second generation of 'Tannairn,
among whom R. Akiva was a younger colleague (GOLDBI.XR<;2 160.
32 B 1424 syCm a e.

The wars against Rome

polemical designation of the pharisee^.^^ Since the clearly edited whole of

Mt 6:l-18 sets off the three main religious duties of almsgiving, prayer
and fasting against that of the ~ x o K ~ Ithis
T looks
~ ~ ,like
~ ~a secondary reading, and the 'more difficult' reading 6 8 v t ~ o iin v7 must have priority.3S
Along with the stories of Jesusa hesitations when meeting the Greek woman and the non-Jewish centurion from Caperna~rn?~
the saying against
verbose prayer seems to reflect an authentic tradition3' preserving Jesus"
more reserved attitude towards gentile^.^^
Yet the reading b x o ~ p t z a imay be more than an incidental scribal adaptation. The opposition of Jesus" prayer to that of the 'hypocrites' is also
found in Did 8:2, where moreover the prayer text is almost identical and a
closely related community may be supposed in the background. More specifically the Didache adds the command: "Thus pray thrice daily." This
reminds us of the rabbinic main prayer said three times daily. The contrast
with the primary version in Matthew then creates the impression of a shift
in polemical orientation from 'Gentiles'to pharisee^'.^^
Nor does this concern prayer only. Both Matthew and the Didachc also
oppose the way of fasting taught by Jesus to that of the b n o ~ p t r a i And
.~~
33 see esp. 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29 y p a p p a ~ & i <
~ a @ap~cra'iot
i
i l x o ~ p t r a i ;cf
15:7; 22: 18. I,k 13:15 is an isolated occurrence as compared with the Matthean evidence;
the reading bxowpl.r& (pQSetc., as undisputed in l,k 6:42) must be seriously considered.
The intention of 1.k 1256 Gxok-pt~aiis unclear.
34 Mt 6:2, 5, 16. See L,uz 320-323 on the redacted form and possible sources. Parallels like Tob 12:8 ms B A, 'prayer, fasting and alms I righteousness' are illuminating and
make the impression of Matthew's opposition to Pharisaic institutions stronger.
35 An Aramaic background sharka meaning 'populace', as suggested by BLACK
1967: 176f (1954: 133f), is interesting (cf 6 0 v t ~ 6'of~ the people', 3Jn 7) but not convincing; cf DAVIES-AI.I.ISON
589. The parallel &< oi kotxoi (Lk 11:2, ms D) cited in
support sounds like a softening of the hard to explain anti-Gentile ring of the saying. On
the other hand, denouncing the Jewish populace is the opposite of what Jesus was out for.
36 Mk 7:24 30 I/ Mt 15:21 28; Lk 7:2-10 11 Mk 8:s-13.
37 Similarly LUZ330.
Cf the saying on the priority of 'the sheep of Israel' Mt 10:Sf; 15:24, and the
negative ring of 6 B v i ~ d gin Mt 5:47; 18:17. Cf BETZ364, who also refers to Mt 6:32.
Moreover the story of Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 implies a boundary for the disciple
to be crossed which was well observed by his master, who according to Lk 7: 1-10 never
even spoke with the centurion (contrast the edited form of Mt 8:s-13).
39 Cf LUZ 332, quoting Origen. The singular tradition in Lk 1 1 :1 infonns us that
Jesus taught his disciples a formulated prayer at their request, as also John the Baptist
did to his. Though this would imply both prayers henceforth existing side by side, no
trace of rivalry between them is expressed here. The question abaut the fasting of John's
disciples as those of the Pharisees in Mk 2:18-22 also belongs here; maybe also the
textually enigmatic Jn 3:25.
40 Did 8.1 ; Mt 6: 16-1 9. Whether Did 15.4, almsgiving b~ EXE'CE kv T@ &E()ayy&liiq TOG ~ u p i o uilp6v relates to Mt 6:2-4 must be left undecided. For the whole issue

again, the Didache adds ritual exactness: the 'hypocrites' do not fast on the
correct days, Wednesday and Friday, but on Monday and Thursday - the
days we know are singled out in rabbinic traditi~n.~'
In both cases, a ritual
from the tradition of Jesus is maintained against what seems to be an institutionalised Pharisaic custom.42 We also recall that the final redaction of
both Matthew and the Didache is usually dated towards the end of the first
century.43
All of this evokes the patriarchate of Rabban Gamliel which around that
time replaced the leadership of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai at Yavne following the destruction. Gamliel's rule appears to have acquired official
backing from the Roman admini~tration,~
which may explain the prestigious adornment distinguishing him and his family.4"n contrast to Yohanan's peaceful character, rabbinic literature portrays Gamliel as an autocrat, a domineering ruler keen on uniformity and clear borderlines. As
things go, his centralism may have come as a godsend in the chaotic situation following the destruction of the Temple. Though belonging to the
House of Hillel, and as against a clear tendency among most of his colleagues, Gamliel tended, as Shmuel Safrai has pointed
towards the ofien
more restrictive opinions of the school of Shammai. Iiis directives, notably
in the domains of public worship and calendar, more than once provoked
protest, to which he could respond rudely.47We are told that one of thesc
cf DRAPER,who posits a shiR in the Didache itself from an anti-Gentile to an antiPharisaic position.
4i m'raan 2.9 (as a self-understood rule); tTaan 2.4, 8.
42 See JA~JBEKTon the importance of Wednesday and Friday in the ancient solar
calendar. The impression is not altered by the likelihood that in his own day, Jesus had
had stiff discussions with the Pharisees, although he was much closer to them than to any
other group.
43 LUZ 62-76; DAVIES-AI.I.ISON
127- 138; STANI.ON
1 13-- 145; STREC'KriR 35f; taking
varying views as to whether the frame of reference of Matthew's final redaction was still
inner-Jewish; cf TOMSON 2001: 279--289. The same can be mooted about the Didache, cf
VAN DE SANIN
-- FLUSSER
291--296,325-329 and T ~ M S O2001
N : 380-391.
dQ ALON 1: 120--124; SAFRAI
1996: 332; for a general presentation SAFRAI
1976:
322f. On the exact dating see below. The problem of the Sages' travels to Rome is
crucial here, see ALON ibid. and SAFRAI
ibid. 365---381.
45 tMK 2.16, "Yehuda and Hillel, Rn Gamliel's sons, went out wearing gilded sandals on erev shabbat" (see LIEBERMAN1955-88 ad loc.); tSot 15.8 (bSot 49b; bBK 83a):
"The family of Rn Gamliel were permitted to teach their children Greek because of their
relations with the government"; see LIEBERMAN
1965: 20.
46 SAFRAI
1996: 390ff.
47 mRH 2.8f, a calendar dispute with R. Yoshua, who had to give in; tBer 4.16 and
tYomTov 2.12, a dispute over berakhot with R. Akiva and "the majority", where Gamliel
did not insist, probably aRer his temporary deposition; similarly tYad 2.17, a dispute
over the admissibility of an Ammonite proselyte with Yoshua, who was backed by the
Sages ("on that day", when Rn Gamliel was deposed and he gave in on this point, thus

The wars against Rome

11

conflicts, again in the field of prayer, even resulted in his temporary deposition by the Sages.48
It seems that daily public prayer as an obligatory institution was one of
Rabban Gamliel's initiatives. Both Shmuel Safrai and Ezra Fleischer have
stressed that apparently it did not exist in this function before Ya~ne.~'
In
none of the available pre-70 sources including the New Testament do we
find an explicit trace of community prayer as an independent institution.
'Synagogues', community gatherings, were for Tora reading, not primarily
for saying prayer together. This is not to say that there was no prayer at all,
as the parallel appellation of xpoasv~qteaches us.50 On days of feasting
and fasting, community prayers were undoubtedly said, and the seven Sabbath benedictions seem to have been in use before the destr~ction.~'
We
also read that Daniel was praying three times a day toward Jerusalem (Dan
6:l I), which may reflect an ancient custom among certain circles. Undisputably moreover, the Qumran texts document the use the desert covenanters made of characteristic phrases known from later rabbinic community
prayers,52 their daily community prayers,53and their prayers on Sabbaths
and festivals said in competitive parallel to the temple sacrifices.54Yet all
bBer 28a), cf 4Q174 [Flor] 1.1:3f for the Esscne position, not unlike Rn Garnliel's Shammaite view; tTaan 2.5, where after Gamliel's death R. Yoshua did not find a majority to
revert a calendar decision. Cf SAFRAI1996: 400f.
4 h ~ e 27b,
r the dispute being with R. Yoshua on the obligatoriness of the evening
prayer.
49 SAFRAI1989; FI CISCI1ER 1989-90; 1990- 91. A similar conclusion was drawn in
MCKAY'Sdissertation; my review in J,V 28 (1997) 342- 343 correctly criticises the fragmentising and schematising method but overlooks this important aspect of the evidence.
FLLISCI~FR
n13 mentions S. ZElTLlN in JQR 54 (1963-4) 208-249 as the only previous
study pointrng in this direction
50 ~ c t Is6: 13, I 6 is famous. see S ~ r w Ii976; HENGEL.
s' SAFRAI1989: 12, citing the detailed dispute on the matter by the pre-70 schools of
Shamma~and Hillel.
52 Thus Eslttl., maintaining the basic correctness of Joseph HEINEMANN'S
approach
(HEINEMANN
ch. I; cf FLFISCI~ER
n2) over against the schematic aspect of FI-E~SC~IER'S
description. It follows the paradigm of gradual development posited by El BOXEN28 3 I,
which is also followed by FLUSSER,
see below.
53 OLSON235 c~testhe recurring responsorial formula in 44503 as proof of the
communal character of these daily prayers.
54 Cf the 13 nlwn n+iy * l * W (4Q400-407, the phrase passim), featuring the heavenly temple and its spiritual sacrifice; and expressions like nrnaw nnim (IQS 94-5) and
l1w5 nnnn (4Q400 fr 2:7; 4Q403 fr I coi. 2:26); 4Ql74[Flor] I .1:6-7, nit35 n-m w-tpn
m l n / ?-fin*wYn1*1& [sic] ~ 1 5xi2 n??*q'n- UA sanctuary of men, there to offer as
incense before Him acts of praise f law" (on the disputed reading of the last word see
R R W K F 288 n13). There are important similarities here with the Revelation of John, cf
NEWSOM
I I referring to the heavenly praise in Rev 4-5, and cf the image of prayer as
incense in the heavenly temple, Rev 5:8; 8:3 (also Heb 5:7). Prayer as a 'spiritual sacri-

of these represent customs of specific groups and no daily obligation for

the community as a whole.
It is in this light that we must view the rabbinic reports concerning the
public main prayer called the 'Eighteen Benedictions'. Mishna E3erakhot
4.3f records the following discussion:
"Rabban Gamliel says: One must pray the eighteen berakhot every day.
R. Yoshua says: something like the eighteen.
R. Akiva says: When prayer is fluent in his mouth, he must pray the eighteen, if not,
something like the eighteen.
R. Eliezer says: He who makes his prayer fixed, his prayer is no supplication."

In plain language: three important Sages did not endorse Gamliel's propo~ a l It. means
~ ~ that on this score too, his initiatives were not welcomed
~ n a n i m o u s l y Certainly,
.~~
in the course of time, the Eighteen Benedictions
were to find their way to the Jewish community, but that is another story.
Early agreement does seem to have existed on the three hours of prayer
which, the Tosefla informs us, correspond to the rhythm of the sacrificial
service in the temple.57 This appears to be the ancient custom evidenced in
Daniel and maybe also in the Qumran texts, and significantly, here the
Didache signals early Christian consent.
Such was not the case with the obligatory daily prayer. The Babylonian
Talmud preserves a tradition to the effect that the 18 benedictions were
"arranged" by Shimon ha-Pekuli "before Rabban (iamliel at Yavne". 'I'his
probably consisted of a rearranging and merging of existing benedictions
resulting in the ideal number of 18.58The tradition in the Bavli continues
with the reformulation of the 'benediction of the heretics', also at Gamlie13 behest, which will have our attention later. For the moment let us
note that the Didache did not stand alone in its dissent vis-a-vis Rabban
Gamliel's proposal. For a general obligation, R. Yoshua and R. Akiva
;rJinw Ivn, "something similar to'' or "a
wanted to prescribe only m t v ~
summary of the eighteen", i.e. a brief prayer analogous in structure.
fice' exists as early as Ps 14 1:2.
Noted by SAFRAI1989: 11. We are in the second layer of the Mishna (cf above
n31), with the apparently young Akiva participating in the debate of first generation
Tannaim.
56 The point is not stressed enough by F L . ~ I S C I ~cf
FR
the
, criticism by K F I F 678, who
underlines diversity and development also in Ciamlielb time.
57 mBer 4.1 and tBer 3.1; R. Yehuda, one generation on, only gives different hours
for the three prayers. And cf the quote from Daniel 6: 1 1 in tBer 3.8.
58 Cf bBer 2%; yBer 4 (8a); yTaan 2 (6%). tBer 3.25 and the parallel baraita in yBer
4, 8a; yTaan 2 (65e) imply variance in the number of berakhot. Indeed these Ycrushalmi
passages mention versions with 17 and 19 berakhot. The Babylonian version of the
prayer, generally accepted since the Middle Ages, has 19 berakhot. See FLUSSFR 1992
and SAFRAI1989.

The wurs ugainsr Rome

13

When seen in this light, there are significant similarities between such
'summarieshnd Jesus' prayer, which moreover does not contain a single
uniquely Christian element. It seems that here Matthew and the Didache
have retained one out of several pre-70 traditions. The shorter version of
the prayer preserved in Lk 12:2-4 only enhances the pattern of informal
variety.59
It is likely that another innovation of this time was also initiated by
Gamliel, although 1 know of no evidence explicitly confirming this; in any
case the authorship of Yohanan ben Zakkai seems less probable.60 It concerns the introduction of rabbi as the official title for ordained teachers.
None of the Sages before this period cany such a title; in the Yavne
period, there are still some exceptions such as Abba Shaul, Ben Azzai and
Ben Zoma; and henceforth. practically all Sages are called Rabbi (or Rav
in the case of Babylonian~).~'
A dating to this period becomes likely from
Matthew. Although in all gospels except L,uke,'j2 Jesus is addressed by the
polite form rabbi by his disciples including Peter:) Jesus ordains in Mat~ contradiction points to
thew: "Do not let yourselves be called r ~ b h i . "The
a novel situation, which appears to be the introduction of rabbi as the standard title for a Pharisaic Sage. Matthew's community clearly was outside
the fold of Gamliel's novel regime of institutionalised 'rabbis', which from
then on may be rightfully called 'rabbinic Judaism'. The institution bears
an inescapable likeness with Gamliel's managerial profile.
There emerges a corollary vis-a-vis the redactional history and the final
dating of Matthew, questions closely connected to the Gospel's relationship with Judaism. It is generally assumed, in line with the usual dating of
Matthew, that Gamliel arose to power in the 80's. Pressing an argument
already taken into consideration by Gedalyahu Alon, however, Shmuel
Safrai has made the compelling remark that this could hardly have been
S9 The impression that Luke's version is the more original (well argued by F n t M Y F R
896 909) should not be stressed too much in view of the possible simultaneous coexistence of several 'original' versions in this domain, as demonstrated by HEMEMANN.
60 Cf his saying: "if you have learned much Tom, do not hold it your credit, for that
is what you were created for," mAv 2.8, and see the other versions in ARN a14 and b28
(29b); ARN b3 1 (33b).
I'he Babylonian Amoraim Shniuel and Abaye are notable exceptions.
62 1,uke typically has tntoz&ru.'master': Lk 5 5 ; 8:24 (repeated!); 9:33, 49; 17: 13.
In 9:33, this translates Pappi From Mk 9:s (the parallel Mt 17:4 has K ~ P ~ E !see next
n.).
63 peter (Mk 9:s; 1 1 :21); Nathanael (Jn 1 :49); 'the disciples'(Jn 4:3 1; 9 2 ; 1 1 :ti);
Judas (Mk 14:45; Mt 26:25, 49); John's disciples (Jn 1:38 with translation: 6 1 8 d o ~ a i c ~ ;
cf 3:26, addressing John); Nichodemus (Jn 3:2); the Galilean multitude (Jn 6:25). As
observed by S~RECKER
33, Matthew has left it in place only in the case of Judas!
64 Mt 23% Cf the tension with 19: 17, even in its heavily redacted form as compared
with Mk 10: 17f.

possible during Domitian's xenophobic reign or indeed under any of the

F l a ~ i a n s It
. ~would
~
mean that the final redaction of Matthew took place
after 96. Such a late dating suits the observation that the Gospel shows
clear Gentile-Christian touches. It seems we must envisage a prolonged
and complex redactional development and a corresponding layer structure
of the Gospel. A prominent Judaeo-Christian layer, imposed on the outline
of Mark's Gospel but also including pre-Markan material, seems to reflect
the vehement polemics of the earlier Matthean community with the Pharisees. The rupture with the Pharisee-dominated synagogue may also be
located in this layer. A final layer consisting of redactional touches from a
Gentile-Christian viewpoint seems to contain early reflections of the
development that made Matthew into the main Ciospel of the Gentile
Ch~rch.~

The separation o f Christians from the community (Jn 9:22)

Our next overlap between the earliest Christian and the Jewish sources
seems to be found in the much-discussed reports about the birkur ha-minim
and the Johannine passages which mention the followers of Jesus being
"put out of the synagogue". The best study in the field I know of is the one
by William Elorbury, who as against recent revisions of the older consensus maintains that both the rabbinic and Christian sources must be taken
fully serious, especially Justin Martyr.67 Consequently, the reformulation
of the birkat ho-minim appears to represent an initiative by Rabban Gamlie1 to shut out Christians from the Jewish community.
The report we are concerned with is preserved in the Tannaic tradition
already mentioned about the 'arrangement' of the Eighteen Benedictions
before Rabban Gamliel. In the Bavli it continues as follows:
"Kabban Garnliel said to them (the Sages at Yavne): Is there anyone who can adapt (li7n)
the Benediction of the Heretics? Up stood Shmuel the Smaller and adapted it. But the
next year he forgot (to recite the adapted form)."68

6 " ~ ~ ~ 1996:
~ 1 331f; cf his study on the journeys to Rome lbrd 365 381. A l O N
119-131 also dates to the go's, admits the difftculty with Domitian's reign, and solves
the difficulty by supposing that Gamliel's rise to office was supported by the local administration.
66 See esp STANTUN1 13- 168 and S~RECKEK
I5 -85 (who proposes a dating around
95). While Strecker 15-35 is too rigid in concluding on Gentile Christian redaction, Stanton 13 Iff. seems too hesitant in drawing its inevitable consequences. See also Ft ussru
1988: 552-574 and cf my general presentation, TOMSON200 I: 272 289.
67 Apart fkom literature referred to further below, the ThWbNT article by SC tiKnc;t
(845-850 on hxocruvciyoyoq) must be mentioned for its broad scope and fair judgement.
68 bBer 29b. - yBer 5 (9c), "Shmuel the Smaller when serving as precentor...", sug-

The wars against Rome

15

The event also seems reflected in a brief tradition cited in passing in the
Yerushalmi: "It is taught: The one (i.e. berakha) on the heretics, the Sages
stipulated it already at Y a ~ n e . " ~The verb used by the Babylonian tradition, lpn, 'adapt', requires our attention later. While the attestation of the
event is tenuous, the combined rabbinic and patristic evidence seems to
justify Horbury's assessment.
Another important study is the one by the late David Flusser (1992),
who unearthed the conceptual background of the birkar ha-minim. In his
analysis, the material of the berakha basically dates from temple times,
when it was directed against such 'separatists' (perushim or porshim) as
Sadducees who did not believe in r e ~ u r r e c t i o nand
~ ~ Essenes who said of
I,
have separated ourselves from the
themselves: D Y ; ~> ? l n ? ~ W T "...we
majority of the p e ~ p l e " . ~This
' corresponds, one may add, to the varieties
of meaning of the term min.72According to Flusser, the berakha might also
have once been called birkar porshim or p e r u ~ h i m Justin's
.~~
reports indicate that in the 2nd century, the berakha, which then would have mentioned minim, was understood as being directed against C h r i ~ t i a n sat
, ~least
~ in
the Land of Israel. 'That explains why the fragments of the prayer according to the Palestinian Byzantine rite which were preserved in the Cairo
Geniza juxtapose notsrim to minim, to which we can add the explicit testimony of Jerome and E p i p h a n i u ~ Flusser
.~~
admits that the exact process of
Rabban Garnliel's reformulation can not be retrieved.76
This is where the evidence in the Gospel of John comes in.17 Three pasgests his 'forgetfulness' again concerned the agreed 'arrangement' of the berakhot.
69 yBer 4 (8a); y'raan 2 (65c).
70 mSan 10.1 ; SOR 3 (9a).
7' Cf 4QMMT 92: ...o ] ~ n211n u w ~ 9 [ w
..., as against Willel's saying: 5~
i i ~ In~w ~ni ~ l 'Do
n , not separate from the community' (mAv 2.4). For the designation
0'0117~)I u w i l see
~ tBer 3.25; SOR 3, 9a and on these passages FLLISSER
1992, beginning, 25 34,4 1. Cf HORRIIRY
92.
72 In rabbinic literature 1% is mostly used for 'species'of cereals, etc. For the
meaning 'heretics' cf mBer 9.5, minrm who fail to believe in the world to come (Sadducees, 'Epicureans', cf mSan 10.1); mRH 2.1, minim who disagree with the calendar of the
Pharisees (Sadducees, Boethusians, cf mMen 10.3; but also Essenes); mSan 4.5, minim
who believe in 'many powers in heaven' (Gnostics?); mWul 2.9, minim adhering to
idolatrous practices; mYad 4.8, a 'Galilean min' who adopts Gentile ways of life.
73 The complicated meanings of o ~ w l i r are
r treated by Fl.UsssR 1992: 27-34,41.
74 The meaning 'Christians' is unequivocal in phrases such as nn*n+ -pnn nt+n;r
in the baraita which crept into the Mishna, mSot 9.1 5; ySot end; bSot 49a; bSan 97a; and
in the tradition of Yaakov from Kfar Sikhnin (below).
75 FI,USSI:R1992: 16-20.
76 Ibid. 23f.
77 HORI~UKY
100. Cf also D 1 m 1990: 221f, 238, while trying to keep reading the
extant John as inner-Jewish. 156- 160.

sages in this gospel announce that those who confessed Jesus would be
"put out of the synagogue", if that is how we must translate c'rxoouvayoy~q.~"n Jn 9:22 and 12:42, this is presented as a 'decision'already
taken by 'the J e w s k r , respectively, 'the I'hari~ees'.'~'I'he pluperfect 46q
OVV&T&~ELVTO
in 9:22, "they already had decided", clearly implies an anachronism vis-a-vis the events of Jesus' own day which are narrated. The
tension within the narrative is even heightened when in spite of the 'decision' the evangelist has reminded his readers of, he has Jesus prophesy in
16:2, in the future tense:80 "They will put you out of the synagogue."
~ ' 'double
Added to the much-discussed series of aporiae in the g o ~ p e l ,this
anachronism" can hardly have flowed unknowingly from the evangelist's
pen and doubtlessly was meant as a direct apostrophe to the readers in their
bittcr experience.
It is interesting to note that the 'decision' to oust the followers of Jesus
is ascribed alternately to 'the Jews'and to 'the Pharisees'. 'I'he latter appellation contrasts with the usual designation of 'the Jews' as the adversaries
in this Gospel, and historically it is fully in place, as we now understand.
The Fourth Gospel apparently reflects the initiative of Rabban Gamliel,
and two elements in its text enhance the profile of his measure. Firstly. the
verb o u v ~ ~ d 8 ~ t vinz oJn 9:22, "they had decided", is equivalent to the
Ilebrew technical term i]*pn;r which is used in similar cases.82 It corresponds to the verb 'adapt'used of the rephrasing of the Benediction of the
IIeretics by Shmuel the Smaller. It appears we are dealing with one of the
takkanot of Rabban Gamliel. Secondly, the uniquely Johannine irxoouvbyoyoqn3informs us about the content of the takkcmu. Going by the primary meaning of ouvayoyq, the word means "out of the community",84 and
thus considered it is an exact equivalent of W 1 1 9 or W l l 9 , 'separatist'. or
as a relevant passage has it: "one who separated from the ways of the
n 1 9 W 7n.85Rabban (iamliel's decrce apparently
community", TI~~IY* ~ i - rW
--

Thus KJV and RSV. Cf Vulgate 9:22 ex synugoga; 12:42 clc. synugoga; 1 6 2 a h
synugogu. But see below.
79 Jn 9:22, tjbq ydp ouvcrkeclvro oi 'IouSuiot i'vu t a v 71% a b r d v [ ' l q aoGv] bpokoyqog Xpiorciv ttxoouvayoyoq yhvqrul: 12:42,61d ~ o i ~a u;p i o u i ouq o b iupoiidyouv
~
I v a PI) Bxoouvciyoyo~y i . , v o v ~ u t .
Noted also by SC~~RAC;L.
849.
Cf TOMSON
2001b: 302.
U2 An example involving a herakha formulation apparently addressed against Sadducees or Epicureans (cf mSan 10.1): "When the mrnrm confounded it and said: There is but
one world, they decreed (i3rpn;r)that one should say...", mBer 9.5; tBer 6.21.
83 Later usage clearly developed from John. 2nd-3rd cent.: only Origen 2x: (Fragm.
in I Cor. nr. 18; Frag. in Ps. 1 1811 191.152). 4th 5th cent.: 5 1 x, esp. Chrysostom (1 7x) en
Cyril of Alex. (1 I x).
&4 Thus also SCHRAGI847, taking in the link with the b i r k a ~ha-nrm~m.
85 SOR 3. 9a.
78

The wars againsr Rome

17

implied that as were Essenes and Sadducees, now also Christians were
considered such 'separatists? or 'separated ones'. The above interpretation
is confirmed by the peculiar syntagms used in the Greek: x o ~ ~ ;hxocruvv
aydyouc, or ylv~oeathnoouvciyoyo~,'to make' or 'to become separated
from the community'.
This was a new situation. A perusal of the Pauline letters and of the
Acts of the Apostles confirms that a similar possibility did not exist before
the Great War. Among all the sanctions levelled in this period against followers of Jesus, there was none which declared them 'separated from the
c o r n m ~ n i t y ' .It~ appears that Kabban Garnliel's initiative somehow came
to fill the vacuum left by the downfall of the Sadducee priestly elite, whose
mortal enmity to Jesus and his followers is spelled out by Acts. Although
there had been Pharisees who sided with them - witness the young Paul,
canying an authorisation from the Sadducean high priest - the standing
disagreement with the Sadducees had prevented the Pharisees from all-out
support. A considerable number of Pharisees, represented by Garnaliel the
Elder, had even rejected the Sadducees' aggression against the Christians
altogether. The times were a-changing. Just before the outbreak of war, the
Pharisees apparently protested against the Sadducee high priest's summary
execution of Jesus' brother James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, in
line with the pre-war positions. When after the war Garnaliel's grandson
stepped in the gap, both in his bid for authority and in his pursuit of the
Christians, the majority of Pharisees - now officially called rabbis - did
not see the possibility to disagrees7
It seems the Gospel of John preserves the oldest memories of the painful separation decree. The bitter reaction of the evangelist and his community can also be gauged when at its first mention he generalises and dubs
the Pharisees 'Jews' (Jn 992). The phenomenon can be observed also elsewhere in this gospel, as also the replacement of the combination of 'chief
priests and Pharisees' by the general appellation, 'the Jews'.g8 In efkct, the
Gospel as a whole opposes Jesus and his followers to 'the Jews'. This
extends to such curious cases as Jesus saying to his disciples: "As I said to
the Jews" (1 3:33). Even if passages where Jesus himself is called a 'Jew"
were lefi in place (4:9, 22), this has given readers through the ages the feeling that Jcsus was not a Jew after all. The thoroughly anti-Jewish oriens6 Cf MARTW 42 50. Cf the Pharisee Paul's conduct in Gal 1:13; 1Cor 15:9; Gal
1:23; Phlp 3%: and the opposition he met having become a Christian, 2Cor 11:24; for
Acts see next n. On I,k 6:22 hcpopiooa~vsee below n9 1 .
Acts 4:6f; 5: 17f, 33f; 8: 1-3; 9: I f ; 22:30-23:9; Josephus, Ant. 20.200 201. For
details see TOMSON1999.
88 Jn 8: 13, 2 1 f. See also the sequence 7:32 (Pharisees; chief priests and Pharisees),
35 (Jews), 45 (chief priests and Pharisees), 47 (Pharisees); and 1 1 :47, 57 il 18: 14; 18:3 11
18: 12 (chief priests and Pharisees = the Jews). On the whole issue see TOMSON2001 b.

ration of this most beloved of gospels is a painful but in my view ineluc-

table result of scholarship. The post-war circumstances may help understand and eventually accept it.
The evidence also teaches us that Rabban Gamliel's initiative was not
universally followed. This was not to be expected in the first place, given
the opposition of prominent colleagues to the 18 benedictions as an obligatory daily prayer. Furthermore Justin in one of his relevant passages foretells a grim future to Jews who do not believe in Jesus, "most of all those
who in the synagogues were and still are cursing the ones who believe in
this same M e ~ s i a h " "This
. ~ ~ suggests not all Jews observed the decree. As
we saw it seems to have obtained mainly in the Land of Israel. Justin may
either be referring to the practice he knew from his homeland or to his later
experience in Rome. Another strong argument against uniformity, raised
by Reuven Kimelman, is that for all his endeavours to vilify the Jews, the
late 4th century Antiochian rhetorician Chrysostom does not mention the
cu~tom.~
This provokes two further corollaries pertaining to the field of 'New
Testament introduction" [Jsually, the final redaction of the Fourth Gospel
is located around Ephesus. The above would imply that this redaction
included the integration of a recent Palestinian element, or, more radically,
that the later phase of redaction as a whole took place in the Land of Israel.
Secondly, it is striking that for all his anti-Pharisaism Matthew does not
cite the separation from the community either. Its final redaction should
then either be pinpointed earlier than that of John, supposing that Garnliel's decree came somewhat later in his career, or, less likely, it must be
located in a region where the decree was not yet endorsed - Antioch
indeed?

Evidence of enduring continuity (Luke-Acts, 1Clement)

Our third overlapping area, certainly not less important, concerns sources
of the post-war period that document a view of Christianity that is not antithetical to Judaism but continuous with it. It is a clear reminder of the
probability of regional differences in this period.
Foremost are the two canonical NT writings which in view of their common authorship are called 'Luke-Acts'. We might as well call their author
Luke, since the tradition to that effect has much to say for it and little
against. Luke's Gospel is a remarkable document. As distinct from the
authors of Matthew and John, there is no obvious anachronism in his
89 Dial. 47.4: ...aai pd;l~o~u
tori< tv air ouvuyoyai~ a a ~ a Q ~ p a ~ i o a v z a 5
aal aa~a0~pazijovza~
7065 6n' abrdv T O ~ T O V' I ~ VXplo~dvX ~ ~ T E ~ O V T ~ ~ .

* KIMELMAN240.

The wars against Rome

19

description of relations between Jesus or his followers and their oppon e n t ~ . ~Such
'
clashes are often serious, but the descriptions are always
nuanced and do not fit into an antithetical scheme. 'I'he same goes for Acts.
While Paul's preaching in synagogues mostly provokes negative reactions,
there are the exceptions of Beroea and, though here we are left in suspense,
Rome (Acts 17: 1 1; 28:24). The question is why. The explanation explored
by Harnack is that Luke wrote before the Roman war.92 However this is
difficult in view of his prologue, where he states that he bases his account
on written gospels that in turn rely on eye witnesses, which implies he
himself belonged to yet a third generation. Indeed, Luke presupposes
Mark's Gospel, at least in a primary form. Hence we are stuck with the
accepted dating of Luke-Acts around 90 CE.
If there are no obvious anachronisms in Luke's history, he does betray
his views by his selection of episodes to be recounted and by the shaping
of his narrative. It is hardly coincidental that he twice drops the name of
Gamaliel (the Elder), once in the trial of the apostles Peter and John before
the Sanhedrin and a second time in the apology of his hero, Paul, before
the same court, where the latter states: "...At Gamaliel's feet was I educated in the nicetiesw of the ancestral law" (Acts 22:3). In the earlier episode Luke describes Gamaliel as "a Pharisee, a teacher of the law held in
honour by all the people" (5~34).This description is striking, but it is even
more remarkable that it resembles the positive description Josephus gives
in his autobiography of Simon son of Gamaliel, even though the latter had
behaved viciously towards him during the war.94 Steve Mason has established that as distinct from the Jewish War, Josephus' later works display
a clear sympathy for the Pharisees. A somewhat similar sympathy is found
in Luke's works, in roughly the same period. Rather than give in to speculative theories of dependence, we must think of a common setting, which
in view of the prominent patrons both authors mention in their dedications
apparently had to do with influential circles in Rome. In this setting, they
both took care to portray the Pharisees and especially their influential
representatives in a positive daylight.95
9' The meaning of Lk 6 2 2 Ctcpopiooo~v bpkg is not clear. I t is oAen adduced as
hinting to the exclusion decree; if correct, the author otherwise shows remarkable selfrestraint in his descriptions.
This would also explain why Paul's death is not mentioned. However the heartbreaking scene in Acts 20: 17-38 seems to hint at Paul's decease (v23-25!) and to contain
his spiritual testament. Cf MARGUERAT1999a; 1999b.
93 Kard & ~ p l @ t a v706 IIQ'C@OU vdpou. Cf Josephus, Life 191: Simon son of
Gamaliel was rfiq aaptoaiwv atp60~,og,of ncpi 7d narpta vbptpa SOKO~~CTIV
roiv cixicwv & ~ p t p ~ LStaf~kpciv.
q
Cf MASONpassim on the term h ~ p i f l c l a .
Vita 190-196,309.
95 See for the setting TOMSON
1999 and 2002.

Even if we must reckon with unknown quantities of sources having

gone lost, it is striking that Gamaliel and Simon are the only two Sages
known from rabbinic literature who elsewhere are identified as 'Pharisees".
The profile and dating of the Acts Gamaliel clearly correspond to those of
Rabban Gamliel the grandson of Hillel known from rabbinic literature, as
do those of the Simon mentioned by Josephus to Gamliel's son, Shimon
ben Gamliel. Hence it is likely that it was this Shimon's son Gamliel, i.e.
Gamliel the Younger, who became the leader of the Pharisees or 'rabbis' at
Yavne.% We get the impression that the writings of Luke, as also the later
ones of Josephus, were published at a time when the star of the House of
Hillel, with Gamliel the Younger as its prominent representative, was
rising in Roman circles. In effect Luke's works, in sharp contradistiction to
the Gospels of Matthew and John, testify to a Christian community that by
the end of the first century was interested in presenting rabbinic Judaism in
a positive light.
The positive orientation of Acts towards Judaism was duly noted in
Jakob Jervell's remarkable commentary. His conclusion that Luke must
have been a Judaeo-Christian is attractive, but in my view it is an unnecessary hypothesis and therefore not advisable. It also fails to account for the
remarkable attention Luke gives to Gentile Christians and for his emphasis
on good relations between non-Jews and Jews in the churches. In this
respect, Luke is fully consistent with what 1 (and Jervell) understand to be
Paul's inclusive ecclesiology. The tradition that he was a God-fearing nonJew from Paul's entourage still seems to fit best.97
On the other hand, there can be little doubt that the letters of James and
Jude were written in Judaeo-Christian surroundings. For their Jewish background I merely refer to Richard Bauckham's recent arguments.9RThough
continuous vis-a-vis Judaism, these documents. however. do not offer a
tangible historical overlap with rabbinic evidence.
We do find something of an overlap in the First Letter of Clement
which the church of Rome sent to the one in Corinth, apparently just after
Domitian's death in 96.w Apart from such expressions as "our father
and Esther and Judith appearing as
J a c o b ' k d his "twelve-s~eptreship"','~
See material in HYMAN
s.v , and c f Epiphanius, Pan. 30.4 on the tlillelite dynasty.
Eusebius, Wist. eccl. 3.4.6 (following lrenaeus ihid. 5.8.3) identifies him with
'Luke the physician' whom Paul mentions apart from three fellow-Jews in Col 4:14, c f
Phlm 24. See the discussion by FITZMYER
41 -47.
98 B A ~ J C K H A
1990
M and 1999; see also LAMWERS-PFTRY
in the following paper; TOMSON 2001a: 336-353. Interestingly, ZAHN begins his discussion o f NT writings with the
Jewish-Christian Epistle o f James (but c f below n106).
Thus the dating by Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.3, which fits the few references in
ICIem 1 . 1 .
loo ICIem 4.8, b x u ~ t ) pilphv ' I a ~ h p3 ;1.4, 6&swao~tlnrpov (a hapax).
%

97

The wars a ~ a i n s tRome

21

heroines of the church,101which remind us of a Jewish background, the

author strikingly bases his reprimand of the Corinthian insurgents on the
example of the 'orderly' temple service in Jerusalem (chs. 40-41). Were he
displays spccialised knowledge on the technicalities of the temple that are
best elucidated through comparison with the Mishnqio%n particular the
tractates Tarnid and Middot which seem to embody eye witness reports of
the architecture and ritual of the temple.Io3 The author might have been a
Judaeo-Christian,'" even a kohen, but like Luke he may equally have been
a God-fearing and well-informed non-Jewish Christian. The access he had
to priestly traditions at the end of the first century runs parallel to the
temple traditions being preserved in the Mishna.
Not only 1 Clement but also Luke-Acts seems related to Rome.Ios This
gives the impression that the exclusion decree was not adopted or not
enforced by at least a number of synagogues in Rome and afiliated areas.
We encountered this possibility already in relation with Justin. A somewhat later Roman document also evoking a continuous relation to Judaism
and to Judaeo-Christianity is the Shepherd of Hennas (c. 150).IM Except
for one important point, these data converge with Walter Bauer3 description of late second century Rome as the focal centre of apostolic 'orthodoxy', meaning faithfulness to apostolic tradition, to the teachings of
Jesus, and to the Old Testament, as against the depreciation of these by the
numerous Gnostic and Marcionite churches.107The breaking point is in the
relationship to Judaism. While Luke-Acts and Clement seem to retain a
positive attitude, later Roman authors display an anti-Jewish ecclesiology,
as we shall see.
Finally, there are rabbinic stories of contacts with Christians which exude a certain sympathy, in particular the case where "R. Eliezer was caught
The Sage who floufor minut"', which here clearly means 'Chri~tianity'.'~~
I 0 l IClem 55.2, xoAAoti5 tv qpiv, 55.4 ' IouGi0 q pa~upiu,55.6 Esther saving
rd t50.6~~cjlrpvAovTOG ' IopuqA. See also TOMSON2000.
lo* See TOMSON
2000 on such terms as kv6&l&~t0pd<,
~ W ~ O G K O K ~ ~and
@ ~EpV ,
xpoo0~vroG vuoG xpdi; rd 0uoiaarfipiov in IClem 41.2, and their comparison with

mTam 3.4-5; mMid 3.5; 5.1.

Io3 EPSTEIN27 -37. In Gol.nnERc;'s terms these reports represent the first layer of the
Mishna.
I W The attribution to Clement of the pseudo-Clementine literature, with its clear
Judaeo-Christian affiliations, is a remarkable indicator.
Io5 Apart from its fair attitude to the Roman administration, this may in the end best
explain the 'open ending' of Acts in Rome; cf n92 above.
l M Cf the Roman constellation sketched by Zahn 91,97f (without having to adopt his
fanciful theory of Paul's acquiantance with the letter of James when writing Romans!).
'07 BAUER,final chapter. This subject merits further study.
'OR tHul 2.24; bAZ 16b 17a; KohR 1.8. Cf MAlER 130ff and see for the story the
appendix to S ~ m l ' paper
s
in the present work.

rished in the late first century had met one Yaakov from Kfar Sikhnin. The
man had told him "a word in the name of Yeshua ben Pantiri" that pleased
him, and this event had occasioned his trial by the Romans. According to
two of the three versions, it concerned a nice though rather crude midrash
which could very well be a Jesus agraphon.Iw Yaakov uses a socially significant expression which is also attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John:
"It is written in your Tora ...'"I0 I'he story and its likes vividly illustrate the
separation process of Judaeo-Christians from the Jewish community that
got under way in the Land of Israel during the inter-war period.

The radical separation process after Bar Kokhba

All indications are that as from the Bar Kokhba war, there was a steep
development towards a general separation of Judaism and Christianity."'
More precisely, over against self-contained rabbinic Judaism, there now
developed a rather homogeneous Gentile Christianity. It defined itself on
the one hand by identifying with the tradition of the apostles and their
Scriptures as against Gnostics and Marcionites, and on the other, by setting
itself off against Judaism and Judaeo-Christianity. Acclaimed by Adolf
Harnack,ll2 accepted as a matter of fact by Walter Bauer, Gentile antiJewish apostolic Christianity appeared on the stage of history. From now
on, it is hard to find writings like lClement and Luke-Acts; the Roman
Shepherd of Hermas seems one notable exception. The change-over must
have been caused to a large extent by the events of the Bar Kokhba war.
Let us study a fourth set of overlapping sources.
Important information is to be acquired from Justin, who grew up in
Palestine and whose active period in Rome lay just after this war. A passage in his great Apology also quoted by Eusebius reports that "Bar Kokhba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, singled out the Christians and ardered to punish them severely if they would not deny and blaspheme Jesus the
Anointed One"."3 This must undoubtedly be seen in relation to the
See KI~AIISNER
42-55 for interesting observations on R. Eliezer and on this incident. See also KALMlN 157f.
' I 0 bAZ 17%n3niin3 xn3, cf Jn 8: 17 kv T@ vdpct, 66 r @ bp&~Cpy,
ykypaxrai,
Jn 10:34 E o r ~ vyeypapptvov kv rc$ v 6 p y bpGv.
SIMON
91 -99, following him, RIC~~ARDSON,
and SCHIFFMAN
155f all agree, while
incorrectly presenting Paul as trailblazer; see above n8.
H 2 I~ARNACK
1914: 12. Cf his passion-driven study on Marcion.
' I 3 Justin, 1Apol. 31.6; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.8.4: r a t y a p t v T@ vcv ~ E Y E V T ( pkvq [ y ~ v o p k v y']I o t S a i ~mX6pcp B a p ~ q C k r b; r j r ; ' lov6aiov irnooraoswi;
h p ~ q y k t q q ,Xptortavodr; p 6 v o y ~ i ~q i p o p i a qGctvaq, si p q & p v o i v r o ' I ~ o o i ~ v
TOV Xpiordv ~ a $Aaocpqpoisv,
l
~ K ~ ~ E Uhxdrysoflat.
E V
Cf BALICKI-IAM
1998.

The wars against Rome

23

rabbinic report that R. Akiva, one of the most important Sages, acclaimed
Bar Kokhba as Messiah, which probably meant that most Sages supported
him.lI4 In this situation, the expulsion of the Judaeo-Christians from
rabbinic Judaism would have tended to become general, as also the gulf
between rabbinic Judaism and its qualified rival, Gentile Christianity. It
may be that another singular report of Justin" which Horbury proposes to
consider seriously must be viewed in this context, i.e., the cursing of Christ
in what appears to be a separate ceremony introduced by the synagogue
leaders afrer the prayer.Ils We can well imagine this innovation having
been made during or after the second war.
In addition to such painful religious confrontations, the Bar Kokhba
episode resulted in what may be called a different theologico-political situation. Along with the rigorous devastation of Jewish property in Judaea,
the Jews were banned from Jerusalem and the ancient centre of Jewish devotion was transformed into a pagan sanctuary; though there is some confusion about the exact order of these events.'I6 This was the worst the Jews
had ever experienced, worse not only than the defeat of the year 70 CE but
also than the temporary desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes
in 167 BGE. If we are to judge from Justin's sour-sweet apostrophy to
Trypho, it left the Gentile Church triumphant: "...The bodily circumcision
as from Abraham was given as a sign that you might be separated from all
nations and from us, and that you might suffer what you now suffer rightly ... and that no one of yours might go up to Jerusalem".I1' With a fine
sense for the historical symbolism of the event Eusebius, describing the
bloody defeat at Bettir following the account of Ariston of Pella, adds the
information that after 15 bishops "from the circumcision" who from Jerusalem guided "the whole church of believers from the Hebrews since the
apostles", henceforth there was to be only a Gentile Church in the Holy
- yTaan 4 (68d), cf EkhaR 2,4, K. Shimon ben Yochai on his master, Akiva: TI
Knwn ~35nKIZ 17-1 :lnK nin n3ri3 13. rnn nin -13 nspy. See SAFRAI1970: 29-33
8 6 1 19, who curiously omits to
(introd.), 108-1 15 (texts); and quite similarly SCHAFER
mention SAFRAI'S
book. In supposing major rabbinic support of the insurgence, SAFRAI
follows ALON 630.
lg"ustin, Dial. 137.2, ...Aotbopfits 6ni rov oidv to6 Oeoir...bnoia 6 t 6 a o ~ o o olv oi hp~iouvaywyotbp&v, p a d T ~ nV p o a u ~ f l vSee
. HORBLJRY
72f; 173f.
I l 6 Eusebius, following Ariston of Pella, has the pagan reconstruction follow upon
, evidence of
the defeat, tiist. eccl. 4.6.4: 4 pcr6xri~ao w 6 o a e P @ p a ' i ~ zqd l t ~The
Dio Cassius, Ps-Barn. and the rabbinic accounts of R. Akiva make the opposite order
preferable, see below and cf ALON430-460,592ff.
' I 7 Justin, Dial. 16.2,G ydp hxd 'Appadp ~ a r do d p ~ ax r p t ~ o p qc i oqpei~
ov tMOq, Iva ~ T E&xO TOV dXXwv tSv&v ~ a GpGv
i
&cpwptopCvot, h-ui Ivu
p6vot X ~ O ~ T& Ev6v kv t j i ~ nX & ~ X E T E ,...~ a piq 6 ~ i qkt bpOv BntfkIvn ciq T ~ V
'Icpouoah~p.One is reminded of Suetonius' report of having witnessed the body search
of a 90 year old man to decide whether he was a Jew, Vita Domitiani 12 (ALON123).

City.Ilg Rabbinic Judaism being strong in the Galilee and later in Babylonia, and Gentile Christianity in the main cities Rome, Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem, this left the Judaeo-Christians little place.
It seems the so-called Epistle of Barnabas must be dated to the Bar
Kokhba episode. The defeat, which would have be most welcome to the
author, is not mentioned yet. Nor is the completion of the pagan sanctuary
in the famous chapter about the true, spiritual temple and the false one, the
former Jewish one at Jerusalem: "For through their waging war it was destroyed by their enemies; and now the very enemies' servants are going to
rebuild it!"Il9 A date at 130/131 seems preferable,120 which among other
evidence makes it more likely that Hadrian's construction plans of a pagan
Jerusalem sparked off the rebellion instead of the other way around.12t
Added to the stark anti-Judaism and antinomianism of the document, its
glee over the destruction of Jerusalem and the humiliation of the Jews
shows that the theologico-political landslide had been prepared already
before the war proper. One can easily read it as one party's propaganda
document in a fierce competition over Jerusalem's destiny.122It welcomed
the emperor's plans cynically, for a pagan temple was not attractive for
Gentile Christians either. The other party's spiritual leader was R. Akiva.
His imprisonment and ensuing death was occasioned by his faithfulness,
even in mortal danger, to "that which is our life and our length of d a ~ s ' ' ~
i.e. the T ~ r a . ' *Teaching
~
Tora in public had been forbidden, apparently in
an ill-advised effort to subdue Jewish resistance.
Henceforth, rabbinic Judaism and Gentile apostolic Christianity went
their separate ways, except for incidental encounters between representatives of different worlds such as Origen and R. Abbahu, possibily, in Caesaraea half a century later.'" Henceforth, apostolic Christian writers could
set themselves off against both "Greek and Jewish myths",12s Christians
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.4.1-4.6.4.
Barn. 16.4, 6td ...t d noX&p&ivabtoric; ra6npdBq bnd tLjv kx0flv: v6v
r a i abrol o i rCv 6~BpOvbxqpCrat &voi~oGopfioouaivairr6v. The future seems
to be adopted from the verb of the preceding quote (of unknown provenance).
120 See PRosTMErER I I I -1 I 9 for the various propositions.
12' Thus also ALON 430-460, though he dismisses the evidence of Ps-Barn. HERR
stresses the importance of Hadrian's decree against circumcision as the cause of war, but
also takes the building project into account.
122 See AI-ON ibid. on the involvement of Christian and Samaritan parties.
123 bBer 61b, quoting Dt 30:20. The continuation of the verse may have played a
role: ;rn-rK;r 5~ n w 5 .
'24 See BIETENWARI);
DE LANGE.
Diogn. 1 .l, "neither Greek nor Jewish mythsn (contrast Tit 1: 14; Ign. Magn. 8.1,
"Jewish mythsn only). This gives a sharp edge to BOCKMUEHL'S
observations (194f, 2 15)
that Diognetus marks both the beginnings of independent Christian 'public ethics'and
'the sort of decisive alienation from Judaism that one might expect in the ujiermath of the

25

The wars against Rome

could begin perceiving themselves as a 'third race' separate from Jews and
gentile^,'^^ and apologies were written both 'against the Jews'and 'against
the gentile^'.'^^ The amount of Jewish materials found in Justin and
Irenaeus and their moderate attitude towards Jewish law and tradition
makes their antithetical attitude to Judaism the more remarkable, especially since both had roots in Rome.

The Judaeo-Christians within Jewish and Christian history

Let us now sum up our theoretical considerations about early Jewish and
Christian history along with our observations in the areas of overlapping
evidence, and see how the Judaeo-Christians fit in.
On the theoretical level, we have postulated that for a fair assessment of
the developing social position and religious thought of the ancient JudaeoChristians, it is necessary to study rabbinic Judaism and apostolic Christianity simultaneously, both in their inner dynamics and in their interrelation.
In turn, this combined history must be viewed in relation to the historical
shifts and developments in the Roman empire.
We have further posited that instead of the mutually exclusive paradigm
of the relation of Christianity and Judaism in its traditional or its adapted
form, we must take account of the Jewish basis of Christianity. What we
need is a paradigm that fully integrates the Jewish and Jewish-Christian
practice and beliefs of Jesus and his disciples. On that view, the subsequent anti-Jewish afirmation of Gentile Christianity would imply an inner
conflict with the Jewish foundations of its own tradition. Conversely,
Judaeo-Christianity, though being anathemised, would have been carrying
on an authentic element of Christianity.
Thirdly, we have assumed there was no single 'parting of ways' of
Judaism and Christianity, and it was not on theological grounds. Neither
divergencies as to law and commandments, nor the involvement of numerous nonJews, nor the Messiah confession or even a 'high Christology"
can have been sufficient causes. Similar phenomena all existed before 70,
also apart from Christianity, and while often causing estrangement and
painful dispute, they did not cause a break with Judaism. Instead, we have
fixed our attention on the upheavals caused by the two great wars. The
changes in the social climate that ensued must have been the decisive factor that gave existing ideological differences the physical momentum
Bar Kokhba revolt' (emphasis added). Cf also Diogn. 5.1 7, ' Ynd ' IouGaCov

cpukot xok~poitvrar,~ a Gnd

i ' Elikfivov S t b ~ o v ~...a t
12'

See I~ARNACK
1924: 259-8 1.
Thus Justin, Dialogue and Apology; Eusebius, Praep. and Dem. evang.

Gq ftkk6-

26

Tornson

required to bring about the separation. This time round, Messiah confessions could become a breaking point, as seen in the Bar Kokhba period.128
Paul's letters, while documenting tensions between Jews and Gentiles,
still reflect pre-70 conditions. Among the Gospels, so does Mark basically,
but Matthew and John contain the earliest reflections of the post-70 separation process. Matthew's demarcation of religious practice from that of the
'hypocrites'could well mirror Gamliel the Younger" centralist regime as
to community prayer and authorised Tora teaching; and John was found to
confirm the evidence about the Christians' 'separation from the community' initiated by Gamliel. Both Gospels, especially John, can also be seen
to reflect a demarcation of their communities over against Judaism as such
and thus to document the beginning development of an anti-Jewish Gentile
Christian Church. In the case of Matthew, this feature creates a peculiar
tension vis-a-vis the undeniable Jewish colouring of many of Jesus' teachings. Thus it would seem that already by the end of the first century, the
Jewish followers of Jesus began to get caught between the mutually exclusive communities of rabbinic Judaism and Gentile apostolic Christianity.
Apparently this was not yet the case everywhere. The Gospel of Luke,
the Acts of the Apostles, and the First Letter of Clement document the
active persistence in the inter-war period of the apostolic project of Christianity as embracing both Jews and non-Jews. If we take account of the
rising tension between Jews and non-Jews in the immediate pre-war years,
Paul's letters can be read as defending the same project, most emphatically
so his letter to Rome. We may be even entitled to speak of an authentic
Pauline ecclesiology that does integrate the Jewish basis of Christian
faith.129 Evidently standing in this tradition, Luke-Acts is remarkable for
its positive attitude towards the Pharisees by the end of the century. In
those years, there are still reports of exchanges between Christians and
rabbinic Sages. An important object for further research is the degree of
regional and temporal diversity during the inter-war period, and possibly
even after it; among other places we must think of Rome.I3O
In any event, the Bar Kokhba revolt against Hadrian's Hellenising policy, must have caused a radical acceleration of the separation process.
Christians appear to have been marked out as inherently unfaithful to the
national Messiah, and in certain areas a synagogal curse of what was perceived to be a competing messianic faith seems to have been introduced. In
This large-scale social factor is overlooked by EVANS,among many others.
For a general presentation see TWON 2001a, ch 4; for the decisive halakhic substratum TQMSON1990.
I3O Probably even after Bar Kokhba, witness Hennas, and, possibly and more strikingly, the ecclesia ex circurncirione testified to by the 5th cent. mosaic in the Santa
Sabina church in Rome. Cf BAGATTI1 and MIMOUNI
1998b: 25-37, who emits doubts.
12*

The wars against Rome

27

the same period, patristic writings began to express a vigorous anti-Jewish,

Gentile Christian self-awareness.
This dual development was bound to leave Jewish followers of Jesus no
legitimate place on either side. It may also well be the reason they eventually disappeared from the historical consciousness of the two dominant
traditions, and why it was only in the context of critical historical study
that they could begin to re-emerge. But as we saw the anomalous name of
'Jewish Christians' or 'Judaeo-Christians' indicated that something was
not yet in order with the way they were perceived in their historical context. That is why a true understanding of the Jewish followers of Jesus
presupposes a more integrated view on the history and literature of early
Judaism and Christianity.

Bibliography
The author acknowledges the University of California's regents' permission for copyright
access on the TLG CD-ROM.
Alexander, Philip, "'The Parting of the Ways" - the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism', in
Dunn 1992: 1-26
Alon, Gedalyahu, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 2 vols., Magnes, Jerusalem 1980-1984
Bagatti, Bellmino, The Churchfiom the Circumcision;History and Archaeology ofthe
Judaeo-Christians, (Publications of the Studiurn Biblicum Franciscanum, smaller
series nr. 2) Franciscan Press, Jerusalem 1971
Bauckham, Richard, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, Clark,
Edinburgh 1990
- 'Jews and Jewish Christians in the land of Israel at the time of the Bar Kochba war,
with special reference to the Apocalypse of Peter,' in G.N. Stanton and G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge
UP, Cambridge, 1998,228-238
- James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage, (New Testament Readings)
Routledge, London 1999
Bauer, Walter, Rechtgldubigkeit und Ketzerei im dltesten Christentum, (Beitr. z. hist.
Theol. 10) Mohr Siebeck, Tflbingen 1934, re-ed with epilogue on Judaeo-Christians
by G. Strecker 1964
Baur, F.C., 'Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christentums in der llltesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in
Rom', TQbingerZeitschrififir Theologie, (183 1) repr. in id, Ausgewdhlte Werke in
Einzelausgaben, vol. 1, ed K. Scholder, Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt 1963, 1-146
- Kirchengeschichteder ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 3rd ed TUbingen 1863-1 877
- Vorlesungen iiber die neurestamentliche Theologie,ed F.F. Baur, Leipzig 1864
Betz, Hans-Dieter, The sermon on the Mount; A Commentary on the Sermon on the
Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Malthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6 : 2 0 4 9 ) ,
(Hermeneia) Fortress Press, Minneapolis 1995
Bietenhard, Hans, Caesaraea, Origenes und die Juden, (Franz Delitsch-Vorlesungen
1972) Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1974

Black, Matthew, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 2nd cd Clarendon,
Oxford 1954,3rd ed 1967
Blanchetitre, Fran~ois,Enqube sur les racines juives du mouvement chrktien (30--135),
(Initiations) Cerf, Paris 2001
Backmuehl, Markus N.A., Jewish Law in Gentile Churches; Halakhah and the Beginning
of Christian Public Ethics, Clark, Edinburgh 2000
Boer, Martinus C. de, 'The Nazoreans: living at the boundary of Judaism and Christianity', in G.N. Stanton and G.G. Strousma (ed.), Tolerance and Intoierunce in Early
Judaism and Christianity, IJP, Cambridge 1998, 239-262
Brooke, George J., 'Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community', in Beate Ego,
Armin Lange, Peter Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel/ Community Without
Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines
Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum undfihen Christenturn, (WIJNT 1 18)

Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1999,285-301

Bulbnann, Rudolf, Theologie des Neuen Testaments,5th ed TUbingen 1965
Carleton Paget, James, 'Jewish Christianity', in W.D. Davies .- W. Horbury (eds.), The
Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3, The Early Roman Period, Cambridge 1999,
73 1-775
Davies, W.D. and Allison, Dale C., A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Clark, Edinburgh 1988
Draper, J.A., 'Christian Self-Definition against the "l4ypocrites" in Didache VIII', in
idem, The Didache in Modern Research, (AGJU 37) Brill, Leiden etc. 1996,223-243
Dunn, James D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament; An Inquiry into the
Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd ed SCM, London 1990

Jews and Christians; The Parting ofthe Ways A. D. 70- - 135; The Second Durham
Tfibingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism, (WUNT 66)

Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1992

Elbogen, Ismar, Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung,
Frankhrt 1931, repr. Olms, Hildesheim 1962
Epstein, J.N., Introduction to Tannaitic Literature; Mishna, Tosephta and Halukhic
Midrushim, ed by E.Z. Melamed, Magnes - Dvir, Jerusalem - Tel Aviv 1957 (Hebr.)
Eshel, Esther, 'Prayer in Qumran and the Synagogue', in B, Ego, A. Lange and P.
Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Temple/ Community without Temple, Zur
Subsitutuierung und TransJormation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kutts irn
Alten Testament, antiken Judentum undfihen Christenturn, (WUNT I 18) Mohr

Siebeck, Tubingen 1999,323-334

Evans, Craig A., 'Root causes of the Jewish-Christian riA from Jesus to Justin', in S.E.
Porter -- G.W.R. Pearson, Christion-Jewish relations through rhe centuries.
(JSNTSupSer 192) UP, Shefield 2000,20-35
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Gospel According to St. Luke, vol. 1-2, (Anchor Bible 28)
Doubleday, Garden City NY 1981-85
Fleischer, Ezra, 'On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer', Tarhiz 59 (1989-90)
397-44 1 (Hebr.)
Flusser, David, 'Paul's Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache', in S. Shaked, D.
Shulman and G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Gilgul; Essays on Transformation, Revolution
and Permanence in the history of Religions (FS. Z. Werblowski), Leiden etc. 1987,
71-90; repr. in J.A. Draper (ed.), The Didache in Modern Research, Brill, Leiden
1 996, 195-2 1 1
- 'Ein Sendschreiben aus Qumran (4QMMT) und der Ketzenegen', Beihqji Judaica nr.
3 (1995), 6-57 [= 'Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMl') and

The wars against Rome

29

the Benediction against the Heretics', Tarbiz 4 1 (1992 -93) 333-374 (Hebr.)]
Judaism and the Origins ofChristianity, Magnes, Jerusalem 1988 (collected essays)
Goldberg, Abraham, 'The Mishna - A Study Book of Halakha', in S. Safrai (ed.), The
Literature of the Sages. First Part: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, ToseJta, Talmud,
External Tractates, (CRINT IV3a) Van Gorcum / Fortress Press, Assen I Philadelphia

1987,211-44
Harnack, Adolf, Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 6: Die Entstehung des
NTs und die wichtigsten Folgen der neuen Schbphng, Hinrichs, Leipzig 19 14
- Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 4th
ed Leipzig 1924
; Nature
Heinemann, Joseph, Prayer in the Period of the Tanna 'im and the Amora ' ~ mIts
and Its Patterns, Magnes, Jerusalem 1966' (Heb.)
Hengel, Martin, 'Proseuche und Synagoge', in G. Jeremias, W.-W. Kuhn and H.
Stegemann (eds.), Tradition und Glaube; FS K.G. Kuhn, GCIttingen (Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht) 1971, 157-84, repr. in idem, Judaica d Hellenistica; Kleine Schriften I, ed
R. Deines a.o., (WUNT 90) Mohr Siebeck, Tllbingen 1996, 171 - 195
Herr, Moshe David, 'Sibotav she1 mered Bar Kokhba', in Oppenheimer 1980: 57-48 (=
Zion 43 [1978-791 1-1 1)
Horbury, William, 'The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy', STS 33 (1982) 19-61, repr. in idem, Jews and Christians in Contact and
Controversy, Edinburgh (T&T Clark) 1998.67- 1 10
Howard, George, 'Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew and Early Jewish Christianity', JSNT 70
(I 998) 3 -20
Hyman, Aaron, Toldoth Tannaim ve 'Amorarm, vol. 1-3, London 1910
Jaubert, Annie, La date de la Ckne; calendrier biblique et liturgie chrbienne, I,ecoRe,
Paris 1957
Jervell, Jakob, Die Apostelgeschichte,(Meyers krit.-exeg. Komm. Bb. d. MI', 3, 17th ed.)
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GOttingen 1998
Kalmin, Richard, 'Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity', IITR
87 (1994) 155-169
Kimelman, Reuven, 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian
Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity', in Sanders 1982: 226-244
Klausner, Joseph, Jesw von Nazareth, 2nd expanded ed., Jlldischer Verlag, Berlin 1934
Klijn, A.F.J., 'The Study of Jewish Christianity', NTS 20 (1974) 419-43 1
Kriegel, Stanley, 'Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology', NTS 24 (1978)
410-415
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientttijc Revolutions, 2nd ed Chicago 1970
Lange, N.R.M. De, Origen and the Jews, 2nd ed Cambridge 1976
Lieberman, S., Tosefla ki-fshutah. A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefra, vol. 110, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York 1955-88 (Nebr.)
- Greek in Jewish Palestine; Studies in the Li/e and Manners ofJmlsh Palestine in the
II -IV Centuries C.E., JTS, 2nd ed New York I965

Lieu, Judith, "The Parting of the Ways": Theological Construct or Historical Reality?',
JSNT56 (1994) 101-1 19
Luz, Ulrich, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (Evangelisch-Katholische Kommentare zum
Neuen Testament) 1-3, Benzinger I Neukirchener, Zurich I Neukirchen 1985ff
Maier, Johann, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Oberlieferung, (Ertr. d.
Forschung 82) Wiss. Buchges., Darmstadt 1978
- Jadische Auseinandersehung mit dem Christentum in der Antike, (Ertr. d. Forschung
177) Wiss. Buchges., Darmstadt 1982

Marguerat, Daniel, La premiPre histoire du christiunisme; Les Acres des Apdtres, (Lectio
divina 180) Labor et Fides I Cerf, Geneva I Paris 1999 [- 1999aj
- 'The Enigma of the Silent Closing of Acts (28:16-31)', in David P. Moessner (ed.),
Jesus and the Heritage of Israel; Luke's Narrative Claim upon Isruel 's Legacy,
Trinity, Harrisburg 1999, 284-304 [= 1999b3
Mason, Steve, 'Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts', in R. Rauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, Carlisle (Paternoster) I Grand
Rapids (Eerdmans) 1995, 1 1 5- 177
Martyn, J. Louis, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, (1968) rev. and enl. ed
Abingdon, Nashville 1979
McKay, Heather A., Sabbath and Synagogue; The Question of Sabbath Worship in
Ancient Judaism (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, Volume 122), Brill, Leiden
etc. 1994.
Mimouni, Simon Claude, 'Les Nazodens; recherche etymologique et historique', RB 105
(1998) 208-262 [=1998a]
- Le judi?o-christianisme ancien; essays historiques, (Patrimoines) Cerf, Paris 1998
[=1998b]
Newsom, Carol, 'Angelic Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-4Q407,
11Q17, Maslk)', = J.H. Charlesworth and C.A. Newsom (eds.), The DeadSea
Scrolls; Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4B: Angelic
Liturgy: Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, Mohr Siebeck / Westminster John Knox,
Tllbingen / Louisville 1999
Olson, D.T.,'Daily Prayers (44503 = 4QPrQuot)', in J.H. Charlesworth et al. (eds.), The
Dead Sea Scrolls; Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 4A:
Pseudepigraphic and Nun-Masoretic Psolms and Prayers, Mohr Siebeck I
Westminster John Knox, TDbingen / Louisville 1997, 235-285
Oppenheimer, Aharon (ed.), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, (Issues in Jewish History) S h a r
Centre, Jerusalem 1980 (Heb.)
Prostmeier, F.R., Der Barnabasbrief jbersetzr und erkliirr, (Komm. z.d. Apost. VlItern 8)
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GUttingen 1999
Rappaport, Uriel, 'Yahasei Yehudim welo-Yehudim be-Erets Yisrael weha-mered hagadol be-Romi', in A. Kasher (ed.), The Great Jewish Revolt; Factors und
circumstances leading to its outbreak, (Issues in Jewish History) Shazar Center,
Jerusalem 1983, 159.- 172
Reif, Stephen, 'A1 hitpathut ha-tetilla ha-keduma be-Yisrael (be-shulei maamro she1 Ezra
Fleischer)', Tarbiz 60 (1990-91) 677--681
Richardson, Peter, Israel in the Apostolic Church, (SNTS MonSer 10) IJP, Cambridge
1969
S a h i , Shmuel, R. Akiva hen Yosel; hayym u-mishnato,pirkei halakha we-ag~adu
melukatim u-mewarim be-tseruf mmo, Bialik, Jerusalem 1970
- 'The Era of the Mishnah and the Talmud (70-640); in H.W. Ben-Sasson (ed.), A
History of the Jewish People, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London 1976, 307 382
- 'The Synagogue', in idem and M. Stem (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century; Historical Geography, Politico1 History, Social. Cultural und Religious Life and
In~titutions,(CRINT In) Van Gorcurn / Fortress, Assen / Philadelphia 1976,908-944
- 'Gathering in the Synagogues on Festivals, Sabbaths and Weekdays', BAR Inrernational Series 499 (1989) 7- l 5
- In Times of Temple and Mishnah; Studies in Jewish History, vol. I - 2, Magnes,
Jerusalem 1996 (Hebr.)
Sanders, E.P., Baumgarten, A.I., and Mendelson, A. (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-

The wars against Rome

31

Defiition, Val. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period, SCM Press,

London 1981
Sandt, Huub van de, and Flusser, David, The Didache; Its Jewish Sources and its Place
in Early Judaism and Christianity, (CRINT 11115) Van Gorcum I Fortress Press, Assen
I Minneapolis 2002
Schafer, Peter, 'R. Aqiva und Bar Kokhba', idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie
des robbinischen Judentums, (AGAJU 15) Brill, Leiden 1978,65-12 1
Schiffman, Lawrence W., 'At the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the JewishChristian Schism', in Sanders 1981: 1 15-1 56
Schrage, Wilhelm, art. ouvayoyIj, in ThWbNT 7, Kohlhammer, Stungart 1964,798850
Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der paulinischen hrschung von der Reformation his auf
die Gegenwart, Mohr Siebeck, TObingen 191 1
Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel. Crude sur les relations entre chrdtiens et juifs dam
I 'empire romain (135-425), De Boccard, Paris 1948
Smallwood, E. Mary, The Jews under Roman Rulefrom Pompey to Diocletian; A Study
in Political Relations, 2nd ed Brill, Leiden 1981
Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchri.stenfums, Mohr
Siebeck, TObingen 1945
Stanton, Graham, A Gospelfor a New People; Studies in Matthew, Clark, Edinburgh
1992
Strecker, Georg, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit; Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthffus,
(FRLANT 82) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gbningen 1962,3rd ed 1971
Taylor, Justin, 'Why were the disciples first Called "Christians" at Antioch?' RB 101
( I 994) 75-94
Tomson, Peter J., Paul and the Jewish Law; Hala&ha in the Letters of the Apostle to the
Gentiles, (CRINT IIlil) Van Gorcum I Fortress, Assen I Minneapolis 1990
- 'The New Testament Canon as the Embodiment of Evolving Christian Attitudes to the
Jews', in A. van der Kooij & K. van der Toorn (eds), Canonizaton and De-Chnonization, Papers Presented to the Intern. Con$ of the Leiden Institute for the Study of
Religions (LISOR) held at Leiden 9-10 January 1997, Brill, Leiden 1998, 107-13 1

- 'Gamaliel's Counsel and the Apologetic Strategy of Luke-Acts', in J. Verheyden

(ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL 1421, UP / Peeters, Leuven 1999,585-604
-- 'The Centrality of Jerusalem and its Temple as Viewed by Clement of Rome, Luke,
and Jesus', Analecta bruxellensia 5 (2000) 97-1 12
- 'Ifthis be from Heaven... '; Je.sus and the New Testament Authors in their relationship
to Judaism, AcPr, Shefield 2001 [=2001a]

- "'Jews"in the Gospel of John as Compared with the Palestinian Talmud, the Synop-

tics and Some New Testament Apocrypha', in R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (eds.), Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel; Papers of the
Leuven CoNoquium, 2000, (Jewish and Christian Heritage Series I ) Van Gorcum,
Assen 200 1,30 1-340 [=200 1b]
- 'Les systtmes de halakha du Contre Apion et des Antiquitks', in F. Siegert -- J.U.
Kalms (eds.), Internationales Josephw-Kolloquium Paris 2001, Mansteraner judaistische Studien 12 (2002), 189-220
Wrede, William, Paulus (1904), repr. in K.H.Rengstorf - U. Luck (eds.), Das Paulusbild
in der neueren deutschen Forschung, Wiss. Buchges., Darmstadt 1982, 1-97
Zahn, Theodor, Einleitung zum Neuen Testament, 1-2,3rd ed Deichert, Leipzig 1906--07

Venvandte Jesu
als Referenzpersonen f i r das Judenchristentum
Doris Lumbers-Perry

Nach den Angaben der Apostelgeschichte bildeten die Mutter und die Briider
Jesu gemeinsarn mit den Jiingern und den Frauen einen Kreis, der sich im
Obergemach einer Wohnung in Jerusalem regelmiil3ig nun Gebet traf. Wiihrend die synoptischen Evangelien den Eindruck erwecken, dass die Briider Jesu zu dessen Lebzeiten nicht zu seinen Anhhgern f i l t e n , siedelt das Johannesevangelium sie unter den WunderglBubigen am Rand der Bewegung an.'
Bekannt aber waren die Briider auch den Synoptikern. Sie e r w h e n sie im
Zwammenhang mit der V e r w e h g Jesu in seiner Vaterstadt. Markus und
Matth%us nennen sogar ihre Namen: Jakobus, Simeon, Judas und Joseph beziehungsweise Joses. In den Briefen des Paulus sowie in der Apostelgeschichte stokn wir auf weitere I-iinweise darauf, dass sie an der durch die Auferstehung Jesu ausgel6sten Bewegung eng beteiligt waren. So erwiihnt Paulus in
1Kor 9,5f. Brlider Jesu, die in Begleitung ihrer Frauen als Missionare unterwegs sind. Die in 1Kor 15,7 angefiihrte Erscheinung des Aufcrstandenen vor
einem nicht nliher bestimmten Jakobus dilrAe sich auf den Herrenbruder beziehen.

Die Jakobusklauseln
Der I-ierrenbruder Jakobus scheint in allen friihchristlichcn Kreisen grol)es
Ansehen genossen zu haben. Paulus galt er bereits als apostolische Autoritiit,
als er seinen Antrittsbesuch bei Pems in Jerusalem machte (Gal 2). Den Worten des Lukas ist zu entnehrnen, dass Jakobus kurze Zeit sflter, als Petrus im
Zuge der Verfolgung unter Agrippa I fliichten musste, die Leitung der Jerusalemer Gemeinde tibernahm (Apg 12). Auf dem Aposteltreffen, das in den
Vier~igerJahren in Jerusalem stattfand und auf dem Paulus und Barnabas sich
mit den Aposteln iiber die gesetzesfreie Mission unter den Heiden besprachen,
trat er als der mdgebliche Verhandlungspartner auf, obgleich Petrus und
Johannes anwesend waren. Seiner umsichtigen Fiihrung ist es zu vcrdanken,
dass die iiberfordert wirkenden Jerusalemer Christen anerkannten, dass IIeidenchristen durch ihren Glauben erliist werden und deshalb nicht zur

' Joh 2,i-12 und 7,l- 13 d

SCHFB 24-27.

e n Uberliefer~n~en
der Semeiaquelle spiegeln. Siehe PRAT-

VenvandteJesu

33

Einhaltung des ganzen Mosaischen Gesetzes verpflichtet werden sollten. Die

gesetzesfieie Mission unter Heiden - aber nur dort! - war somit offiziell
anerkannt. Auf Vorschlag des Jakobus wurden die s o g e m t e n Jakobusklauseln formuiiert und als Anweisung der Apostel und ~ l t e s t e nvon den Gemeindegliedern Judas und Silas per Brief der Antiochenischen Gemeinde und ihren
Tochtergemeinden in Syrien und Kilikien iiberbracht (Apg 1 5 ) . ~
Diese Klauseln pr8gen ganz entscheidend das neutestamentliche Jakobusbild. Im Einzelnen handelt es sich um die Verbote Ersticktes (d.h. Fleisch aus
nicht-koscherer Schlachtung) zu essen, lJnzucht zu treiben (d.h. mit nahen
Verwandten eine geschlechtliche Beziehungen zu haben), Blut zu verzehren
und am Gatzendienst teilzunehmen. In seinen Anweisungen bezeichnet Jakobus die Klauseln als notwendig (bxdvay~q),urn die Heidenchristen vor Befleckung (bhtayqpa.cd<)zu schiitzen. Dieser Begriff, der im NT nur an dieser
Stelle auftritt, wurde wohl von Daniel LXX gepr"dgl.1 wo er als Verb gleich
rnehrmals vorkommt und sich auf die magliche V e m i n i g u n g Daniels an
Tafel und Becher des Kbnigs kzieht. Es ist deshalb anzunehmen, dass die
Klauseln den Heidenchristen eine gewisse kultische Reinheit vermitteln und
damit wohl auch das Zusammenleben von Heiden- und Judenchristen in gemischten Gemeinden wie Antiochien ermbglichen sollte.
Hinsichtlich der Tischgemeinschaf? aber herrschte in der Jerusalemer Gemeinde Uneinigkeit. Dies zeigt sich beim sogenannten ,,Zwischenfall in Antiochien", den Paulus in Gal 2 e r w h t und der sich zeitlich nach dem Treffen
in Jerusalem ereignet haben diirfte: In den galatischen Gemeinden waren
Judenchristen aufgetaucht, die auf die Beschneidung der dortigen Heidenchristen und die volle Beachtung des jiidischen Gesetzes pochten. Paulus berichtet seinen dortigen Schiitzlingen voller Emp(Srung, dass auch in Antiochien Mhner aus Jerusalem aufgetreten seien, die unter Berufung auf Jakobus
die dort praktizierte Tischgemeinschafl als nicht statthafl unterbunden und
dadurch einen g m k n Streit mvischen ihrn, Paulus, einerseits und Petrus und
Barnabas andererseits ausgel6st hiitten. Dieser Streit d m e dam dazu gefiUut
haben, dass Paulus enttliuscht die Stadt verlie0, wiihrend Penoch geraurne
Zxit blieb und selbst eine leitende Funktion a~siibte.~
Paulus zufolge wurde auf die Ritte der ,,drei SZiulenL'hin auf dem Apostelkonzil vereinbart, dass er und Barnabas in ihren Gemeinden eine Kollekte Rir
die .,Amenb' (nach Ram 15,26 und lKor 16,3 die J e d e m e r Gemeinde)
erheben sollten (Gal 2,lO). Wthend er von den Klauseln nichts gewwst zu
Die Klauseln werden nur von Lukas e-nt
und als Ergebnis der Verhandlungen des
Apostelkonzils dargestellt. Einiges deutet aber darauf hin, dass sie sptiter in der Jerusalemer
Gemeinde formuliert wurden. Zwar w i d man annehmen mbsen, dass sie Paulus irgendwann
mitgeteilt wurden (vielleicht im Zusammenhang mit dem sogenannten Antiochenischen Zwischenfall), doch vermitteln seine Briefe nicht den Einbruck, dass er sie je seinen Gemeinden
empfohlen htitte. Siehe auch Anm. 6.
Siehe Origenes, In Lucam Horn.6c und Euseb, Hist. eccl. 3.36.2.

haben scheint, nahm er dieses Versprechen sehr ernst (1 Kor 16,1-4; 2Kor
9,12). Nach Ram 15,3 1 war das Uberbringen der Kollekte sogar der einzige
Grund f%r seine verhbgnisvolle letzte Reise nach ~erusalem.~
Offensichtlich
war sie filr ihn das Symbol der Einheit der Kirche und der Verhundenheit seiner Missionsgemeinden mit den ,,Heiligen" der Jerusalemer Urgemeinde. Die
Angaben des Galaterbriefes werfen Zweifel hinsichtlich der Vereinbarung der
Klauseln auf dem A p o s t e l k ~ ~auf;
i l sie vermitteln vielmehr den Iiindruck,
die Klauseln seien erst spater und in Abwesenheit des Paulus in Jerusalem
formuliert und diesem danach aufgezwungen worden.'
&hn Jahre etwa nach dem Jerusalemer Treffen kam Paulus nach Jerusalem
zudck, urn die Sammlung zu iiberbringen. Wiederum wandte er sich an den
Herrenbruder, der ihm riet, einige zur Gemeinde gehorenden Nasiraer auszulbsen und samit den Cieriichten iiber seinen angeblichen Abfall vom Gesetz
entgegenzuwirken (Apg 21,23). Diese Auslosung galt als eine fromme Tat,
war gleichzeitig aber auch eine kostspielige Angelegenheit. Es ist gut denkbar, dass Paulus hier die Kollekte investieren musste. Jakobus hiitte sich damit
in dieser heiklen Situation als geschickter Lliplomat erwiesen, der die offensichtlich berechtigte Bemrchtung des Paulus, seine Kollekte kSnne in Jcrusalem abgelehnt werden (Riim 15,3 I), in eine fir beide Seiten abeptable Ehrenpflicht abwandelte. Auch kam die Kollekte der paulinischen Gcmeinden wie vereinbart - den Bedurftigen der Gemeinde zu Gute.
Auf die fiintergriinde des Apostelkonzils sowie die Umstiinde und Uberlegungen, die zur Einfiihrung der Kollekte und tur Formulierung der Jakobusklauseln gefiihrt haben, wtihrend des Konzils oder spater, kann im Rahmen
dieser Untersuchung nicht eingegangen werden. Riickblickend kann auch
kaurn noch beurteilt werden, wo und wie lange die Klauseln beachtet wurden
und welche Formen des Zusarnmenlebens sie ermoglichten. Wir sollten aber
bedenken, dass die Diskussion um die Einhaltung jiidischer Gebote in christlichen Kreisen noch Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts andauerte und der in Rom
lebende Kirchenvater Justin, ein Heidenchrist, sich nachdrucklich im Sinn der
Klauseln und damit fir die Einheit aller Gllubigen aussprach (Dial. 47.1 A ) . ~

'" Ckr Beschluss dcs Paulus, nach Jerusalem r u rcisen, wird in der Apostelgeschichte nicht
weiter be-det
und auch nirgendwo mit einer Kollekte in Verbindung gebracht. Nach 20, I6
wollte er rechtzeitig zum Wochenfest (mvrtl~ooril)
dort sein.
Spannungen dieser Art werden irn offiziellen Schreiben an die gcmischten Gemeinden
angesprochen (Apg 15,24). Auch dies spricht daRfr, days die Klauseln erst nach dem sogcnannten Antiochenischen Zwischenfall (Gal 2.1 1-21) als verbindliche Fordemng fonnuliert
wurden, ohne die Beteiligung des Paulus. Lukas d m e , wie so manchmal, den historischen
Sachverhalt in seiner Darstellung aus apologetischen Cifilnden harrnonisiert und vcreinfacht
haben.
Spuren sind u. a. vorhanden in Off 2,14.20.25, in Did. 6.3, in eincm 177 n.Chr. datiertcn
M&%ywbrief bei Euseb, Hist. eccl. 5.1.26 und in PsCI. Hom. 7.8.1.

Festhalten wollen wir auch, dass die Bedeutung des Jakobus fllr die Entwicklung des fifihen Christentums von Paulus und Lukas anerkannt wird.
Allerdings wird er von beiden mit einem stets konservativer werdenden Judenchristentum in Verbindung gebracht, das zwar Jesus als den Messias anerkennt, aber entschlossen an Gesetz und TempelMmmigkeit fisthat. Im Lauf
der Zeit sollten diese Gruppen von den stets einflussreicher werdendtn Heidenchristen wie auch von judischer Seite zumeist als haetisch abgelehnt und
marginalisiert werden.

Der Jakobusbrief
Das Jakobusbild des Ncuen Testaments wird entscheidend von einem Brief
mitgepdgt, der den Anspruch erhebt, von Jakobus, dem Knecht Gottes und
des I-lcrrn Jesus Christus, geschrieben worden zu sein. Dass mit diescm Jakobus der Werrenbruder gemeint ist, ist nahezu unbestritten. Der Brief richtet
sich formal an die ,,zwOlf S m m e in der 7,erstreuungb'. Hinter dieser gewichtigen A m d e zeichnen sich GlBubige ab, die sich innerhalb eines synagogenhlichen Verbandes zu Christus bekennen und Anfechtungen ausgesetzt
sind.? Der Schreiber, der sich in 3,lf als Lehrcr bezeichnet, mahnt zu Geduld
und Weisheit und befasst sich paradigmatisch mit der gewissenhaften Gestaltung einer persiinlichen und gemeinschafilichen christlichen Existenz zwischen Taufe und Endgericht. Die judische Priigung des Rundschreibens. insbesondere seine N&e zur judischen Weisheitsliteratur, wird allgemein anerkannt. Er setzt an mehreren Stellen Kenntnisse der heiligen Schrifr voraus
( ~ a * rTa ~ Vypacpfiv). Der v6po5 wird nachdriicklich als Richtschnur verstanden, nach welcher der Mensch, ,,in den der h6yog eingepflanzt ist" (Jak 1,2 I),
einmal beurteilt werden wird. Der Christ sail nicht nur h6rcn und verstehen,
sondern logosgemiil3 handeln, das heiDt g e m a dem Namen, auf den er getauA
ist, und aus dem ,,vollkommenen Gesetz der Freihcit" heraus (Jak 1,25 und
2,12).8 Dies bedeutet, dass dm ilberlieferte Gesetz nicht mehr auferlegt ist,
sondern durch den Glauben an Jesus Christus und seine bevorstehende
Wiederkunft bewirkt wid. Wie die Beispiele zeigen, Bllt der Nachdruck
dabei auf das Moralgesetz. In dieser Verschiebung der Perspektiven liegt der
Unterschied zu den herk6mmlichen 1,ehren des Judenturns, und diirfen die
Adressaten sich gemeinsam mit Jakobus durch ihren geduldigen Widerstand
I)er Verfasser des Jakobusbriefes ist der einzige im NT, der die Vmmrnlung der GIBubigen als oovuyoyfi bezeichnet (2,2). Er nennt sie auch t~~Arl<ria,
deren xpc:(r$6~tp01mit
den Glgubigen zumnmenkommen urn m beten und rituellc Handlungen durchlufilhren
(5,1!).

Das G e m als befreiend m verstehen, entspricht stoischer lxhre. Philo Ubemug sie auf
das rnosaische Gesetz und lobte den v6pog als Befkiung vom 7~6% (Prob 41- 50). Siehe
auch mAv 6.2. Nach dem Jakobusbrief befreit nicht das Halten des Gesetles an sich, sondem
seine Verinnerlichung befreit m m rechten Handeln.

gegeniiber dem Basen und durch ihre t3tige Liebe als ,,Erstlinge seiner
Geschopfe" (Jak 1,18) begreifen.
Seine Aufmachung als Diasporabrief suggeriert die Herkunfl des Briefes
aus Jerusalem, die synagogale Struktur der angesprochenen Gemeinden und
die Bezeichnung der Gemeindeleiter als ,,~lteste"einen judenchristlich gepagten ont text.^ Dass Fragen der kultischen Pflichten von Heidenchristen
hier nicht angeschnitten, friihe (miindliche) Jesustraditionen nicht als Herrenworte gekem.eichnet werden und Hinweise auf die eschatologische Redeutung von Tod und Auferstehung Jesu fehlen, konnte fir eine relativ friihe
Entstehung sprechen. Die Erwiihnung der (exorzistischen) Kranken6lung ,,im
Namen des Hem" durch die Presbyter der Ecclesia (5,14), die keine deutliche
jiidische Parallele hat, setzt allerdings cine erste Phase der Entwicklung spezifisch christlicher Riten ~ o r a u s . ' ~
Obwohl viele dieser Eindriicke durchaus zu dem Jakobusbild passen, das
auch Paulus und die Apostelgeschichte vermitteln, halten die meisten Forscher den IIerrenbruder nicht fur den Verfasser der Schritt. Ihre Hauptargumente sind die ausgezeichnete griechische Rhetorik des Briefes, die man dem
Herrenbruder nicht recht zugestehen mkhte, das Fehlen von liinweisen auf
eine persiinliche Beziehung zu Jesus, seine spate Bezeugung und seine damit
verbundene ziigerliche Aufnahme in den Kanon. Statt dessen wird vielfach
angenommen, es handle sich urn ein pseudepigraphisches Werk aus spaterer
ikit."
Wie auch immer, das Schreiben stammt aus der Fcder cines Christen, der
ein jiidisch gefilrbtes Referenzsystem handhabt. Obgleich der Verfasser weiB
oder vennutet, dass seine Adressaten Beriihrungen mit I,ehren paulinischer
Priigung haben, kann er die Autotiat des Jakobus als unbestritten voraussetx n und mit ihrer Hilfe eine 1,ehre korrigieren, welche ausschliefllich den
Glaubcn des Christen im Auge hat, nicht aber seine praktischen KonsequenZen. Als Adressaten kommen deshalb in erster Linie judenchristliche und judenchristlich gepriigte Gemeinden im Geltungsbereich des Aposteldekrets in
Frage, n h l i c h Kleinasien, Kilikien und Syrien. Wahrscheinlich war der Brief
aber auch an Gemeinden im agyptischen Raum gerichtet, wo petrinisch und
BischOfe und Diakone gehbren fur Organisation der Mlhen paulinischen (ienieinde, die
ihrerseits keine ~ltestenkennt. Diese werden lediglich envlhnt Im Jak, 1 Petr, Apg und Apk,
die wiederum keine BischOfe und Diakone nennen.
'* Dabei kommt nicht dem 01 die wundenvirkende KraA zu, sondern der Olung unter
Gebet und Anmhng des Namens Christi durch die Presbyter. N3heres siehe Dlr3t I ][if 299f.
Schon das auf Petrustraditionen basierende Markusevangelium berichtet, dass die JOnger nach
ihrer Aussendung Damonen austrieben und Kranke durch Salbung mit 01 genasen (Mk 6.13).
For den Hembruder als Verfasser sprechen sich aus: f l ~ ~ c i(1987),
f . ~ ADAMSON
(1989), BAIKK~IAM
(1999), M00 (2000). DIB1 LlllS ( 1 920), BUKCIIARD
( 1980), FRANhEMi)L1.F (1994) und TSUJI(1997) halten dies fZlr unwahrscheinlich und datieren den Brief vie1
sflter.

"

Verwandte Jesu

37

paulinisch gepdgte Traditionen erst nach den jakobeischen FuO fy!ten und in
dem die apostolische Sukzession keine wesentliche Rolle spielte. Ahnlichkeiten mit christlicher Literatur ramischer Herkunfi (IIirte des Herma%,Erster
Clemensbrief) kannten d a f b sprechen, dass der Brief bereits zur Jahrhundertwende in Rom bekannt war.

Der Judasbrief
Auch der Verfa~serdes Judasbriefes erhebt den Anspruch, zur Familie des
I ierm zu geh6ren.I2Er ncnnt sich ,Judas, ein Knecht Jesu Christi, Bruder aber
des Jakobus" und dMle damit einen der Herrenbrilder meinen, die Paulus in
1Kor 9,5 erwilhnt. An dieser Stelle schreibt Paulus ilber die Rechte der Apostel auf Unterhalt durch die besuchte Gemeinde und setzt dabei als bekannt
voraus, dass die Herrenbrilder als Missionare mit ihren Ehehuen urnherreisen. Dieser Hinweis liisst die Existenz eincs von ihm auf Griechisch verfassten Rundschreibens grunds&zlich plausibel erscheinen. Wie beim Jakobusbrief ist aber auch hier die sprachfiche Qualitiit des Briefes ein vie1 gebrauchtes Argument gegen einen Herrenbruder als Verfasser.
Auf Grund seiner Benutmng durch 2Petr darf man annehmen, d m der
Judasbrief noch im ersten Jahrhundert entstanden ist. Wie der Jakabusbrief
war er eine Zeit lang umstritten (Euseb, Hist. eccl. 2.23 und 3.25), doch wurde
er schon vom Kanon Muratori, Tertullian und Clemens von Alexandrien
(nach Euseb, Hist. eccl. 6.6, in dessen Stromateis) als kanonisch anerkannt.
Euseb und Hieronymus beanstanden seine Verwendung apokrypher jildischer
Schrifien.l 3
Da das Neue Testament keinerlei Einzelheiten zur Person des Hemnbruders Judas bereithlllt, ist unser Judasbild stark vom Juhbrief, einem der
kleinsten des neutestamentlichen Kanons, und seinem bescheiden anmutenden
Autoritiitsanspruch gepmt: Inhaltlich befasst der Brief sich mit dem ,,christlichen" Likrtinismus, einer vor- oder ffihgnostischen Erscheinung, die der
breiten gnostischen Bewegung des zweiten und dritten Jahrhunderts den Weg
kreitete. Judas protcstiert gegen dessen Ixhren, da sie dem ,,festgelegtena,
apostolischen Glauben (V. 3) widerspschen und von Bemgern, die als wandemde Charismatiker aufgetreten waren, in die Gemeinde hineingetragen
worden seien. Genaueres kann aus der Polemik nur etschlossen werden: Die
1,ibertinisten lehnten offensichtlich jegliches Gesetz, ob es nun von Moses (V.
8-10) oder Jesus (V. 4 und 8) hemibte, ab und propagierten statt dessen die
moralische Unabhiingigkeit derer, die den ,,GeistC'besitzen (V. 9 und 19). Der
Die Identifizierung mit anderen Personen des gleichen Narnens scheitert dwan, h s s aus
neutestamentlicher Zeit kein anderes BrClderpaar Judas und Jakobus bekannt ist.
l 3 KUMMEL,Einleirung, 377f.

Ubergriff denunziert. Dies fihrte dazu, dass Agrippa I1 den Hohenpriester

spontan wider absetzte. Die Venuteilung des Jakobus durch einen Saddu~&r
und die folgemichen Proteste einer mschtigen Opposition venveisen nicht
nur auf einen gedanklichen Austausch mit den religiiisen Str6mungen des damaligen Judentums und deren unterschiedliche Reaktionen, sondern suggerieren auch, dass zurnindest Ananus 11, mbglicherweise aber auch Agrippa 11,
seinen weiteren Einfluss um jeden Preis unterbinden wollte." Die E r w h u n g
des Jakobus in einem jiidischen Geschichtswerk spricht fir dessen Bekanntheit und Ansehen uber die Gemeindegrenzen hinaus. Josephw, der ja aus
Jerusalem stammte, k6nnte sogar Zeuge dieser kiinrichtung gewesen scin.
Eine ausflihrlichere Darstellung des Martyriums des Jakobus finden wir in
den Hypomnemata des Kirchenvaters Hegesipp, dem judenchristliche Lokaltraditionen zur Vdgung gestanden haben diirf'ien." Er beschreibt eindrucksvoll die fren~dartige,nasirZiisch anrnutende Lebensweise des Hemnbruders
(Vcrzicht auf Fleisch, Alkohol, Kiirperiil und Haarschneiden) und seine
levitische Frbmmigkeit, die sich in anhaltenden Fiirbitten im Tempel fiir sein
Volk aukrte und ihrn die jiidische Ehrenbezeichnung ,,Zadik" eingebracht
habe. Dieses Ansehen beim Volk sei ihm zurn Verhitngnis geworden: Als er
sich in aller C)ffentlichkeit unerschrocken zu Jesus als dem kommenden
Menschensohn bekannt und dies massenhafie Bekehrungen ausgelbst habe,
h4itten die ,,die SchriAgelehrten und Pharisiler" spontan beschlossen, ihn zu
t6ten.I9 kfegesipp bezeugt die Verankerung der Erinnerung an Jakobus in
jiidischen Motiven, insbesondere dem priesterlichen, das durch den Titel ,,der
Gcrechte". rnit dem auch der legendae Hohepriester simeon2' geehrt wurde,
noch betont wird. Er zieht aber auch beliebte Motive aus den MMyrertraditionen der friihen Kirche heran, um das dreifache Martyrium des Jakobus
(Steinigung, Stm, Erschlagung) damtellen. Jakobus wird hier zum Parademllrtyrcr der Jciualemer Gemeinde stilisiert, mit einem Grab in unmittelbmr
Niihe des Tempels.
Jakobus wird von Hegesipp als Garant der reinen Lehre heworgehoben.
Erst durch die Eifersuchteleien eines gewissen 'Thebutis, der gehoM hatte.
sein Nachfolger zu wcrden, sei es in der Jerusalemer Kirche zu Unstimmig---l 7 Agrippa 11 hane keinerlei Rechtsbefugnisse in Jugenoss aber das Frivileg, den
tlohenpriester emennen AI dorfen. FUr die Amtseinsetmg des Ananus war nach Josephus
der unerwartete Kod des Prokurators Festus und die damit verbundene Vakanz in der Stanhalterschafi ausschlaggebend. Ananus handelte, als er Jakobus steinigen lie& ohne ramische
Erlaubnis und musste dann auch seine Absetzung hinnehmen.
Von den Hypomnemata (ca. 180 n.Chr.) sind lediglich einige Zitate erhalten, bis auf
zwei Ausnahmen alle in der Hist. eccl. des Euseb.
" Die Gegner des Jakobus sind nicht mehr wie bei Josephus der I.Iohepriester und der
Sanhedrin, sondern die Phariaer und Schriflgelehrten, die in der &it Hegesipps die Gegner
des Judenchristentums verk6rperten.
Simeon der Gerechte kann mit Josephus, Ant. 12.43 mit dern Hohenpriester Simeon 1
oder mit Ben Sira 50,l-6 mit Simeon I1 identifiziert werden.

40

Lumbers-Petty

keiten gekommen und seien die judenchristlichen Wkesien (kma a l p r a ~ kv

i~
tq ka@) entstanden (Hist. eccl. 4.22.5f). Euseb zitiert aus den Hypomn8mata,
um die apostolische Sukzession innerhalb der Urgemeinde nachzuweisen, fi
die er wohl sonst keine Uklieferung vorfand. Allerdings ist diesen auch zu
entnehrnen, dass bei der Regelung der Nachfolge des Jakobus das Familiencharisma eine @Bere Rolle spielte ais apostolisehe Kompetem: Er wiederholt auch Hegesipps Notiz, dass die noch lebenden Apostel und Verwandten
Jesu nach Jerusalem gekommen seien und einstimnlig Symmn gewiihlt
hatten, weil er ein Vetter Jesu war. Sein Vater Klopas sei ein Onkel des IIerrn
gewesen (Hist. eccl. 4.22.40, seine Mutter die in Joh 19,25 genannte Maria,
(Frau) des Klopas (Hist. eccl. 3.32.4). An anderer Stelle paraphrasieti Euseb
dieses Zitat und figt hinzu, der genannte Klopas sei ein Bruder Josephs
gewesen und schon im Evangelium erwiihnt worden (Hist. eccl. 3.1 1, eine
Anspielung auf die Emmaus-Szene in I,k 24,13-35).2' Euseb k6nnte sich hier
natiirlich auf Hegesipp stiltZen, Es entsprkhe aber auch sehr seinem eigenen
apologetischen Interesse, Symeon bzw. seinen Vater in einem anerkannten
Evangelium zu verankern, um ml- die Verwandtenwahl apostolisches Rackgrat zu schaffen. Hegesipp brauchte diese Verbindung noch nicht: Filr ihn war
die RechtmlPBigkeit der Nachfolge durch die Wahl und die Verwandtschaft
garantieti.
Wenn Symeon die Gemeinde tatsiichlich 40 Jahre lang leitete, erlebte cr
noch die wachsenden Spaltungen innerhalb der Gemeinde und den Bruch mit
dem Judentzlm, bevor auch er dann unter Kaiser Trajan das Martyrium erlitt
(Hist. eccl. 3.32.6). In einem Bericht, der ebenfalls von Hegesipp tiberliefert
wird und stark legendarische Zlige Mgt, ist von einer allgemeinen Verfalgung
der Angehbrigen des ,,Hauses David unter Trajan die Rede, bei der auch
Syrneon - 120jiihrig~~
- nach tagelangen Qualen gekreuzigt worden sei. Der
Kaiser h&te damit eine Reihe von Aktionen gegen potentielle politische
Gegner fortgesetzt, die gleich nach der Eroberung Jerusalems von Vespasian
begonnen (I-Iist. eccl. 3.12) und von dessen zweitem Sohn Domitian wieder
aufgegriffen worden war. Nach Hegesipp waren im Verlauf dieser Verhlgung
zwei Enkel des Hemnbruders Judas von den ,hiiretischen Gemeinschafien"
als Davididen angezeigt und dem Kaiser vorgefiihrt worden. Dessen of'fensichtlich politisch motivierten h g s t e seien angesichts ihrer relativen h u t
aber zerstreut und die Enkel wieder freigelassen worden. Sie hatten danach als
Gemeindevorsteher groBes Ansehen genossen (Hist. eccl. 3. I
2' Es spricht aber auch wenig gegen die MOglichkcit, dass es sich hier um ganz alte
'I'raditionen handelt.
D i m Angabe hat symbolische Bedeumg: E. ist das Sterbealter Mose, in welchem der
Uberlieferung nach auch Hillel und Akiva starben. Siehe MANNS 136.
Herodes der GroBe hatte wohl a l i c h e BeRlrchhmgen, als er die Archive mil den
Aufzeichnungen der hebdischen Geschlechter verbremen lie6 (Euseb, Hist. eccl. 1.7.13).

C'murrdte Jesu

41

Von einem dynastisch bedingten Anspruch der I-Ierrenbriider auf religiose

Filhrungspositionen, wie noch vertreten von A. Schlatter (1898) und E.
Stauffer (1952), wird heute kaurn noch g e ~ ~ r o c h e nAllerdings
.*~
darf die Bedeutung der Abstammung, die schon durch die ~ahlreichenGenealogien des
Alten I'estaments Air alle Schichten des israelischen Volkes belegt ist, bei der
Betrachtung dieser Frage nicht unbeachtet bleiben: So w d e bis in die Zeit
der hellenistischen Reform das Hohepriesteramt innerhalb der aaronitischzadokidischen Linie vererbt. Dies sollte die unverfAlschte Weitergabe der
vielfdltigen und komplizierten Regeln und Riten garantieren, die fiir die AusUbung eines giiltigen Tempeldienstes unerl&slich erschienen. Mit der MachtUbernahrne der Makkabger geriet das Pontifikat in die hasmonaische Familie
und w d e zeitweise gar an die Konigswiirde gekoppelt.2s Die Herodianer
schliefllich nahrnen sich zwar das Recht heraus, das I-4ohepriesteramt nach
persCinlichem GutdiLnken immer wieder neu zu vergeben, mussten sich dabei
aber auf Angeh6rige bestimmter Familien b e s c r n e n . lnteressanter nach
sind die Parallelen im rabbinischen Bereich, etwa dass die Leitung der Lehrschule Hiliels durch das ,,Haus Hillel" bis etwa 425 n.Chr. nachgewiesen werden kann und auch der Patriarch (Nasi) in der Regel aus dieser Farnilie
stammte. Was nun die AngehGrigen Jesu betrim, so liegt aus dem frClhen dritten Jahrhundert eine glaubwiirdige Nachricht des aus Jerusalem gebiirtigen
Kirchenvaters Julius Afrikanus vor, dcr hingere Zeit im judiiischen Emmausl
Nikoplis lebte und wohl Zugang zu palbtinisch-judenchristlichen Traditionen der Anfangszeit hatte. Nach dieser zogen nicht n&er bezeichnete Verwandte Jesu, die Graxoofivot (in hnlehnung an 6~ox6.rq~.
Gebieter), von den
galilaischen Diidern Nazareth und Kokhaba aus durch das iibrige Lmd. Sie
sollen ein genealogisches Werk bei sich gehabt haben, das sogenannte ,,Buch
der Tage", mit dessen Illilfe sie ihre (!) davidische HerkunA nachwiesen (Euseb, Hist. eccl. 1.7.14 und 3.1 1.19f., 23). Dies l a s t durchaus dynastische
Ambitionen vermuten und es ist gut miiglich, dass sich in der Liste der Jerusalemer Bischofe ,,aus der Beschneidung" (Hist. eccl. 4.5) weitere Verwandte
Jesu verbergen.

Die Briider Jesu in den Schriften judenchristlicher

Gemeinschafien des zweiten Jahrhunderts
Erinnemgen an Verwandte Jesu sind am stairksten mit Traditionen verhafict,
die mit Palbtina verbunden sind und von dort aus in die Diasporagerneinden
der Grenzgebiete wirkten. Sie f l h c n uns Uber das Gebiet der Dekapolis und
24

Gegen ein Kalifat sprechen sich VON CAMP~NWAIISEN,

und BAUCKHAM,Relatives, aus.

'' Mit Ausnahme der Regierungszeit der KOnigin Salome Alexandra, die als Frau ditses
Amt nicht bekleiden konnte. Ihr Bltester Sohn Hyrkan wurde Hoherpriester und galt damit als
ihr designierterNachfolger.

42

Lambers-Pew

Kleinasien nach Syrien, aber auch in den ggyptischen Raum, wo sie auf die
verschiedenartigen Schattierungen und Herausforderungen des damaligen
Diasporajudentums treffen. Aus der ersten Hlllfte des zweiten Jahrhunderts
stammen die nur bruchstuckhaft Uberlieferten Evangelien der judenchristlichen GemeinschaAen, die auch nach dem jiidisch-r6mischen Krieg und dem
Bar-Kochba-Aufstand an Gesetz und Beschneidung festhielten. Dass sie einst
iiber weitere Schriften vefigten, dad angenommen werden. Judenchristliche
Gemeinden werden in der sie zumeist ablehnenden Literatur oft msammenfasend als ,,ebionitisch &eichnet, obgleich zwischen ihnen Unterschiede
insbesondere christologischer Art bestehen. Die Zuordnung von Zitaten zu
den jeweiligen Schrifien ist nicht immer eindeutig, ja wir konnen nicht einmal
mit Sicherheit sagen, wieviele judenchristliche Evangelien es gegeben hat.26
Von ihrer spiirlichen Bezeugung sollte man aber nicht auf eine faktische
Bedeutungslosigkeit des Judenchristentums schliekn.*' Die ungenauen, zurn
Teil widersprilchlichen Angaben dm Kirchenvater zu diesen Werken sowie
ihrc voreingenommenen Kommentare lassen vielmehr erkennen, wic oberfl8chlich die Kontakte waren und wie groD die Diversitiit innerhalb des Judenchristenturns.

Das in Aramasch verfasste Evangelium der in G a l i l h im Ostjordanland und

im zolesyrischen Raum anstrssigen ~ a z a r 8 galt
d ~ in kirchlichen Kreisen als
unbedenklich. Nach Hieronymus (ca. 347-419) war in dm Bibliothek des
Pamphilus in Caesarea cine Kopie vorhanden, und b e s d er selbst eine
Abschrifl, die er von den N a h e r n der Stadt Ber6a (dem heutigen Aleppo)
bekornmen haben will (Vir. ill. 3). Der Kirchenvater Uberliefert dann auch die
meisten Fragmente dieses Evangeliums. Er betont, dass die in ihm enthaltenen
Zitate aus dm Hebriiischen Bibel stammten, nicht aus der Septuaginta, und
dass es von vielen ntr das vom Apostel Matthaus in hebriiischer beziehungsweise ararnliischer Sprache verfibsste Evangelium gehalten werde. Diese Anschauung kann so allerdings nicht zutreffen, und es ist merkwilrdig, dass Hieronymus, der behauptet, es selbst kihlich ins Griechixhe ubersetzt zu haben
(Hieronymus, Comm. in Mt. 12.13), sie nicht bereits an dieser Stelle
widerlegt.*'
26

KL.AUCK
62-72.

STRECKER
im Nachtrag zu BAUER24511.
Die NamrSer umbsten neben ganz alten galililischen Gemeinden wohl auch solche, die
von Jerusalem aus gelgllndet worden waren, sei es durch geflochtete oder missionierende
Gemeindemitgiieder. Sie scheinen sich vor allem in Richtung Norden ausgebreitet zu haben,
in das Gebiet ZXllesyriens. P R m 108-1 10 sieht in ihnen direkte Nachfahren der nach Pella
geflochteten Jerusalemer Gemeinde.
29 lrlieronymus orientierte sich wohl an einer Oberlieferung des Papias aus dem m e n 2.
dass der Apostel Matthaus in aramilischer Sprache ein Evangelium geschrie-

YenvandteJesu

43

Die zahlreichen Fragmente lassen in der Tat erkennen, dass es inhaltlich

dem MaWwvangelium iihnelte; maglicherweise handelte es sich um eine
selbstilndige Um- b m . Weiterbildung desselben. Wie die Synoptiker pr%sentiert das Evangelium der N&er
die Brilder Jesu als Kleingruppe, zu der
auch Maria gehbrt. Anders als in diesen fordem sie Jesus auf, sich gemeinsarn
rnit ihnen von Johannes dem Taufer ,,zur Vergebung der Sihden" taufen m
lassen, was Jesus aber unter Berufung auf seine Sihdlosigkeit lediglich fiir
den hypothetischen Fall einer ,,Unwissenheitssiinde" anzunehmen scheint
(Hieronymus, Adv. Pel. 3.2).

Das Ebionderevangelium
Die griechischsprachigen Ebiontler werden erstmalig um 180 von Ireniius er~iihnt.~O
Seinem Bericht nach benutzten sie ausschlieDlich das Matthiiusevangelium, hielten an der Beschneidung, dem Gesetz sowie den jiiidischen
Lebensformen fest und schmaten Paulus als Apostaten (Haer. 1.26.2). Sie
vexwarfen die Jungfrauengeburt (Haer. 3.21.2) und verstanden die Gottessohnschaft Christi als Eingang des Heiligen Geistes in den KOrper Jesu bei
dessen Taufe durch Johannes (Haer. 5.1.3). Origenes zufolge lehnten sie die
Heidenmission ab (Princ. 4.3.8).
Die Ausmhrungen des Epiphanius (Pan. 30), dem Judenchristen generell
suspekt waren, sind nicht nur die umfangreichsten, sondern auch die feindseligsten. Dabei hat er wohl weniger auf unabhiingige Quellen zurilckgegriffen,
als vielmehr seinem antihiiretischen Anliegen freien Lauf gelassen. Neben
h t i s c h e m Synkretismus wire er ihnen fehlende Einsicht in die religibse Gedankenwelt der Evangelien und der Apostel vor. DarUber hinaus verspottet er
sie als Asketen und Vegetarier, die zuniichst ,,wegen Jakobus, dem Bruder des
Hem", den Zblibat gehalten, spater aber die Ehe zur Pflicht gemacht hiitten.
Epiphanius ist der einzige, der einige Fragmente ihres Evangeliums zitiert. Sie
geben zu erkemen, dass es sich weder um das MattfiHwvangelium (Irentlus)
handelte, noch um das Evangelium der NazartZer (Hiemnymus), sondem urn
eine Art Evangelienharmonie ohne Kindheitsgeschichte. In den Zitaten
kommen die Brilder Jesu zwar nicht vor, doch tkberliefert Epiphanius, dass die
Ebiontler die (heute verscholiene) Schrie 'AvaWBpot 'Ia~@ou besonders
schiitzten, welche Jakobus zu tJnrecht unterstelle, Tempelkult und Tieropfer
abgelehnt zu haben (Pan. 30.16.6f).

ben habe. Diese sicherte dem griechischsprachigen MtEv apostolische Verfasserschati und
kanonische AutoritBt. Die widersprUchlichen Angaben des Hieronymus lassen vermuten, dass
er das EvNaz entweder nicht bed3 oder nicht in der Lage war, es zu lesen.
F& eine ausftlhrlichere Darstellung siehe die BeiMLge von R. BAUCKHAM
und J. VEKH E Y ~ E Nin diesern Band.

Lumbers-Petty

Die Bez~ugungdieses Evangeliums durch Clemens (Strom. 2.9.45, 5.14.96),

Origenes (Comm. in Joh. 2.12) und Didymus von Alexandrien (Comm in Pss.
34) sowie inhaltliche Besonderheiten3' weisen auf agypten als seine I-Ieimat.32Das griechischsprachige Milieu, in dern dieses Evangelium als das einzige anerkannt war, empfand Clemens noch als orthodox. Es sind nur sieben
Fragmente erhalten. Obgleich die in ihnen enthaltenen Motive denen der
synoptischen und johanneischen Evangelientradition h e l n , weicht ihre Darstellung stark von diesen ab. Manche Stellen tragen merkwilrdig mythologische Ziige (Fragmente 1 und 3). Das Evangelium verteidigt die jiidische 1,ehre
van der Personifizierung der g6ttlichen Weisheit in verschiedenen Gestalten
(Propheten und Boten), hier durch die Taufe in Jesus. Dass es auch doketische
Tendemen abwehren musste, die Jesus einen Scheinleib zuweisen wolltcn,
zeigt der Hinweis auf das Leichentuch Jesu am Anfang von Fragment 7.
Bei diesem letzten Fragment scheint es sich um den HCihepunkt des Evangeliums zu handeln. ihm ist zu entnehmen, dass dern Herrenbruder Jakobus,
der auch hier ,,der Gerechte" genannt wird, eine zentrale Rolle zukommt:
Entgegen den Darstellungen des Neuen Testaments ist er hier nicht nur beim
letzten Abendmahl (mit Bmt und Wein) zugegen, sondern er ist auch derjenige, dern Jesus nach seiner Auferstehung erscheint, dern er einen 'Tisch
. ~ ~ ]&st sich erschiieljen,
bereiten I&st und fik den er das Brot b r i ~ h t Auch
dass Jakobus bei diesem Akndmahl gelobt hatte, kein Brot mehr zu essen,
bis der Auferstandene vor ihm stehe. Damit e k e s er sich nicht nur als m m
Kreis urn Jesus geh6rigM, sondern auch als der Einzige, der der Voraussage
Jesu vertraute, er werde von den Toten auferstehen. Jakobus - und verrnutlich
er allein - wird von Jesus als Auferstehungszeuge ausgezeichnet (nach lKor
15,7 war das Petrus). Dies ist umso interessanter, als Jesus sich hier - in der
" flervorzuheben w&e die Vorstellung der Abstammung Jesu vom Hciligen Geist, die im
koptischen Jakobusbrief (NHC 1,2) belegt ist. FUr einen ursprflnglich semitischen Hintergnmd
spricht das Vemthdnis des Heiligen Geistes als eines weiblichen Wesens, fUlr jUdische Theologic die Vorstellung der personifizierten Weisheit, die wiederholt in die Welt eintritt, um
Ruhe m finden (Sap 7,27; Sir 24,7).
32 Ende des ersten Jahrhunderts wohl in Ararniiisch verfmst, wurde es bald ins Griechische Ubersetzt und in dieser Sprachc von den beiden genannten Kirchenvtftern zitiert. Euseb
verfhgte Uber ein aramtfisches Exemplar, das auch Hieronymus bekannt war. Die meisten
F r a y e n t e wurden von Hieronyrnus in Iateinisch Uberliefert.
Eine zeitlich sptlter e h r d n e n d e Erscheinung des Aufentandenen vor Jakobus wird
zwar von Paulus in 1 Kor 15,7 erwllhnt, im NT aber nirgendwo beschrieben.
" PPRTXHER 26 interpretiert das Fragment 2 des dern Manhh~usevangelium nahe stehenden Nazar&revangeliums ebenhlls als Hinweis auf Bemahungen judenchristlicher Kreise,die Rrlfder Jesu schon ~NI
m dessen Anhhgerkreis zu zZUllen. Deren Aufforderung, Jesu
mUge sich doch mit ihnen von Johannes taufen lassen, verbindet die Brlfder aber eher mit
dern 'I-Bufer als mit Jesus, zumal Jesus dies ablehnt. In den anderen Fragmenten werden die
Brilder nicht erw&nt.

dritten Person - als Menschensohn zu erkennen gibt, ,,der von den Entschlafenen auferstanden ist". Damit spielt er gleichzeitig auf verganyenes und
zukiinftiges Wirken an. Jakobus wird den Jungem gegenubcr in eine Mittlerposition gehoben.3s

Die Judas-Thomas-Tradition
Das f a h e syrischlostsyrische Christenturn Mgt deutlich jiidische %age, zeichnet sich aber auch durch eine kulturelle OfTenheit aus, wie sie fiir I-Imdelszentren oft typisch ist (Antiochien und Edessa liegen an der SeidenstraDe).
Unter den christlichen Gruppen waren die gnostisierenden besonders erfolgr e i ~ hW
. ~h~n d die Kirche von Antiochien rnit Petrus und lgnatius als ersten
BischBfen bereits f i beachtliche Autoritiit beanspruchen konnte, gewann die
orthodoxe Kirche Ostsyriens erst im vicrten Jahrhundert rnit dem Kirchenvater Ephraim an Profil.
Im ostsyrischen b u m verbanden sich diese Erinnerungcn schon frQh rnit
dem N m e n des Apostels Judas Thomas, der als der Regriinder der dortigen
Mission verehrt ~ u r d e . ~Syrien
'
nun gilt als der Einflussbereich der f'riihen
pctrinischen Mission, die noch von Jakobus mitbestimmt wurde. Diese Erinnerunyen wurden unter dem Einfluss der Evangelisten Matthlius und 'Ihomits
rnit der Zeit (vermutlich im Zusammenhang der Verlagerung der Interessen
des I'etrus nach Rom) unterschiedlich interpreticrt, und es entstanden verschiedene Traditionsstrilnge, die anfmgs noch miteinander konkurrierten3'.
Die Thomastradition hat sich dabei unter gnostischen Einfliissen inhaltlich
wie geogrnphisch immer weiter von ihren judenchristlichen Urspriingen entfernt. Ab dem meiten Jahrhundert galt Thomas als Verfasscr oder Inspirator
einer Reihe mehr oder weniger gnostisierendcr Schriften, die beanspruchen,
auf geheime Offenbarungen des Auferstandenen ~uriickzugehen.~"

'' HENGEL,83.
U" VANULRKAM
157.
37 Nach der Abpar-txgende (Euseb, Hist, eccl. 1.13.4, 1 1 und 2.1.6; die Doctrina Addai ist
eine spELtere Version) ist er derjenige Apostel, der einer glfttlichen Eingebung mfolge die
Missionierung van Edessa durch Thadditus, einen Mann aus dern Siebzigrkreis, veranlasst
hat. Judas Thomas selbst sol1 in lndien missioniett und dott den Milrtyrettod gefundcn hakn,
seine sterbliche Ilfllle danach nach Edessa gebracht worden sein (Cannina Nisibensa 42.1 f).
Diese Legende spiegelt die werbcnde Auseinandersetzung der orthodoxen Gemeindc von
Edessa mil den Manichaem. Sie Ubernimmt deren gr60ten Missionar Addai und macht ihn zu
lladdltus, einem Augenzeugen der Wirksamkeit und Auferstehung Jesu. Siehe DIUJVEKS,
'Edessa" I.
Das Johannesevangelium verRlgt flber interessante Sondertraditionen t u Philippus,
Pebu und Thomas (insbesondere die Zweiflerszcne 20,2629). Thomas bleibt h i Mk und
LWApg unbeachtct.
39 GesprZIche des Auferstandenen mit einem oder mehreren JUngern sind in der Gnosis ein
beliebtes Motiv, mit dem man gnostische Geheimlehren wunderbar absichern konnte. Wie die

''

Lumbers-Perry

D m Thomasevangelium
Die bekannteste und wohl friiheste Schrift dieser Traditionsgruppe ist das
Thomasevangelium (NHC II,2), eine Spruchsammlung aus dem Bereich der
von Paltistina ausgehenden Wandermission. Seine Themen wirkcn eher
aggressiv als erbaulich, und die oft riitselhaften Formulierungen kdiirfen der
homiletischen Einkleidung durch einen ~in~eweihten."Das Thomasevangelium setzt sich mit Themen auscinandcr, die ein jiidisch gepragtes Rewwsstsein voraussetzen und gleichzeitig ablehnen: Es hebt ethische Normen iiber
kultische (Logion 6) und verurteilt die traditionelle jiidische Frommigkeitspraxis als irrefihrende Siinde (Logien 14 und 53), wohl weil d i e s vom Weg
nu wahren Gnosis ablenke. Die Gesetz und Reschneidung vertcidigenden
Phariaer werden verurteilt, da sie ihrem und dem Heil anderer im Wege
standen (Logion 39). Andererseits erkennt es mit Nachdruck Jakobus den
Gerechten als den von Jesus selbst eingesetzten Nachfolger und I.eiter der
Jiingergruppe an, obgleich dieser seine persdnliche Verbundenheit mit dem
Judentum gewiss nie aufgegeben hat. In Logion 12 heiDt es sogar begeistert,
filr ihn seien Himmel und Erde erschaffen worden.
Der deutlichste Unterschied zur Matthaustradition liegt in deren ekklesiologischer Orientierung auf die Gemeinschaft hin. wahrend das Thornasevangelium die ,,Heim- oder Riickkchf' des Eimelnen ins ,,Konigreich des
Vaters" in Aussicht stellt, und 7war mittels der Erkenntnis dcr wahren Gestalt
Jesu. Dies setzt die Pr8existem der Seele voratxs und die Gleichstellung des
,,ReichesUmit dern gottlichen Sclbst des Gnostikers. Dadurch b e d d e r weder
der Gemeinschaft noch der Vorstellung van einem am finde der Zeiten zu erwartenden Endgericht, noch einer eschatologischen Deutung von Kreuz und
Auferstehung.

Thomasbuch und Thomasakren

Fiir uns ist nun von Bedeutung, dass in den sog. 'l'homasakten (ActaTh I I)
und dem Buch Thomas des ~ t h l e t e n ~(NHC
'
II,7 Einleitung) dieser Judas
Thomas mit dern Herrenbruder Judas identifiziert wird, und zwar auf k i n d
seiner groDen ~hnlichkeitmit Jesus, als dessen %willing. Werfen wir cinen
kritischen Blick auf diese Schrifien: Rei dem l'homasbuch handclt es sich urn
einen reichlich unversttindlichen Offenbarungsdialog zwischen dern AuferEpistula Apvstolorurn zeigt, fand diese literarisehe Fiktion aber auch in dcr Heklmpfung der
Gnosis Verwendung. Siehe W.UFI.L1 14f.
40
Zur maglichen Entstehungsgeschichte des Thomasevangeliurns siche Kot ~ r R,t Gaspelt, 75- 128.
Das Thornashuch ist nur in dieser kaptischen Obersetmng aus dcm (iriechischen und in
nur einern Exemplar erhalten. Seine Existenz wurde von der altchristlichen 1,iteratur nicht
wahrgenommen. Unter ,,Athletenh versteht es Mmner und Frauen, die den Martem der Verfolger widerstanden.

C'erwanciteJesu

47

standenen und Judas Thomas, der in parwetische Wehe- und Segensrufe

rniindet. Er will von einem nicht weiter identifiljerten Mathaias (MattMus)
aufgezeichnet worden sein. Die Dialogform wirkt sekundiir; wahrscheinlich
wurdc sie einer damnterliegenden jildisch-hellenistischen Weisheitsschrift
nachtdiglich iibergestil~pt.~~
Das Thoma5buch ist nur schwach gnostisch geprggt und zeigt Beriihrungen mit Gedankengut, das zwar neutestarnentliche
Parallelen hat, aber nicht spezifisch christlich ist. Es propagiert Selbsterkenntnis durch eine asketische Lebensweise, insbesondere die BeFreiung von k6rperlichen Leidenschaften (Enkratismus), mit dem Ziel Ruhe LU finden. Der in
Nag Hammadi gefundene Dialog des Erlosers (NIIC 1II,5) beansprucht ebenfalls, belehrende Dialoge des Erlijsers mit Judas (lhomas) und Matthaus
sowie mit Maria Magdalena wiedermgeben. Durch das Auflegen sciner Hand
(Fragment 36) zeichnet dieser die drei Jilnger gegenilber den anderen, die
ebenfalls anwesend sind, aus und versetzt sie in die Lage, heilsnotwendige
Erkenntnisse fiber sich selbst zu erlangen. Dies erinnert an die Geschichte von
der R e r u h g der Jiinger auf dem Berg in Mk 3.13--19, und deren Bevollmiichtigung durch Jesus, Mse Geister auszutreiben. Vermutlich haben wir es
hier mit einer dternativen, auf gnostische Bediirfnisse ausgerichteten Berufungsgeschichte xu tun. Der Inhalt der Dialoge ist weltfeindlich; auch hier
wird die Schnsucht des Menschen nach Kuhe angefiihrt, der Weg zur Erlosung allerdings gelingt nur uber Selbsterkenntnis.
Die vie1 umfangreicheren Thoma~akten~~,
die lediglich im ff intergrund die
legend& Indicnmission des Apostels beschreiben, bemuhen sich wie das
Thomasbuch urn die Verbreitung asketischer Idale. Hier wird Judas Thomas
sogar selbst aktiv, indem er insbesondere wohlhabenden Ehefrauen und Jungverrniihlten seine Ideale nahebringt. Auch hier gilt Judas Thomas ds E m p
flinger und Vermittler geheimer Offenbarungen.

Gnostische Jakobustraditionen
Von den in gnostisierenden Kreisen ~ g ~ p t e verbreiteten
ns
Texten beanspruchen drei vom Herrenbruder Jakobus aufgezeichnet worden zu sein bzw. seine
"' ies
ist, kun. gefasst, die 1,iterarkritik von WHI~ h f194f. ggen die Annahmc zweier
ineinandcr verarbeiteter Quellenschrifien. Der vom Rahmen befntite 'Text, so SCWFNKE,
entspreche dem Eugnastosbrief (NHC ill, 3 und V, I), der der Sophia Jesu Christi (NHC Ill,
4) als Grundschrifi diente.
43 Diesc dfirften k nach iher Entstehur~gAnfang des dritten Jahrhunderts aus dem
Syrischen ins Criechische UberseM worden xin. Sic standen nach Epiphanius (Pan. 47.1;
61.1) in enkratitischen Sekten in hohem Ansehen und galten bei den Manichkm, die die
lukanische Apostelgeschichte verwarfen, gemeinsarn mit anderen apokryphen Apostelakten
sogar als kanonisch. Dass sie sich auch sonst p k r Beliebtheit erfkeuten, beweisen die
zahlreichen. zum Teil auch orthodoxen Bearbeitungen. Siehe I)RIJW:RS, "fiomasakten', 2901:

Visionen getreu nachzuer~3hlen.~~

Sie gehiiren zu den Nag Hammadi-Funden
und sind aus der patristischen Literatur sonst nicht bekannt. Die 'I'exte sind
teilweise stark zerstSrt und ihr Inhalt kann nicht immer rekonstruiert werden.
Es handelt sich jeweils urn Dialoge mit dem ErlGser, einmal in Briefform,
zweimal in der Form der Apokalypse. Ihre griechischen Originale dilrften aus
judenchristlichen Kreisen Syriens starnrnen und ins fdihc zweite Jahrhundert
zu datieren sein. In allen drei Schriften wird der Aspekt der geheimen Offenb m g und die zentrale Bedeutung ihres Emphgers Jakobus als Ciarant frir
die gewissenhafie und geheime Weitergabe ausgearbeitet.
Der Apokryphe Jukohwhrief
In einem Brief an einen gewissen Kerinth beschreibt ein Verfasser, der sich
Jakobus nennt, eine geheime O f f e n b m g des Auferstandenen, die ihm und
Petrus gemeinsarn mteil worden sei und die er zungchst in hebriiischer Sprache aufgeschrieben habe (NHC I, 2). Der Adressat dilrfte mit dem Kerinth aus
KIeinasien identisch sein, auf dessen friihgnostische Lehre Irenlius in llaer.
1,26 kun. eingeht: Nach ihr sind Gott und Weltschopfer deutlich voneinander
zu unterscheiden. Jesus sei nicht von einer Jungfrau geboren, sondern ein
gew6hnIicher Mensch, der allen anderen aber an Gerechtigkeit, Weisheit und
Klugheit Uberlegen gewesen sei. Der Geist ,,Christosb' sei bei der Taufe von
Gott her ilber ihn gekommen und habe ihn zu Wundern befiigt, dann aber
wieder verlassen. Nach seinem Leiden sei der Mensch Jesus wieder auferweckt worden.
Irenaus vergleicht die% 1,ehre in wesentlichen Punkten, insbesandere der
Christologie, mit der Lehre der Ebionlier und stempelt sie darnit als hiirctisch
ab. In seinem Brief weist Jakobus diese Christologie ebenfalls zuriick. Nicht
was Jesus mischen Taufe und Tod gesagt habe sci wirklich relevant fur die
ErlSsung, sondem das nachGsterliche Wort des Auferstandenen, das dieser
ihm, Jakobus, und Petrus in einem geheimen Dialog verkilndet habe (NIIC I,
2.7). Der Dialog, in den zahlreiche Makarismen und Wehe-Rufe eingearbeitet
sind, nirnmt synoptische und johanneische Themen auf. Inhaltlich betont er,
dass nur Glaube, Liebe und 'raten das Wort verkorperten und wahres 1,ebcn
gliben. Der Brief endet mit der Aufforderung Jesu, Jakobus mi5 e doch d m
Martyriurn auf sich nehmen und sich auf diese Art selbst erlosen.If:

" Hippolyt kttftigt in Ref. 5.2, dass Jakobus als der Ciarant der gnostischen Offenbarung
@It, welche die Naassener durch die Vermittlung der Mariamnie (Maria Magdalena?) erhalten hiitten. Er bezeichnet dies allerdings als Verleumdung. In scinen Strom. 1 . 1 I . 13 envghnt
Clemens von Alexandrien Sonderoffenbarungen des Auferstandenen, die an Jakobus und
andere JUnger gerichtet gewesen scien.
4%r gnostische Charakter der SchriA zeigt sich in den henngezogenen Bildern: der
Aufstieg der Seelen, das Trunken- bzw. NUchternsein des <;nostiken usw.

VerwandteJesu

Die Jakobusapokalypsen
Die 1ApokJk (NIIC V, 3) rcflektiert die Funktion des kidens des Gnostikers.
Das bevorstehende Martyrium Jakobus des Gerechten gilt als dessen Weg zur
Erl6sung. Der erste Teil des Dialogs zwischen Jesus und Jakobus findet - und
das ist in der gnostischen Literatur unUblich - vor der Passion Jesu, der zweite
nach seiner Auferstehung statt. Auch gnostische Kreise hielten also an einer
engen voriisterlichen Verbindung zwischen Jakobus und Jesus fest. Die Verwandtschaft wird allerdings relativiert durch den Hinweis Jesu, Jakobus sei
wohl sein Bruder, ,,aber nicht der Materie n a c h (Fol. 24.15). Die Stellung des
Jakobus beschreibt Jesus selbst mit ,,... (Wir sind) zwei aus dem, der ist. Ich
aber, (ich) bin vor dir." (24.249. Er gilt als Empflinger und Vermittler bestimmter Kenntnisse, die ihn ermkhtigen, ,,die Zwolf xu tadeln" (42.1-24).
In der 2ApokJk (NHC V, 4) steht, gnostisch bearbeitet, das Martyrium des
Jakobus im Mittelpunkt. Er selbst wird als Erleuchteter und ErlBser yepriesen
(Fol. 55). Die Schrifi endet mit einem gnostischen Sterbegebet. Besonders
interessant und wichtig fiir unsere Fragestellung ist, dass der Verfasser sich
als Priester narnens Marim vorstellt und seinerseits beansprucht, ein Verwandter des Jakobus zu sein (Fol. 44). Die briiderliche Beziehung zwischen
Jesus und Jakobus einschliel3lich der Anrede ,,Bruder" erk1;irt er umstiindlich
~ Vater des Jakobus nennt er Theudas
als MilehbruderschafZ (Fol. 5 0 0 . ~Den
(Fol. 44). Die hier herangezogenen Traditionen diirfien sehr alt und zwnindest
teilweise van Hegesipp (so.) unabhiingig ~ e i n . ~ ~

Jakobus in den judenchristlichen Traditionen der

Pseudoklementinen
Den Anspruch absolutcr Autoritiit erheben far Jakobus die pseudoklementinischen Schrifien. Zu diesen gehoren die zwei Rezensionen einer gemeinsamen, verlorengegangenen Grundschrift, die sogenannten Recognitionen
(Rec.) und Homilien (Hom.), die wohl Anfangl Mitte des dritten Jahrhunderts
in 7Alesyrien entstanden ist." Sie dilrRe judenchristliche Traditionen verAuch die als ,,Protevangelium des Jakobus" bekannte groi3kirchliche Schrifi Mgt in der
ttltesten HandschriA (Papyrus Bodmer V) den Titel ,,TtwolS Mcrpla~,A r r o ~ a h u ~' qIaK ~ VDie. Verbindung mit Jakobus d M e sekuna, aber alt sein, da auch Origenes sie kennt,
und auf der Rekanntheit des Jakobus beruhen. Auch handelt es sich nicht um eine Offenbarung, sondern um cine volkstllmliche Erdlung, welche die Frammigkeit Marias illustrieren und die Vorstellung von der Junghuengeburt in erbaulicher Art unterstilt7len soll. Jakobus, hier ein Sohn aus einer Mheren Ehe des Josef, fallt dabei die Rolle des Augenzeugen zu.
Siehe PRATSCHER
22 1 -224.
Siehe LMBERS-P~TRY116-1 18.
48
Sie beanspruchen, von Clemens, dem zweiten Bischof von Rom zu stammen und schildem in romanhafier Weise dessen Familiengeschichte und Werdegang. Neben den inhaltlich

''

50

Lamhers-Yetry

arbeitet haben, in denen Jakobus eine zentrale Rolle spielt, darunter die sogeHsrpoi, sowie eine SchriA, die mit den bei Epiphanius
n m t e n K~pfiypa~a
e r w h t e n ebionitischen 'Ava~aOpot' I a ~ d w uvcrwandt gewesen sein durfte, die hypothetische AJ I I - Q U ~ IHier
I ~ . ist
~ ~Jakobus gleichzeitig Leiter der
Jerusalemer Gemeinde und - aufgrund deren besonderer Stellung - auch das
Haupt der Gesamtkirche. Die Apostel sind ihm untergeordnet und verantworten ihm gegeniiber ihre Missionsatbeit. Demokratische Strukturen wie etwa
ein Presbyterium scheint es nicht zu geben. In den Briefen und direkten Reden
wird Jakobus mit ,,user Jakobus", ,,unser ehntiirdiger Rruder Jakobus", als
,,Herr und BischoP' und sogar als ,,Erzbischof' bezeichnet. Die AJ 11-Quelle
dltrAe die Vorlage fUr die Ereignisse auf der Tempeltreppe und den ihnen
vorangestellten heilsgeschichtlichen Abriss geliefert haben (Rec. 1.33-7 1):
Auf Bine des Hohenpriesters finden dort Disputationen der 12 Apostel mit
den vetschiedenen Vertretern der jiidischen Parteien statt. Da sie Kaiphas
nicht iiberzeugen kannen, kommt am nschsten Tag Jakobus (Rec. 1.68: ,,der
Erste der Bisch(Sfe6) selbst zum 'Tempel. Seine energischen Ausrdhrungen
nun filhren den Hohenpriester zur Einsicht und zu einer allgcmeinen Uereitschafl, sich taufen zu lassen. I>ies wird aber in letzter Sekunde verhindert
durch das wutende Aufireten des ,,homo quidam inimicus", der mit einigen
Mhnern in den Tempel eindringt, groks Blutvergieaen verursacht und
Jakobus von der obersten Tempelstufe st8Bt. Jakobus iiberlebt den S t u r ~und
wird verletzt nach Hause gebracht. Die 5000 Mann starke Gemeinde fliichtet
nach Jericho.
In dieser legendarischen, teilweise Mwyrerrnotive der Darstellung Illegesipps aufgreifenden Erz2hlung, enveist Jakobus sich als gewaltiger I'rediger
und Missionar, dem es gelingt, den Hohenpriester zu uberzeugen. AufEillig ist
seine nur beilHufig e n v i h t e Einsetzung als Bischof durch Jesus selbst (Kec.
1.43.3)." Die theologische Position der AJ 11-Gemeinde lbst sich an der
Ablehnung des Opferkultes und der entsprechenden Betonung der Heilsnotwendigkeit der Taufe auch bei vollkommener 1,ebensfuhrung erkennen. Iler
Glaube an Jesus als den von Moses verkiindeten Propheten erscheint als der
einzige wirkliche Streitpunkt nvischen den Jerusalemer Anhiingem Jesu und
den anderen Gruppierungen des Judentums. %urn Bruch kommt es erst durch
h l i c h e n Recognitionen (lateinisch) und Homilien (griechisch) sind irwei ebenfalls pseudepigraphische Briefe (griechisch) unterschiedlicher sprachlicher und theologischer IWigung
erhalten, die von P e w b m . Clemens verfasst sein wollen und an Jakobus gerichtet sind.
Zum Brief des P e m s geh6rt eine Contestatio, in der die Reaktion des Altestenrates auf den
Brief beschrieben wird.
" Von dieser sind aber keine weiteren Spuren ilberiiefert. Zur Uiskussion dcr kompliPseudoklemenfmen, 439 4 7 itnd JONLC
zierten Entstehungsgeschichte siehe STRECKER,
328-331.
Clemens von Alexandrien hingegen berichtet, Jakobus sei von Pehus, Johannes und
Jakobus ZRbediti gewlihlt worden (Euseb, Hist. eccl. 2.1.3-5).

YerwandteJesu

51

das verheerende AuAreten des Feindes, hinter dem sich Paulus verbirgt5' Aus
den Kerygmata, in denen eigentlich Petrus zentral steht, stammt wahrscheinlich die Darstellung des Jakobus als ,,Hater der Kerygmen" gegen die Versuche des ,,Feindes6 und seiner Arhhger, diese zu verftilschen. Auf Driingen
des Petrus f&hrt er VorsichtsmaDregeln in Form von Probezeiten und furchterregenden Gelabnissen, die Kerygmen geheimzuhalten, in die Jerusalerner
Gemeinde ein (EpPetr., Cont.). Der glittliche Offenbarungstriiger ist hier dcr
,,wahre Prophet", der sich nach Abraham und Moses (Hom. 2.52.3) nunmehr
in Jesus manifestiert hat und die wahre, gesetzliche Gnosis verkiindet, etwa
indem er auf VerEilschungen in den alttestamentlichen Schrifien h i n w e i ~ t . ~ ~
Die Forderung, die jodischen Reinheitsgesetze eimuhalten (Hom. 11.28@,
gilt wohl generell, also auch flir Heidenchristen. Von einer Vereinbarung wie
den Jakobusklauseln ist hier nichts zu erkennen.

Schlussbernerkungen
Wie wir sahen, beziehen eine ganze Reihe neutestarnentlicher SchriAen und
Kirchenviiter die Vexwandten Jesu in die nach6sterliche Bewegung mit ein.
Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei Jakobus, dessen EinRuss in der Jerusalemer Gemeinde und ihrem Wirkungsbereich gewiss nicht untemh1tzt werden darf. Er
steht neben Paulus als Garant der Einheit bei allen Divergemen, welche die
heiden- und die judenchristliche Mission kennzeichnen. Die Hinweise aus der
ja nur sehr fragrnentarisch erhaltenen spateren Literatur der judenchristlichen
Gruppen und aus den Referenzen zu ihrer zum Teil abweichenden Glaubenspraxis erg&,en das neutestarnentliche Bild der Herrenverwandten um interessante Aspekte und zeigen seine Weiterentwicklung unter dem Einfluss der
politischen Ereignisse und der Versehiebungen im religiiis-kulturellen Bereich. So wird gerade Jakobus Rlr viele Gruppen rn Oberhaupt und zentralen Verbindungsglied zur Urgemeinde vor dem Fall des Tempels. Die apostalische Sukzession spielt in den judenchristlichen Traditionen keine Rolle; hier
kommt es auf das persOnliche Charisma des Offenbmgsltragers an, das in
erster Linie auf nachlisterlichen Enthiillungen und der Verantwortung flir ihre
Weitergabe beruht, von seiner Verwandtschafi mit Jesus und der Zugehlirigkeit zum Haus David aber entscheidend m i t g e p w ist.

"

Dass hinter dem Pseudonym ,,Simon Magus" Paulus steht, ist dem Hinweis zu entnehmen, er sei vor Petrus bci den Heiden gewesen.
52 Gemeint sind die Envlihnung anderer GOtter, die Bedeutung des Opfers, des Tempels und des KBnigtums, ,,menschliche" Eigenschafien Cottes u.a.

Lumbers-Petty

Literaturverzeichnis
Bauckham, R.J., Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1990
Jude, ZPeter, Word Biblical Commentary 50, 1983
Rauer, W., Rechtgl&lbigkeit und Ketzerei im Cilresten Christentum, 2. Auflage, mit einem
Nachtrag von G. Strecker, Tnbingen 1963
Campenhausen, H. von, 'Die Nachfolgc des Jakobus: Zur Frage cines urchristlichen Kalifats',
ZKG63 (1950151) 133-144
Dibelius, M., Der BricIfdesJakohur, KEK 15, 12. Auflage, GOttingen 1984
Drijvers, H., 'Thomasakten', in NTApo 11,289-367
Drijvers, W ., East of Antioch, Studies in Early Syriac Christianip, London 1984
tieiligenthal, R., Zwbchen Henoch und Paulus. Srudien zum theologiegeschichtlichen(ht des
Juhbriefes, Tubingen 1992
Hengel, M., 'Jakobus der Herrenbruder - der erste Papst?', in GrgDer, E. - Merk. 0.(Hgg.),
Glorrbe und Eschutologie, FSBr W.G. Kiimmel nrm 80. Cehurtstag, Tllbingen 1 985,7 1104
Jones, F. St., 'The Martyrdom of James in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Christian
Apocrypha, Including Nag Hammadi: A Study of the Textual Relations', SBL Seminar
Papers 29, Atlanta 1990,322-335
Klauck. H .-J., Apokryphe Evangelien. Eine Einfuhrung, Stuttgart 2002
Klijn, A.F.J., Jewish-Christian Garpel Tradition, Leiden 1992
Koester, H., 'Ein Jesus und vier ursprilngliche Evangeliengarrungen', in ders. -- Robinson,
J.M., fi~icrVungsliniendurch die Welt desfrilhen Christentums, Tllbingen 197 1, 147.190
Koester, tl., tlirroty and Literature of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, New Yo&/ Berlin 1995
Koester, W., Ancient Christian Gospels. Their Hisrory and Development, Harrisburg 1990
KUrnmel, W.G., Einleinutg in dm Neue Testament>2 1. Auflage, Heidelberg 1983
Lambers-Petry, D., 'How to Become a Christian Martyr. Reflcetians on the Death o f James as
described by Josephus and in Early Christian Literature', in Siegert, F. - Kalms, J. (Wg.),
InternationalesJosephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, (M-teraner
Judaistische Studien 12)
Monster 2002, 10 1-1 24
Manns, F., 'La liste des premiers t v Q u e s de J6rusalem', in Blancheti&re,F. - Herr, M.D.
(1jg.g.). Aux originesjulves du chrktianisme, Jerusalem 1993, 133- 158
Painter, J., JUSIJumes. The Brother of Jesw in History and Tradition, Columbia 1997
Pratscher, W., Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition, G6ttingen 1987
Pritz, R.A., NuzareneJewish Christianity. From the End of the New Tes~amentPeriod Until
Its Disuppearancein the Fourth Century,Jerusaiem 1992
Rebell, W., Ne~lestamentlicheApokryphen und Apostolische Vdter, Manehen 1992
Schenke, H.-M., 'Das Buch des Thomas', in NTApo 1, 192-204
Schneemelcher, W . (Hg.), N~utesromenllicheApokryphen, I. Evangelien, 6. Auflage, Tllbingen 1990; 11. Apostolischas, Apokdypsen und Vmandtes, 5. Auflage, Tubingen 1989
Schoeps, H .J.. Theologie und Geschichtedes Judenchristentum, TObingen 1949
Stauffer, E., 'Zum Kalifat des Jakobus', ZRGG 4 (1952), 198-2 14
Strecker, G., Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen, 2.. bearbeitete und enveiterte
Auflage, Berlin 1981
VanderKam, J.C., ' I Enoch, Enochic Motifk, and Enoch', in ders. - Adler, W. (Hgg.), The
Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, (CRINT 11114) Assen 1996,33- 127
Van Voorst, R.E., The Ascents ofJames, History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian
Community, (SBL DissSer 1 12) Atlanta 1986

'Christians' observing 'Jewish' festivals of Autumn

Daniel Stiikl Ben Ezra

Festivals are important cultural symbols that make Christians Christian

and Jews Jewish.' Accordingly, Christians observe Christian festivals and
Jews observe Jewish festivals.* This article deals with deviations From this
rule: 'Christians' observing 'Jewish' festivals. I focus on the observance
of autumn festivals, more specifically Yom Kippur, because these can be
regarded as festivals that are the 'most Jewish'lacking Christianized
counterparts - unlike Passover / Easter, Shavuot 1 Pentecost, and the
Sabbath / Sunday.3 My guiding question is, which Christians observed
Yom Kippur and which did not?4 Presumably, these 'Christians," groups
as well as individuals, encompassed a wide variety of Tora-observing
Jesus-followers; I divide them into Judaeo-Christians, Christian Jews,
Christian God-fearers and Judaizing Christians.6

'

I would like to thank Dina BENEZRAand Annette YOSHIKO-REEDfor their helpful

comments on previous drafts, Evelyn KATRAKfor improving the English, and Peter
TOMSON
and Doris LAMREUS-PETRY
for inviting me to participate in the colloquium.
On ritual and its social functions, see Catherine BELL,Ritual. Perspectives and
Dimensions, Oxford UP, New York - Oxford 1997, 23-60; in particular, see also 120128 on festivals.
On Sukkot see tIakau ULF(;ARI),Feast and Future: Revelation 7:9-17 and the
Feust of Tabernacles, (Coniectana Biblica: NT Series 22) Almquist and Wiksell,
Stockholm 1989; and Jean DANI~I,OU,
'Les Quatre-Temps de septembre et la Ete des
Tabernacles' Maison Dieu 46 (1956) 114- 136; on the issue of Christian observance of
Sukkot, much remains to be done.
The important question of why certain Christian groups observed Yom Kippur and
others did not is beyond the scope of this paper. I addressed it in my Ph.D. dissertation,
The Impact of Yorn Kippur on Early Christianity, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2001
(-S IOKL. 200 1 a), to be published in WUNT forthcoming from Mohr-Siebeck, 'I'Obingen.
Boundaries between groups depend on the perspective of the beholder. I have put
the terms 'Christian' and 'Jewish' in inverted commas to draw attention to the fact that
those 'Christians' who observed 'Jewish' festivals might not have seen themselves as
'Christian' or the festivals as 'Jewish' (and therefore 'non-Christian3). Christians,
Judaeo-Christians, Judaizing Christians and Jews all conceived of Christians in different
ways.
I use these terms with as much consistency as possible without being rigid. 'Jesusfollowers' denotes the first generations of mainly Jewish and a few Gentile adherents of

54

Stokl Ben Ezra

Analyzing the observance of Jewish festivals by Christians in between

the two emerging mainstreams of Christianity and Judaism fosters an
understanding of the overall process of developing Christian and Jewish
identities.' Collective rituals provide a particularly convenient means to
investigate the subjectivity, visibility and permeability of the symbolic
boundaries between groups, because participation in the festivals is visible
to both insiders and outsiders. "In these rituals [fasting and feasting rites]
people are particularly concerned to express publicly - to themselves, each
other, and sometimes outsiders - their commitment and adherence to basic
religious value^."^ Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is exceptionally
well suited to observing the (invisible) symbolic boundaries of Judaism,
since from a Jewish standpoint it is the most important festival celebrated
by all Jews, religious and non-religious alike.9 Consequently, my working
assumption regarding Christian Jews, Christian God-fearers and JudaeoChristians is that the majority of them continued to observe the Day of
Atonement. By the same token, I assume that ceasing to participate in its
Jesus. 'Jewish Christians'is the general term for people of Jewish ethnicity who revere
Jesus. Full proselytes are those who join the Jewish people and can be subsunled under
the same category. Jewish Christians may have continued to be observant Jews, ceased to
be observant or never been observant. 'Christian J e w s b r e those who revere Jesus and
are part of non-Messianic Jewish communities. 'Judaeo-Christians' belong to discrete
Judaeo-Christian communities that observe Halakhot and revere Jesus, such as Ebionites
and Nazoreans. 'God-fearers' are pagan fellow travelers of Jewish communities who do
not become full proselytes. 'Christian God-fearers'differ from other Christians in having
been attached to a Jewish synagogue before becoming Christian. 'Judaizing Christians'
are those who revere Jesus and are part of a Christian community, but attend Jewish
services from time to time or observe some Halakhot in private. In Christian literature,
'Judaizing' is an insider term describing deviant behavior by others than the
speakerslauthors. In this respect it is similar to 'magic.' What one person considers as
'Judaizing" the 'Judaizer' himself, and others, may regard as normal Christian behavior.
On the term 'Judaizing' see Shaye J.D. COt!).,N, The Beginnings cf Jewishness. Bcrundories, Varieties. Uncertainties, U of California Press, Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1999, 175-197.
For a recent sociological theory regarding the developmental process of collective
identity and symbolic boundaries, see Michele LAMUNT, 'Culture and Identity', in
Jonathan t i . TURNER(ed.), Handbook of S~ciologicul Theory, Kluwer Academic I
Plenum Publishers, New York etc. 2002, 171 185.
BELL1997: 120.
See Philo, Spec. leg. 1.186, "On the tenth day is the fast (11 vqo.rciu), which is
carefully observed not only by the zealous for piety and holiness but also by those who
never act religiously in the rest of their life. For all stand in awe, overcome by the
sanctity of the day, and for the moment the worse vie with the better in self-denial and
virtue."(transl. F.C.L. COI.SONin LCL, Philo 7: 205-206). On Yom Kippur in Second
Temple and Rabbinic Judaism, see STOKL 200 1 a: 14- 143.

'Christians' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

55

collective prayer and fasting reflected a shift away from Judaism. Despite
this promising prospect, the festival calendars of Judaeo-Christians,
Christian Jews and Christian God-fearers are seriously under-researched,
particularly with regard to the autumn festivals.10
It is commonly thought that Judaism and Christianity parted ways some
time between 25 CE and 135 CE." Christians expressed this separation
by, among other things, ceasing to observe the regular Jewish holidays.
This cessation is often ascribed already to Paul and his time, in the sixties
of the first century.12 Jesus' atoning death is seen as rendering any obserl o The scant scholarly literature on Judaeo-Christian festival calendars starts from a
clearly Gentile Christian vantage point covering the Sabbath, Passover and Pentecost,
see e.g. G.W. BUCHANAN,
'Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early JewishChristian Church,' N7S 26 (1980) 279-297: "The church fathers accused the
Jewish-Christians of observing the feast days of the Jews. This does not mean that all
Jewish-Christians observed all the feasts of popular Judaism or that they rejected all the
feasts observed by Gentile-Christians. They observed the Sabbath and also the Lord's
Day. They celebrated Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan, but they may also have
celebrated the resurrection at Easter. They may or may not have observed the Jewish
Feast of Weeks instead of, or in addition to, Pentecost. It is uncertain whether they
observed New Year's Day, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles with
popular Judaism in the fall"' (p297; emphasis added). While BUC~IANAN
rightly raises
the possibility of a variety of Judaeo-Christian calendars, he underestimates the pivotal
importance of the festivals of autumn. From such a perspective, Yom Kippur appears to
be the festival least likely to be observed by followers of Jesus (even Judaeo-Christians).
B. BAGATTI, The Church from the Circumcision. History and Archaeology of JudaeoChristran, (Publ. of the Stud. Bibl. Francisc., Smaller Series 2) Jerusalem 1971 deals
with the Eucharist, the cult of Mary, baptism and funeral rites, but among the festivals
Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums,
only with Easter. i.1.-J. SCI~OEPS,
Mohr Siebeck, TObingen 1949 speaks about baptism (202-21 1) and opposition to the
sacrificial cult by the Ebionites (219 255) but not about their liturgical year, probably
assuming that the '1IuDere Lebensforrn', the public way of life of Jewish Christians is the
same as the Jewish one (140). The recent survey by S.C. MIMOIJNI, Le juddochristianisme ancien. Essais historiques, (Patrimoines) Cerf, Paris 1998, does not devote
a separate chapter to the Jewish Christian festival calendar. A notable exception is J.
D A N I ~ L OThe
U , Theoiogy of Jewish Christianity, (The Development of Christian
Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea 1) Darton, Longman & Todd, London 1964,
which includes a chapter on baptism and the Eucharist and a subchapter on the liturgical
year dealing with Easter/Passover, Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles (343-346).
See e.g. James D.G. DUNN,Jews and Christians. The Parting of the Ways A D

70 135 The Second Durham Ttlbingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianiry

and Judaism, (WUNT 66) Mohr Siebeck, Tllbingen 1992. Martin H E N G E
'S ~and Peter

STUIILMAC~~ER'S
essays posit a very early parting, before 50 CE, while Philip ALEXAN1,tR favors a late dating. On a critique of this model, compare the contributions in
- YOSI~IKO
REED (n45 below),
BECKER
I* E.g. Tim SCHRAMM,
'Feste. IV Urchristlich', RGG (4th ed.) 3 (2000) 91-93.

56

SlZikl Ben Ezra

vance of the Day of Atonement obsolete, particularly among the Gentile

followers of Jesus, who supposedly had abandoned the commandments of
the Tora.13 Only Judaeo-Christian communities continued adhering to the
Tom and observing the Jewish festivals. f3ut they are seen as merely tiny
remnants destined to dwindle.14
In this paper, I shall challenge some aspects of this picture. Proceeding
according to the chronological order of the texts discussed, 1 shall put
forward the following five points:
1. Neither Paul nor Hebrews have to be interpreted according to the
common opinion that the vast majority of Jesus-followers ceased
observing Yom Kippur and other Jewish festivals before 70 CE. Some
ceased to do so, but others did not.
2. At least one Gentile Christian community, Luke-Acts, was still
observing Yom Kippur towards the end of the first century.
3. Some Jewish Christians may have stopped observing Yorn Kippur
around 120 CE (Hegesippus).
4. From the second century on, most Gentile Christian intellectuals and
leaders conceived of Yom Kippur as un-Christian and prohibited any
observance. Nevertheless, some ordinary Christians continued to observe
it - at least in third-century Caesarea and fourth-century Antioch.
5. Most Judaeo-Christians continued to observe Yom Kippur - at least
up to the seventh century.
Furthermore, in this paper I shall question two widespread assumptions.
First, I do not believe it is possible to distinguish clearly between Gentile
and Jewish Jesus-followers by referring to their attitude to the Tora as a
spiritual or legal text (parts 1 to 3).15 Some strict Gentile Christians observed the Tora, while some Jewish Christians regarded halakha quitc leniently. Second, I do not believe in a parting of the ways as early as the first
century, since in the community of Luke-Acts some Gentile Christians,
who were later regarded as the mainstream, continued to observe Yom
Kippur (parts 1 and 2). Moreover, the discovery that some Christians
Gal 4: 10, Rom 3 2 5 and Hebrews usually serve as proof texts, see next section.
The teleological perspective embedded in the terms descrtbing Judaco-Christianity has been thoughtfully discussed in John W. MARSIIALI,Parables of War Rtadtng
John's Jewrsh Apoca&pse (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 10) Wilfrid 1-aurter IJP.
Waterloo (Ontario) 200 1, 37-87.
Raymond BROWNhas put forward a similar argument concerning the early Christian communities of Rome. See R.E. BROWN and John P. MFIER,Anlroch and Rome
New Testament Cradles of Carholtc Chrtstrantty, Paulist Press, New York - Kamsey
1983, 1-9. While I do not share his attribution of the four imagined groups to vartous
apostolic authorities, 1 do subscribe to the basic notion of various degrees of observance
among Jews and God-fearers, and therefore among Jewish and Gentile Christians.
i3

I4

'Christians' observing 'Jewish"festiva1.s

57

continued to observe Yom Kippur at least until the fourth century (part 4)
raises this question: about whom are we speaking when we talk about 'the
parting of the ways'? We should probably talk about different 'partings'
for different kinds of people (and have different perspectives on them),
bearing in mind that 'parting' implies a separation that, sociologically,
might not have taken place.
I suggest that the Christian attitude towards Yorn Kippur developed in
three stages. At the beginning, Jesus-followers continued their previous
religious behavior of observing all Jewish festivals. When Christianity and
Judaism slowly emerged16 as mutually exclusive collectives,'7 Tora-observing Jesus-followers found themselves perceived as being in between
(what came to be seen as) the mainstreams-peculiar, yet tolerable. Justin's tolerance of the 'strange'habits of Judaeo-Christians testifies to this
intermediate stage.'$ In a third stage, exemplified by John Chrysostom,
both the Jewish and Christian mainstreams considered Tora-observing
Jesus-followers to be 'endangering' the validity of the boundaries between
Christianity and Judaism, and regarded them as what John Gager has aptly
called the "Dangerous Ones in Between'"19

Paul and Hebrews:

No call for abandoning the Fast of Yom Kippur
In this section, I shall argue against the common opinion that followers of
Christ ceased to observe Yom Kippur at a very early stage because they
considered Christ's atoning self-sacrifice as superseding the Day of Atonement.20 Serving as main prooftexts for this view are Romans 3:25, where
l6 Christianity as such did not of course emerge simultaneously with Judaism, but
both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism emerged from Second Temple Judaism.
On this process, see John GAGER,'Jews, Christians and the Dangerous Ones in
Between', in Shlomo BIDERMANand Ben Ami SCHARFSTEM
(eds.), Interpretation in
Religions, (Philosophy and Religion, a Comparative Yearbook 2) Brill, Leiden 1992,
249-257. On Jewish identity boundaries, see e.g. COIEN 1999. On rhetorical use of an
imagined Judaism as an antonym by which to construct Christian identity, see e . g .
Miriam TAYLOR,
Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity. A Critique of the Scholarly
Consensus, (Studia Post-Biblica 46) Brill, Leiden 1995, 127-1 88.
I * Dial. 46-47.
'WAGER
1992.
20 E.g. Martin HENGEL
states: "Ich kann mir ... schwer vorsteilen, daR nach dem Tag
auf Golgatha fir Lukas wie F\lr die Judenchristen am Jom Kippur fur Israel noch SUhne
gewirkt wurde." See his "Der Jude Paulus und sein Volk. Zu einem neuen ActaKommentar [J. Jervell]" Theologische Rundrchau 66 (2001) 338-368, here p358

58

Stdkl Ben Ezra

Jesus is put forward as iAaa.rqptov / niim (the so-called 'mercy seat')),

and the Epistle to the Hebrews with its depiction of Jesus as a high priest.
Any interpretation that the atonement through Jesus, the high priest and
the iAaarqptov, superseded the Day of Atonement is based on two
assumptions: first, that the allegories, typologies and metaphorical allusions of Temple rituals entail a substitution for these rituals; second, that
the polemics against the Temple cult of Yom Kippur imply a critical
stance regarding the festival in general. Both assumptions are questionable, and if applied across the board they are wrong.
First, the allegorization of a ritual is primarily a way to bestow meaning
upon it (or upon something else) without necessarily implying a negative
attitude towards the ritual. Allegories of a ritual may have a substitutive
intention, but this has to be demonstrated in each case. Jewish Hellenistic
and Rabbinic authors frequently give 'spiritualizing" interpretations of the
sacrificial cult without implying that it is forbidden to observe thern.
Scholars interpret early Christian Jewish allegories as supersessionist
mostly when put in a larger framework viewing Christianity over and
against Judaism. Given that Paul praises worship in the Temple among the
God-given gifts (Romans 9:4), it is highly unlikely that the ihao~qptovin
Romans 3:25 can be interpreted as superseding the n1193 in the holy of
holies.*' In the same way, Christfried Rattrich recently argued against a
substitutive interpretation regarding Paul's metaphorical usage of "l'emple'in the Corinthian eorrespondence.~
Second, a critical stance towards the l'emple and / or its sacrificial cult
does not entail a critical attitude towards festivals - unless this opposition
is explicitly stated. Jewish ritual encompasses more than the Temple cult.
While the high priest's ritual in the 'Temple was certainly very important.
the people" daylong fast and prayer were central, too.23 Yet polemics
against the Temple cult are often taken as polemics against Jewish ritual in
toto. The author of Hebrews may polemicize against the Yom Kippur
service in the Temple, but he does not oppose fasting and praying, the
main rituals of the people outside the Temple. Consequently, we cannot
deduce that the author of Hebrews did not observe Yom Kippur.Z4
refemng to Lk 22: 19-20 and Acts 8:32 - 3 3 and 20:28, where Luke combines the death of
Jesus with an atoning function.
*I For an extensive argumentation, see STOKL.
200 1 a: 203 2 1 I .
Christfiied BOrru~Cw, "'lhr seid der Tempe1 Gottes": Tempelmetaphorik und
Gemeinde bei Paulus', in Beate EGO et al. (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel / Community
without Temple, (WUN'T 1 IS) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1999,4 1 1 -425.
23 As demonstrated e.g. by the Greek term Q vqwrsia (the fast) for Yom Kippur.
24 Hebrews' polemics hardly imply a negative attitude towards all rituals and

'Christians ' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

59

Regarding Paul, if for the sake of argument we assume that in Romans

3:25 he wanted to substitute the Temple ritual of Yorn Kippur, we cannot

assume from this passage that he considered the fast and prayer of Yom
Kippur obsolete. Our access to Paul's stance regarding festivals consists of
two statements: Galatians 4:8-10 and Romans 14:5-6.25
"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are
not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by
God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can
you want to be enslaved to them again? You are observing special days, and months, and
seasons, and years.'"Gal4:8- 10)

Paul advocates that the Gentile Jesus-followers of Galatia should not

observe some festivals. But which festivals? While some exegetes opt for
a Jewish background to this passage, in which case Paul would be
declaring himself opposed to the observance of Jewish festivals, it is
difficult to explain the observance of 'special years'in the Diaspora since
the Jubilee and the Sabbatical year are valid only for the Land of Israel. I
therefore side with those commentators who understand Galatians 4: 10 as
referring to pagan festivals.26 Accordingly, we cannot deduce from this
verse that Paul opposed Gentile Christians observing Jewish festivals.
Even ifthe passage did refer to Jewish festivals,27 we could not infer that
Paul was generally opposed to the observance of Jewish festivals by the
Jewish followers of Jesus. Furthermore, such a deduction would contradict
the only passage unmistakably referring to Jewish festivals, Romans 14:s6, in which Paul leaves to the individual the choice of whether to observe
the festival or not:
"Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike.
Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in
honor of the Lord." (Rom 145-6)

The discussion about food laws in the immediate context (14: 1-6) clarifies
festivals considering its admonitions to participate in the service.
25 The Deutero-Pauline Col 2: 16-17 does not prohibit observing Jewish festivals but
only coercing Gentiles to observe these festivals.
26 E.g. Thomas WlruLsttr, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes. Clnfersuchungen zur
Gemeinde von Anriochia ad Pisidium, (FRLANT 193) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gattingen 2000, 152-168. There is also a middle way between the Jewish-Christian and the
pagan explanation: Hans-Dieter BEZ, in Galarianr: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to
the Churches in Galatia, (Nermeneia) Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1979, assumes that
Paul turned against pagan and Jewish observances.
In which case the Christian Jewish opponents of Paul were obviously observing
Yom Kippur and trying to convince the Gentile followers of Christ to follow their
practice.

*'

60

Stokl Ben Ezra

that Paul is addressing tensions arising from the presence of Toraobserving followers of Christ (Christian Jews and Christian God-fearers)
and more lenient Jesus-followers in the community.28 While Paul does not
consider the observance of any festival to be binding for all followers of
Jesus, he assumes that some members of the Roman communities observe
Jewish festivals and he gives them the freedom to do so. Paul even regards
the observance of Yorn Kippur and other days as worship if they are
celebrated in honor of the Lord.
Romans 14:l-5 provides no hint as to whether those observing the
Jewish festivals were Jewish or Gentile followers of Jesus, or both.29
Certainly, the Roman community or communities consisted of both.1 In
the overall argument, Paul presents himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles
( I :5) and therefore primarily addresses the Gentile followers of Christ-in
this case, Christian God-fearers who wanted to observe some festivals.
Jewish followers of Christ were probably at least as devout in observing
the Jewish festivals as those Gentiles who had been God-fearers before
hearing about Jesus. Given the high status of Yorn Kippur in Judaism, the
fast was certainly among the holidays observed by these followers of
Jesus. We can consequently assume that Paul condoned some followers of
Christ, Gentiles as well as Jews, observing Yorn Kippur together with
other Jewish festivals, in the years around 60 CE.3'
Nevertheless, Paul's attitude is an important shift away from the stance
of Philo.32 Whereas for Philo Yorn Kippur was of central significance for
his Jewish collective identity, for Paul its observance was optional for the
Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus aIike.33 Yet it would be
anachronistic to conceive of this shift in a supersessionist way as the shiA
from Judaism (where Yorn Kippur was observed) to a Christianity defined
over and against Judaism (where Yorn Kippur was not merely optional but
28 Peter LAME, Die stadtr(rmischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten.
Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte, (WUNT 21 18) 2nd ed. Mohr Siebeck, TLlbingen
1989, rightly emphasizes the role of Christian God-fearers (sebomenoi) in the Roman

community and their adherence to the Tora (p56-57).

*"ohn
M.G. BARCLAY,
"'Do we undermine the I,aw?": A Study of Romans 14: 1 15:6', in J.D.G. DUNN(ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Luw. The Third Durham-Tiibingen
Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September 1994)

(WUNT 89) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1996,287-308, here 293.

See e.g. LAMPE1989: 53-62; BROWN1983: 89-127.
31 If Paul was not familiar with details about the Roman communities he at least
assumed this problem could exist - which implies that the Roman situation described
above pertained to other communities of Jesus-followers as well.
32 See n9 above.
33 BAKCLAY
1996: 301.

'Christians ' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

61

prohibited).JJ Paul still regarded Yom Kippur as a festival that Gentile and
Jewish Christians might celebrate in God's honor.

Luke-Acts:
Christian God-fearers observing Yom Kippur
The community of Luke-Acts observed Yom Kippur. The author of LukeActs is the only New Testament author to mention explicitly the Yorn
Kippur service of the people, fasting. He mentions it merely in passing in
Acts 27:9, the implications of which have not been addressed:
"Since much time had been lost and sailing was now dangerous, because even the Fast
had already gone by (Std t d ~ a T i ~ vqoteiav
V
fiSq rrapsliqluebvat), Paul advised
them, saying, 'Sirs, I can see that the voyage will be with danger and much heavy loss,
not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives."' (Acts 27:9-10)

Commentators are unanimous in understanding 'the Fast'to be a reference

to Yom Kippur.35 Scholars assuming a close relationship between the
34 Here I differ from BARCI.AY
1996: 301, who concludes that "Paul indicates that
the norms of the Christian churches will be decisively different from the defining values
of the Jewish community'" (emphasis added), for two reasons: a) Paul does not use the
term 'Christian'; b) non-observant Jews who still saw themselves as Jews would have
agreed with Paul on the issue of law observance not defining the collective community.
35 1 checked the following commentaries: E. HAENCHEN,
Die Apostelgeschichte neu
ubersetzt und erklifrr (Krit.-exeg. Komm. z. NT) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gbttingen
1956; R.P.C. HANSON,
The Acts in the Revised Standard Version. With Introduction and
Commentary, (The New Clarendon Bible: NT) Clarendon, Oxford 1967; J. ROLOFF, Die
Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5 ) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GUttingen 1981; Walter
SCHMITHAIS,
Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, (ZUrcher Bibelkomm. NT 3,2) Theol.
Verlag Zurich 1982; R. PFSCH,Die Apostelgeschichle (Evang.-Kath. Komm. z. NT 5)
Renziger / Neukirchener, Zurich / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986; F.F. BRUCE,The Book of the
Acts, (New Intern. Comm. on the NT) Grand Rapids 1988); Hans CONZELMANN,
Acts of
the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (Hermeneia) ET James
A. Thomas KKAABEL.
and Donald H. JUEL,Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1987;
LIMBIIRG,
F. MIISSNER,
Apostelgeschichte (Neue Echter Bibel, Komm. zum NT m. d. EinheitsUbers. 5) 2nd ed. Echter Verlag, Warzburg 1988; Gerd LODEMANN,
Early Christianity
Accorrlmg to the Traditions in Acts A Commentary, ET John Bowden, Fortress,
Minneapolis 1989; J. ZMIJEWSKI,
Apostelgeschichte. Ubersetzt und erkidrt (Regensburger NT) Pustet, Regensburg 1994; C.K. BARRE'IT,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, (ICC 44) T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1994, 1998; James
D.G. DIJNN, The Acts of the Apostles, (Narrative Commentaries) Trinity Press
International, Valley Forge PA 1996; Joseph A. F ~ M Y E The
R , Acts of the Apostles. A
New Translation with lnrroduction and Commentary, (Anchor Bible Comm. 31A)
Die Apostelgeschichte. Obersetzt und
Doubleday, New York 1998; Jacob JERVEI-L,
erklrir, (Krit.-exeg. Komm. Uber d. NT 3) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gbttingen 1998;

62

Stdkl Ben &ru

author of Luke-Acts and Paul, such R.P.C. Hanson and J.D.G. Ilunn,
deduce that Paul observed Yom Kippur." While I am hesitant about the
significance of Luke's statement in relation to Paul's religious behavior, I
cannot but draw the conclusion that Luke himself and his implied readers
observed Yom Kippur. Why else would I,uke use a "Jewish calendaric
reference for a secular problem?'"7 IIe clearly presumes that his readers
will understand what he is referring to. Furthermore, Luke betrays no
negative attitude towards the fast. The term Q vqo-rria appears without
pejorative additions, completely neutral in the context. In the same way, a
Jew today would understand a friend saying in late summer that he will
return 'after the holidays', as meaning after Sukkot.
One could argue that Luke copied the reference to fi v q o ~ c i ufrom one
of his sources. However, this is a weak argument because we would have
to assume that Luke copied blindly without regard for his own understanding (or that of his readers), despite the observation that "Luke has imposed his own style and language on all the sources that he used" and that
"Acts is a thoroughly Lucan composition".38 If for the sake of argument,
we accept the 'we-source' hypothesis'39 then the whole passage 27:l28:16 is commonly attributed to the w~-source,~0
but verses 27:9-1 1 are
regarded as a Lucan insertion into the we-source.41 Therefore, even if we
accept the 'we-source'hypothesis, we can assume a positive attitude of
Luke and of his implied audience to the fast of the Day of Atonement. In
other words, Luke and his community observed Yom K i ~ p u r . ~ 2
Wilfried ECKEY,
Die Apos~elgt.schich~e:
Der Weg des Evungeliums von Jerusalem nuch
Rorn, Neukirchener, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000).
36 DUNN 1996: 338, "We should not overlook the clear implication that Paul and his
companions continued to observe this distinctive Jewish holiday (see 20.6, 16)." Cf also
CONZELMANN
1987: 2 16.
37 FITZMYER
1998: 775.
38 FITZMYER1998: 85.
39 In this hypothesis use of the first person plural is understood as a stylistic
device+.g. by most of those commentators who conceive of Luke as a fellow-traveler
of Paul, e.g. BRUCE1987; DIJNN1996; JERVELL. 1998; ECKEY2000.
FITLMYER1998: 767.
41 E.g. ROLOFF 1981: 359 ( 9 b . l I); P E S ~ 1986111:
~I
285; SCIIMITHAL.~
1982: 231
(9c-11); CONZEL~MANN
1987: 2 16; FI rZMYER 1998 (9-1 1). All are ultimately based on
the much earlier observation of tensions by Julius WEI.I.IIAUSEN,Nolen zur Apostelgeschichte, (Akad. d. Wiss. GUttingen, Nachrichten, phil.-hist. Klasse 1512) Gbttingen
1907, 1-21, here p17-19.
42 Cf SCHMII.HALS
1982: 236, "Die frohe Christenheit, aus der Synagoge envachsen,
richtete sich weiterhin nach dem jtkdischen Kalender, wie die Paulus-Quelle des Lukas
schon in 20,6 xeigte."!3chmithals' formulation leaves open if he refers to Paul or to Luke
and if the use of the calendar implies observing the festival.

'Christians' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

63

This conclusion supports the view that Luke and his community continued to honor a substantial number of halakhic rules.43 Further,
developing suggestions by Jacob Jervell, Joseph Tyson has argued
convincingly that Christian God-fearers were the implied readers of LukeActs.4 The arguments for a Roman provenance of Luke-Acts might point
to Rome in the last quarter of the first century.45 Furthermore, if the
average Jewish follower of Christ observed Jewish festivals at least as
strictly as the Gentile community of Luke-Acts, we may deduce that many
Christian Jews and Judaeo-Christians observed Yom Kippur as well.

Hegesi ppus:
Christian Jews reinterpreting Yom Kippur
In this section, I shall discuss a passage that might provide evidence of a
Jewish Christian group that reinterpreted Yom Kippur, spreading its sanctity to all days of the year: the famous description of James, the brother of
Jesus, in Hegesippus'fiypomnemata. Hegesippus is traditionally described
as a Jewish Christian.46 I suggest that Hegesippus portrayed James as
4"f
~ a c o bJERVEI.L,
'The Law in Luke-Acts', HTR 64 (1971) repr. in his Luke and
the People of God. A iVew Look at Luke-Acts, Augsburg, Minneapolis 1972, 133 151;
and his commentary (1998). This part of his argument has found some support by among
scholars such as Kalervo SALO,Luke's Treatment of the Law. A Redaction-Critrcal
investigation (Ann. Acad. Scient. Fennicae, Diss. Human. Litt. 57) Suomalainen TiedeGesetz und Volk Gones:
akatemia, Helsinki 1991, 30 1-302; and Matthias KLFNC~IARDT,
das lukanische Verstdndnis des Gesetzes nach Herkunfi, Funktion und seinem Qrt in der
tieschichte des Urchristentums, Mohr Siebeck, Tllbingen 1988.
Joseph TYSON,Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts, U of South Carolina Press,

Columbia 1992, 19-441.

45 Probably, the Ember Day of September is a transformation of Christianized Yom
Kippur. See Daniel STOKI.BENEZRA,'Whose Fast Is It? The Ember Day of September
and Yom Kippur', in Adam H. BECKER
and Annette YOSHIKO
REED (eds), The Ways that
Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, (TSAJ)
Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 2003, 225-48.
46 On introductory questions to Hegesippus see T. HALTON,
'Hegesipp', TRE 14
(1985) 560-562. Hegesippus' liypomnemata are usually dated to aroirnd 180. Eusebius
claims he is of Jewish origin, although some scholars have called this into question. He
may have been a Gentile Christian, see W. TELFER,'Was Hegesippus a Jew?VTR 53
~L,
Hypomnemata,' Studia Theologica 14
(1960) 143- 153; N. H Y L D A ~ 'Hegesippus
(1960) 70-1 13. Oded IRSHAIhas demonstrated that at least the traditions Hegesippus
used betray a Jewish background. See IRSHAI,
Historical Aspects of the ChristianJewish Polernic Concerning the Church of Jerusalem in the Fourth Century (In the Light
of Patristic and Rabbinic Literature), Ph.D. dissertation, 2 vols, Hebrew University

Jerusalem 1993 (Hebr. w. English summary) vol. I p12.

64

Stdkl Ben Etru

behaving as if every day were Yom Kippur, perpetually interceding in the

holy of holies and permanently observing the abstinences of Yom Kippur,
thereby extending the singularity of Yom Kippur-its deprivations and its
high priestly service-to the whole year. For James, the Christian high
priestly leader, the holy of holies is always accessible and it is always
possible to offer up prayers in that location, where God is closest.
Consequently, a special Day of Atonement becomes increasingly unnecessary from Hegesippus' perspective.
Unfortunately, the original text of Hegesippus has been preserved only
indirectly; the relevant passages appear only in Eusebius' Hisroriu
ecclesiastics and EpiphaniusYanarion.47 Yet the question of the textual
relationship between Hegesippus, Eusebius and Epiphanius has not been
solved. Did Epiphanius know of Hegesippus only indirectly, via Eusebius,
or did he read him directly? Most scholars tend to adopt the first option
and discard Epiphanius.J* However, decisive arguments have not been put
forward.49 Some motifs in Epiphanius' paraphrases are conspicuously
close to Jewish traditions and support the view that Epiphanius had direct
access to Hegesippus.
The descriptions of James'behavior can be divided into two parts, the
high priestly aspects and the ascetic aspects. Alluding to the high priestly
aspects,50 Hegesippus cites the following motifs: James wears (high)priestly garments,51 he is present in the holy of holies," and he intercedes
47 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.4--7 (GCS 9/ 1 : 166 - 169); Epiphanius, Pan. 29.4; 78.13 14 (GCS 25: 3 1, 37).
48 That Epiphanius was dependent on Eusebius is defended e.g. by E. W I ~ W A K I Z ,
'Zu Eusebius Kirchengeschichte,WfV 4 (1903) 48--66, here p50; J. MtIN<:K, 'Presbyters
and Disciples of the Lord in Papias. Exegetic Comments on Eusebius, Ecclesiastical
History, 111, 39,' HTR 52 (1959) 223-243, here 241-242; W. P ~ ~ r s c t r tDer
i ~ , Iierrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustraditiort (FRLANT 139) Vandcnhoeck & Ruprecht,
GOttingen 1983, 103-104; and F.S. JONES,'The Martyrdom of James in tlegesippus,
Clement of Alexandria, and Christian Apocrypha, Including Nag Hammadi: A Study of
'Textual Relations', in D.J. LULL (ed.), Society of Biblical Literurure 1990 Seminar
Papers (SBLSP 29) Atlanta 1990, 322-335.
J9 T. m ~'Brllder
,
und Vettern Jesu' in idem, Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons und der oltkirchlichen Lireratur, vol. 612, Leipzig 1900,
225-372, here 262; H.J. LAWL.OR,
'The Hypomnemata of Hegesippus,' in idem, Eusehiana - Essays on the Ecclesiastical History ofEusebius. Qxford 19 12.
Epiphanius explicitly calls James a high priest, but this can be seen as an explanatory biblicizing gloss by Epiphanius.
51 Eusebius' statement that James wears only linen and never woollen garments recalls the instructions for priests in Ezekiel 44:17 -18. Linen garments are used by ordinary priests in the daily service and by the high priest on his entering the holy of holies.
52 Eusebius relates that James prayed in the sanctuary ( ~ &
d y ~ b, vadc;) and that he

'Chris~ians' observing 'Jewish~ e s t i v o l s

65

there on behalf of the community.s3 High priestly intercession in the Holy

of holies clearly alludes to Yom Kippur. In addition, a histariala of James
as rainmaker in Epiphaniushccount54 may point to a Babylonian Yom
Kippur tradition, according to which it was one of the high priest's tasks
on this festival to pray for the right amount of rain in the coming year.5s
IIcgesippus' portrayal of James' ascetic practices has been explained
against the background of Nazirite56 and Rechabites7 practices. Yet I propose to explain the features of this portrayal as connected to the
prohibitions of public Jewish fast days, including Yom Kippur. If we
assume that Eusebius and Epiphanius used Hegesippus independently and
copied different but complementary details, we can reconstruct a list of
seven abstinences observed by James: drinking wine, eating meat,
haircutting, bathhouse, embalming, wearing sandals or a second coat, and
sexual intercourse.58 The prohibition on visiting public bathhouses appears
was the only one allowed to enter it. The latter fact makes it certain that Eusebius
envisaged the most restricted area, the Holy of Holies. While usually rd &ylaand b
va& refer to the Temple, they can also have the specific meaning of Holy of 1-lolies,see
Heb 9:2 or 9:3, depending on which manuscript is chosen; and Josephus, War 1.7.6
(I. 152). In fact, Eusebius' translators to Latin, Rufinus and Hieronymus, and Syriac give
'Holy of Holies'. ZAIrN 1900: 230 suggested that this might actually reflect Eusebius
reading ~d &yiu T&V&yiwvin the fourth century, even if no extant manuscript of his
preserved this reading.
53 According to Eusebius, James prayed without cessation on behalf of his people.
The discrepancies from Epiphanius' portrayal are easily explained as his 'improvements"
so that his source would match better the biblical precepts of Yom Kippur. Epiphanius
employs explicitly the titles 'high priest' and 'Holy of Holies' and he quotes Leviticus
16 in relating that James enters the ?.(olyof Holies only once a year. Eusebius' unbiblical
'unceasing Yorn Kippur'is clearly the lectro d~fjicll~or.
54 "And once, when there was a drought, he raised his hands to the heaven and
prayed, and immediately the heaven gave water" thus Epiphanius, Haer. 78.14.
55 bYom 53b, bTaan 24b. Usually this feature in Epiphanius is explained as an
exposition on Elijah's prayer for rain in l Kgs 18:42-45 / Jas 5: 16-1 8, which certainly
may have influenced the choice of words in Epiphanius. Further discussion can be found
in STOKt. 200 1 a.
56 On the Nazirites see E. ZUC.KSCIIWLRDT,
'Ilas Nazirtlat des Herrenbruders
Jakobus nach Hegesipp (Euseb, h.e. 11 23.5-6),YNW 68 (1977) 276-287. Of the three
Nazirite abstinences (alcohol, haircutting and touching corpses, see Num 6: 1-71, James
observes two. Moreover, the formulation k~ ~ o t U a <
pqrpdc aOro6. which is employed
regarding Samson, clearly tries to include James in the Nazirite tradition. Epiphanius
reduces the similarity to the Nazirite tradition by skipping the abstention from wine.
57 On the Rechabite background see the discussion in IRSHAI 1993, vol. 1: 8 12 and
vol. 2: 13-16, nn67,68, 71, 83-86.
The following abstinences are mentioned by both: meat, bathhouse, haircutting.
Only Eusebius mentions wine and embalming. Only Epiphanius mentions sandals,

66

Stdkl Ben Ezra

in Eusebius and Epiphanius and was definitely part of Hegesippus. It fits

neither the Nazirite nor the Rechabite tradition, but it is one of the
abstinences for days of public mourning in Mishna Taanit together with
the last three.59 To abstain from wine and meat is a rule for the evening of
Tisha be-Av." The closest parallel to the list are the six prohibitions of
Yorn Kippur: eating, drinking, washing, embalming, wearing sandals and
sexual intercourse.6' Therefore, if the assumption regarding the independence of Epiphanius and Eusebius is correct and all seven ascetic motifs
belonged to Hegesippus'description, he displayed James'behavior as a
sort of permanent Yorn Kippur toying with ascetic aspects as well.
Hegesippus' portrayal of James, the leader of the Christian Jewish
faction, as fasting and interceding continuously in the most sacred place as
if every day were Yorn Kippur and James the performing high priest,
conveys the unique sanctity of that Day compared to the other days of the
year. If James, the Christian Jewish leader par excellence, could approach
God directly every day, a special Day of Atonement becomes more and
more unnecessary to his followers, Hegesippus' Jewish Christian contemporaries. However, that Philo betrays a similar attitude in his portrayal of
the wise man who behaves every day as if it were Yorn Kippul-62 should
prevent us from jumping to conclusions and seeing this shift as the
supersessionist break of Christianity from Judaism.

Origen and John Chrysostom:

Gentile Christians observing Yorn Kippur
Some Christian leaders from the second century on perceived Yorn Kippur
as incompatible with their Christianity, as testified by the anonymous
Epistle to Diognetus from the second or early third century: 63
second coat and sex.
59 mTaan 1.6; 4.7.
mTaan 4.7.
mYom 8.1, no eating, drinking, washing, embalming, sandals, or sexual intercourse. The first two are adjusted because a total abstinence from food and drink is
impossible for permanent ascetics. There is no prohibition against using a public bathhouse, since washing is forbidden altogether.
62 Spec. leg. 2.193-195.
63 Besides Diognetus, note the similar statement in the Syriac version of Aristides,
Apology 14.4. Cf also Barn. 7 and the parallel traditions in Tertullian, Against the
Marcionites 3.7.7; Against the Jews 14.9-10; and Justin, Dial. 40.4-5. The latter does
not here polemicize against Jewish fasts, but does so in ch. 15 of the Dial. For further
texts see Daniel STOKL, 'The Biblical Yorn Kippur, the Jewish Fast of the Day of

'Christians ' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

67

"And next I suppose that you are especially anxious to hear why Christians do not worship in the same way as the Jews. The Jews indeed, insofar as they abstain from the kind
of [pagan] worship described above, rightly claim to worship the one God of the universe and to think of him as Master... Rut with regard to their qualms regarding meats, and
the superstition concerning the Sabbath, and the false pretension in circumcision, and the
hypocrisy about the Fast ( ~ vvrpr&ia~)w
k
and the New Moon, I do not think that you
need to learn from me that they are ridiculous and not worth a word." (Diogn. 3.1 --4.

Here, Yom Kippur has been chosen as one of the distinctly Jewish and
therefore un-Christian boundary markers - and it goes together with
circumcision, kosher meat, the Sabbath and Rosh Hodesh.& Christians
who observed Yom Kippur have become, in the language of Diognet, "the
ridiculous ones in between."
Among the Patristic polemics against Yom Kippur, two denounce
explicitly Judaizing Christians observing the fast. John Chrysostom's
tirades are well known especially since Marcel Simon's groundbreaking
Verus I~rae1.6~
Since they have been frequently and meticulously dealt
Atonement and the Church Fathers', in M.F. W1l.t.s and E.J. YARNOLD(eds.), (Studia
Patristica 34) Peeters, Leuven 2001, 493 502.
64 'The Fast' is the standard name for Yom Kippur in Greek Jewish sources (see e.g.
Philo above).
b5 My translation, based on the (slightly misleading) translation of Michael W.
HOLMFS,The Apostolic Fathers Greek Texts and Englrsh Translations, Baker, Grand
Rapids 1999.
66 Origen is the first to explicitly call Yom Kippur the Jewish fast (tqv v r p z ~ i a v
T'I)v ' IO&;L'KI\VI Iudaeorum ieiunium), and by doing so he switches the direction of
Philo's statement. Whoever observes the 'Jewish" fast is a Jew and not a Christian (see
below).
Marcel SIMON,Verus Israel A Study of the Relations between Christians and
Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135-425), ET H. McKeating, (the Littman Library of
Jewish Civilization) London 1996. The Canons of the Apostles, from about the same
area and time as Chrysostom, demonstrate that the Homilies were supported by canonical
law in order to curtail the participation of Christians in the fast of the Day of Atonement.
"If a bishop or another cleric should fast with the Jews or celebrate holidays with them
or accept their festive gifts, such as unleavened bread and anything similar to this, he
shall be deposed (~u&rtpc;idh);if a layman, excommunicated (&cpop~i;i:o&u)"", canon
70. This translation is from A. L~NDEK
(ed.), The Jews m the Legal Sources of the Early
Middle Ages, Detroit & Jerusalem 1997, no. 113, p27. This is the only text known to me
suggesting that not only laymen and -women may have joined the Jewish fast but also
clergy and even higher clergy. The formulation may also be the result of the need for a
legal distinction between laity and clergy. The Canons of the Apostles are the final part
of the Apostolic Constitutions, assembled in Syria about the end of the fourth century.
Some scholars presume Antioch to be the place of compilation. For text and introductory
questions, see M. METZGER,(transl., ed.) Les Constitutions apostoliques (SC 320, 329,
336) Paris 1985ff. The passage is included in or commented upon in the following later
collections: Johannes Scholasticus (around 540-5601, 'Collection of Canons in 50

"

68

Stiikl Ben Ezra

with,68 I shall twn to a similar but less-known passage. Already about 150
years earlier, had Origen complained about Christians observing Yom
Kippur.69
"You, women,70 who observe the Jewish fast ( T ~ vrp.rciav
V
~ r j v' 1ouliui~i.tjv) as if
you did not know that Day of Atonement that exists since Jesus Christ - you have not
heard of the hidden atonement, but only of the apparent. For to hear of the hidden
atonement is to hear how God put Jesus forward as an atonement (iliaop6v) for our sins
[cf Romans 3:25] and that he himself is an atonement for our sins, not only for ours, but
also for those of the whole world [ I Jn 2:2]."71

According to Pierre Nautin's convincing emendation of the corrupt Greek,

Origen was criticizing specifically women." Did these Christian women
celebrate together with Jews, or did they have their separate celebrations?
In other words, were they Judaizers or Judaeo-Christians? The former
Titles'in LINDER ibid no. 61104, cf also no. 61102; Johannes"Nomocanon in 14 Titles"
in rbid no. 7/12 1, cf also no. 711 18, no. 71177, no. 71187.
68 BUNDLE,R. 'Christen und Juden in Antiochien in den Jahren 3861387. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte altkirchlicher Judenfeindschaft', Judaica 43 (1987) 142-168;
R.L. WILKEN, John Chrysostom and the Jews. Rhethoric and Reality in the Late Fourth
Century, (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 4) Berkeley - Los Angeles London 1983; M. SIMON,'La poltSmique antijuive de Saint Jean Chrysostome et le
mouvement judaysant dYAntioche",in idem, Recherches d'histoire Judko-Chrktienne, (kt.
juives 6 ) Paris 1962, 140-153; for the text see PG 48: 839-942. In addition, see the new
R. BRANDL~,
and M. HEIMGARTNER, 'Das bisher vermisste
fragment in W. PRAC>ELS,
Textsttick in Johannes Chrysostomus, Adversus Judaeos, Oratio 2,' Z4C (2001);
convenient translations are P.W. HARKINS,
Saint John Chrysostom Discourses against
Judaizing Christians ( I l e Fathers of the Church 68) Washington DC, 1979); and esp.
the heavily commentated translation R. BRANDLF
and V. JEGtiCR-BUCHFR, Acht Reden
gegen Juden, (Bibl. d. griech. Lit. 41) Stuttgart 1995.
69 On Jewish Christians in Origen, see MIMOIJNI
1998: 129-135; N.R.M. DE LANGE,
Orrgen and the Jews Studies in Jewish-Christian Relatronv in Thrrd-Century Palestrne,
UP, Cambridge 1976, 35-36, 165; and the selection of sources in A.F.J. KI-IJN- G.J.
Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (SupNovT 36) Brill, Leiden
RFININK,
1973, 124-135. 1 was not able to consult Martiniano P. RONCAGI
IA, *Origene e il
Giudeo-cristianesimo, donrina e archeologia', Rendiconti 1021103 (1968) 473--492.
70 The masculine relative pronoun and the feminine participle do not match in
gender. KLOSTERMANN
decided in favor of male, NAUTIN
of female addressees (see
below).
71 My translation of the twelfth tiomily on Jeremiah, ch. 13 (GCS 3: 100) following
NAUTIN'S
suggestions in the appendix to the second edition of KI OSTERMANN'S GCS
text.
72 This matches the immediate context, where Origen accuses some women of
wrongly honoring the Sabbath by abstaining from washing themselves on this day and
charges them with celebrating Passover 'literally'. He levels similar charges against
women keeping the Sabbath and Passover in the Catena on Psalm 138. See Cateno in
Psalmos 1 18:38 (SC 189,256: 1-3).

'Christians ' observing 'Jewish 'festivals

69

seems more probable, since a Judaeo-Christian community consisting

predominantly of women is unattested.73 They were apparently part of
Origen's community, since he could address them directly in his homily.
~ h e i e'dangerous ones in between' might have been Judaizing Gentile
Christians,74 or converted Jews who had not discontinued earlier practices,
or both (i.e. Christian God-fearers).75
A passage in Origen's tenth Homily on I ~ v i t i c u sshows that Caesarean
Christians keeping Yom Kippur was not an isolated incidence.
"Whence also we must say something now to those who think that i n virtue o f the commandment o f the Law they must also practice the fast o f the Jews (ludaeorum ieiunium).**76

In this context, Origen - at least as preserved by Rufinus' translation does not speak of women, nor does he connect the Christian fasting on
Yom Kippur to other Judaizing practices. Quite the contrary, he quotes
Galatians 5:3, "If anyone wants to preserve one thing from the
observances of the law, he 'is subject to doing the whole 1aw""Yom
Kippur seems to be singled out as the one particularly attractive Jewish
institution followed by these Christians. The Judaizers seem to justify
their practice by refemng to the Old Testament commandment to fast.77
Origen ridicules the festival commandments that cannot be fulfilled
without Temple, altar and sacrifices but only on a spiritual level; for him,
therefore, the commandment to fast is obsolete, too. For him, there is no
73 The preceding attacks against 'the Jew' cannot be directed against the women but
must be understood in a rhetorical way since Origen speaks o f circumcision. SCHADEI.
(1980: 144) translates 'der Judser' but this does not seem to fit this context any better
than NAUTIN'S 'Juir, for Origen wants to distinguish between louduioi and Christians
(who supposedly live in Judea as well).
74 See NAUTIN'S note in SC 238 (1976: 47, n5). 1 was not able to locate the article
'Origene et les pratiques judalsantes des chretiens' which he announces there.
75 Pace SUHOEPS1949: 140 n l , who assumes the addressees are Jewish Christians.
Generally, it is likely that Origen was disturbed more by dissenters among his primary
community, Judaizing Christians, than by Christianizing Jews. I n rum, Jews were more
likely to be upset by Christianizing Jews adhering to the Christian Messiah than by
Christians observing Jewish practices. However, in third-century Palestine, the distinction between Jewish converts to Christianity, Christian Judaimrs and Judaeo-Christians
might not always have been very clear - if they attended the same worship assemblies.
The issue is further complicated in the case o f Gentiles who became Christian but had
been attracted to Judaism before converting to Christianity would they be Judaizing
Christians or Jewish Christians?
Translation by G.W. BARKLEYin Fathers of the Church 83, p204. Text (and
French translation and commentary by Marcel Borret) in SC 287.
77 I.iomily on Leviticus 10.2.1: "All these things must be completed by you who want
to observe fasting according to the precept o f the law."

70

Stdkl Ben Ezru

literal interpretation even for those rituals that can be performed without
the Temple (such as the fast). Fasting with Jews jeopardizes the validity of
the atoning power of Christ's self-sacrifice. In Origen's eyes, Christianity
and Judaism are exclusive alternatives. Whoever wants to fast can do it
throughout the year; indeed as in Hegesippus, Yorn Kippur can be any day:
"When, therefore, is there not a day of humiliation for you who follow
Christ...?"% Yet, unlike Hegesippus, Origen explicitly forbids joining the
fast on Yorn Kippur - whoever fasts with the ./ews has neither understood
nor accepted the atonement inherent in Jesus' death. Those 'in between'
who cross the symbolic boundaries between Judaism and Christianity have
become the 'dangerous ones in between' threatening the collective
identities of both, orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, based on
mutual exclusion.

'Abd al-Jabbiir and his Judaeo-Christian source:

Jesus observed Yorn Kippur
I began this paper with the assumption that most Judaeo-Christians continued to observe Yorn Kippur. 'This assumption is based on Phila's statcment about the importance of Yorn Kippur for Jewish collective identity.
It also matches the general statement of the Christian heresiologists that
Judaeo-Christians keep the Tora. However, Romans 14 makes it very
probable that same Christian Jews stopped observing Yorn Kippur around
60 CE, and Hegesippus points to a certain devaluation of the annual Day
of Atonement in a Jewish Christian circle around 120 CE. One wonders
therefore if there is any specific source describing Judaeo-Christians
observing Yorn Kippur. The earliest statement known to me that refers
specifically to the Yom Kippur of a Judaeo-Christian group appears in the
tenth-century anti-Christian treatise 'The Establishment of Proofs for the
Prophethood of Our Master Mohammed"9 by the Mu'tazilite 'Abd al-

7"omily
on Leviticus 10.2.3.
79 The Arabic title reads: Tathbit Dald '11Nubuwwut Suyyrdrnfi Muhammad The text
was first discussed at length by Shlomo PINES,'The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source', PIASN 2 (1966) 237 310,
republished in Guy G. STRQUMSA
(cd.), The CoNecred Works of Shlomo Piner, Magnes,
Jerusalem 1996, vol. 4, 21 1-284. The treatise has been partially translated by Samuel M.
STERN in "Abd al-Jabbiir's Account of How Christ's Religion Was Falsified by the
Adoption of Roman Customs,' JTS 19 (1968) 128-1 85, translation on p13 I - 153. STLRN
130 nl refen to a printed edition of the first 140 folios of 'Abd al-Jabbgr's book by
'Abd al-Karim ' U ~ I M A N
(Beirut 1966) as the most convenient edition.

'Christians' observing 'Jewish 'festivols

71

Jabbar al-Hamadbi.80 While 'Abd al-Jabbl himself was a Muslim, Shlomo Pines has argued convincingly that he based his writings on JudaeoChristian sources.8'
"They [the Christians] turn in their prayer to the east, whereas Christ, up to the time that
God took him, always prayed turning to the west, Jerusalem, the direction of David, the
prophets, and the children of Israel. Christ was circumcised and held circumcision
obligatory, as did Moses, Aaron, and the prophets. H e and his disciples f a t e d on the
day kept by the children of Israel, until the very time he lefi the world. H e never
observed thesefifty doys on which the Christians f a t , the Fast of Nineveh, or the Fast of
the Virgins; nor did he eat on thefmt the food which they oNow, or prohibit what they
consider as prohibited. He did not observe the Sunday as a feast-day, nor did he build a

church, or for even a moment abolish the Sabbath. [...I

In short, the Messiah came to revive the Torah and put it into practice, saying (Mi

'Abd al-Jabbar lived from ca. 935-1025 in Baghdad and Rayy. For further
information, see the short entry on 'Abd al DjabbiZr b. Ahmad in the Encyclopaed~aof
Islam. vol. 1 (1960) 59-60 and the remarks by S.M. STERN
in STS 18 (1967) 34-57.
P P I Nsuggested
W
that 'Abd al-Jabbilr is based on traditions of a Judaeo-Christian
group dating to between the fifth and sixth centuries and translated from Syriac to Arabic
by Judaeo-Christians in the tenth century; also, that the source, which includes an
account of the origin of Christianity actually reflects genuine first- and second-century
traditions (1996: 274f = 1966: 3000. This spectacular thesis sparked a fierce
controversy between Pines and Stem. Stem argued against Pines mainly on the grounds
that the existence of Judaeo-Christians as late as the tenth century was absurd. Instead
STERN1968: 184f suggested that the treatise was based on a work composed by "a
Muslim, most likely an ex-Christian, who took as his point of departure the New Testament account of the early church and of Paul's career [and] probably used some motives
from a Jewish legend about Paul, but gave free reins to his scumlous fancy". Since then,
Pines' spectacular discovery has been largely neglected. However, Patricia CRONE:
('Islam, Judaeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm,'Jerusalem Studies in Arabic
R
and Islam 1980, p59- 95, esp. 74-76 and 85 95), and most recently John G A G ~('Did
- YOsttlKO REED,below n45) have
Jewish Christianity See the Rise of Islam?' in BECKER
reclaimed 'Abd al-Jabblir's text for the study of Judaeo-Christians raising three
arguments against Stem's thesis. First, it is unlikely that a h4uslim would demand that
Christians behave like Jews (CRONF'1980: 76, n91). Second, 'Abd al-Jabbk's source
claims to give the real history of Early Christianity from an insider Judaeo-Christian
perspective (ibid.). Finally, CRONI.provides evidence for the continuous existence of
Judaeo-Christians after the seventh century. This is crucial, since "Stem's view was
clearly dictated by his extraordinary reluctance to concede that the Arabic accounts are
Judaeo-Christian in character" ((1980: 86, n156a). She refers e.g. to Jacob of Edessa
attesting that the Sabbatians are still observing both the Sabbath and Sunday in Galatia
and Phrygia (1980: 84f). This tenth-century Judaeo-Christianity does not have to be
continuous with first-century Judaeo-Christianity; Judaizing "can ...reappear wherever
Christianity exists, particularly where it coexists with Judaism" (CRONE1980: 93).
Therefore, while Crone and Gager side with Stem in doubting that 'Abd al-Jabbar's
source goes back as far as the fourth century, they side with Pines in ascribing it to a
Judaeo-Christian author living after the conquest of Islam.

72

S ~ i i k Ben
l
Ezra

5:17-19 combined with Lk 16:17): '1 have come to act according to the Torah and the
orders of the prophets before me; I have not come to abolish, but to complete. I t is easier
in the eyes of God for heaven to fall upon the earth than to abolish anything from the law
of Moses. If any man therefore sets aside anything of this, he will be called small in the
kingdom of heaven."'82

The passage of interest is the statement (in italics) that Christ observed the
Jewish day of fast (in the singular!) and not the fifty days' fast and other
Christian fast days. This makes it almost certain that the Judaeo-Christian
group(s) behind this source(s) followed the example of their master Jesus
in observing Yorn Kippur and not the Christian fasts." Why was it necessary for the group to emphasize that Jesus observed the fast? Apparently,
the reference to Yorn Kippur was part of a larger argument in a polemical
context with those Christians who did not keep the fast.

Conclusions
I have put forward the following five points. First, there is no explicit
evidence in Paul or Hebrews for an appeal to abolish Yorn Kippur for
Gentile and Jewish followers of Christ until the end of the first century.
Yet Paul testifies to a shift from the all-embracing celebration of Yorn
Kippur in Jewish communities or in Philo to an optional observance of the
fast among some Jesus-followers. Second, the casual use of Yorn Kippur
as a chronological reference in Acts 27:9 provides clear evidence that this
community of Christian God-fearers living towards the end of the first
century continued to observe Yorn Kippur. This questions the common
assumption that it is possible to distinguish between Gentile and Jcwish
Christians by referring to their attachment to the commandments of the
Tora. Third, Hegesippus spreads the special sanctity of the Ilay of Atonement to all days. It is possible that this reflects a Jewish Christian group
that ceased to observe Yom Kippur or gradually neglected it, though the
general attitude is not unlike Philo's statement that the wise should live
every day as if it were Yom Kippur. Fourth, there is evidence for
Judaizing Gentiles joining the Jewish festivities of Yom Kippur not only
in fourth-century Antioch (Chrysostom) but also in third-century Caesarea
(Origen). Christian participation was therefore more widespread than is
commonly assumed. Fifth, some Judaeo-Christian communities continued
STERN1968: 132f, paragraph 3-4 (emphasis added).
Some additions to the text - such as the specific prohibition of pork and getting
drunk and the use of the term 'People of the Rook' seem to have been introduced by a
Muslim hand - nevertheless, CRONEand GACERare right in emphasizing that a Muslim
would not make that kind of propaganda for the Tora.
82

83

'Christians ' observing 'Jewish' festivals

73

to observe Yom Kippur, as 'Abd al-Jabbk's source suggests, probably

mocking Christians who did not fast and trying to convince them to join
their Day of Atonement.
In a more general way, I suggest distinguishing three progressive stages
in the perception of such religious behavior as the observance of Yom
Kippur by followers of Christ: (1) normative, mainstream or acceptable;
(2) peculiar, Judaeo-Christian but tolerable; and (3) un-Christian and prohibited. Chronologically, the second stage may be dated approximately to
the years 100-160. In the first stage, authors of texts that were later
defined as canonical mainstream could regard the observance of the
Jewish fast as normative (Luke) or acceptable (Paul). In the second stage,
some observances were characterized as 'Judaizing'and therefore strange
but still tolerable if performed by Christian Jews (Justin Martyr). In the
third stage, when some Christians continued to observe Yorn Kippur, such
Judaizing behavior was considered un-Christian and prohibited (Diognet,
Origen, Chrysostom). They were conceived of as 'dangerous ones in
between'by orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism alike, threatening
the distinct identity of cach by blurring the boundaries and proposing an
alternative to the ideology of mutual exclusion.
Finally, there is a clear difference between the first century and later
times regarding the social status of Jesus-followers observing Yom
Kippur. In the first century, some leaders regarded the fast as normative
(Acts) or acceptable (Paul). In later times, those observing the fast were
probably ordinary Christians while those who defined Yom Kippur as unChristian belonged to the leaders.

Vermeintlicher Antijudaismus und Polernik

gegen Judenchristen im Neuen Testament
Folker Siegerr

Das Problem
Es yibt eine Sorte von ,,Antijudaismus" im Neuen 'I'estament, die nur dann
als solche erscheint, wenn man vergisst zu fragen, wer die Adressaten der
Texte sind. Im Folgenden sol1 die Rede sein von jenen ,,antijiidischcn"
Polemiken - sie ziihlen zu den schiirfsten iiberhaupt -, die sich weder
gegen das Judentum der Zeit dcs Zweiten 'Tempels richten noch gegen das
rabbinisch neuverfksste Judentum danach, sondern gegen Judenchristcn.
Solche Polemiken k o ~ t e numso leichter verkannt werden, als wir uns angewfihnt haben, die neutestamentlichen Texte, vom lukanischen Corpus allenfalls abgesehen, als ~ d k r u n g e nvon Juden zu lesen - nur eben Juden mit
einer neuen Botschafl fir ihr Volk und fir alle VBlker.
Im Folgenden aber soll unser BIick auf die Gegenseite, die Empfdngerseite, wechseln. Wo d i e s mit Ioltdaioi bestimmt oder angeredet wird. beginnt
fir historisch-kritische IxktiIre die Frage: Was ficr ,,JudenWsind gemeint?
Gerade im Neuen 'Testament kann mit diesem Ausdsuck - ein Begriff ist cs
nicht; es ist in vager Weise ein Name - weit mehr als cine GemeinschaPl
bezeichnet sein. Zuniichst bezeichnet das Wort ja ,,~ud$ier".' Darnit kann das
jiidische Volk insgesarnt gemeint =in, dessen kultisches Zentrum in J u d h
liegt; es kilnnen JudLr sein, ja bestimmte Jud?icr (s. unten zu Joh), und es
kannen auch nur die Judenchristen sein. Ein eigenes Wort fir ,,Judenchristen"
hat die ganze Antike nicht gekanntS2Wollte man sich missverstiindlich ausdflcken, sa miisste man umschreiben: ,,die aus der Reschneidung" (Apg 1 1.2;
Tit 1,l o).'

' Zu diesern Forschungskonsens s

z B Corrt N, 'louda~os', 21 1 , Ifauvr Y, The True

Anders TOMSON,
' The Names'
Wenn MIMOUNIdie Wongruppe Juduer Chrlstrunl be1 H~eronqmushlefir rehlamlert
(Lejud&chr~rantsme 62, aus Hieronyrnus, Suchuqakommerrfar 3.14 9), so verkennt er dac
Syntagrna, in welchern Juciaer und C'hrrstranr keineswegs wle Nornen und Attrlbut vcrbunden
sind; vielrnehr 1st Chrrstranl PrfWikatsnornen elnes folgenden Verbums
Patristische Beiege hler~ube1 MIMOIINI, Le juddn-chrrrtranrsme. 47f
Irrael, 9. 14- 18

Pdemik gegen Judenchristen

75

Es hat auch im Christenturn bis weit in patristische Zeit hinein keinen

eigenen Ausdruck gegeben, der ,Judenchristen" separat bezeich.net htltte.
Sie fielen mit unter Ioudaioi, jenen ohnehin missversthdlichen Ausdruck
fiir ,Judger" und solche, die gar nicht aus J u d h kamen, sondern ihre
~udiiische"Religion oder Volkszugehbrigkeit anderswo wahrnahmen.
Johanneisches

Im Johannesevangelium entsteht eine zusiltzliche, noch wenig beachtete

Verwirmng dadurch, dass sich auf die genannten Undeutlichkeiten noch
eine innejiidische Polaritlit l t s c h e n Judtlern und Galilgem legt, die religi6se und auch soziale Komponenten hat. Die Anhbgerschaft Jesu wird
hauptstichlich in GalilL lokalisiert (Joh 4,4345; vgl. 11,7), die Gegnerschaf? hingegen in Jud@ wie unlbgst Eberhard Giiting deutlicher gezeigt hat (Joh 1,19 us^.).^ Mit 'lou6abt sind v.a. die Autoriuten zu Jerusalem gemeint, die hemchenden Familien und Sprecher des ~udentums.~
In 13,36 Bllt im Munde Jesu die Bemerkung: ,,wie ich sagte rr& soh<
'looliaioy"; hier muss unbedingt iibersetzt werden: ,JU den Judhrn".
Denn Jude im weiteren Sinne ist Jesus schlieDIich selbst; das vergisst auch
der vierte Evangelist nicht.
Die ,Judiier" nun gelten als die treibenden W f t e hinter Jesu Kreuzigung (Joh 11,470, was in dem MaBe plausibel ist, wie das Wirken Jesu der
Tempelhierarchie zuwider sein musste. Auch Josephus hestiitigt diese Sicht
und spricht von einer ,,Anzeig" (Ev&I~Y)durch ,,die ersten Mtlnner unter
uns" (Ant. 18:36), wenn denn die Worte des iiberlieferten Textes an dieser
Stelle seine eigenen sind - worm aber kein Zweifel sein mlisste, dem wir
haben es mil keiner der umstrittenen Qualifikationen Jesu zu tum6
Joh 8.30-59. Nun aher ist von einer noch engeren Venvendung des Wortes
'lou6a"w zu reden, in der spezifisch Judenchristen gemeint sind. Jener innerchristliche Streit, der im Vierten Evangelium ,,JudW zur Zielscheibe hat,
aber christliche Juder meint, ist noch nicht hinreichend analysiert.' Mir selbst

'

GOTMG, 'Kritik an den Judaem'. Gntings Analyse gilt den Emhltexten des Vienen
Evanpliums. Erst in den (offenbar jnngeren) Diskunpartien begegnet dann jene Verallgemeinemng, die ,Juden' Vertreter der unglflubigen Menschheit Oberhaupt sein 18sst.
Joh 5.10.15--18; 7.13.15; 9.18.22; 18,12.14.36; 19.7.38; 20.19. GOTINO.'Kritik',

'

169.
(...) ~ a abzdv
l
k v W i i 79v qxh~covhv8p&v 79v <napp'>f p i v m a u 6
kna~1ip11~6r~
llthdrou obr knaGaavro oi rd npcjrov &yawany (...) - "als

auf Anteige unserer Vornehmsten Pilatus ihn des Kreuzestodes mr wilrdig betbnden hatte, lieBen die, die ihn zuerst geliebt hanen, nicht (von ihm) ab (...)". Im selben Sinne engt
Joh 19.15 die treibende Kraf? hinter der Ve~rteilungJesu ein auf 'die Hohenpriester'.
Zum rechtlichen Aspekt dieses vor dem Hohenpriester eiageleiteten und von Pilatus zu
Ende gemhnen Verfahrens 5.u. Anm. 48.
Ein Beispiel unter vielen ist der sonst so anregende Sammelband von HELI.HOLM

ist er erst aufgefallen, als ich wieder einmal die beriichtigte Stellc Joh 8,44 zu
interpretieren bekam: ,,Ihr seid vom Vater, (nwlich) vom Teufel..." Den
,Juden'bder ,,Ju&em"wird dort die Abrahamskindschafl abgestritten in den
schlimmsten Ausdrilcken, die sich ilberhaupt finden lassen. Um diese Stelle
korrekt zu deuten, habe ich - zugegeben, nicht beim ersten Ma1 - ptlichtgem@ zurilckgebltittert, urn zu sehen, wer uberhaupt angeredet ist. Ila fand
ich den Vermerk (300: ,,Als er das sagtc, glaubten viele an ihn. (31) Es:
sprach nun Jesus npd.5 so85 mnlos&u~6saqabz@ ' IouGaiou~ - zu den
Juden, die gliiubig an ihn geworden waren ...'M i t diesen Leuten ereignet
sich nun die game folgende Serie von Missverstandnissen, die das Kapitel
mit Sprengstoff fillen. Sie fuhren dazu, dass Jesus ihnen den Glauben
abspricht (V. 450; und so sind es dann diese fur nichtglaubig Erklarten,
die am Ende der Perikope versuchen, Jesus zu steinigen (V. 59). Der
johanneische Jesus meint, sie ,,liebtenWihn nicht (V. 42), hat sich aber
auch nicht freundlich zu ihnen verhalten. Nun wird man gleich sagen: Das
ist alles kirchliche Redaktion; das ist der edierte Johannes. Umso interessanter: Gerade die ,,kirchlicheW Fassung des Vierten Evangeliums
pauschalisiert nicht, sondem bestimmt Judenchrisren als Lielscheibe der
Polemik.
Erst allmiihlich dringt diese Textangabe ins Bewusstsein der Kommentatoren ein. Zwei Beispiele: Jilrgen Recker (1979)' liisst die Perikope richt
,,lm wahrsten
tig mit Joh 8,31 beginnen; sein Kommentar aber s e t ~ ein:
Sinne des Wortes eine tiidliche Konfrontation zwischen Jesus und den
Juden." Er findet hier eine ,,konstruierte, kampferische Aufarbeitung des
Judenproblems, das die johanneischen Christen haben. Die Juden sind am
Kreuzestod schuld." Man fragt sich, wer hier kommentiert werden soll:
Meliton von Sardes oder sonst ein Polemiker des 2. Jh. oder das Vierte
Evangelium.
Weiter kornmt Klaus Wengst unter der ijberschriA ,,Wahrheit, Freiheit
und Abrahamskindschaft (8,3 1-59)'"9 Er analysiert die ,,Wechselrede zwischen Jesus und 'den JudenW'und sagt: ,,Letztere werden zu Rcginn als
zum Glauben Gekommene charakterisiert (V. 3 1). Davon ist aber alsbald
iiberhaupt nichts mehr zu spuren"; ,,die Erwghnung des Glaubens bleibt
Episode". In der Tat, so ist es: Mit dem Wundern iiber diesen Textsachverhalt begimt iiberhaupt erst die Arbeit des Kommentierens. Nur eine klar
u.a., Mighty Minorities, wo die schon im NT beginnende Minorit3tensituationdes Judenchristentums nicht reflektiert wird; statt dessen findet sich ein Beitrag Uber 'Israel als
integrierter Teil der christlichen Hoffnung <Matthtius 23>' (S. PEDERSEN),der christiiche
Anlehnung an das Judenrum zum Gegenstand hat. So entspricht es der heutigen Idage,
aber nicht derjenigen, in der das frilhe Christentum seine Mgung annahm
BECKER, Johannes, 297; folgendes 299.
WENGST, Johonnes, 325. Weiteres 326; 327.

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

77

gestellte Frage kann auch auf eine konkrete Antwort hoffen. Wengst versucht eine Antwort u.a. so: ,,Die extreme Schiirfe des Abschnitts 8,31-59
w&e (...) auch von daher zu verstehen, dass Joh(annes) Apostaten im Blick
hat" - also temporare Christen, die es nicht lange blieben. Das ist eine
Moglichkeit. Eine andere Deutung l b s t sich in Analogie zu Apg 21 geben,
der Briiskierung des Paulus in Jerusalem durch die Jakobus-Gruppe (s.
unten). ~hnlichesergiibe die Analogie zu Gal 2: Bevor johanneische
Christen es erlebten, von den Synagogen ferngehalten zu werden,IO haben
sie vielleicht schon erlebt, dass eigene Glaubensbrllder ihnen die I'ischgemeinschaft aufkundigten. Das beginnende Christentum, das judische
zumal, war mi! Ausschlilssen anscheinend ebenso schnell bei der Hand wie
die Zirkel der Pharisger oder der Essener, mit denen das beginnende
Christentum ja manches gemeinsam hat. Das ziihlt mi! zu seinem judischen
Erbe, denn andere antike Religionen kannten es nicht. Sonstige Gruppen
wie Sadduziier und ,,I-Iohepriester" hatten eine andere, soziale AusschlieOlichkeit an sich (vgl. den Gemeindekern in Apg 6,1), f i r die es in der
paganen Umwelt schon eher Analogien gibt.
Was sich in Joh 8 widerspiegelt, sind mithin innerchristliche Konjlikte,
wenn auch solche, die sich aus den jildischen Wurzeln der neuen Religionsgemeinschaft erklaren. Das heiDt aber auch, dass die spatere Kirche
ihre Bibel nicht gut gelesen hat, wenn sie unter Berufung auf Joh 8 u.a.
Antijudaismus betrieb."
Joh 2.23-2.5. Suchen wir nach einer Parallele zu Joh 8,3 1 im Vierten Evangelium, so bietet sich bereits das 2.Kapitel an. Das erste judiiische Auditorium Jesu wird in Joh 2,23-25 so geschildert:
,,Ah er aber in Jerusalem war am Passa-Fest, wurden viele gltiubig an seinen Narnen, die
sahen, welche Zeichen er verrichtete. (24) Er aber, Jesus, vertraute sich ihnen nicht an, da er
(sie) alle kannte, (25) und weil er es nicht nMig hane, dass jemand von dem Menschcn
Zeugnis ablege; er selbst erkannte ja, was in dem Menschen war.'"

So w6rtlich. Der johanneische Jesus ist also von vornherein misstrauisch

gegenllber Judiiern - das muss hier geographisch gemeint sein -, und zwar
auch dam, wenn sie an ihn glauben. Wier finden wir, historisch gesehen,
ein Vorurteil ausgedriickt, das zuniichst ein innerjildisches gewesen sein

'O

In Joh 9,22; 12,42 und 16,2 findet sich f\lr Ausgeschlossene der Ausdruck hxo-

auvayoyog .
" Darlfber hinaus wird man heutzutage den polemischen Stil vieler neutestamentlicher Schriflen, von Matthlus Uber Paulus bis tur Apokalypse, Llberhaupt vermeiden, weil
er zu religioscn Dingen unbrauchbar ist. Aber dies ist eine neuere Einsicht; noch Luther
hat sie nicht annehmen wollen, weder von Erasmus noch von Melanchthon. - Heute
jedenfalls tut man gut daran, nvischen dem Zorn eines Propheten und den Pflichten eines
Auslegrrs sorgfgltigzu unterschieden.

mag - gegen das ,,Galilh der Viilker" (Mt 4 , l S aus Jes 8,23) -, das aber
dann seine Brisanz als innerchristliches entfaltete.
Jesu Jiinger als Galilfier sind im Vierten Evangelium von diesem negativen Vorurteil ausgenommen. Wo Positives iiber sie zu sagen ist als
,,iudenm, da kann Ioudaios nicht dienen, sondern es tritt der Name
,,Israelitn ein: ,,Siehe, wahrhaft ein Israelit, in dem keine List ist ..." ( 1,47).
Wenn der Prolog des Johannesevangeliums schon die Abgrenzung betrieben hatte gegeniiber einer jiidischen Randgruppe, n2mlich derjenigen
~ warnt nun der 'I'ext selbst vor jiidischen ChrisJohannes des l ' l u f e r ~ , 'so
ten, als wken sie auch schon eine Randgru~pe.'~
Durch I'exte wie diesen
sind sie tatsilchlich eine Randgruppe geworden - wobei wir freilich aucl.1
werden fragen miissen, inwieweit sie selbst sich provokant verhalten
haben. Das johanneische Christentum jedenfalls ist im Zuge dieser nie aufgedeckten, immer nur angedeuteten Auseinandersetzungen von einem urspriinglichen Judenchristentum, das es doch wohl war, zu einem polemisch-dezidierten Heidenchristentum geworden.
Zu Ioudaioi noch eine Gegenprobe: Unter den wenigen Judiiern, die im
Text ungetadelt davonkommen, befindet sich der ,,Lieblingsjiinger'", wahl
identisch zu sehen mit dem Rekannten des Wohenpriesters (Joh 18.1 Sf). Er
ist angeblicher Hauptzeuge des Passionsgeschehens. Wir fragen uns jetzt
nicht nach der historischen Wahrscheinlichkeit dieses Anspruchs. Kirchengeschichtlich gelesen, steht der ,,I,ieblingsjiinger'" fur diejenige Minderheit
an Judenchristen, mit denen die friihkatholische Kirche nichf in Zwist geriet: Das waren in der Folgezeit die sog. ,,NazoraerWim Gegensatz zu den
auch doktrinal nicht mitgehenden ,,Ebi~niten'".'~

Matthaus und seine paradoxe Venvendung in der Kirche

Dass bei der Festlegung des neutestamentlichen Kanons ein dezidiert
judenchristlicher Text, niimlich das Matthfiusevangelium, an den Anfang
karn und fortan das kirchliche Evangelium wurde, ist eine Ironie der
Geschichte. Es lie0 sich nur durch ungenaues Verstiindnis und durch Allegorisieren der darin enthaltenen Gesetzesverpflichtungen an dieser Stelle
halten. Dass die Polemik gegen diejenigen, die .,cines dieser kleinsten
'"gl.
Apg 19,1-6 llbcr die Aufnahme von zwblf solchen Johannesjilngern in die
christliche Gemeinde zu Ephesus. Hier ist etwas von den religibsen llifferen7xn (Lieisterlebnis) greifbar.
l3 ~ u Marginalitat
r
religi6ser Gruppen in der Antike s. die Fallstudien in M~JI.LI.K/
SIEGERT, Antike Randgcsell.schajien, passim; zum Judentum im besonderen 87- 1 15.
Bestandsaufnahme bei MIMOUNI, L,e judio-christianisme, pussim. ijber die Nichtakzeptierung der groDkirchlichen Christologie bei einem Judenchristen wie Aphrahat s.
PETERSEN,'Constructing the Matrix', 142f.

'*

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

79

Gebote (der I'ora) auflosen" (5,19), nach damaligem Verstiindnis (s. unten
S. 88) Paulus treffen rnusste, ist selten ernst genommen worden.'"
Von anderer Seite betrachtet, religionssoziologisch, ist das Matthilusevangelium schon zur Zeit seiner Veroffentlichung die Stimme einer Minderheit gewesen. Wenn wir nach Martin Hengels unlbgst veroffentlichter
Chronologie gehen,I6 ist es bereits eine Reaktion auf die zum Griechentum
hin offenen Evangelien des Markus und des Lukas. In Form einer apostolischen Pseudepigraphie ergZinzt und korrigiert dieses Evangelium seine
alteren, weniger jiidisch geprilgten Vorliiufer. Der Antijudaismus, der auch
im Matthiiusevangeliwn festgestellt wurde, ist ein Antirabbinismus, wie
inzwischen allgemein anerkannt wird. Er ist hier nicht zu untersuchen, da
hier offenbar ein Judenchrist das Wort ergreift, wir aber keine innerjtidischen Probleme behandeln wollten. Was hier interessiert, sind die kirchlichc: Rezeption und Wirkung dieses Textes. Hierzu sei bemerkt, dass gerade der Autor des Matthausevangeliums als Jude, der er doch wohl bleibt,
den Missionsbefehl gegeniiber allen lievq (Heiden) forrnuliert; auf ihn
kann man sich in der leidigen Frage der Judenmission also am wenigsten
berufen. Die 'I'rilger seines Auftrags sind bei ihrn selbst ~ u d e n . ' ~
Nun mag es schon damais eine llrsache von Konflikten gewescn sein,
wenn Heidenchristen jiidische Gemeinden zu missionieren begannen und
etwa Synagogenzusammenkiinfte in diesem Sime umfunktionierten obwohl wir das f i r die kanonische Zeit des Neuen Testaments noch nicht
nachweisen ktinnen.'"on
auaen hat man sich das Heil niemals bringen
lassen; es kommt schon, wie der vierte Evangelist die samaritanische Frau
sagen Iasst, ,,von den Juden" (Joh 4,22, hier ohne den Ehrennamen ,,Israel"). Ich wiisste nicht, wann erstmals ein derartiger Missionsversuch van Heidenchristen gegeniiber Juden - belegt ist. Man wird wohl bis zu
dem samaritanischen Heidenchristen Justin gehen miissen, dessen Dialog
(der kciner ist) mit Tryphon in diese Richtung geht.

''

AuDer in neuesten Arbeiten wie der von SIM,Matthew, wo freilich das Judenchristentum allzu unhistorisch als geschlossener Block behandelt wird. - Noch nicht gesehen
habe ich W. CARI ER: Matthew and the Margins A Socio-Polrtical and Religious Commentary, (JSNTSup 204) Shefield 2001.
l6 ~ ~ L N < ; C
, The
L
Four (;ospe/.s, 169 209.
l7 SILOERT,
'Nachwort', in: ders., Israel als Gegenuber 5 5 5 . - Was auch noch wenig
beachtet wurde, ist das biblische Vorbild des matthilischen Taufbefehls, nllmlich Est 8,17
1,XX. Aus der Analogie zur Beschneidung am 8. Tag begrllndet sich, abweichend von der
bei Paulus Uberwiegenden Praxis, die christliche Kindertaufe. Das mag die kirchliche Rezeption des Mt. mit motiviert haben.
Wenn Paulus in SynagogenzusammenkIIn!?en das Wort ergrei!? und sie in Missionsereignisse umzufunktionieren sucht, ist das immer noch ein innerjadischer Konflikt.
Auch die bertlhmte Sueton-Notiz (Claudius 25,4) Ubr die anhaltenden Tumulte unter
dem rUmischen Juden, ausgelust von einem gewissen Chrestus, gehUrt hierher.

Einen Vergleich verdient noch die markinische Fassung des Missionsbefehls in dcm kirchlich edierten zweiten Schluss. I-Iier, und hier endlich,
haben wir eine Aufforderung an fieidenchristen vor uns. Sie lautet folgendermai3en (Mk 16,151:
,Geht in alle Welt und verklindet das Evangelium der gesarnten Schbpfung! Wer mm
Glauben kam und getauft wird, wird gerettet werden; wer jedoch den Glauben verweigerte,
wird verurteilt werden.'"

Hier ist die Taufe nicht Heilsbedingung, nur der Glaube. Dies mag hilfreich sein zur Erleichterung und Versachlichung des heutigen christlichjiidischen Gesprichs.
Was offenen Antijudaismus betriffi, so ist das judenchristliche Matthausevangelium eindeutig der Vorreiter; sein Autor darf sich mehr erlauben
als die anderen. Eine Polemik gegcn das im Jahre 70 n.Chr. von Rom gedemiltigte, aus eigenen Kriiften aber erstarkte Judentum finden wir uber Mt
hinaus dann erst im 2.Jh., in nach- oder nichtkanonischen Texten des
Christenturns. - Kehren wir zu unserer Frage zuruck.

Judenchristen als Gegner des Paulus

Die Lage in den ersten christlichen Gemeinden

Dass das friihe Christentum ein spannungsreiches Gebilde war, das mit seinen jiidischen Bestandteilcn bei gleichzeitig beabsichtigter liniversalitat
nicht leicht zu Rande kam, ist an manchen paulinischen Polemiken erkenntlich, am meisten an denen des Galaterbriefs. Schon innerhalb der
galatischen Gemeinden muss es hoch hergegangen sein. so dass Paulus
mahnt: ,,Wenn ihr einander beil3t und verschlingt, seht nur zu, nicht gegenseitig gefressen zu werden!"(Gal 5,15). Die Beispiele innerchristlicher
Spaitung und Fcindschaft durchziehcn das Neue Testament bis hin zu 2Joh
7- 1 1 und 3Joh.
Soviel aus dem ersten Missionsfeld. Doch auch im Mutterland war nicht
lange und nicht uberall, wie Apg 4,32 meldet, ,,die Menge der zum (ilauben Gekommenen ein Herr. und eine Seele". Das Gemcinschafiserlebnis
trat rasch zuriick hinter Gruppenstreitigkeiten (Apg 6,1 ff usw.). Hierzu nun
einige Detailbeobachtungen. Es gibt bei Paulus eine Parallele zu Joh 8, der
poiemischen Ablehnung der Abrahamskindschaft fdr diejenigen Judenchristen, mit denen man sich zerstritten hatte. In 2Kor 11,22 bezeichnen
sich die Gegner des Paulus ganz stolz selbst als ,,I iebriier, Israeliten, Nachkommenschaft Abrahams'" Das kann Paulus auch tlir sich selber tun, und
er tut es gerade ihnen gegenuber an der genannten Stelle und in Phil 3.5.
Ein Rechthaben oder genauer gesagt: eine Einflussnahrne aufgrund der Abstammung wird aber von ihrn fortan abgelehnt.

Von den Heidenchristen Roms fordert er wiederum, sich ihrerseits nicht

zu iiberheben, sondem den genealogischen Zusammenhang der jiidischen
Christen, ja liberhaupt der Juden mit Abraham, dem ersten Glaubenden.
respektvoll zu bedenken (RiSm 1 1-13-24) und sich vor jeder Sicherheit
ihrerseits warnen zu lassen.
Abwehr judenchrisrlicher Korreburen der puulinischen Mission im Galaterbrief

Was die Streitpunkte mit Jerusalemer Judenchristen und ihren Abgesandten waren, erfahren wir in einer Monlentaufnahme aus Gal 2 sowie (mit
gewissen Abstrichen) aus Apg 10-1 1 und 15. Die Texte und ihre Problematik sind bekannt und hinreichend analysiert worden.'* Ich greife nur ein
Detail heraus, auf das Nikolaus Walter unlangst aufmerksarn gemacht
hat.*' In Gal 2,9 ist ihrn der Ausdruck azbkot ,,SBulenVaufgefallen: 1st er
emstlich gebraucht oder ironisch? ,,Diejenigen, die filr SBulen galten", oi
6 0 ~ o C v r rorCl.01
~
~f vat - das ist, naher besehen, Ironie. Wir werden die
Legitimationsprobleme der Jerusalemcr Spitze, u.z. der christlichen, im
ntichsten Abschnitt noch etwas niiher untersuchen.
Zwischen dem Jerusalemer Judenchristentum und der paulinischen Mission gab es gravierende Missverstlindnisse und unausgeglichene Ansprilche. Das merkte man offenbar nicht sofort. Eine der offenen Fragen war
die, ob man erst Jude werden miisse, um Christ sein zu k6nnen." Der
ganze Galaterbrief, so weil3 man ja inzwischen, ist das Zeugnis einer
Auseinandersetzung zwischen Juden- und Heidenchristen Uber diese Frage.
Paulus beantwortet sie im 2. Kapitel unter Hinweis auf das - nicht
vorbildliche - Tischverhalten des Petrus.**
Selbst zu dem Tempelwort Jesu, das ja die Evangelien einschliel3lich
der Apostclgeschichte (6,14) durchzieht und die Spannung zwischen Christusverehrung und mosaischer Observanz verdeutlicht, fi ndet sich im Gala-

'

Als Beispiel diene MARTYN, Theologrcal Issue$, insbes. 77-84: 'Galatians, A n

Anti-Judaic Documenl?"
20 W A I . T ~ K'Die
, als Saulen Geltenden', bes. 90: Die paulinische lronie beziehe sich
auf cine Frommigkeit, die den Anspruch erhebe, zu den 'Slulen der Welt' z11 dhlen. Vgl.
mAv 1.2: An dieser bemerkenswerten Stelle wird neben der Tora und dem Tempclgoffesdienst die Er(U1lung sozialer Verpflichtungen kmilut &%a- drm - die ~bersetzung
'Liebeswerke' iis schon christlich) genannt, die auch der Stolz des jakobeischen Christentums waren (Jak 2,14- 26 u.6.).
Vgl. SCKNEI,LE, 'MUSSein Heide'; ferner SIEGERI,
'Nachwort'in: ders., Israel a1.r

Gegenuber 545.
I n TOMSONS
Analyse (Paul and the Jewish L a w , 230) ging es auch hier lctatlich um
Beschneidung, ja oder nein, ntr fleidenchristen. Von ihr sollte die Kirchengemeinschaft
abhitngen - und sollte es nicht nach Paulus.

terbrief eine ~ a r a l l e l e .Der

~ ~ aus ,jud8ischerm Richtung kommende Vorwurf in den Evangelien ist, Jesus habe angekundigt, er werde den Tempe1
einreiBen. Das ist - zumindest in nach6sterlichem Verstgndnis - eine metaphorische Art zu sagen, dass der Tempelkult durch ihn seine Bedeutung
v e r ~ i e r e .Im
~ ~ Galaterbrief ist die Problemlage - oder jedenfalls die
Metaphorik - die gleiche, wenn Paulus in 2,18 warnt: ,,Wenn ich das, was
ich abgebrochen habe (ti ~arkhwra),wieder aufbaue (o\~oGopij),eweise ich
mich als Ubertreter (sc. meiner eigenen Regel)."Der Heidenapostel gibt hier
den V o m r f , den man gegen Jesus und seine Anhiinger richtete, auf seine
Weise zuriick. Dem petrinischen Judenchristentum halt er vor, inkonsequent zu sein hinsichtlich des Fallenlassens und - dann doch - Aufrichtens
mosaischer ~ ~ e i s e v o r s c h r i f t e n . ~ ~
Die Verhiirtungder Fronten
Ein analoger Vorwurf an dieselbe Adresse ergeht im Hinblick auf die von
judenchristlichen Missionaren geforderte Beschneidung von Heidenchristen (Gal 3-6),26 die ,,Zerschneidung", wie sie in Phil 3.2 auch heil3t
(~arasopq),um Derberes in dieser Polemik hier zu ubergehen. Achten wir
wieder auf die Adressaten: es sind Christen. Die Rede ist von einem an
sich ehrwiirdigen jiidischen Ritus; Paulus reklarniert ihn selbst fur sich
(Phil 3 3 ) und hat ihn an einem unbeschnittenen Judenchristen It. Apg 16.3
sogar selbst vollzogen (an I'imotheus), anders als er bei dem Griechen
Titus verfuhr (Gal 2,3).27Dieser Ritus wird aber in seinen Augen ein sinn-

SIEGFRT, 'Zerstbrt diescn Tempel'.

Gleiches besagt ja auch das Edhldetail vom 'LerreiRen' des (welches?) Tempelvorhangs Mk 15.38 pan.
25 Ein gutes Sensorium fBr die Spannungen und Konfliktlagen zeigt HAKYACK,
M~ssionI, bes. 68f, so sehr man von den theologischen Thesen dieses Autors, des letzten
konstantinisch denkenden Thcologen in Deutschland, heute Ahstand nehmen mag. (Als
neuere, und ex;rellente, Studie vgl. DORMFYER,
'Werden der Catholics'.) Es ist merkwardig zu sehen, wie HARNACK
die Hellenisierung des Judentums in der urchristlichen
Heidenmission - der Petrus zuletzt dann doch beigetreten sein dtirfie - hochsch2tzt; sie
erklw ihm nicht unplausibel die Ablehnung der christlichen Hotschafi bei der jlldischen
Mehrheit. Erst die "Hellcnisierung des Christenturns", als welche er die Gnosis ansieht,
geht ihm zu weit.
" Derartige Verdachtigungen reichen bis in die Gegenwart. Das in diesern Hand von
Daniel COHN-SHERBOK
zitierte Dokument der FCTJ vom 19.10.1975 behauptet, Messianische Juden wtirden Heidenchristen zur Beschneidung driingen.
27 Der Unterschied dieser beiden Stellen ist wcniger auf ein etwa vertglschendes
KompromissbedUrhis des Lukas zurllckzufuhren als vielmehr auf die Jerusalemer Ausbildung des Paulus unter Gamaliel I.: Sofern authentisch, ist dieses Paar von Nachrichten
nimlich unser altester Beleg Fiir die Matrilinearittft der jifdischen Abstammung, wie sie
dann auch als rabbinische Definition bekannt ist.
21

2'

Polemik g q e n Judenchrisren

83

loses Hindernis in dem Moment, wo man ihn der Christenheit aus den
Heiden auferlegen miichte (vgl. Gal 5,6.11; 6,15).
Solches ist anscheinend, trotz Apostelkonzil, immer wieder getan worden. Die Unklarheit der Verhiiltnisse und die Nichtgiiltigkeit von Kompromissen, die man schon erreicht zu haben g~aubte,~'
hat die Ablehnung bei
Leuten wie Paulus geradezu provoziert. Vielleicht stand die einfachstc
denkbare Antwort auf das Gebot der Bescheidung - Heidenchristen damit
nicht anfangen und Judenchristen damit nicht aufhoren zu lassen - darnals
in Jerusalem zur Debatte; torpediert wurde diese Losung durch b6swillige
Geriichte. In der Angst vor solchen Gerilchten verloren die Jerusalemer
Judenchristen ihre - zugegeben prekke - Mittelstellung zwischen dem
Volk Israel und der Kirche aus den Heiden. Sie verloren sie entweder
zwangslaufig, wenn man nur auf das Kraftespiel blickt (s. unten, ,,Lukanische Kompromissversuche"), oder auch nur durch die IJngeschicklichkeit
einer schwankenden, unklaren und uberdies undiplomatischen Ilaltung.
Wenn Paulus im selben Brief den Lehrsatz zitiert, dass die Beschneidung nicht als solche schon ihren Wert habe, sondern erst der Gehorsam
gegenilber den Geboten (1 Kor 7,19), so ,,klingtWdas judisch (Jer 4,4!) und
diirfte sogar noch innerhalb des jiidisch-christlichen Konsens gclegen haben. Dass aber die kvzohai, die hier fllr das tfeidenchristentum Ubrigbleiben, nur noch ethische sind (der Satz dient hier als Begriindung fiir den
Verzicht auf die Beschneidung bei Heidenchristen). scheint man in den
Kreisen um Jakobus nicht fi3r schlUssig gehalten zu haben.
Einfluss und Legitimation des flerrenbruders J a b b u s

Verstarkend muss auf die Konflikte gewirkt haben, dass die Sendungsoder ApostolatsansprUche des Paulus fiir Jakobus so unklar gewesen sein
mussen wie die des Jakobus f i r Paulus. Das Schweigen des 1,ukas Ubcr
diese kirchenspaltende Frage UberlHsst es uns, die beiden aus ihren (bzw.
den nach ihnen benannten) Rriefen selbst einzuschiitzen. Winter solchem
Schweigen steckt nochmals ein ,judHisches" Problem, das als innerkirchliches wiederkehrte: das Fehlen klarer Strukturen. Beim Lesen der Vita des
Josephus etwa gewinnt man den Eindruck, dass judische Leitungsstrukturen, so geregelt sie in den Synagogen gewesen sein mochten, gerade in
Jerusalem ein undurchsichtiger Filz waren." Dm rnochte auf das V c r h a l t e n
ZU Recht lllsst sich hier vennuten (2.B. durch SIXAI, Paul the Convert, 190), dass
man sich nur auf Worte geeinigt hane, nicht auf eine Begrtkndung. Paulus dachte nach
wie vor anders.
Josephus erhfflt dort stfindig Konkurrenz von Leuten, die ihrerseits im Namen
hoher Jerusalemischer Auftraggeber das Geschehen in Galillia, seinem Entsendungsgebiet, dominieren wollen (65; 189% 216ff; 309ft). Seine Cialil8er reagieren tihnlich allergisch auf Jerusalemer Eingriffe, wie Paulus auf solche der christlichen Jerusalemer. Vgl.

der Judenchristen abgef&bt haben. Mosaische Regelungen gab es in diesen

Dingen so wenig wie eine politische I.falacha.
Gleiches enveist ffir das tilteste Christentum das unmotivierte, eradezu
riitselhafie Auftauchen des Herrenbruders Jakobus in Apg 12.1 7." Petrus,
dem Gefangnis entkommen, l b s t sagen: .,Meldet dies Jakobus und den
Briidern!'Welchem Jakobus? muss man sich hier fragen, nachdem dejenige Jakobus, der bisher im Bericht vorkam, der Zebedaide ngmlich, wenige Abschnitte vorher als Miirtyrer enthauptet worden war (12.2). Mit keinem Wort bekommt man zu erfahren, wieso und inwiefern j e t ~ ein
t anderer
Jakobus der niichst Petrus wichtigste Mann des Jerusalemer Urchristentums (und des Judenchristentums) sein soll. Man muss aus dem ganzen
Neuen Testament sich diejenigen Informationen zusammensuchen, die
1,ukas offenbar voraussetzt. ohne sie wiederholen oder selbst geben zu
wollen.
Das spricht fi.ir eine offene Legitimationsfrage im Bereich der .;als Siiulen erscheinenden" (s.0. S. 810. Jakobus hat in deren Kreise sogar I'etrus
ilberflilgelt; zumindest avanciert er in dessen Abwesenheit zum Sprecher
der Urgemeinde (Apg 21,18) und gilt darum in christlicher Tradition als
erster Bischof Jerusalems (wohingegen Petrus, erneut auf Wanderschaft
gegangen, den rijmisehen Patronat erhiilt). In seiner Person erhebt nunrnehr
eine Art von Kalif seine Ansprliche. Man entschuldige den Anachronismus
dieser Benennung; ein Apostolat jedenfalls ist es nicht, und von einer
Sendung erfahren wir n i ~ h t s . ~
Eine
' Person aus den Kindern Abrahams, die
ilberdies zu denen der Maria und des Josef ziihlt, ilbernimmt krufi Ahstammung eine 1,eitungsfunktion. Das ist es wohl, was 1,ukas uns nicht sagen
will. Immerhin erfahren wir von Paulus, warum dieser Jakobus eine auch
f i r ihn unangreifbare Person war: Jakobus, neben den Aposteln extra
genamt, steht auf jener Liste der Zeugen des Auferstandenen (1 Kor 15,37), in die Paulus sich selbst nur nachtraglich einbringen kann.
Wenn das einen Episkopat begrlindet, ist es jedenfalls ein untypischer:
Die Bezeichnung ,,Bischof' in der christlichen Tradition ist fast so anachronistisch wie die eines ,,KalifenW, die wir hier gebrauchen, und
eventuell ist sie iiberhaupt falsch. Etienne Nodet bestreitet mit gutem

M. VWEI.: Zusltzliche Anmerkung 6 in: Josephus, Vila S. 165f. Auch von der 0.g. Spannung zwischen Calil$lern und JudBern, ja auch landlichen Galiliern iind Stadtbewohnern
Galil&s, sind auf fast jeder Seite Zeugnisse zu finden.
30 Hierzu HENGEL, 'Jakohus* passim. Sammlung des Quellenmaterials bei BAMMEI.,
Jesu Nachfolger, 3 1-51 (Kap. V: Jakobus als 'Nachfolger' Jesu); Cieschichtlicher Ausblick his zum Islam ebd. 69-73.
Spltestens im mfiskript des in seinem Namen umlaufenden Rriefes h a t e eine Form
von ApostolizitfIt in Anspruch genommen werden massen, hltte sie denn zu Jakobus
gehllrt. Dort schreibt er als "Knecht Gottes und des Herrn Jesu Christi".

Polemik gegen Judenchrkfen

85

Grund, dass Jakobus jemals ein Christ war.32Sein Beiname ,,der Gerechte"
qualifiziert ihn als vorbildlichen Juden; und als solcher wacht er, wie noch
zu zeigen sein wird, iiber Israels Privilegien.
Die Ablosung des Petrus in seiner FUhrungsrolle durch Jakobus - die
Lukas verschweigt - muss wikend der Flucht des Petrus aus Jerusalem
(Apg 12,l-18) erfolgt sein. Ein AutoritHtsverlust kiindigt sich abcr schon
in 11,22 an, wo nicht Petrus, sondern Barnabas als Jerusalemer Vertrauensmann nach Antiochien entsandt ~ i r d Erst
. ~ auf
~ dem Apostelkonvent
treffen wir Petrus wieder in Jerusalem an; doch wird er von Paulus in
seinem ROckblick auf dieses Ereignis wohl mit Bedacht an zweiter Stelle
genannt (Gal 2,9).
iiber die Frage einer zentralen FUhrung der entstehenden Christengemeinschafi ist offenbar nie f(irm1ich entschieden worden (wie etwa bei den
Wahlen des Matthias und der sieben Diakone), und es ist offenbar nie
etwas Klaendes zu Papier g e k ~ m m e n Auch
. ~ ~ der Jakobusbrief (vgl. S.
IOlff) hilft hier nicht weiter, da er Legitimationsfragen nicht beriihrt. Es
blieb im Urehristentum bei einer von vornherein pannenanfilligen Politik
des NichtausdrUcklichen, Nichtfixierten, Nichtgeschriebenen. Vereinbamngen geschahen mit Handschlag (Gal 2,9), und auch dann galten sie
nicht.
Bernd Wander versucht, sozusagen als neuer 1,ukas. die erhtiltlichen
Angaben in ubereinstimmung zu bringen, indem er den Jerusalemer Verzicht auf Gesetzesobservanz durch die Heidenchristen sowohl regional auf Antiochien - wie zeitlich begrenzt sein Itisst, nwlich bis zur Riickkehr
des Paulus nach Jerusalem in Apg 21 .35 Diese Hypothese ist bedenkenswert, weil Syrien, und damit auch Antiochien, in der Auffassung gewisser
Rabbinen zu GroDisrael geh(irte.36In gleicher Weise konnte Jakobus es fur
32 NODFT,'James'. Zur Frage, wie er dann Mtbtyrer wurde, s. LIZMRFKS-PFTRY, 'HOWto
Become a Christian Martyr', 105: Von den wenigen Vergehen, aufdie in der Tora Uberhaupt
Steinigung vorgesehen ist, kommt am ehesten 'Gotteslbterung'in Frage. Diesmal wurde sie
aber nicht, wie im Prozess Jesu, in Politisches umgemW; die saddwliische Spitze des Judentums f3hrte tatachlich einen Religionsprozess durch. Dieser dUrfte messianische AnsprUche betroffen haben, die er fUr Jcsus erhob, in Verbindung mit jener den Sadddern
suspekten, von ihm aber als Tatsache - seines Bruders n&nlich - vorgetragenen Auferstehungshofmung (1,AMnFRS-PTTKY 105).
31 WANI)I.K, Trennungsprozesse, 201.
34 Auch in Zeiten der Nahenvartung gab es fiir solche Dinge SchriRstUcke, niimlich Sendschreiben. Lesen wir hienu das Aposteldekret nach, so enrhillt es keine Absendemamen und
keine Unterschriften und enthielt vielleicht auch nie welche - sofern es Uberhaupt authentisch
ist. Bemerkenswert als MUles SchriftstUck von heidenchristlicher Seite ist jener mit der
Obcrbringung der Kollekte verbundene 'Wir'-Bericht, den Lukas seiner Darstellung in Apg
20,s- 1 5; 2 1,l-18 bereits einverleiben konnte.
W A N D E R , Trennungsprozesse, 209; folgendes dort 239-243.
S. KCEL u.a., Orle 1, 267. ~hnlichesDenken scheint auch Mt 4,24 zugrunde LU lie-

''

"

sinnvoll gehalten haben, die nichtjiidische RevBlkerung Antiochiens stufenweise an das Judenturn heranzufuhren - nicht aber Kleinasiaten, Gricchen oder Rlimer.

Zum Konflikr zwischen Jakohus tcnd I'aulus

Von Begrenzungen dieser Art hat Paulus nichts gewusst; er hBtte sie, als
Mann mit einer bereits sehr weiten Vorstellung seines ~irkungskreises,'~
wohl auch nicht akzeptiert. Man hat ihn darnit einfach konfrontiert, u.z. im
Zuge einer allgemeinen Anspannung abgrenzend-patriotischcn Eifers im
Jerusalemer Judentum urn das Jahr 56 n.Chr., von der wir auch durch
Josephus wissen (Bell. 2.250-270). Jede irgendwie liberale Haltung war in
Verruf gekommen, und danach sollte Paulus sich jetzt richten. Die Ausweitung des Missionsfeldes bis nach Europa, von der er stolz zu berichten
gedachte, hatte in dcr Jerusalemer Gemeinde eher Schrecken ausgelost.
Man sah die Folgen nicht ab und vermochte sic nicht zu verantworten. Wie
der Konflikt weiter ablief, lassen wir uns nun von Lukas schildern und
werden versuchen, seinen Rericht auch .,zwischen den Zcilen" zu lesen.

Lukanische Kompromissversuche
Dass die Verhaltnisse unklar waren, ist auch der Eindruck, den man aus
den Schriften des irenischen Lukas gewinnt. Zwei lange Kapitel verwendet
er darauf danulcgen, dass Heiden, die zur Kirche hinzukommen, weder
unrein sind noch mosaischen Reinheitsgeboten unterworfen (Apg 10-1 1).
Alle Mittel des VisionSiren werdcn aufgebotcn, und der Mann, der den
Gottesnirchtigen Cornelius tauft, ist kein geringerer als Petrus selbst iibrigens eine der letzten Gelegenheiten, wo er noch Autoritat zu haben
scheint.
Die Lektion dieser bciden Kapitel war nicht nur ihrem Verfasser wichtig, sie war anscheinend auch in der Situation der Zeit nach 70, in der
Lukas schrcibt, h6chst notig. Die Einheit der Christen stand auf dem Spiel,
vermutlich in Form eines Dauerkonflikts zwischen dem Paulus-Fliigel zur
Linken, dem Jakobus-Flugel zur Rechten, und dem seiner Fuhrungsrolle
beraubten Petrus hin- und hergezerrt in der ~ i t t e . "
gen, w o die Zuhl)rerschaA der Bergpredigt auch aus Syrien kommt; h~erzuK u I ~
U, ~ J ~
'Maps o f Palestine' mit der These, dass hier ein neues, judenchristliches Israel van Syrien her, dem Sitz der matthaischen Gemeinde(n), aufgebaut werde.
j7 Sie reichte im Westen bis Spanien (R6m 15.24.28); fir den Osten vgl. Hi Nbt I /
SCHWEMER,
Paulus zwlschen Dumaskus und Anrrochren, 178- 184.
S o Itisst es sich sagen in AnknUpfung an das 'dialektische' Geschtchtsb~ldFerdinand Christian BAURS,wobei der weite Weg des 'Johannirmus' von einer Art Judenchristenturn bis zum dezidiertesten Heidenchristentum separat darzustellen war.

Das Aposteldekret und andere ,,Nachbesserungen "

Bekannt ist das - sicherlich idealisierende - ,,Sitzungsprotokoll" von Apg
15,6-2 1, wo ausgerechnet Jakobus, der Herrenbruder, dem Apostel Petrus
in ebendieser Sache die Kastanien aus dem Feuer holt und den Antrag
stellt, die gesetzesfreie Heidenmission zu legitimieren. I-Iier schligt er also,
so m6chte es Lukas, die Verbindung zum ,,linken" Flugel; kein anderer
hatte das wirksamer tun k6nnen. Im Nachsatz aber macht er dem .,rechten3'
Fliigel sein Mindestzugestitndnis, n h l i c h die Ausweitung von vier - nur
als Stichworte angedeuteten - mosaischen Bestimmungen auf das kunftige
k~eidenchristentum.~~
Dieser Beschluss erfolgt unter Einwirkung des Heiligen Geistes, der iiberhaupt obersten Autoritllt, die Lukas kennt; und wir
erfahren den Text des Dekrets, das dieses Ergebnis festhalt. Wir wissen
aber aus Gal 2,6, dass der Zusatz der vier Gebote bis zu Paulus, der doch
dabeigewesen sein soll, nicht durchgedrungen ist. Nach heutiger Deutung
stellt er einen Anachronismus dar:40 1,ukas wollte einem ihm undatiert vorliegenden Dokument in wohlmeinender Kompromissabsicht zu allgemeiner
Geltung verhelfen.
Was mr ein Kompromiss das hitte sein sollen, bleibt im brige en noch
zu fragen. Nach der Interpretation von Nodet und Taylor4' w&e des Jakabus Absicht gewesen, die Heidenchristen gerade nicht in das Volk der
Beschneidung hereinzulassen, sondern sie - als Noachiden - bei einer Art
Gottesfrirchtigenstatus zu belassen. Wenn Lukas das wusste oder ahnte, so
sagt er uns, Konflikte vermeidend und vermindernd, lieber nichts davon.
Diesen wenig erfreulichen Schachzug und iiberhaupt das Verfahren,
nachtriglich Restriktionen zu erlassen, darf man nicht Lukas als Berichterstatter anlasten. Nach allem, was wir wissen, war solches ,,Nachbessem"
tatsichlich die Politik der christlichen Jerusalemer. Wir werden es aus Apg
2 1,25 noch erfahren, wie folgt.

Die Briiskierung des Puulus durch die .Judenchristen in Jerusalem

Gehen wir an das andere Ende dcrselben Geschichte, die Ruckkehr des
Paulus von der solcherm&n legitimierten oder doch nur halb legitimierten Heidenmission. Eiier zeigt sich erneut, dass nichts klar war. Paulus
hatte sich als zus2itzliche Auflage nur soviel gemerkt, dass er verpflichtet
sei, ,,an die Armen zu denken'" (Gal 2,10), was allgemein - und jedenfalls
von Paulus selbst (2Kor 9 in Verbindung mit 1,16) - als Aufforderung zu
einer Kollekte filr die Christen in J u d h aufgefasst wurde. Er bereitete sich
39

Antrag: Apg 15,20; Beschlusstext: V. 29, modifizierend wiederholt in 21,25 (s.u.

S. 92).
40
WENGEL,'Jakobus', 94f. For das Folgende s. HENGEIJ S C ~ ~ W E MPaulus
EK,
zwischen Darnaskus und Antiochien, 230 mit Anm. 929.
4 ' Essai 208 --2 18.

auf eine persiinliche fjbergabe der Kollekte vor, und wir erfahren aus Apg
20,17-38, dass er seine Reise mit Bangigkeit angetreten hat. Der urn diese
Zeit geschriebene Riimerbrief bestlitigt dies durchaus (15.16-33). Ja, auf
einer Zwischenstation in Tyrus raten dortige Christen ,,im Heiligen Geist""
ihm vom fjberbringen des Geldes ab (Apg 21,4); und ein christlicher Prophet warnt ihn mit eindringlichen Worten und mit einer an Jeremia erinnernden Zeichenhandlung (Apg 21,l I), unterstiltzt von der ganzen Gemeinde von Caesarea-am-Meer (V. 12). Paulus jedoch bleibt bei seinem
Wort und bei seiner iibernommenen ~ f l i c h t . ~ ~
Dass die Wamung jener Propheten nur allzu berechtigt war und kein
Friede mit der von Jakobus dominierten Judenchristenheit herrschte, zeigt
die Folge. Jene Spende, die der lukanische Bericht erst gar nicht erwtihnen
wollte (bis hin zu 24,17), wird nicht angenommen, sondern umfunktioniert.
Alle Gebete, sie miige den Jerusalemer Christen ,,annehmlich"sein
(cltlcpbo&~.soc,, R6m 15,16.3 1, ein Opferterminus!), bleiben vergeblich.
Zwar wird die von Paulus gefiihrte Delegation von ,,den Briidern" in Jerusalem zunZIchst freundlich begdDt (ebd.); doch tags drauf, bei der Audienz
vor Jakobus und den Presbytern, schliigt der Wind um (V. 18-25). Man
nimmt den Bericht des Paulus entgegen, lobt Gott und crwidert sodann:
,,Du siehst, Bruder, wieviele Myriaden von Gllubigen ( m x t o ~ ~ u ~ b es
~ov)
unter den Juden gibt, und sie alle sind Eiferer Nr das Gesetz."Ich unterT &derlei
S
Kontexten uns nun
breche: Warend der Ausdruck I ~ ~ ; R L O T & ~ K ~in
schon bekannt ist als eine Miiglichkeit, Judenchristen zu bezeichnen:"
muss uns die andere Wortgruppe, jqko~rjc,TOG v6pou, auch an etwas erinnern, niimlich jenen vor Gewalt nicht zuriickschreckenden Uberschwang
jildischer FrGmmigkeit, den Paulus fdr seine Person durchaus kannte,
jedoch liingst bereute (Gal. 1,14; vgl. Apg 22,3).44
" Das muss man vielleicht noch nuancieren: In RBm 15,26f stellt die Spende der
Christen Makedoniens und Achaias deren eigenen Entschluss dar - und ist es gegenober
den Jerusalemer Christen gewiss auch gewesen, die so weit nicht dachten. Paulus [Iberzieht seinen Auftrag, und umso entschiedener wird die AuflragserNllung zurUckgewiesen
(s.u.).
mit Anspielung an
" Noch Eusebius, tlist. eccl. 3.35 wflhlt diese Bezeichnung
unsere Stelle -, wenn er einen der Jerusalemer Bisch8fe so einmhrt: "ein Jude (' IouSai6q
TIC,) mit Namen Justus, auch er einer der Tausende aus der Beschneidung, die xu jener
In 4.5.2 heiDen die JeruZeit an Christus gliPubig geworden waren (REII~EUK~TOV)".
" EBpaicuv ntaai. Nacheinander seien 15 'Hebraer' BischOfe
salemer Judenchristen
gewesen.
Thematisch hierzu SELAND,Estahli.shmen~Violence. Zu Paulus im Besondcren:
Fairchild, 'Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations', nach t-iieronymus' PhilemonKommenrar zu Phm 23f. - Die Kritik des Paulus an jodischer - will sagen: pharisflischer
- FrOmmigkeit in Rum 9,30-33 u.8. geht auf eigene Erfahrung zurUck und ist insofem
authentisch; doch ist ihre Verallgemeinerung und Obertragung auf andere Formen des
Judentums ungerechtfertigt. Letzteres getan zu haben, ist eine Erbschuld des Luthertums,

"

Polemik gegen Judenchrisren

89

Es kommt im Folgenden ein Umschlag, den Lukas iiberhaupt nicht dramatisiert, obwohl er fUr Paulus schmerzlich gewesen sein muss: Das Geld,
das der Heidenapostel nach Jerusalem brachte, wird nicht als Spende fUr
Bedilrftige in J u d h angenornrnen, sondern - oh teilweise, ob ganz, kriegen
wir nicht zu erfahren - f& einen nicht ganz billigen Test auf des Paulus
mosaische Ciesetzestreue verwendet. Der Text fahrt namlich fort:
,,Ihnen [den Jerusalemer Judenchristen] ist in Bezug auf dich gemeldet worden, dass deine
Lahre den Abhll (hmmaoia)von Mose bedeute f& all die Juden, die sich unter den Weiden
befinden, indem du sagst, dass sie [die Diasporajuden] ihre Kinder nicht beschneiden mbsten
und nicht nach der Halacha (toiq Ef)raiv)sich zu verhalten hiitten."

Hier liegt von seiten der Sprecher eine absichtliche Verdrehung vor. Die
Freiheit der Heidenchristen von der mosaischen Observanz wird geriichteweise uufdie mi! ihnen Gerneinschafr haltenden Judenchristen uhertragen.
Auf Gegendarstellungen, die Paulus oder seine Geahrten (ihre Namen:
20,4f) hatten geben klinnen, wird nicht g e h ~ r t ; ~das
' oben erwahnte Beispiel des Kleinasiaten Timotheus, Sohnes einer jiidischen Mutter, den Paulus beschnitten hatte, kommt, im lukanischen Bericht zumindest, nicht zum
Zuge. 1st es etwa auch erfunden und der Jerusalemer Vorwurf wahr?
Ware dem so, dann wiirde der Grundsatz des Paulus, den Juden ein Jude
zu sein und den Heiden ein Heide (IKor 9,20), nicht einmal fGr ihn selbst
gegolten haben. Filr Juden aber, so hatte er kurz vorher noch im Rlimerbrief geschrieben, war die Beschneidung durchaus niitzlich (R6m 3,l f) und
kennzeichnete sie als Trtlger der Verheiaungen Gottes.
Der Meinungsumschlag diirfte also auf der Jerusalemer Seite liegen.
Hatte diese vorher sich ilberreden lassen, den Heidenchristen das Mosegesetz zu ersparen, so bringt sie die Erlaubnis des Apostelkonvents nunmehr
dadurch in Misskredit, dass behauptet wird, Juden warden von jiidischer
Lebensweise abgebracht.
Versucht man, fdr diesen Vorwurf im Neuen Testament einen Anhalt zu
finden, so bietet sich die Analogie des Vorgangs in Antiochien an, wa es
um Kaschrut ging und wo Paulus sich gen6tigt sah, Petrus wegen seines
damals schon gezeigten Schwankens zur Rede zu stellen. Rabbinisch
gesprochen ist Kaschrut eine Sache der Halacha, nicht der 7bra selbst.
Man hatte sich also, zumal in vor- oder frirhrabbinischen Zeiten, eine weitherzige Llisung einfallen lassen k6nnen. Darauf hat sich jedoch das Judenchristentum des 1 .Jh. nicht einigen klinnen. Danach war es zu
zu deren Abtragung ich in Israel als G'egettuber 540-555 das Meine versucht habe.
" Im Gegenteil, das GerDcht hielt sich noch Uber Generationen. Dieses Missverstrndnis bemerkt an dem von L~GASSE,
L 'antipaulinisme gesammelten Material die Rezension
von S. MIMOUNI
in REJ 160 (2001) 5 17.
TOMSON,
Paul and the Jewish Law, 228 weist darauf hin, dass Bewohner heidnischer Lander schon den vorrabbinischen Weisen grundsatzlich als unrein galten.

Was nun aber Paulus in Jerusalem betrifft und die von ihm iiberbrachtc
Kollekte, so wurde er, wie der Berieht weiter sagt. auf eine Probe gestellt.
Die Probe bestand in folgender Anweisung der Jerusalemer .,S2ulen"(Apg
2 1,230:
,,Wir haben hier vier Mllnner, die ein Gellfbde auf sich yenommen haben. Die nimm rnit dir.
heilige dich mit ihnen und zahl ihnen die Kosten, dass sie sich die Haare wieder scheren
lassen kbnnen - so werden alle erfhren, dass es nichts mit dem ist, was ihnen gemeldet
wurde, sondem dass auch &in Lebenswandel in Wahrung des (Mosc-) Gesetzes besteht."

KBnnen wir uns das Gesicht des Paulus vorstellen in dem Moment, wo
ihm dieses Ansinnen mitgeteilt wird? Aus dem Helfer, der er gerne gewesen wifre, wird er zum Hilfsbedurftigen (um es mit den Mitteln der Aktantenanalyse, psychologisch: der Transaktionsanalyse ~u sagen), und zwar
angesichts eines Problems, das gerade nicht das seine war, sondern das der
nunrnehrigen Nicht-EmpfZinger seiner Spende.
Das Problem ist hier nicht die Theologie, schon gar nicht die paulinische. Zuniichst einmal geschieht ganz offensichtlich ein Affront, u.7. von
Seiten der ,,Armen", die keine Armen mehr sein wollen. Die Zweckbestimmung der Sammlung, f i r die Paulus mit solchem Einsatz gearbeitct hat
(vgl. 2Kor 8-9), wird verneint. Theologisch gesehen durfte Paulus mit der
nun ergehenden Aufforderung keine Schwierigkeiten gehabt haben, war er
doch, wie schon gesagt, den Juden ein Jude und den Griechen ein G r i e c h e

- modern ausgedriickt, ein Mann mit doppclter Identitst. Das schuf jedoch
offenbar damals schon Aggressionen, denen Juden- wie Heidenchristen
ausgesetzt waren. Das Geld wurde also nun urngewidmet Lum Niederhalten eines unvermindert schwelenden Konflikts - und das auch noch vergeblich, wie die Folge zeigt. Die Hydra der Verdachte treibt einen neuen
Ausliufer: Juden aus der Provinz Asien, so erfahren wir in 21,27-29.
erxugen einen Tumult und verlangen die Verhaftung des Paulus rnit der
Begritndung, er habe Trophimos, einen d t r ihn begleitenden Heidenchristen, ,,in das Ileiligtum gefilhrt und diesen heiligen Ort entweiht".
Was ist daran so verwerflich, muss man nun fragen, gab es denn keinen
Vorhof der Heiden? Die Behauptung - wenn sic denn zu einer Anklage
taugen sol1 - setzt voraus, dass Paulus seinen Regleiter weiter hineingefihrt hat, vorbei an jener heute noch erhaltenen Inschrift, die jedem weiter
gehenden Nichtjuden den Tod (sc. durch Lynchen) androht. Detlev Dormeyer vermutet, Paulus habe seinen Gast gerade so weit gefithrt, wic er
iiuBerstenfalls durfte, niimlich bis xu jener Inschrift, und damit eine ,,erlaubte ~rovokation'husgelbst~~
- in Erwiderung auf jene, die er hatte
hinnehmen miissen! Eben jene Inschrift mag ihm gedient haben, urn
seinem heidenchristlichen Freund zu zeigen, wofiur er nunmehr k2mpfte.
47

DORMEYER, 'Werden der Catholics', 30.

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

91

1,eider wird die quaestio facti nie eklw, so wenig Obrigens, wie sie im
Prozess Jesu je gekliirt worden ist? Die Verteidigungsrede des Paulus
(22,3-21) wird unterbrochen, ehe er darauf zuriickkommen kann - aber
auch daran ist er nicht ganz unschuldig. Pauius hat n h l i c h die Gelegenheit, sich zu verteidigen, zu einer Missionsrede ,,missbraucht" - oder sagen
wir: umfunktioniert -, so wie er Geiegenheiten, in Synagogen zu sprechen,
gleichfalls umfunktionierte, bis er eben unterbrochen w ~ r d e . ~Nicht
'
nur
Jakobus, sondern auch Paulus hatte eine Neigung zu provokantem Verhalten. Er ist auch als Christ auf eine Weise der ,,EifererB geblieben ( C q h o ~ f i ~
Apg 22,3, vgl. Gal 1,14 und oben Anm. 44), der er als Pharisaer schon
gewesen war. Paulus hiitte vorsichtiger sein und jeden Anlass zu einem
Gerilcht vermeiden konnen; aber genau das war nicht seine Art. ,,Bin ich
nicht fiei? Bin ich kein Apostel?" (IKor 9,l) ,,Wozu sollte meine Freiheit
von anderer Leute Gewissen beurteilt werden?" (ebd. 10,29). Nur in der
Tischgemeinschaft mit Christen machte er von dieser Freiheit freiwiilige
Abstriche (ebd. 8,7-13; Rom 14,21-23).
Anders die Jerusalemer Judenchristen: Angesichts der Gefahr einer Art
von Lynchjustiz durch die am Ternpel sich drhgenden Volksmengen sind
sie die letzten, die Paulus noch helfen komten. Sie k6nnen es weder, noch
wollen sie es.

Llie Nachtruglichkeit des Aposteldekrets

Ganz nebenbei aber lost sich in einer Passage, die wir bis jetzt Ubersprungen haben, das Rltsel des sog. Aposteldekrets. Nach der Aufforderung, das
Geld fir die Nasiraer zu verwenden, sagen die Jerusalemer ,,Siiulen" zu
Paulus folgendes (2 1,25):
,,Bezilglich der zum Glauben gekommenen Heiden haben wir ihnen einen Brief gesandt ( kn&m&ilap&v)mit der Rechtsauflage ( ~ p \ v a v r & ~sie
) , mflssten sich hUten vor GUtzenopfer,
Blut, Enticktem und Unzucht."

Das wiirden sie ja wohl nicht sagen, wenn Paulus den Brief - das uns
schon bekannte ,,Aposteldekret" - von vomherein mitbekommen hiitte."
Hier ist, wie 1,ukas unfreiwiilig zu erkennen gibt, nachgelegt und nachge48
In Mk 15,5 pwr. verweigert Jesus die Aussage, so dass Pilatus gezwungen ist, die
Uberminelte Anklage mr wahr zu nehmen. Er ist auf die exekutive Rolle beschrflnkt. So
SI~ERWIN-WHITE,
'The Trial of Christ', 25.
49
Nur in Apg 13,15ff, beim ersten Mal, geht es noch gut; in 13,44 wehrt sich die
Synagogengemeinde gegen zu vie1 Zuiauf. AnschlieBend begleitet ihn eine Wmung von
Synagoge zu Synagoge, und selbst die Christen betllrdern Paulus mit sanfler Gewalt
weiter: so Apg 17,lO-15.
sa Es sei denn, man Uberseta das y i y , explikativ mit 'doch': "( ...) haben wir ihnen
doch einen Brief geschrieben (...)." Sicher ist nur eines: Dass I,ukas den Grundsatzkonflikt um die Heidenmission narrativ verkleinert.

bessert worden, u.z. hinter dem Rilcken des Paulus - was dieser gar nicht
leiden konnte (Gal 1,6-9; 2,4), weder als Form(-losigkeit), noch vom
Inhalt her. Zwar hat er vor Gotzenopfer und Umucht aus eigenem Antrieb
gewarnt, und seine Verurteilung der Homosexualitlt in R6m 1,24-32 ist
mosaisch begri'mdet, nicht christlich (vgl. unten). Im Falle der KaschrutVorschriften (,,Ersticktes") war jedoch die Grenze erreicht; hier lies sich
Paulus auch von einem Jakobus, Herrenbruder und Zeugen des Auferstandenen, nichts vorschreiben. Die Kirche durfte nicht geteilt werden; sein
Auftrag war nicht gewesen, eine zweite Kirche zu griinden.
Wir hltten vielleicht an seiner Stelle einen Diplomaten gewilnscht. Aber
ware wohl durch einen Diplomaten die Kirche aus den Heiden zustande
gekommen? - Wie dem sei, diplomatisch verfuhr man erst bei der Aufstellung des Kanons, der a u k Paulusbriefen - ausgewlhlten vermutlich auch solche im Namen des Jakobus und des Judas einverleibt bekam. Auf
einem anderen BIatt steht splter das undiplomatische Verhalten christlicher BischZife, auch als diese llngst in einer Position waren, in der sie zur
judenchristlichen Minderheit hltten groBziigig sein ki~nnen.~'
uberlegung zu den doktrindren Komponenten &.s Konjlikts

Um die Konfliktlage genauer zu kennzeichnen, wird man sich zweckmaBigerweise eines zwar nicht hebraischen, aber griechischen Regriffspaars
bedienen, nmlich der Unterscheidung zwischen ,,ritueller" und ,,ethischer"'
'I'ora. Letztere hat in dem hier zu untersuchenden Zeitraum nie ein Problem
dargestellt; alle Entzweiungen erfolgten im Bereich der ersteren. Schon
Jesu Verkilndigung und Beispiel insistiert auf der ethischen Tora - bis
dahin, dass die rituelle im Tempelwort ganz in Frage gestellt werden kann
(s. S. 81 - authentisch zumindest als Ausdruck der Wirkung Jesu). In den
Paulusbriefen ist sie fiir das Heidenchristentum aufgehoben - die Ablehnung des Beschneidungsgebots trifft sie als pars pro toto -, nicht jedoch
die ethische, die im Liebesgebot begriindet wird (Gal 5,14; Rom 13,8).
Solcher Art blieb der usus Legis in der GroBkirche: Das Gesetz des Mose
galt als Dokument ethischer Grundgebote und darilber hinaus als Prophetie
auf Kommendes. Die Nazortier - zumindest die in griechischen Quellen
genannten - waren mit dieser Haltung bei Heidenchristen einverstanden,
nicht aber jene Judenchristen, deren Opposition hier untersucht wird.
Eine Zwischenilberlegung mag nun jener Uberlappung der beiden Bereiche, des rituellen und des ethischen, gelten, die wir im sexuellen Be-

''

Auch hier wird man freilich in historischer Analyse subjektive Dispositionen und
Lebensschicksale mit beacksichtigen: Ambrosius z.R. war das Kmpfen gewohnt durch
die Arianer; so hat er sich gegen Juden nicht freundlicher verhalten. Leider. Innerchristliche Streitigkeiten einschlieDlich oder zuzflglich jener, die der Gnostizismus ausgelbst
hatte, vergiAeten das KIima im 2., 3. und 4. Jh., wenn nicht weiter.

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

93

reich vorfinden. IIier gelten in der Tora Tabus, die mit heutiger Sexualethik (die sich an Personlichkeitsrechten orientiert und Abstand fordert vor
Gewalt und jeder Art von DemUtigung) wenig gemeinsam haben. Das Iiisst
nachdenken uber eine ,jildisch-christlichen Ethik", wie sie von manchen
Theologen heute gefordert ~ i r d Kommt
: ~ ~ sic nun nicht doch zu spat in
einer Zeit, wo das 'Tabu etwa der Homosexualitilt selbst von jiidischer Seite
in Frage gestellt oder auch groDzilgig ignoriert wird?
Nach protestantischer, insbesondere nach lutherischer Auffassung, die
die paulinischen Ansatze systematisiert, kommt christliche Ethik nicht
direkt aus dem Gesetz, weder aus dem mosaischen, wie immer man es
interpretiere, noch aus einem Naturgesetz, wie immer man es ermittle.
Wenn nun Kirche und Judentum heute aufeinander zugehen, hat dies ethische Begandungen mr sich; diese bestehen in der Achtung der menschlichen Person und ihrer religi6sen Bindungen und Werte, nicht jedoch in
Verhaltcnsregeln als solchen.
Hinzu kommt - aber auch erst im heutigen interreligiUsen Gespriich die Anerkennung einer gemeinsamen Heilsgeschichte, deren Verkehrung
in Unheilsgeschichte als menschliche Schuld erkannt wird. Weniger tragfihig sind demyegenuber Versuche, eine gemeinsame ,,abrahamitische*"
'I'heologie herzustellen (in die auch der Islam eingeschlossen werden
mirsste). Sie verfallen der Kritik von Jacob Neusners Jews and Christians:
The Myth of a C'ommon Tradition. Neusner Ibst das Christentum samt seinem Absolutheitsanspruch eine Sache f i r sich sein; dem Judentum bleibt
der Anspruch der Einzigartigkeit (absoluteness vs. uniqueness).
So ungemr kUnnte die L6sung eines Streites aussehen, der tatslchlich
iiber einer ,,gemeinsarnen Tradition" begam, ntlnnlich der I-Iebraischen
Bibel. Im spiiten 1. Jh. n.Chr. muss das Hauptproblem zwischen Juden,
Judenchristen und Heidenchristen die zu wahrende Besonderheit Israels
gewesen sein. Was schon innerhalb der Webriiischen Bibel sich nur schwer
vermitteln lieD und anscheinend auch nie vermittelt wurde, jedenfalls nicht
auf jlldischer Seite, war die Antinomie zweier gegenlilufiger Bestimmungen Israels: ,,Ihr sollt heilig sein, denn ich bin heilig" (Lev 19,2 u.6.), wobei
ja ,,heilig s i n " cine Art von Absonderung meint; ebenso: ,,Ihr sollt mir ein
K6nigtum von Priestem sein, ein heiliges Volk"(Ex 19,6). Andererseits aber
lautet die VerheiBung an Abraham: ,,Durch dich sollen gesegnet werden alle
Familien auf Erden" (Gen 12,3; 18,18).
Man musste schon einer sehr engen Auslegung des Abraham-Bundes
anhlngen, um ihn so zu verstehen, als sollte alle Welt Proselyten werden.
Was man hienu im 1. Jh. dachte, l a s t sich kaurn mehr feststellen, denn
judische Bezugnahmen auf Gen 12,3 sind selten. Bei Philon z.B. muss man

52

MOI.LLR,Tora, 238-253.

sich an das Wenige halten, was er in Migr. 86-126 anbietct" und was auf
das Bringen des Monotheismus durch Abraham hinausliufi. Im Ilrchristentum hingegen sind die Reaktionen auf dicse Ankundigung weit lebhafter:
In Gal 3,8 wie in Apg 3,25 (Predigt des Petrus) wird diese Stelle -- sie ist
von den drei genannten die kanonisch frilheste und auch unter den Rundesschliissen mit Abraham gleich dem ersten zugehorig - mit Nachdruck
zitiert als eine der vielen Prophetien der Hebraisehen Bibel, die seit dern
Kommen Christi nunmehr in Erfiillung gehcn.
Theologisch gesehen ist das mittlere der drei oben gegebenen Zitate ein
Bindeglied: Israels Besonderheit ist eine Priesterrolle f i r die ganze Welt.
So sah es Philon: ,,Was ein Priester f i r seine Stadt ist, das ist das judische
Volk f i r die bewohnte ~ e l t " ' . ~ k o was
c h hiei3 das praktisch? Hatten die
Anhanger Jesu, judische oder gar nichtjudische, das Recht, Israels Privilegien in alle Welt hinaus zu tragen?
Fur Jakobus den Gerechten - so ist zu bemrchten - war das urchristliche Kerygma und paulinische ,,Evangeliumm (im Singular), das wir, ob
Anhanger oder Skeptiker, als kirchengriindend wiirdigen, Wort for Wort
Uberflussig; ja schlimmer: es war gefghrlich. Wem Paulus auf seinen Missionsreisen verkundete: ,,Als die Erflllung der &it karn, entsandte Gott sttinen Sohn, aus einer Frau geboren und dem Gesetz unterworfen, darnit er die
dem Gesetz Unteworfenen freikaufe" (Gal 4,4f; vgl. Apg 13,380 - so hatte
der Bruder des hier Genannten f i r ein solches Angebot offenbar kein Verstandnis ubrig. Zwar ziihlte er anerkanntermaaen zu den Zeugen des Auferstandenen, wie oben erwghnt, und mag ihn mit als kyrios verehrt haben
(vgl. Jak 1,l); an diesen jedoch zu glauben, hatte ihm vermutlich fern gelegen. So blieb er der exemplarische Jude, als den ihn die Tradition uns
schildert. Jenes Ziel: .,damit wir die Sohnschaft empfingen" (Gal 4,5),
hatte Jakobus, ,,der Gerechte", gerade ,,unter dem Gesetz" erreicht.
Solches nun anderen ohne das Mosegesetz anzubieten, mochte ihm als
Blasphemie erscheinen und als Ende der Besonderheit Israels. Offenbar
teilte er nicht den einstigen Rigorismus des Paulus, for den dar, Halten des
ganzen Nomos cine Unm6glichkeit war (Rom 8,3; vgl. Apg 13,38f; Joh
7,19). In seinem Optimismus muss er jener - anschliel3end rabbinischen Richtung angehbrt haben, die, in i)bereinstimmung mit den ,,Weisen", Abstriche machte, praktikable Regeln formulierte (Halacha) und dabei auch
ma1 Fiinf grade sein liel3." Enem Fluch zu unterliegen wegen unvolls3 Die Quaesriones in Genesim bringen nichts zu Cicn 12,3; auch Gen 18,18 wird
Obersprungen.
6v k6yov E~eixpcic; n62.i~iepevi;, roiirov xpdi; linaoav rfiv oiwoupivqv r6
'Iou(iaiov Ehoq, Spec. 2.163f.
s5 Bekannt hierflir sind die Regelungen des 'erub zur Umgehung einer Sabbat-Tora,
die des prozbol zur Urngehung einer Tora des Sabbatjahres und die praktische Aufiebung

"

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

95

kommenen Gesetzesgehorsarns, wie Paulus ihn in Gal 3,l Off aus Dtn 27,26
(besonders aus der verschlirfenden Septuaginta-Fassung) zitiert, wlire seine
Refdrchtung nicht gewesen.56
W&e es je zu einem Disput zwischen Paulus und ihm gekommen iiber
das Angebot einer (iesetzes-,,Freiheitn, so hlitte Jakobus ihm in der gegebenen Situation nur antworten kiinnen, zu solcher offnung sei jetzt nicht
die Zeit. Die Erfahrung in Jerusalem war entgegengesetzt jener, die Paulus
in Europa gemacht hatte und so beschrieb: ,,Siehe, nun ist die angenehme
Zeit, siehe, nun ist der Tag des Heils"(2Kor 6,l-10). Hingegen sahen wir
schon, dass Jakobus so etwas wie unbeschnittene Proselyten, also heidnische Glieder des Gottesvolkes, noch nicht einmal denken konnte.
Der Apostelkonvent, sollte er denn so h l i c h abgelaufen sein, wie er
uns e d l t wird, hat sich darauf beschr&&t, nur eine praktische Frage gibt es Heidentaufe ohne Beschneidung? - zu regeln und auf theologischer
Ebene jeden denken zu lassen, wie er wolltc oder auch musste. In der
Kompromisslosigkeit ihres Denkens waren Paulus und Jakobus sich ja
gleich. Inhaltlich aber sind ihre Positionen schwer zu vergleichen; jiidische
Gesetzeserfdllung liegt nicht auf der gleichen Ebene wie christliche Abrahamskindschafi allein aus dem Glauben. Erstere ist angeborene Pflicht,
letztere angenommenes ,,Evangelium3'.
Noch Lukas folgt theologisch Paulus, praktisch aber dem kierrenbruder
Jakobus. Dass spgter ein Text, im Narnen des Jakobus geschrieben, neben
den Paulusbriefen und zusBtzlich zu den - iibrigens den gr6Bten Anteil
ausmachenden - lukanischen Schriften in den Kanon kam, ist ein Kompromiss, den die Kirche der nachapostolischen Zeit in ihrer Weisheit fertigbrachte. Nodet und Taylor ~ermuten,~'
dass eine gewisse Verziigerung dieser Editionsarbeit, die sich ein ganzes StClck ins 2.Jh. hinzog, auf anhaltende Spannungen zwischen dem dominanten paulinischen Christentum und
dem immer noch respektierten, nicht aber flihrenden judenchristlichen Flilgel zurilckgeht - jenen, f i r den die Nachkommen der Familie Jesu zu
Wortfdhrern geworden waren.
Dass auch ein Petrusbrief - und spiiter noch einer - f i r diese Sammlung
zur Verfigung standen, war umso giinstiger, als seit den synoptischen
Evangelien Petrus als Identifikationsfigur der Christenheit galt. Sein Verlust an Einfluss in Judga wurde in der Folyezeit reichlich ausgeglichen
der l'odesstrafe. In anderen, praktikableren Hinsichten verschtlrfte man dafUr und wollte
v.a. nichts dem individuellen Gutdanken Uberlassen (so schon Josephus, C. Ap. 2.1'730.
Anders Paulus gerade im Galaterbrief (6,4; vgl. 5,13fll), in IThess 5,2 I u.6.
" Alan %GAL, Paul the Convert, 118 findet hier eine von vielen Beweisstellen f?ir
die Apostasie des Paulus vom Judentum: Man dUrfe Dtn 27 nicht halb zitieren, verspreche es doch vom Halten der Tora auch und zunachst das Leben.
57 NODET/TAYLOR,
Essai, 224.

durch seine - wenn auch nur kune - Rolle als Missionar zu den Heiden,
insbesondere sein Martyrium ausgerechnet in Rom. Rom wurde, wic man
auch an der geographischen Achse der Apostelgeschichte ermessen kann,
nunmehr zur Ijauptstadt der Christenheit, und Jerusalem zunl Nebenzentrum.
So &It es denn zu der besagten Weisheit der Alten Kirche, gerade das
auf Petrus, Fels der ekklesia, pochende MatthBusevangelium zum liturgischen Haupttext zu machen. Dessen Insistieren auf dem Mosegesetz (Mt
5,1 gS8USW.)mochte weiterhin als Brircke zum Judcnchristentum aller Sorten tauglich sein; tatsiichlich aber wurde das Matth2iusevangelium nunmehr
das Lieblingsbuch einer Kirche aus 1Jnbeschnittenen. Es schlieat mit der
Aufforderung, zu ailen VBlkern (EOvv ist kein Wort f i r Israel!) zu gehen
zur Lehre und 'Taufe; jener weitere, eigentlich mosaische Prosel ytenritus,
der in der Beschneidung besteht, ist innerkirchlich fallen gelassen. Dem
war ein theologischer Streit vorausgegangen, in dessen Verlauf nicht
wenige ,,antijUdische'" ~uDerungenfielen. - Kehren wir zu diesen zuriick.

Distanznahmen vom Jerusalemer Judenchristentum

Im Doppelwerk des Lukas, so sahen wir, ist die Spannung, die in den letzten Jahrzehnten des 1. Jh. bewaltigt werden musste, noch aus den Ereignissen erkennbar, die er berichtet, nicht aus etwaigen Diskursen (die erst in
Kap. 22 wieder einsetzen). Doch was er schreibt, reicht - in Verbindung
mit den Paulusbriefen -, um eine Zerreiaprobe erkennen zu lassen zwischen den paulinischen Missionsgemeinden und den christlichen JudBern.
Die alten Spannungen zwischen dem Judentum und seiner ~ u ~ e n w e l t ~ '
haben sich verschtirfend ausgewirkt auf jene im entstehenden Christenturn,
bis dieses schliel.3lich daran in Stucke ging.60 Ohne sich von Jerusalem

"

Im Gegensatr. zur Parallele, Lk (Q) 16.17, wird hier nicht durch den Kontext eine
geschichtstheologische Periodenlbsung suggeriert, in welcher der Buchstabe des Mosegesetzes zur Prophetic mutieren kbnnte.
Die Reibungsfltlchen waren trotz rbmischer Rechtsregelungen rahlreich. In Caesatea flammte immer wieder ein Streit auf, wer dort das Rnrgerrecht habe, die jlldischen
oder die heidnischen Bewohner: War es schon cine GrUndung des Herodes, der eher als
Jude gait, so wusste man doch, dass Herodes bei der Verleihung der Stadtrechte an cin
rein hellenistisches Gemeinwesen gedacht hatte (Jasephus, Ant 20.173). In Alexandrien
endeten EUlnliche Auseinandersetzungen in Pogromen und der Vernichtung der jtidischen
Bev6lkerung. Wenn Paulus mr die Christen beansprucht. "IJnser BUrgerrecht liegt im
Himmel" (Phil 3,20), sieht er den Streit auf einer anderen, einer theoiogischen Ebene
ablaufen, auf welcher aber nicht weniger Animositaten entstanden als auf derjenigen des
Konkret-Matericllen.
60 Hierzu vgl. RITTER, 'Exkurs'. Vor 70 n.Chr. nahnl der innerjiidische Konfonnitatsdruck in bisher nicht gekannter Weise zu, um alsbald in die rabbinische Halacha zu

''

Pulemik gegen Judenchristen

ldsen zu wollen

97

und ohne die Unterschiede gedanklich geklW zu haben

-, ging die Christenheit aus den Heiden sowohl innerlich wie praktisch auf
Distanz. Das Ende der Apostelgeschichte ist Dokument einer solchen Veriirgerung (Apg 28,2~-28),~'und wo dann in der Paulusschule der ,,in
Christus" erreichte Friede gefeiert wird (Eph 1,22-2,221, ist der Gedanke
an das nichtchristliche Judentum wohl schon verblasst. Die Kiimpfe sind
gekiimpft und die Verluste - zu denen die Bindung an Israel a h l t - sind
ver~unden.~*
Im Vierten Evangelium ist u.a. auch da ein polemischer Unterton hdrbar, wo die Bruder (nicht die Jiinger) Jesu zu den ,,JudenWd e r ,,Judiiern'"
ge72ihlt werden (Joh 13,33; 19,26): Vermutlich a&ert sich auch hier eine
Distanznahme zum Jerusalemer Kalifat eben dieser Farnilie. Denn ,,Ju&er"
im geographischen Sinn wie auch im sozialen einer autochthon-jiidischen
FUhrungsschicht waren Jakobus und Judas nicht; sie wurden es jedoch mit
ihrer neuen Jerusalemer Rolle. Diese hat sie - im Vorfeld des Jiidischen
Krieges, der noch ganz andere Detonationen bringen sollte - sichtlich
uberfordert. Der Konflikt scheint so unausweichlich gewesen zu sein wie
jener, dem man Jesus - und dem Jesus sich selbst - auslieferte: Er hat ein
Schicksal erlitten, das nur aus jUdisch-rdmischen Spannungen erklkbar
i ~ t . ~ ~
Die innere Einheit des Christentums - will sagen: das Einvernehmen in
den Voraussetzungen wie in den Zielen - zerbrach friih, und zwar schon
bevor ihm die personelle und emotionale Bindung an das Judentum, an
Jerusalem und an den Tempel verlorenging. Sie zerbrach an ungelosten
Fragen, die bereits im judischen Erbe gelegen hatten. Diejenige Antwort
auf den Zusammenhang von Gotteskindschaft und Beschneidung, die Paulus fur seine Missionsgemeinden durchsetzte, war zwar geeignet, die Einheit der Kirche zu wahren; sie beendete aber - hier kann man Alan %galM
durchaus zustimmen - die Einheit mit dem mehrheitlichen Judentum, so
wie etwa Jakobus es reprBentierte. Die Spannungen und der schliei3liche

manden, die nur den Argumenten, nicht aber dem Verhalten Iireiheit IieB. VerschLfend
wirkte nach 70 derfiscus Juduicus, dessen Bezahlen - zustitzlich zu der bisherigen Tempelsteuer, die nunmehr an den Patriarchen giny - ein Bekenntnisakt wurde, den selbst
Judenchristen sich Uberlegt haben werden.
Nur hier sagt Paulus beim Zitieren einer Schriftstelle: "Zu Recht hat der Heilige
Geist gesprochen ..."! Diese f i r ihn - auch bei Lukas - ungew6hnliche Fornlel zeigt die
Emotion.
62 Dieses Vergessen kann man aus heutiger Sicht tadeln und jedenfalls bedauern
(RESE, 'Israel als GegenUber der ersten Meidenchristen', 154-156); erkltiren llsst es sich
als Ergebnis fruchtloser Diskussionen und einer generationenlangen Verllrgerung.
6 h g l . oben Anm. 48.
6" PuuI the Convert, 254f.

'

Riss zittern noch nach in dem enorm polemischen Ton derjenigen neutestamentlichen Passagen, deren Probleme wir hier aufgegriffen haben.
Jakobus, der Herrenbruder, hatte nicht nur ein ,,GerechterW,sondern ein
Prophet sein mussen, um noch zu Zeiten der Spannung wegweisend zu
wirken. Jedenfalls blieb in der jerusalemischen Situation der unmittelbaren
Vorkriegszeit so etwas wie Entscheidungsfreiheit nur zwei Gruppen: den
Heidenchristen der paulinischen Richtung und den Judenchristen auaerhalb
jildischer Wohngebiete -- das sind die von der Heidenkirche alsbald so
genannten ,,Nazoraer". Mit ihnen blieb die Kirchengemeinschaft bestehen.
Wer sich jedoch. wie die Jakobus-Gruppe, mitten in Jerusalem zu behaupten versuchte, konnte nur noch zurilckweichen vor dem Druck der
Gerilchte einer angeblichen Auflosung judischer Observanz bei denen, die
zu ihr verpflichtet waren. Leute wie Paulus oder der Johannes-Kreis wurden hieriiber zornig und polemisch. Wenn dabei seit der gefurchteten Stelle
IThess 2,1416 die judische Bevolkerung Judaas insgesamt als feindlicher
Druck empfunden und darum angegriffen wird, so war das ausmhrende
Werkzeug dieses Druckes gerade jener Jakobus, von dessen Christentum
so wenig bekannt ist.
Es may im nachhinein ungerecht erscheinen, wenn Judger - ' IouSaio~seiner Art Zielscheibe der Polemik in christlichen Schriften werden. Ifandlungsfreiheit hatten sie keine. Josephus zeichnet nach, wie eine jiidische
Ciruppe nach der anderen im folgenden Kriegsgeschehen die Ilandlungsfreiheit ihrerseits einbuDte. Wir wissen nicht, ob Jakobus in dem Zusammentreffen von Apg 21 seinen Gast um Verstandnis bat, und noch weniger,
ob dieser welches gehabt hiitte - uber die nach auaen gezeigte Konformitat
hinaus. Lukas in seinem Bericht versucht jedenfalls, Verstiindnis t u zeigen, und enthalt sich jeder negativen Bemerkung oder Farbung.
Was jedoch die ins Neue Testament eingegangenen Polemiken betrifft,
so wwden sie dadurch brisant, dass ein und dasselbe Wort, eben' IouGaiot
sowohl Judenchristen wie auch die Juden Judtias meinte. Von letzteren
karn der Druck, den erstere in Hemmnisse der Iangst begonnenen I-ieidcnmission umzusetzen versuchten. Insofem liegen beide in derselben Perspektive. Auch nach 70, im beginnenden Rabbinat, scheint es Bhnlich
gewesen zu sein, wie aus dem Matthiiusevangelium ersichtlich wird. Spiitere Jahrhunderte haben andere Konfliktlagen erlebt und sie in der Regel zu
eng an die neutestamentlichen Gegebenheiten angeschlossen.

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

Seitenblicke auf andere neutestamentliche Texte

Der Hehraerhrief
Aus der eben schon envahnten Paulusschule ist weiterhin der Hebrgerbrief
einschlagig, der sich ja ausdriicklich an Judenchristen wendet, u.2. unter
ihrem historischen, bilischen Namen ' EBpaiot, der jedenfails nicht die ge. ~ ~ Thema ist uber weite
gen ' Iouliaf ot iiblichen Vorurteile w a ~ h r u f i Sein
Strecken ein Vergleich des alttestamentlichen Gottesdienstes rnit der
himmlischen Vermittlerrolle des auferstandenen Christus - natiirlich in
iiberbietendern Sinne. Diese Epistel ist, genauer bestimmt, eine protreptische Rede, oder, wie sie selbst sich nennt (13,22), ein
xapa~hfiGE%. Ihr Ziel ist, die Angeschriebenen zu einem Verbleib in der Kirche zu
errnuntern. Welches Ausmal3 und welche Ursachen eine eventuelle Abwanderungsbewegung gehabt haben mbgen, bekommen wir nicht zu erfahren.
Der Hebraerbrief ist ein irenisches Dokumcnt und vermeidet solche
Schlagworte, die in vorangegangener Diskussion zum Streit Anlass gegeben hatten. So wird das Beispiel Abrahams, der f& Paulus als Vorbild
einer Gerechtigkeit allein aus Glauben, ohne Werke, gedient hatte (Rbm 4;
Gal 4), woraufhin der Jakobusbrief (2,20-26) aus judenchristlicher Warte
widersprach, dem Streit entriickt: Einerseits wird Abraham, ganz wie im
Jak. und unter Ruckgriff auf Gen 22 (die Bindung Isaaks, Lieblingstext
auch der Rabbinen), als Vorbild sichtbarer Glaubenspraxis gewertet; andrerseits greift der Autor d a m auf den noch ,,unbelasteten'Melchisedek
und sein nichtaaronitisches Priestertum zuriick (6,5c 7) - in exakter Reproduktion der paulinischen Argumentationsfigur (Schriflbeweis mit H6herwertung des chronologisch Friiheren), aber mit einem anderen, noch
unverbrauchten Releg.
Es liegt sicher im Sinne dieses Dokurnents, wenn wir seine Tendenz zur
~ b e r b i e t u ndes
~ jiidischen Gottesdienstes in einem solchen Sinne aufgreifen, die den Dialog mit dem - von Rom gekrlinkten - Judentum nicht
erschweren wiirde. Es fehlt dieser Epistel jeder Triumphalismus angesichts
der Zerst6rung Jerusalems, obwohl sie noch nicht lange zuriickliegt. Die
Argumentation bezieht sich iiberdies rein auf das Alte Testament, also auf
Worte Gottes, an deren Abqualifizierung dem Verfasser nicht gelegen sein
kann. Was er in dcr Panegyrik des obersteigens und iSbertreffens datzustellen versucht, ist die Universalitut der christlichen ~ o t t e s v e r e h r u n g . ~ ~
Im Hebriierbrief wird dariiber hinaus versucht, die Gemeinschaft der
Juden- und Heidenchristen zu stlirken. Fragen des Ritus werden dem Streit
Bald nach der ZerstOrung des l'empels sind Juden selbst dazu Ubergegangen, sich
nach a u k hin 'Hebrler9u nennen, mit einem unbelasteten Wort - so z.B. auf der
bekannten SynagogeninschriA aus Korinth.
66
NEUSNERhiitte nichts dagegen: s. oben S. 93.

enthoben mit der - formal auch aus den Sabbatopferliedern von Qumran
bekannten - Lehre, wonach der eigentliche Gottesdienst ,,im Himmel"
stattfindet, also ein Werk Christi ist, dem nicht die geringste Opfergabe
hinzugefigt werden kann. Dieses Anliegen war in seiner Zeit durchaus
weise, wissen wir doch, wie prekiir die Rolle judenchristlicher Gemeinden
und Gemeindeteile nach beiden Seiten hin war: Gerade iiber Fragen des
Ritus ist man zerfallen, wobei auch das Judenchristentum zerfiel in eine
mit der Heidenkirche vertragliche Richtung, Nazoraer genannt, und eine,
die die Aussagen iiber Jesus auf das mit dem jiidischen Messianismus gegebene Ma0 reduzierte, die ~bioniten.~'
Fiir beide Richtungen gilt, dass sie sich an der Weiterentwicklung der
christlichen Lehre nicht weiter beteiligt haben, sei es aus Desinteresse am
Gebrauch der griechischen ~ ~ r a c oder
h e ~aus
~ Distanz zum Missionsanliegen iiberhaupt. Die Griechen aber forderten Weisheit (vgl. 1 Kor 1,22f).
Die Kirche aus den Heiden hat nun - bei allem Respekt vor der diesbezaglichen Warnung des Paulus - auf den Spuren eben dieses Paulus eine
paradoxe Weisheit entwickelt, die zu ihrer Ausbreitung und ihrem Fortleben offenbar n6tig war. Mit ,,Zeichen9', wie sie dem praktisch
interessierten Judentum vielleicht geniigten (ebd.), war nmlich auf die
Dauer nichts auszurichten. Das zeigt sich schon in der Apostelgeschichte,
wo der Verbliiffungseffekt der ,,2eichenw 1' s Ankniipfbngspunkt dient f i r
die Wortverklindigung; ohne diese when die ,JeichenW nichts mehr. Wo
Jesus nicht mehr da ist, muss nun sein Name genannt werden, und in
seinem Namen wird gelehrt, wird eingeweiht, gibt es ,,Weisheit unter den
Vollkornmenen" (1Kor 2,6). 69
Soviel zu dem Streitwort ,,ChristologieW: Ihre Ausbildung muss eine
Notwendigkeit gewesen sein, so sehr auch das Judenchristentum, besonders in seinem ,,ebionitischen" Fliigel, ihrer Entwicklung fernblieb.
Heidenchristliche Gemeinden bezogen ihre Identitiit aus ihrer 1,ehre und
aus der Explikation der Taufformel, judenchristliche nicht oder vie1
weniger.
67 AIs Obersicht der Lehrprobleme bei HENGFI,, 'Das fi-uheste Christentum', 21 1217. Was Probleme des Rituals betrim, so vermisst man in MlMoUNIs groDer Untersuchung d m ein Kapitel.
Die Ebioniten geben diesen Eindruck mit ihrer Distanz von theologischer Begriffsbildung. Dass das 'jakobeische' Christentum einst mit hbheren AnsprOchen angetreten ist
und jedenfalls ohne eine Spur von Kulturverdrossenheit, enveist das ausgesprochen
rhetorische Gricchisch des Jukobusbriefs, der ja stilistisch einen Paulus bei weitem
UbertriTn.
69
Ein Stack auf dieser Strecke ist auch das erste Judenchristentum noch mitgegangen
und hat - wohl als Taufvorbereitung - einen Logos der Wahrheit (Jak 1,18.2 1 ) und cine
7 ~ k 1 6 7
(Hebr
~ 6,l -- dasselbe?) verbreitet - mit unmiftelbaren ethischen Konsequenzen, aber ungeklartem VerhBltnis zum mosaischen Kitualgesetz.

Polemik gegen Judenchrbten

Der Jakobusbrief
Schwenken wir von hier aus zum Jakobusbrief, so e r h a e t sich der Verdacht judenchristlichen Fernbleibens von der Lehrentwicklung. Keine der
neuralgischen Fragen wird beriihrt, lediglich die paulinische These von der
Heilswirkung des Glaubens bestritten (2,14-24). For Judenchristen, die
auch ohne Glauben an den auferweckten Kyrios Kinder Abraharns waren,
konnte sie nicht vie1 bedeuten und durfte auf keinen Fall verselbsthdigt
werden.
Politisch gelesen, muss der Jakobusbrief uns als Kompromissversuch
erscheinen, u.z. von erkliirt judenchristlicher Seite aus. Er hat vieles mit
dem Hebrtierbrief gemeinsam, allein schon die ethische Awrichtung und
die Versuchung (mipaap65) als Thema der AnknUpfung bci den Adressaten. Anderes haben wir eben schon genannt. AufBilliger als diese inhaltlichen Parallelen mag cine formale Gemeinsamkeit sein, mit der wir nach
den bisherigen Beobachtungen zum jiidischen Urchristentum vielleicht
nicht gerechnet hitten: Es ist der ausgesprochen literarische Stil. Gepflegtes Vokabular und Prosarhythmen sind die ~ e ~ e lSo
. ~kann
'
also ein kulturelles Gealle, entgegen einem oben vielleicht entstandenen Eindruck,
nicht das Problem gewesen sein. Schwierigkeiten mit dem I.Iellenismus als
solchem hat man nicht gehabt; eher war man mit den Heidenchristen unzufrieden und mit der 'fieologie, die ein Paulus zu ihrer Gewinnung entwickelt hatte. Im Gegenzug wird Christus jetzt nicht einrnal mehr genannt,
auch nicht rnit seinem schlichten Namen ,,JesusWDerName, von 1,ukas als
heilkdftig (in jedem Sinne) gerilhmt, hat nichts zu sagen; was rettet, ist der
Gehorsam gegeniiber dem Willen Gottes.
Hier mag immerhin auffallen, dass dieser nur ethisch expliziert wird.
Die Fragen des mosaischen Rituals bleiben ausgeklammert, U.Z. zugunsten
einer Bezugnahme auf die christliche Taufe (1,18.2 1, unter Erwlihnung der
Taufkatechese als Epcpuzoq hdyoc;). Das diirfte ein Kompromissangebot
gewesen sein, reichte aber nicht zur Lasung der Konflikte, wie wir sie z.B.
aus Galatien kennen. Es blieben niimlich folgende Konfliktfaktoren:
- Auferlegen von Ritualgeboten (Beschneidung, Kaschrut) bzw. Nachfordern
gegenUber heidenchristlichen Gemeinden, die ohne solche Gebote gegrhdet
worden waren;
- unklarc Leitungsstrukturcn in Jerusalem, insbesondere Autori%tsanspflche,
die weder mosaisch noch s~~ifisch-christlich
begrilndet waren;
- Briiskierung einflussreicher Leute wie Paulus (hier literarisch fortgesetzt);
In geradezu manierierter Weise bietet der Zentralsatz der Epistcl, Jak 2,18, nicht
weniger ais 23 lange Silben; sonst herrschen oft rhythmische Klauseln mil dem versus
Crericus. Die oben zitierten Partien des Epheserbriet~pflegen auch diesen mr die Panegyrik enwickelten Stil, nicht jedoch die echten Paulusbriefe. Vgl. SIEGERT,
'Mass
Communication', 54f.

- Abstandnnhme von

der christlichen Lehrentwicklung ohne offenc Auseinandersetzung mit d i e ~ e r . ~ '

Nur der letzte Punkt hat etwas mit der Christologie zu tun; er ist xitlich
der jilngste. Die Weiche, an der Heiden- und Judenchristentum sich trennten, stellte sich vorher schon in Fragen des Rituals.

Bernerkung zu 1Kor 14.34

Was das Hauptproblem in Apg 21 betrifft, das Nachfordern gewisser Gebote, so triigt m6glicherweise sogar der 1 .Korintherbrief davon sekundiire
Spuren. Das Schweigegebot mr Frauen im Gottesdienst (1 Kor 14,3J), das
wegen offenen Widerspruchs zu 1 1,5 (wo sie durchaus sprechen, ja prophezeien, wenn auch mit t;E,otxria) selbst von vorsichtigcn Exegeten fdr
eine Glosse gehalten wird, ware niiherhin als judenchristliche Glosse zu
bestimmen. Sie ilbertriigt eine E r die Synagogen (bis heute!) gultige Norm
auf den christlichen Gottesdienst und relegiert Frauen - anders als viele
paganen Kulte bis hin zum Kaiserkult - in dienende Rollen, und ihre
Begriindung ist ein ausdriicklicher Verweis auf den Nornos.
Die Apokalypse des Johunnes
Um mit einer Riiekkehr in den johanneischen Gedankenkreis zu schlicfien,
sei noch ein seheinbarer Antijudaismus der Apokalypse vorgestellt. Die
Polemik gegen jene, ,,die sagen, sie seien Juden, sind es aber nicht, sondern eine Synagoge des Satans" (Apk 2,9; 3,9) richtet sich hiichstwahrscheinlich nicht gegen eine verfasste Synagoge, sondern gegen eine judenchristliche Richtung, von der man sich so deutlich wie miiglich abgrenren
m ~ c h t e . ~Diese
*
Polemik ist gezielt und geht nicht pauschal gegen das
Judentum; doch mag ein Kessentiment auf die Synagogen insgesamt mitgespielt haben. Ein gewisser Neid auf sie ware erklgrbar, denn die judischen
Gemeinden waren in Kleinasiens Kilstenstadten gut etablie~-t.73
und es ging
ihnen sicher besser als den christlichen Gemeinden, zumal sie auch keinen
ihnen vergleichbaren Rigorismus verfochten. Gegenilber den judiiischen

Zu den Lehrdifferenzen vgl. Anm. 67. - Man kann judenchristliche Sellriften wie
die Pseudoclementinen jedoch nicht als Theologie ansehen; sie sind narrative Polemik.
Ausdrtlckliche Distanz zur sich bildenden Christologie ist in Joh 8,40.47.58 usw. zu
Seite sich
erkennen, wobei hier die berichtende -. wohl imnier noch judenchristliche
nicht klarer ausdrtlckt als die opponierende.
72 Vgl. I,OIISE,Synagoge des Satans.
Die vielzitierte Synagogeninschrift in Akmonia (Phrygien) rUhmt die Erbauung des
Gebtiudes dureh die Julia Severa, eine prominente Priesterin des Kaiserkultes um 50
n.Chr. (SCHORERIVERMES,History Ill, 300. Auch wenn ihre Absichten und ihre Beziehungen zurn Judentum dem Text nicht klar xu entnehmen sind, wird schon solches name
dropping den Christen des hicr genannten Rigorismus &&erst missfailen haben.

Polemik gegen Judenchrbten

103

Verhlltnissen hatten wir insofern eine Vertauschung der Fronten zu konstatieren - was freilich dem Streit nichts von seiner Schafe nahm.
Doch wie gesagt, aueh hier geht die Polemik gegen eine Art von Christen, und zwar solche, die zusiitzlich ihr Judensein geltend machten - so
sagen es beide Stellen ausdrticklich - und die eine vom Autor nicht akzcptierte Haltung verfochten. Halachische Restandteile des Streites sind hier
nicht zu erkennen; Eduard Lohse denkt eher an Lehrfragen. Vielleicht war
auch schon eine gnostisierende neue Lehre im Spiel wie im Fsllle des
ephesinischen Judenehristen Kerinth.

Schluss
Es muss uns heute traurig stirnmen und muss die Kirchen zur BuDc zwingen, dass man in jener Polemik judische WBrter zu Schimphtirtern
machte, die nun als solche in unseren Heiligen Schriften stehen. Diese
B u h , die langsam, aber nachhaltig in Gang gekommen ist, hat als wichtigsten Gegenstand nicht nur innejudische Polemiken von ,,alttestarnentlicher" Heftigkeit, wie Peter Tomson u.a. sie untersucht haben, sondern auch
jene damals noch imerchristlichen I-Iisslichkeiten, die in vielen Schriften
des Neuen Testaments - und w k e es nur aus Mangel an klarerem Vokabular - Judisches nennen.
Zum Gliick ist die theologische Sprache heute zu gr6krer Klarheit gediehen; und zum Gliick ist Religion seit der AuRtlkung als Gegenstand
oder Mittel des Streites nicht mehr ernstlich zu gebrauchen (zu missbrauchen). Das Weitere leistete das christlich-judische Gesprlich und erhielt es
als bleibende Aufgabe: Der Weg ist frei geworden f i r eine Versthdigung
auch fiber die Unterschiede hinweg.

Literaturverzeichnis
Bammel, E., Jesu Nachfolger. Nachfolgeiiberlieferungen in der Zeit desfriihen Christenrums, Heidelberg 1988
Becker, J., Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Bd I : Kap. 1-10, (OTK 4/1) Gatersloh 1979
Cohen, Sh., 'Ioudaios: "Judaean" and "Jew" in Susanna, First Maccabees, and Second
Maccabees', in P. SchtIfer (Wg.), Geschichte - Tradition - Ke/lexion. FS Martin
tfengel, Bd. 1, Tabingen 1996,2 1 1 - 220
de Boer, M., '1,'Evangile de Jean et le christianismejuif <nazort+en>', in D. Marguerat
(Hg.), Le de'chirement.Juifs et chre'tiens au premier sitcle, (Le Monde de la Bible 32)
Genbve 1996, 179-202
Dormeyer, D., 'Werden der Catholics - Neutestamentliche Thesen', in A. F m z (Hg.),
Was ist heute noch ka~holisch.~
Zum Streit um die innere Einheit und Vielfalt der
Kirche, Freiburg (Br.) usw. 200 1, 17-35

Fairchild, M., 'Paul's Pre-Christian Zealot Associations: A Re-examination of Gal 1.14

and Acts 22.3', NTS 45 (1999) 5 14-532
Gating, E., 'Kritik an den Judern in Jerusalem. Literarkritische Beitrige zu einem unabgeschlossenen Gesprltch Uber den Evangelisten Johannes', in Siegert (Hg.), Israel 01s
Gegeniiber (s.u.), 158-20 1
von Harnack, A., Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten, 4. Aufl., 2 Bde., Leipzig 1924 (und Nachdrucke)
Harvey, G., The True Israel. Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient
Jewish and Early Christian Literature, Leiden 200 1
Hellholm D. - Moxnes, El. - Seim, R.K. (Hg.), Mighty Minorities. Minorities in Early
Christianity. Positions and Strategies, FS Jacob JerveN, Oslo usw. 1975
Hengel, M., 'Jakobus der Herrenbruder - der erste "Papst"?', in E. Grisseri 0 . Merk
(Hg.), GIarbe und Eschatologie. FS Werner Georg Kiimmel, TUbingen 1985, 7 1 - " 1 04
- 'Das frlUleste Christenturn als eine jodische messianische und universalistische
Bewegung' (1997), in ders., Judoica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schrifren 11,
(WUNT 109) TUbingen 1999,200-2 18
- The Four Gospels and the One Gospel ofJesus Christ, Harrisburg (Pa.) 2000
- (und A. M. Schwemer), Paulus zwischen Damuskus und Antiochien. Die unbekunnten
Jahre des Apostels, (WUNT 108) Tabingen 1998
(Josephus) Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leberr r Vita,. Kritische Ausg~he,Cihrrsefzung und Kommentar von F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, M. Vogel (u.u.), 'TObingen
200 1
Keel, 0.1 Kllchler, M./ Uehlinger, Ch., Orte und Landschaflen der Bibel, Bd. 1, Zurich
usw. 1984
Krieger, S., 'Maps of Palestine in Matthew 4.23--25 and Bellum 3 3 5 - 58'. in J. U . Kalms
(Hg.), Internationales Josephus-Kollrvquium Amsrerdum 2000, (MUnsteraner
Judaistische Studien 10) MUnster 200 1,263-277
Lambers-Petry, D., 'How to Become a Christian Martyr" in F. Siegert / J. U. Kalms
(Hg.): Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001, (Monsteraner Judaistische
Studien 12) MUnster 2002, 10 1- 124
LRgasse, S., L 'antipaulinisme sectaire au temps des Peres de I 'Eglise, (Cahiers de la
Revue Biblique 47) Paris 2000
Lohse, E., Synagoge des Satans und Gemeinde Gones. Zum Yerhdltnis von Juden und
Christen nach der Oflenbarung iles Johannes, (Franz-Delitmh-Vorlesung 1989)
MUnster 1992
Martyn, J.L., Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, Edinburgh 1997
Mimouni, S.C., Le juddo-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques, (Patrimoines) Cerf,
Paris 1998
- (und S. Jones), Le juddo-christianisme duns tous ses dtafs. Acres du colloque dc
Jkrusalem 6-10 juillet 1998, (Lectio divina, hors skrie) Cerf, Paris 2001
Moiler, H.-P.1 Siegert, F. (Hg.), Antike Randgesellschaften und Randgruppen im
Ostlichen Mittelmeerruum. Ringvorlesung an der (...) Universitgt Monster
(Monsteraner Judaistische Studien, 5) MUnster 2000
Moiler, K., Torafur die Viilker. Die noachidischen Gebote urrd Ansdtze zu ihrer Rezeption im Christenrum, (SKI 15) Berlin 1994
Neusner, J., Jews and Christians. The Myth ofa Common Tradition, Londoni Philadelphia 1991
Nodet, E., 'James, the Brother of Jesus, was never a Christian', in: Mimounil Jones, Le
juddo-christianisme (s.o.) 75-85

Polemik gegen Judenchristen

105

Nodct, E./ Taylor, J., Essai sur les origines du judabme. Une secte Pclatcie, (Initiations
bibliques) Ccrf, Paris 1998
Petersen, W., 'Constructing the Matrix of Judaic Christianity From Texts', in Mimounil
Jones (s.o.), Lejuddo-christianisme 126- 145
Rese, M., 'Wer war Israel als Gegentlber der ersten Heidenchristen?', in Siegert (Hg.),
Israel als Gegenciber (s.u.), 147 - 1 57
Ritter, A. M., 'Exkurs 1 : Warurn geriet das Judenchristentum an den Rand?', in Siegert
(Hg.), Israel als Gegeniiber (s.u.), 2 13f
Schnelle, D., 'Muss ein Heide erst Jude werden, um Christ sein m kdnnen?', in M.
Karrer - W. Kraus - 0 . Merk, Kirche und Volk Gotres. FS Jirrgen Rolofi NeukirchenVIuyn 2000,93-109
Segal, A. F., Paul the Convert. The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, New
Havenl London 1990
Seland, T., Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke. A Study of fin-Conformity to the
Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions, (Biblical Interpret. Ser. 15) Leiden usw. 1995
Sherwin-White, A. N., 'The Trial of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels', in ders., Roman
Sociery and Roman Law in the New Testament, (Sarum Lectures 1960-6 1) Oxford
1963,2447
Siegert, F., 'Mass Communication and Prose Rhythm in Luke-Acts" in: Rhetoric and the
New Testament, hg. S. Porter - Th. Olbricht, (JSNT Sup 90) Sheffield 1993,42-58
( h z . in RHPhR 74, 1994, 1 13-127)
- '"'ZerstOrt diesen Tempel...!"Jesus als *Tempel"und die Passionsllberlieferungen', in
J. Hahn (Hg.), Zerstdrungen des Jerwalemer Tempels, (WUNT 147) Tubingen 2002,
108-139
Siegert, F. (Hg.), Israel als Gegenilber. Vom Alten Orient his rur Gegenwart, (Schriften
des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 5) Gdttingen 2000
Sim, David C., The Gospel ofMatthew and Christian Judaism. The Historical and Social
Sening of the Matthean Community, (Stud, in the NT and Its World) Edinburgh 1998
Stauffer, E., 'Zum Kalifat des Jakobus', ZRGG 4 (1952) 198-214
Tomson, P.J., 'The Names Israel and Jew in Ancient Judaism and in the New Testament',
Bijdragen 47 (1986) 12-40,266-89

Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles,

(CKINT 311) Assenl Minneapolis 1990

Walter, N., 'Die "ais Sllulen Geltenden" in Jerusalem - Leiter der Urgemeinde oder
exemplarisch Fromme?', in M. Karrer (u.a., Hg.): Kirche und Volk Gottes. FS Jiirgen
Rolofi Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000,78-92
Wander, B., Trennungsproresse rwischen Friihem Christentum und Judentum im I. Jahrhundert n Chr. Datierbare Abfolgen nvischen der Hinrichtung Jesu und der Zerstorung des Jenrsalemer Tempels, (TANZ 16) Tobingen - Basel 1994
Wengst, K., Das J~hannesevangelium,Bd. I : Kap. 1-10, (ThKNT 411) Stuttgart 2000

A continuing enigma: the 'Yoke of the Lord' in

Didache 6.2-3 and early Jewish-Christian relations
Jonathan A. Draper

It is not often that one writes an article which provokes a senior scholar in
the field into a sharp rejoinder. When it happens. one finds oneself simultaneously complemented and destabilized! The elder statesman of studies
in the Didache, Willie Rordorf (2001: 294-2971, whom I admire immensely for his thorough and perceptive scholarship, dedicated most of his
address to the Thirteenth Internutionul Conference on Putristic Studies
held in Oxford in 1999, to a rebuttal of my thesis concerning this enigmatic
work, as this is set out in 'Weber, Theissen, and the "Wandering Charismatics'? in the Didache'(l998). I-te accuses me of operating from a peritio
principii and of allowing my prior understanding of early Christianity to
determine my interpretation. He kindly softens the blow by averring that
his intention is only to urge me to reduce him to silence with stronger
arguments! I will try to begin the process with this paper, not with a further
study of Didaehe 11, but with a revisitation of the crux for the interpretation of the Didache, as is seems to me, namely Didache 6.2-3.
At the heart of Rordorf s critique lie two points. Firstly, that I differentiate apostles, prophets and teachers as coming from different layers of
the tradition and reflecting different stages in the history of the community, whereas Paul includes them in the same list in ICorinthians 1228,
and Acts 13:l--4describes Paul and Barnabas as both apostles and prophets. Secondly, he points me to the redaction critical analysis of Kurt
Niederwimmer. We can leave the first question out here, as irrelevant to
our study of Didache 6.1-3,though I might point out that Rordorf is also
guilty of a petitio principii in beginning with Paul and the later Pauline
apologetic of Acts as the yardstick for interpreting the Didache. In any
case, the logic of Paul's argument is that everyone in the Corinthian community is a charismatic ( 1 Cor 12:7) and that therefore there are no privileged charismatic positions, such as exist in the Didache. However, his
second point is perhaps a good starting point for our investigation.
But first, I would like to set out, up front, the starting point of my
investigation into the Didache, since this has been brought under the
spotlight. My doctoral thesis (1984) set out to camparc the Didache to the
Dead Sea Scrolls, in the first instance, and then to Rabbinic and Ilellenistic

Jewish writings, in the second instance, and finally to other early Christian
writings. I tried to set aside my own preconceptions. My findings were,
broadly, that, other than the Two Ways material which is found also in a
range of Jewish writings, particularly the Derekh Eretz and the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Didache had little or nothing in common with
the Dead Sea Scrolls except where the Scrolls were in agreement with
material from Rabbinic Judaism. At almost every point of comparison, 1
found the Didache fitted best in the world of Pharisaic or Rabbinic Judaism
rather than in either the Essene tradition or the milieu of Hellenistic
Judaism (here I part company with Clayton Jefford 2001: 262-269 in his
attempt to read the Didache as an Essene document). This rather limited
finding was nevertheless significant in placing the Didache in its sociohistorical context, it seemed to me. It suggested to me that it originated in a
Jewish Christian community which was engaged in a two way contest:
with Pharisaic or nascent Rabbinic Judaism on the one side and with
another form of Christianity on the other side (false apostles, prophets and
deceivers). The Didache warns its hearers repeatedly, in different layers of
the tradition, against following those who would lead them astray from the
traditions of the community set out in the writing (4.13, 6.1, 1 1.1-2, 16.35, besides the material on apostles and prophets). My reading of the text is
influenced by these findings, certainly, but I wonder whether it is accurate
to describe my procedure as a peritio principii?
T h e question of redaction
Let us return to Rordorf s suggestion that I pay closer attention to Kurt
Niederwimmer's redaction critical analysis and justify my own analysis
against it. Niedenvimmer (1998: 42-52; 1995: 15-36) hypothesizes a
literary redactor (D) at the beginning of the second century working with
four sources:
1. A Christianized form of an originally Jewish Tractate (TR)
2. An archaic liturgical tradition of baptism and eucharist (AG)
3. Archaic traditions about the reception of wandering charismatics
(PER)
4. A brief apocalypse (APC).
In his article of 1995, Niederwimmer adds the refinement of a sign for the
gospel tradition in Didache 1.2-6), which he terms (SYN), and a sign fbr
Old Testament citations (AT). This neat fourfold structure does indeed
reflect the broad shape of the contents of the text. Niederwirnmer argues
that the parts were put together by the Didachist (D) with little editing of
1-6, except at the junctures of the material. On the other hand this redactor
has intervened heavily in the second and third sections of the text (7-1 5)

108

Draper

and then very little again with the apocalypse at the end (1 6).
An alternative proposal might be that these four sections or parts of
them belonged together from the beginning in a Grundschrifi which has
been heavily edited, above all in the sections dealing with community life,
to deal with changing praxis. This is an alternative proposal and one no
less plausible. After all, the so-called Tractate is clearly understood as
catechesis for initiation, both in its structure and by Didache 7.1 (Draper
1997). There are strong links, at least in the final form, within chapters 710 and a number of links between 7-10 and 1-6, which I have explored in
detail elsewhere (Draper 2000). There are suggestions that a Jewish 'Iractate of the kind represented by 1-5 would originally have ended with
eschatological exhortation, as found in 16 or part of it (Bammel 1996).
Material on the reception of apostles, teachers and other visitors would
also fit with a Tractate entitled 'Teaching of the Apostles'. It was on this
basis that I, following the lines pioneered by Seeberg (1903, 1906), Klein
(1909) and Turner (1912), have explored in my doctoral dissertation the
extent to which such a C;rund.~chrijmay be present and, if so, whether that
Grundschrift was Jewish or Jewish-Christian in nature.
Niederwimmer's redactional theory does not take account of the possibility that the Didache grew organically within a community, so that the
changes were not the work of a single 'Redactor' but of many hands over a
period of time. I lean towards the proposition of Kraft (1965) and Giet
(1966) that the Didache represents "evolved" or "living literature". progressively redacted in a community setting to take account of new circumstances. My thinking in this has been influenced by the physical evidence
of the Manual of Discipline as an actual first century CE community rule,
which is subject to continual erasures or additions. Even a cursory exarnination of the photographs of the Manual of Discipline make this clear (see
Trever 1972: 138-141, 144--145). The likelihood is that this writing also
grew by a gradual process of accretions and additions around a central core
rather than by a simple stitching process (see O'Connor 1969). This is not
to rule out the existence of prior sources in either the Manual or the
Didache, but only to problematize the idea of a late 'Didachist'or redactor
who consistently composed such a text in one piece.
The textual evidence
Let us now move on to the passage itself. It is precisely at this point in the
text of the Didache that clear evidence for the original Two Ways tradition
disappears, and interpretations become rather subjective! If we set out the
evidence for this, it can be seen that there can be little certainty:

Didache
6.1 "Opa pJ1 ri; a&

Apostolic Constitutions
7.19 "Opa pJ1 ti; o&nAavt"p9 hxd

7% E ~ $ E 013~
I ~ ~: K K ~ I V E y&P.
P~
cpqoiv, hn' a b r k 6cttci ij ~txbvvpa,
iva ouvk kv n&oiv ofg Mv
np&om: of, ydp civ k r r p a a &o
r& ~lr8Eiaqbbi), 6ooo@tp~y.
[Cf ' O p , &v$pm,p ft t1g m h a r1)(3Et && t& I C I ~ tadtqg,
E ~
h
i
oFv 64)EUop~v.
OE lrap&~t&ticod SIMOKEI.Fides
&Rpoi, nqvi r&
arurrpfug &&v, iva CCCXVIII Patrum]
,uft d lrovrlpd5 ltap

X A U V h~ ~ TUGd
7% T& Mob 7%
Shxk,
kmi X(LPEKT& &oil
w, 6tMo~et.
[Cf ' A ~ p @ k o & Ir

Doctrina
6.1 Et uide nc quis te
ab hac doctrim auocet
et si minus extra disciplinam doceberis.
6
4 in cansulcndo
~
~
si
conidie feceris, prope
eres uiuo dm; quod si
non feceris, longe eres a
umitate. 'tlltec ornnia tibi
in animo pone et non deciperis de spi. tua, sed per
haex Sanaa w t m i n a
pentcnics ad coronam.
bPer dominum Iesum etc.

sio6txsi v lrRavqg
noitjoq kv tpiv
S~t~qxvSOvrjan
fjpcii;
dlrd rijg (mij$- r),u&v.
Barn 2.101
[Cf Et olio in loco scriptura haec testatur [Cf Barn 2.6: b Kal6.2 Ei p&v ydp 66V&
vdpq r0fi KVet admonet dicens: Si potes quidem,fili,
vaaai &mcioai Qomniapraecepta dominifacere, eris con- piou &uiv ? p i ,
kov rdv juydv TOG
~opiou,rkhtoq Eq: summatus; sin autem, uel duo praecepta, XpioroC, &VEV[vyo; &v&ym-5 dv. ib
amare dominum ex totis praecordib et
ci 6' oit SGvaoat, 6
similem tibi quasi <te ipsum>. De cente- 193: daov Gvvuuar,
66~9,robto xokt.
sima 132- 1 351
r& vwk000 &yvcIXTEig.J
[Cf &(s+E r&hi@g
7.20 Ikpi 66 ppop&rwv k6y&1oot b xal mpl t& Bpaimay-. Barn 10.10]
KGpioq: Ta hyaM 7% y k (PC~YE~E.

Kai: niiv ~ p t E&&E

q
Ly Ad~ava
~b
~ . ydp
~Abqq,rd 62: afpa ~ K X E E O
rd eio&p~6p~va
&igrd os+a ~ o i voP ~ b v6v0ponov. ciq K O L ~ ~ Uyap
V
XCDfXi K U ~&)1< &c~E~PC;)VU
$K$&kk.rat, ra GE: k~nopcrwlp~va
~ o i v o irdv
bv0ponov. kbyo 6T) pkmpqpiai,
~araAakiai~ a cli ri toiokov. EiS
62 (PCiyn rdv pwAov r k
pmd
S~~atooi)v%.
6~1:Ei ri ~ak6v.abTOG,~ u EI
i r i hyaMv, abroli: air%
v ~ a v i o l c o~~ ~a oivw
i
~Mi&wv
na@vaig: riq yap cpbys~aifi
[Cf Bur keep yourselrtk~at
ab'tob;
vesfom the religion of
V
demons, andfiom godr
&no6C, ro"uEiGoXo- 7.2 1 ' And 6C T&VE ~ ~ ~ & T W9660Gtou liav n p h ~ ~YET&:
: bni ttph ydp 6atp6vov 0tbwri andfiom dead things
karwia ydp k o ~ i
tairra, kq' b&xi 6qAa6T) rob p6vou keep, andf om blood
&&v ve~pdv.
e&oi):h m q pT) yl;vfpeE K O ~ V O V O ~and things s~rangled,
a n d m e r a bone
Saip6vov.
shall not be broken,
7.22 n ~ p GE:
i p~xriopar~,
& bni0~07Efi x p ~ & 6 r ~ pfj6q
, pCv Eth. Church Order 521

110

Draper

v ~ T C D @ZXT~C~OT&,
raCra mivta n p t X~VTEG.

~ ~ X R T ~ O Q I E&i<

rd bvopa TOG nar&

~ a TOG
i uioii ~ a rob
i
hyiou nveQpatog
hv Mart (&vrt.
7.2 'Edv 6i: pq EX%
EiGop j&v, Eic, & A h
fjsop ~ m t o o v ei
: 6'
ob 6itvaoat kv y u ~ & ,
kv Ocppii). 7.3'Edv 62
&pcPbrcPa pfl &%. EKX E ~ V ~ i Tc ~ ~ecpELhftv
V
r p l ~b b p eiq dvopa
m r & Kai uioii icai
h y i o ~nveiylarq.
7.4 IIpd SZ: TOG panr i o p a r g npowpeu& r o b fkXnriCov icai
b fkXnrt<bp~v%~ a EIi ~ a ydp
i ~ a bi K b p q fhnrta&-;is bnd'Ior t v y cElbot Sbvavrat: dvvou xpcjrov ~ a tic,
i rqv Epwov abbtcr&i< perkmtra kvfpr~uoevreooap&~ovra
wpai; ~ a r&map&~ovra
i
hwrai;.' EfkXnK E ~ & &&
~ UV; W
I ST E ~ J Cr~i~ a 62 ~ a k i v ~ s m Ov ~ Ka!xdc, hmpurdv Banrtjbpevov npd n h y 4 v q m e i q ~p&CavE ~ o vij icawppicis ij 660.
muy, 6 rfi cph~i~a0apdS~ a &i y q , &?.I'
iva ~ a iI d' v v n hbf@lav npwpap~upipn
~ a Qtiv
i
hoypappov nap&rnqrat. O b ~ o b v
b pkv KQptog o b eiq
~ kaurob n&Oq k k n rlolaro ij Bdrvatov ij hvcisraotv, o W n o yap
V~&V
T V ~ W V~ Y E Y ~ V E
&kA'
~ , &i<
6td~a<t~
t t w v : 6d ~ a hn'
i %oucriag perd ri) Wxttcrpa vqmekt ty Kbp~og'Ioxivvoo: b 61:
E\S TOVabtoC M v a ~ o vpwi)p&vog np5rspv
&peI;IEi v r p r e b a t ~ a T&F,
i ~
b
a ob ~
ydp Gi~aiovrdv ouvtacp6vra ~ a ioovava,
ot&vra xap"hqv
rflv &vdlora(~~v
Katq&at&cpeiv: ob ydp ~ 6 p t qb cEvBponog
5% ~ii(;TOG Xotfipo~,klt&k&pb ~ C 6EoV
n6rqq. b &.! innjwvoq.
7.23 A i 6E vlp-reiat bp&v p ~ Eorooav
)
p~rd
t h v bmtcptr&v, ~ r b .

It should be noted that there is no external evidence, beyond the Jerusalem

Manuscript (Hierosolym. 54), for the ending of the Doctrina Apostolorum
in the tradition. On the other hand, as we can see, there are indications that
Barnabas, at least, knew material now found in this section of the Didache,
none that Barnabas knew the ending now found in the Doctrina.

Scholarly options
There are in fact several viable options for making sense of this data. Opinions of scholars vary and often different solutions have been proposed for
the material in the Two Ways and that in Didache 6.2-3. Perhaps we could
begin briefly by tabulating the options for 1--6.1 (since they are rather well
known; see Draper 1996: 4- 16):

The origin and extent of the Two Ways

(1) The Two Ways (Doctrina 1-6) was originally an "inner Jewish" or sectarian writing setting out the essential character of Judaism as seen from
the point of view of a particular Jewish community, which was appropriated at a later stage by Christians and used for catechesis. It is best represented by the Doctrina (perhaps minus 6.6). This view was espoused by
Knopf, who sees 1-6.1 as an originally Jewish writing ("eine urspriinglich
jildische Schrift""), possibly ending originally with 16.2, [3-7J), which has
been little changed ("ziemlich unvertindert"; 1920: 2). This view was confirmed for many by the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, presented for the
first time by Audet in 1952 (1 996: 129-147; cf 1958), so that it seems to
be something of a majority position today. Giet" (1970) extensive redactional analysis of the Didache concedes only 1-3:l to the original Jewish
sub-text. Niederwimmer (1 998: 35-4 1) sees here a "purely Jewish test"
which "probably belonged within the broader context of the community
rules of Jewish religious communities", where it would have had "the
function of a community rule for Jewish enthusiasts who gathered in the
house of study". While he rejects the idea of the Two Ways as "proselyte
catechism", Niederwimmer seems to hedge his bets since "some things
point to a mission among gentiles". Significantly, two prominent Jewish
scholars have come to the same opinion: Alon (1996: 167-1 68) has seen it
as "a brief manifesto of the fundamentals of life according to Judaism",
mainly expounding commandments concerning human relations, centred
on the Ten Commandments, with one eye on Gentile practices. Flusser has
also seen it as an "inner Jewish ethical treatise" (1996: 198).
(2) 'The Two Ways in its present form was originally a Jewish proselyte
catechetical writing directed towards Gentile converts, which ended either
with Doctr. 6.1 (perhaps with Doctr. 6.5) or with hrther instructions represented by Did 6.2-3 (perhaps also 7, 13.3-7), concerned with the initiation
of proselytes and hence referring to the status of Torah observance and

112

Draper

tithing. 'This view was championed early on by a number of scholars,

including Warnack, who tried to reconstruct, rather unsuccessfully, the original extent of the catechesis (1 886: 57-65); so too Taylor ( 1 886). Seeberg
(1903; 1906) and Klein (1909), who not only tried to identity the Urtexr
but also its redaction and appropriation by Christian writers.
(3) The Two Ways in this form is originally an early Jewish Christian
catechetical writing directed towards Gentiles, based on Jewish oral tradition represented independently also by the Manual of Discipline and
Derekh Erets, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Either it ended
with Doctrina 6.1 (or even Doctrina 6.5) or it included instructions concerning initiation from the beginning, i.e. Didache 6.2-3 and 7, 13.3-7,
which has subsequently been either omitted or redacted because it was
found to be offensive by later Gentile Christianity. 'This is the direction I
am leaning towards today, having in my thesis argued fbr 2) above.
(4) 'The Two Ways originates with Barnabas and is utilized by all the
other witnesses. This was the idea popular in English scholarship at the
time of Robinson (1 920), Muilenburg (1 929), Connolly (1 932, 1937),
Vokes (1938). who viewed the Didache as a late archaizing fiction, but the
Dead Sea Scrolls and other textual considerations set out by Audet ( 1996)
have rendered this thesis untenable.

The origin and nature qf Didache 6.2 3

With regard to Didache 6.2-3, there are a furthcr set of options offered by
scholars in various combinations with their decisions on 1-6.1 :
(a) Didache 6.2-3 is part of the original Jewish substructure of the Two
Ways, obviously directed towards Gentile converts. The 'Yoke of the
1,ord' represents the Torah, which full proselytes are expected to adopt, but
there is a half-way position, where sympathizers may keep as much as they
can. The Jewish ritual food laws are also made desirable but optional. with
only food off'ered to idols strictly forbidden. This position was set out
strongly by Stuiber (1961). IIe has been followed partially by Kraft
(1965: 160), though he believes that 6:3 belongs with chapter 7 and comes
originally from the source prescribing the Noachic table rules, which arc
made optional as long as food offered to idols is avoided! Kordorf (Kordorf
& Tuilier 1978: 32--33) concedes that thesc verses probably go back to a
Jewish appendix to the Two Ways, but redacted and reinterpreted by the
Christian Didachist by relating them to the Sermon on the Mount rather
than the Torah. Wengst (1984: 95-96) adopts Stuiber's thesis, seeing here
the Jewish sub-structure now referred to Gentiles Christians. In my thesis,
I inclined to this view, and I am still in two minds about the possibility that
this forms part of the Jewish substructure, written or oral, but have moved
towards the conviction that the underlying structure is a Christian composition utilizing Jewish oral tradition.

Didache 6:2-3

113

(b) Didache 6.2-3 represent a block of independent tradition, of Jewish

Christian provenance, which has been inserted by the redactor at this point
as a bridge between the Jewish Two Ways and the Christian liturgical
material which follows. The usual corollary is that it represents the Jewish
Christian perspective on the Apostolic Decree. Flusser (1987) has argued
strongly that this text was a Christian appendix to the Jewish Two Ways,
which had come to be attributed to the "apostles'kf the "Apostolic Mother
Churc", and this was added to "stipulate the obligations of Gentile Christian believers"(1996: 198), along the lines of the Noachic prescriptions of
the Rabbis. While Flusser accepts that it could have originated as a purely
Jewish text, this is unlikely for him, since he does not believe that Judaism
was ever a proselytizing religion: "The views expressed in the passage are
indeed possible within the framework of ancient Judaism but it is extremely difficult to imagine that a Jew, or a Jewish authority of the period,
would address God-fearing Gentiles and beg them to be perfect and to
observe the whole Jewish Law, or at least to observe as much as they can
and recommend that their food should be as kosher as possible"
(1996: 207). On the other hand, this makes sense for the anti-Pauline wing
of the Christian movement. Both Paul and the Jewish Christians accepted
the decision of the Apostolic Council, based on Jewish Noachic principles,
but what that decision left unresolved was whether it wa$ a desirable or a
prohibited thing for Gentiles to do more than this, to become full Jews:
was the Decree the minimum or the maximum? This position is advocated
also by myself (Draper 1991, revised 1996: 340-363) and Jefford (1992).
(c) Didache 6.2-3 is the work of the 'Didachist', the redactor who
joined the Jewish Two Ways and the Christian liturgical material. The
problem of perfection is related to the difficulty of keeping the radical
commands of the gospel section, deriving from the Sermon on the Mount,
and related to Jesus' instruction to take on oneself his easy yoke (Mt
1 1 :25-30). Food laws are usually related to the Old Testament provisions,
with the avoidance of eidolothuton as the only prescription. This view is
strongly supported by Rordorf and Tuilier (1978: 32-34), despite their
feeling that a Jewish source ultimately lies behind the verses. The moral
perfection enjoined by the Sermon on the Mount is set as the goal of
'perfection'but not a requirement.
(d) Harnack and Knopf and a number of early scholars see here a
reference to sexual renunciation and food asceticism. The group of scholars who viewed the Didache as a late archaizing fiction mostly adopted
this view, but it has not met with much acceptance. More recently, Niederwimmer (1993: 122-123) has considered this view again sympathetically,
one suspects because it harmonizes with his view that 'spiritual marriages"
of prophets and itinerant radicalism lie behind Didache 1 1.1 1 (1 80-1 82).

114

Draper

However, in the end, he affirms the interpretation of Kordorf and Tuilier

noted above.
The Doctrina Apostolorum
The nature of the Doctrina and its implications for the interpretation of our
passage is far from clear. It is probably premature for Niederwimmer
(1993: 120) to say that, "Harnack's suggestions... that the Jewish source
may have contained instructions about food regulations and similar matters
at this point ... are revealed by the text of Doctrina to bc without foundation." Doctrina 6.6 is clearly a late Christian interpolation, since it
presupposes a late, high Christology nowhere in evidence in the rest of the
Christian Two Ways tradition, as Niederwimmer himself admits (cf
Niederwimmer 1998: 120). There are some echoes of material which may
be found in the Two Ways tradition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (IQS 3.1 34.24), namely certamina and corona (Niederwimmer 1998: 121; cf already
Draper 1984: 130-1 3 I), but these are not particularly convincing as evidence that this is the original ending. The language of struggle (&yov)and
crown (ozkcpavog) is not uncommon in Christian sources, from Revelation
2:10 to the later maryrologies, from the genuine letter of Ignatius to the
Magnesians 13, to the Martyrdom of Polycarp 19.2. the spurious letter of
Ignatius to Mary 5, and the Martyrdom of Ignatius 5, the most striking k i n g
the passage found in the Pseudo-Clementine sermon, 2Clement 7:
"So then, my brethren, let us content, knowing that the contest is close at hand, and that
many make voyages for corruptible prizes, but not all are crowned, save those who have
toiled much, and contended well. Let us then contend that we may all be crowned. Let us
run the straight course, the immortal contest, and let many o f us sail to it, and contend,
that we many also receive the crown, and if we cannot all receive the crown, let us at
least come near to it." (Lake 19 12: 139)

One might also ask why the Didachist, the redactor, would omit the edificatory material found in the Doctrina 6.4-5, if it were originally present.
More significant are the echoes of Didache 6.2-3 in Barnabas. It has
been common cause since the era of Robinson, Connolly, Muilenburg and
Vokes, that the Two Ways material in Barnabas is not confined to chapters
18-20. Moreover, there are indications of other connections, as particularly
Barnabas 4.9 and Didache 16.2. Barnabas appears to have deliberately
abandoned the original ending of the Two Ways tradition and may be
polemicizing against aspects of the tradition he considers dangerous. I
have argued elsewhere that Barnabas takes what originates as initiatory
catechesis for new members and makes it into a secondary gnosis (Draper
1995; for a counter view see Carleton Paget 1994: 49-5 1 ). One can see
here the beginning of the usage of the l'wo Ways tradition in the initiation
of ascetics entering religious orders.

The editor of the Apostolic Constitutions knows Didache 6.2-3 and

deliberately omits 6.2 and explicitly counters the teaching of 6.3. The
Christian is commanded to enjoy all the good things of the earth. The
saying on food is only included in order to appropriate the prohibition of
what has been offered to idols, though softened by the omission of Aiav.
In other words, even the Apostolic Constitutions, which knows and uses
the Didache in its current form, has to counter the teaching of these verses.
The citation of Didache 6.2 in De centesima 132-135 understands "do
what you can"to refer to the twofold Love Command, so that one either
keeps the whole Torah or else the lesser rule of the Love Command, creating a double standard in Christian life which has characterized the monastic tradition ever since. It is easier to understand why this instruction
should have been omitted from the Doctrina and Barnabas than why it
would have been inserted by a later editor, unless it is deliberately polemical. Yet it does not seem to have the nature of polemic but of concession.
Niederwimmer argues that 6.2-3 and 7.2-3 and parts of 7.1 and 7.2 are
from the Didachist, the supposed final composer and redactor of the whole.
It is certainly true that there is a strong argument for supposing that they
belong together. Both the casuistical style and the vocabulary (~'1.~.66vaoat) and the second person singular form of address suggest this. It is hard,
however, to understand why a redactor would take what is a very 'orthodox' and, indeed, late Christian formula for baptism and redact it in a
Jewish purity direction. Now the kind of water becomes significant. This is
particularly incomprehensible if the redactor is responsible for the insertion simultaneously of such Jewish Christian reaction and the material
from the Jesus tradition.

Earliest form and redaction of 6.1-7.4 and 13.3-7

To my mind, it makes more sense to assume that the Jewish Christian
tradition concerning the yoke of the Lord and the kinds of water able to
purify were part of an earlier redactional layer, which is subsequently
made orthodox by the insertion of the correct baptismal formula, in the
threefold name - which is nowhere else attested in the Didache. The only
Christological information we have otherwise in the Didache (9.2) views
Jesus as God's servant1 son (xaig)*parallel to David as God's servant/ son,
who includes Gentiles it seems in the gathering into the renewed kingdom.
There are also references to the KIJPLOS, where it is not always clear
whether the reference is to God or to Jesus (e.g. 9.5; 10.6; 11.2,4, 8; 12.1;
14.1, 3), though the references to the 'gospel of the Lordmake it clear that
at least this layer of the text understands Jesus in this manner (15.4).
Likewise, the reference to baptism outside of this (redacted) section refers

116

Draper

to baptism riq iivopa ~vpiouand not to the Trinitarian formula (9.9, so

that the latter is probably a later redaction (as argued by Bartlet 1921 : 240;
Streeter 1936: 508; Barnikol 1936-1 937: 144-1 52; V66bus 1968: 35; contra Benoit 1953: 7; Audet 1958: 361-366). It seems better to me to understand the redaction as follows (in which the redaction is underlined and in
italics):
6uo@elqrc;,r k ~ v a hnd
,
rotjrov &n&vtov.
6pa [Si: Doctr.] pq r / o~
~ xXavqon &xd t a b r q ~rijc, 616a~ijq
knci R Q P F , K T O ~ 8 ~ 0 6OE 616dCJ~Et.
Ek p6v ydp Sbvaoal ~ a o t d o a 6l 1 0 ~tdv {uyc)~TOG K U ~ ~ O U
rtAciog Eon.
El It'ol) Sbvaoal
6 6bvn 7 0 6 ~ 0nolei.
n g p i sz ~ f i c~*E(W
d 66vaoai gdoraoov
And 61: roc d S o k d 6 z o v Xiav n p 6 o c ~ c
Xarp~Lay&p korl 0e6v v ~ r @ v .

l I ~ p 61:
l "LC fknrioparoq.

o$r- _tkr~ftioar&.
kv 66art ~OVTI.
E ~ 62
V pq txnq asap j6v
ciq &Xko b6op gdnrioov.
E i 6'ob Gbvaoai t v y v ~ p @
kv Oc;pp@.
Edv 62 hpyt6r~papfi E X ~ S
EKXEOV E\S rfiv ~ ~ 9 a X f zyig
iv
& l ~voua
d xarodi; ~ av&G
i
&-gi
-&yfoc,ttl[c;'u-.
Ilpd 62 roG @xrrrloparoq
npovqcsreuodro b fkxrljov ~ a i,i @ x ~ t j b p ~ v o e
r a i EI riveq (Z12.o~ Suvavrai.
Kc1I-cOetq St? vrpr~Coatrdv $anr ~ @ ~ ~ E V O V
npd pic$ Sbo.

The original instructions on baptism then began, xspi 66 TOG $axzlapazoq Baxzioov kv 66az1 [l;)v~t.There was no reference to the Trinitarian
formula. The connection with what precedes is clear. Before baptism, the
candidate is reassured that s h e is only required to keep whatever of the
'yoke'sslhe is able to fulfil, and is only required to keep whatever of the
food laws s h e can, but the minimum requirement is abstention from what
has been sacrificed to idols. The kind of water and the pre-baptismal fast is
specified. Again the air is casuistic and concessional. The instructions to
the community in the second person plural move away from the intimate
instruction of catechesis and towards what later became known as 'Church

Didache 6:2-3

117

Orders'. There is a consistent usage of the second person singular in the

Two Ways instruction, which is consistent with its basis in the legal requirements of the Decalogue of which it is in some ways a halakhic elaboration.
To these passages, one should add the famous example of the instructions on tithes in Didache 13.3-7, where the address is also in the second
person singular, juxtaposed with redactions concerning apostles, prophets
and teachers in the second person plural:
TIGoav otv hxapxqv yevvapbrov litlvoC h-at Crkovoq
$a&v ~ a l xpo$&~ov
.
lia$dv 6uioe1g T ~ hxapxqv
V
rc$ _ic, xoocp$rai<
OL&Q~X &&v
abroi ~ - e \ o w
6dvG6 u f ~ELQT&-~JXXD~~T~~V,-ro~~-xrw~oL~
kdv otrCav xotfiq. r4v hxapxrjv 3ia$dv
V
8dq ~ a r c iT ~ kvroXflv
hoa6ruy ~cpdpiovolvou 4 claiou hvoi4ag
rdv dfwxllv
W-LS 7 w 9 9 k a ~ 5
hpyuplou 66 ~ a x&vtoq
l
~tqpatoq
Aapdv T ~ hxap~qv,
V
cSg Civ aol 6d5g
Sd< ~ a r tflv
a ~ V T O ~ ~ V .

Following the line of our enquiry on 6.2-3, this passage emerges again as
halakhic expansion of legal requirement for tithing in the 'Torah, which has
been subsequently redacted to bring it into line with developments in the
community centred around the conflict over the position of prophets in the
community (Draper 1996: 340-363). The most obvious advantage of this
view of the redactional history of the Didache, is that it is consistent and
also makes sense of the fluctuation between the singular and plural of the
second person, which has often been noticed, most significantly by Audet.
Audet sees the second person singular as a mark of the later redactor ("les
passages-tu ont toutes les apparences dbdditions faites apr&scoup", 1958:
108). However, he also notes the link between the second person singular
sections and a certain attachment to commandments and Jewish legalism,
with a connection to the concept of perfection ("Les rkglementations des
passages-tu ont des attaches a la Loi sans parall&lesdans les ordonnances
des passages-vous", 1958: 107). Does it not make more sense to reverse
the position of original and redactor, so that the second person singular
represents the earlier phase? After all, the 'Two Ways material is all in the
second person singular. This is the language of catechesis. At least this
enables us to hold to a consistent pointer to redactional layering: second
person singular is early, while second person plural is later. As a rule of
thumb it seems to me to work.
One might need to take a sideways glance at the Jesus tradition which is
inserted at the beginning of the Two Ways. While the Q material inserted

118

Draper

in Didache 1.3-6 has both singular and plural, one might even make a case
here for a successive insertion of material. 1.4-6 (second person singular)
follows very naturally from 1.2 (second person singular), while the material on loving one's enemies in 1.3 (second person plural) is less obvious
as an elaboration of the Golden Rule. However, the same Q material is
found in Matthew and Luke with the same fluctuation between singular
and plural, so that it is not clear that the matter can be so easily resolved!
This, then, underlies my redactional hypothesis: second person singular
material is associated with a Jewish Christian attachment to the commandments, to ritual purity and to a primitive Christology. The second person
plural material is associated with the emergence of the gospel as authoritative in the community, with the emergence of a Trinitarian Christology,
with a more developed Christian leadership, and with a more "otihodox"
later Christian position. 'I'he redactions of the Apostolic Constitutions arc
usually a good guide to problematic sections of the Didache and show why
the writing may have been suppressed in the form we have it in the Jerusalem manuscript.

A Jewish sub-structure?
A further advantage of this redactional hypothesis concerning the earlicst

layer of the text of the Didache is that it confirms what we know af the
initiation of proselytes in ancient Judaism. Of course, Tractate Gerim can
not be dated very early, but it does generally cite Sages from the first centuries CE, as Polster observes (1926: 17-18), and its material and orientation is early. There is very little other information to go on.
1. Firstly, Gerim suggests that attempts were made to discourage the
convert by emphasizing the disadvantages of belonging to Israel. ?'his
seem to me to reflect the situation after the War of 66--70 CE, and the later
persecution of Jews. This is therefore not part of the earliest schema. However, what is clear is that the candidate is not accepted at once, S h e is
tested and instructed.
2. Secondly, the candidate is immersed up to herhis middle and given
the details of the precepts. There may well have been a recital during the
initiation ritual of the catechetical material slhe would have already been
taught: a parallel to the raiira xavra xpoc~x<lvrrqBaxrioa~cof Did 7.
3. Baptism is made conditional on willingness to give 'gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the comer of the field and tithes.' In other words, the kind
of instruction given in Didache 13.3-7 is required also for Jewish proselytes (Gerim 1.3).
4. A distinction is made between those who have bathed only, those
who have bathed and been circumcised, and those who have been circum-

Didache 6:2-3

119

cised but not bathed (Gerim 1.6). This seems to me to reflect the differing
situations of the ger toshav and the ger tsedek. The bath is required to put
the Gentile in a minimum state of purity to share in the life of the Jewish
community, together with the other minimum observances of the Noachic
laws and abstention from what has been offered to idols (and meat which
has not been ritually slaughtered; Gerim 3.3). This enables table fellowship: 'his bread, his oil and his wine are clean'.
5. I-Iowever, circumcision is decisive (Gerim 1.6). While favarable
treatment is required for the ger toshav, the real blessings and rewards are
reserved for the one who gets circumcised and becomes a full Jew as a ger
tsedek.
6. An agent is involved who 'gives immersion', a man for a man and a
woman for a woman (Gerim 1.8).
7. A temple sacrifice is suggested but not required (Gerim 2.5).
8. 'I'here is no mention of a fast before immersion in Gerim, though it
might have been practiced. There is no mention of a prayer on coming up
out of the water, but the participants do 'speak to him words of kindness
and comfort'((Gerim 1.5).
It is remarkable that there is such detailed agreement between what is
(in later texts, of course) recorded of Jewish practice with proselytes and
the second person singular sections of the Didache. It makes it inherently
likely that Jewish influence is strong in this stratum of the text and that it is
the same stratum. What does not seem logical to me, is why this coherent
layer of the text, reflecting the practice of Judaism, should be relegated to
the redactional layer of the Didache by scholars, while the clearly 'Christian' sections are made primary. Surely this reflects an u priori assumption
concerning the nature of the Didache as a compilation from around the end
of the first century. 'fie earlier we push the dating of this text, the less
likely this hypothesis becomes. If we work on the assumption of an evolving text, rather than a compilation spliced together by a later redactor who
is wildly out of tune with the material he redacts, then it would seem
sensible to put the material reflecting Jewish practice at the beginning of
the process and not the end.
The further question arises: is this an original or 'pure' Jewish sub-text?
My own question would be, What do we mean by 'Jewish" Surely, at the
beginning of the process of the emergence of Christianity, the followers of
Jesus were as much members of the covenant people, and considered themselves as such, as the followers of Hillel, Shammai and Gamaliel. The
traditions and practices they drew on in formulating their own community
rules would have been drawn from the same source. The quarrel between
the Didache and the 'hypocrites' was a 'purely inner Jewish conflict', if
one wants to use those terms. It seems equally possible to me that the

120

Draper

community which formulated this stratum of the Didache drew on oral tradition and ritual practice common to Jews faced with proselyte conversions. I do not see the need for a written source, though it could not be
ruled out that one may have existed.

An instruction of the Apostles

Most of the early traditions associated with the Two Ways attribute it to
the 'apostles" sometimes named or numbered, sometimes simply 'the
teaching of the apostles'. We know that the early followers of Jesus battled
with the question of the admission of Gentiles, once they moved out into
the wider Mediterranean world, and in particular in Antioch. We hear
echoes of a major controversy, but only from one side, that of Paul and his
enthusiast, Luke in Acts 15. Of course, Luke puts a favorable and peaceable gloss on the conflictual events which is absent in Paul. His account is
to be treated with caution with respect to the conflict, but probably less so
with regard to the central aspect of the agreement he describes: the Apostolic Decree. Essentially this allowed Gentiles to receive baptism and enter
the community without being circumcised and submitting to the whole
Torah, as long as they kept the Noachic commandments and abstained
from eating meat offered to idols. In other words, it allowed them to share
in their fellowship as gerim toshavim. It did not settle the question of the
gerim tsedikim. We should not assume that Gentiles were universally
reluctant to become full Jews or that the first followers of Jesus were reluctant to allow or even encourage them to become full Jews. ?'he echoes of
the Antioch debate between Peter and Paul suggest they were not, as Flusser rightly suggests. Even the language of Acts suggests clear connections
with Didache 6.2-3, as Jefford (1992) and I (1996: 354-357) have also
suggested, namely the language of "false teachers who would disturb the
TQ,
peaceW",joydq, $aa~a(r;tv. kxtrieroeat... p a p o ~ ,xAtp, C \ ~ C O L ~ ~ Uand
the Noachic laws (though there is textual uncertainty what is intended,
something we do not need to get into here).
Luke suggests in Acts 15 that the Jerusalem apostles authored a circular
letter to resolve the question of how Gentiles were to be admitted into the
Christian communities under their authority, which first arose in Antioch.
The basis was the Noachic covenant of God with all humankind and
abstention from food offered to idols, which made a Gentile a ger ioshcrv.
Me suggests that Paul was somehow party to the letter. Paul himself shows
knowledge of the decision, but disputes its content and application, it
would seem. This suggests that the problem lay with the interpretation put
on the agreement. The issue which emerged was the issue of the possibility
or desirability of a Gentile becoming a gt'r tsedek. something which Paul

Didache 6:2-3

121

rejects but his opponents affirmed. I would like to suggest that the Urtext
of the Didache 1-7; 13.3-7 might offer us a form of that apostolic letter. It
supplies the Two Ways material traditionally used in 'inner Jewish"
initiation into sub-communities of faith for use as catechesis for Gentiles;
it provides information of the nature of the choice when joining the
community to become a ger toshav, on the basis of baptism, abstention
From food offered to idols and tithing, or a ger rsedek, by becoming
circumcised and keeping the Full ritual law, including the full ritual food
law. It probably ended with an eschatological warning concerning the
coming judgement and the need to continue to live an ethical lifestyle
under the law (Didache 16.1-2).
This Jewish-Christian position maintained a fundamental continuity
with other Jewish communities, both in terms of the food market and in
terms of ritual purity. On the Pauline interpretation of the agreement found
in its 'apostolic form' in the Didache, the acceptance of the rules for the
ger toshav was the maximum not the minimum. Even then, these rules
concerning food offered to idols and the Noachic covenant, were only
necessary to keep the peace, to keep the Gentiles in fellowship with Jewish
members of the community. They were not intrinsically necessary for 'the
strong' but only for the 'weak'. Once Paul's interpretation won the day in
the Western church, the scene was set for an irrevocable break with parent
Judaism. Then, the 'Teaching of the Apostles' became an embarrassment
and a problem. It inevitably created a two tier membership of the church. It
tied Gentile Christians to a Jewish community with which it had increasingly little contact, except in terms of hostile opposition. One answer for
the church was to abandon the text altogether, but it had too much authority in many non-Pauline communities. Another was simply to omit the
ending: to keep the ethical catechesis and end with 6.1 or earlier (as with
the Doctrina, the Ecclesiastical Canons and the Epitome). Another was to
make of it an advanced gnosis, to be used by another kind of 'perfect"
Christian. This, I have argued, was the solution of Barnabas, who neverthcless shows knowledge of the content of the Jewish Christian teaching on
the 'yoke" and the ' b u r d e n d d the 'food laws' (so too the ascetic De
centesima and the later monastic tradition recorded by Willie Rordorf,
1996: 148-164). However, in the Didache, by accident, we have the earliest form of the tradition preserved under a layer of later redactional
material.

Bibliography
Note. At the time of writing, the important book by h u b VAN DE SANIJI' and the late David
FLIJSSER,The Didache: its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Chistirnip,
(CRMT 11115) Van Gorcum I Fortress Press,Assen / Minneapolis 2002, largely dealing with

122

Draper

issues covered in this paper, had not yet appeared. It would take a different paper to take full
account of their latest work. Nevertheless, the viewpoint of their book on D~duche62-3 is
substantiallythe same as that first presented by Flusser in his article, which is discussed here.
Alon, G., 'The Halacha in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles', in Draper 1996: 164
194
Audet, J.-P., 'Literary and Doctrinal Relationships of the "Manual of Discipline', in
Draper 1 996: 129- 147
- La Didachk. Instructions des Apcitres, Gabalda, Paris 1958
Bammel, E., 'Panern and Prototype of Didache 16'. in Draper 1996: 364-372
Barnikol, E., 'Die triadische Tauffonnel: Ihr Fehlen in der Didache und im Matthausevangelium und ihr altkatholischer Ursprung', T M 4-5 (1936-37) 144 - 152
Bartlet, J.V., 'The Didache Reconsidered', JTS 22 (1921) 239-249
Benoit, A,, Le BaptCme Chrktienne au Second Sitcle, Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1953
Carleton Paget. J., The Epistle of Barnuhas: Outlook and Background, ( WtJNT 2/64)
Mohr-Siebeck, TUbingen 1994
Connolly, R.H., 'The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas', JTS 33 ( 1932)
327-353
- 'Canon Streeter on the Didache', J7S 38 (1937) 364- 379
'The Didache and Montanism', DRev 55 (1937) 339-347
Draper, J.A., A Commentary on the Didache in the Light of the Dead Seu Scrolls and
Related Documents, Unpublished Thesis, Cambridge University, 1984
- 'Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community', NovT 3 3 (1991) 347 372; revised and reprinted in Draper 1996: 340-363
-- 'Barnabas and the Riddle of the Didache Revisited', JSNT 58 (1995) 89- 1 13
-. 'The Didache in Modern Research', in Draper 1996: 1-42
- 'The Role of Ritual in the Alternation of Social Universe: Jewish-Christian Initiation
of Gentiles in the Didache', Listening 32 (1997) 48- 67
- The Didache in Modern Research, Brill, Leiden 1996
- 'Webr, Theissen and the "Wandering Charismatics" in the Didachc'. .lournu1 o$
Ebrly Christian Studies 6 ( 1998) 54 1-576
- 'The Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paraenesis in the Sermon on the Mount',
JSNT 75 (1999) 25-48
- 'Ritual Process and Ritual Symbol in Didache 7-10', Vigiliae Christiunue 54 (2000)
1-38
Flusser, D., 'Paul's Jewish-Christian Opponents in the Didache', in S. Shaked, D. Shulman and G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Gilgul; Essays on Transformation, Hevoluticm and
Permanence in the history ofReligions (FS 2. Werblowski), Leiden 1987, 7 1-90;
repr. in Draper 1996: 195--21 1
Giet, S., 'Coutume, 6volution, droit canon; ir propos de deux passages de la "Didachc""',
RDC 16 (1966) 118-1 32; repr. in Giet 1970: 118-1 32
- L '&nigme de la DidachP, (PFLIJS 149) Ophrys, Paris 1970
Warnack, A., Die Lehre der zwZslfApostef nebst Untersuchungen zur ciltrsten Geschichte
der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts, (TU 2,112) Hinrichs, Leipzig 1884
- Die Apostellehrre und die jiidischen bei d m Wege, Hinrichs, Leipzig 1886
Jefford, C., 'Tradition and Witness in Antioch: Acts 15 and Didache 6'. in E.V.
McKnight (ed), Perspectives on Contemporary New Testament Questions: Essuys in
!Ionour of 7'. C. Smith, Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston 1992,409---419

Didache 6:2-3

- 'Conflict at Antioch: Ignatius and the Drdache at Odds', Studra Patristica 36 (2001)
262-269
Klein, G. Der Alteste Christliche Katech~.smusund dre Judische Propaganda-I-iteratur,
Reimer, Berlin 1909
Knopf, R. Die Lehre der zwdlfApostel; Die zwei Clemensbriefe, (HNT. E 1 ) Mohr,
TDbingen 1920
KraR, R.A. Barnabas and the Didache. The Apr>stolicFathers: A N e w Translation and
Commenfary 3, (AF 3) Thomas Nelson, New York 1965
Lake, K., The Apostolic Fathers I , Heinernann, London I Uarvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass. 1912
Muilenburg, J., The 1.iterury Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, Yale Dissertation, Marburg 1929
Niederwirnmer, K., The Didache: A Commentary (German ed 1989, ET by L.M.
Maloney), (Hermeneia) Fortress, Minneapolis 1998
O'Connor, J. Murphy, 'La genbse litteraire de la R2gle de la CornmunautC', RB 76 (1969)
528-549
Polster, G., 'Der kleine Talmudtraktat Dber die Proselyten (Text und Cibersetzung)',
Angelos 2 (1 926) 2-38
Robinson, J.A., Barnabus, Hermas and the Diduche: Being the Donnellan Lectures
Delivered before the University of Dublin in 1920, SPCK, London 1920
Rordorf, W., 'An Aspect of the Judaeo-Christian Ethic: The Two Ways', in Draper
1996: 148- 164
- 'La Didache en 1999', in M. F. Wiles & E. J. Yarnold (eds.), Papers Presented at the
Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford 1999, Studia
Patristica 36 (200 1) 293-299
Rordorf, W. & Tuilier, A., L a doctrine des Dowe Apritres (Didache), (SC 248) Cerf,

Paris 1978
Schbllgen, G., Didache--Zwiilf-Apostel-Lehre. Einleitung, Ubersetzung und Kommentar,
(FC I) tierder, Freiburg 1991
Seeberg, A., Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig: Deichert, 1903.
- Die Beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, Deichert, Leipzig 1906
Streeter, B.El., The Four Gospels, 5th (rev.) impression Macrnillan, London 1936
Stuiber, A., 'Das ganze Joch des Henn (Didache 6:2-3)', in F.L. Cross (ed), Studio
Patristica If', (TU 79) Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1961, 323-329
Taylor, C., The Teaching ofthe Twelve Apostles, with illustrufionsfrom the Talmud,
Deighton Bell, Cambridge 1886
Trever, J.C., Scrolls from Qumran Cuve I : The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the
Community, The Pesher to Habakkuk, The Albright Institute of Archaeological
Research and the Shrine of the Book, Jerusalem 1972
Turner, C.H., 'The Early Christian Ministry and the Didache', in Studies in Early Church
History, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1912, 1 -3 1
Vokes, F.E., The Riddle of the Didache. Fact or Fiction, Iferesy or Catholicism?, SPCK,
London 1938
VMbus, A., Liturgical Traditions in the Didache, (PETSE 16) Estonian Theological
Society in Exile, Stockholm 1968
Wengst, K., Didache (Apostellehre), Barnabasbrief; Zweiter Klemensbrief; Schrifr an
Diognet, (SUC 2) WissenschaAliche BuchgesellschaR, Darmstadt 1984

Syrian memories of Peter:

Ignatius, Justin and Serapion
Markus Bockrnuehl

Tradition, memory and the 'House of Peter'

Mid-fourth-century pilgrims from the far comers of the newly Christian
Empire were in for a surprise as they made their way from Jerusalem to the
Sea of Galilee in quest of the home of Jesus and peter.' In the Iloly City,
they had found the ruins of the New Testament period long since obscured
under the rigorously Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina. Its thriving Christian community included no physical descendants of the church of the
apost~es,~
although their Gentile successors laid claim to the inheritance of
its worship and episcopal succession. What biblical sites remained were
either, like the True Cross, newly 'rediscovered'(sometimes in competing
locations) by a blossoming religious tourism industry, or else, like the
Temple, reduced to unrecognizable piles of rubble. Jewish ruins and
Jewish absence seemed to furnish plentiful grist to supersessionist mills
that were busily grinding out the narrative of Christianity's Constantinian
triumph.
Capemaurn was disturbingly different. Here, pi1 rims came upon a bustling small town that had never been destroyed! and whose dominant
Jewish population and culture continued to thrive4 A large synagogue and
small Christian house church faced each other across the street. Rabbis
condemned Capernaum as a centre of liberal heretics, while Christian
authors downplayed it because its very prosperity seemed to pour scorn on
Jesus' prophecy of its de~tsuction.~
Undeterred by such qualms, the tourists
who did come here found Jews of rabbinic and Nazarean persuasion
openly intermingling in commerce, culture and religion.

'

I gratefully acknowledge the British Academy's support of this project through one
of its Research Readerships.
Cf Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.4.14.6.4.
Though it is possible that the original basalt synagogue under the fourth-century
limestone edifice may have been destroyed during the Jewish War in AD 67.
~ p i ~ h a n i uPan.
s , 30.1 1.9-10 even claims that Capemaurn's population included no
Gentiles at all.
Cf WALKER
1990: 157-59, 163, although his argument seems somewhat overstated.

'

'

Syrian Memories of Peter

125

And come they did. Arriving from a convent in Gaul or Spain around
AD 382, Egeria saw the local s nagogue and noted that "a church has been
made out of the house of Peter , whose walls stand to this day as they were
then. There the Lord healed the paralytic...'" Hundreds of others had
preceded her: for two centuries, people had been leaving mementos of their
presence scrawled on the walls of the same house church that Egeria saw.
The story of early Christian pilgrimage to the 'House of Peter'in Capernaum provides a graphic analogy to the role of human memory in attesting
the historic 'footprint' of Simon Peter as he was remembered in the first
two centuries. Not all pilgrims left graffiti; and even the marks of those
who did are now often lost, illegible or highly debatable. The fact that
many wrote prayers, including prayers to Christ, suggests that the place
must have had a Christian religious significance. A Jewish Christian
presence, however, is notoriously difficult to substantiate from the tenuous
archaeological record.8 As for Peter's name, this appears only twice; and
the reasons for its presence here might range all the way from Egeria's
devout veneration of the 'prince of apostles'to the trivial banality of a
passing tourist who happened to bear that name and recorded his presence
for posterity.
The interpretative difficulties surrounding the so-called House of Peter
are remarkably analogous to the second- and third-generation memories of
Peter that form the subject of this chapter. A good many of these memories
date from the time when grmiti may have begun to appear on the walls of
that house in Capernaum. No amount of scholarly stratification can conceal
the sheer serendipity of what survives, and the difficulty of disentangling
genuine memory from tradition's incorporation of devout imagination.
How can we begin to classify this elusive evidence? In his major study,
Christian Grappe (1 9-20) has rightly noted the unsatisfactory nature of the
second-century sources from Syria and elsewhere: although a good many
documents deal with Peter or are attributed to him, the evidence remains
exceedingly piecemeal ("parcellaire"). All we have in the end, Grappe
suggests, is highly contrasting images of Peter - in various, and variously
overlapping, Gnostic, orthodox and Jewish Christian groups. To make matters worse, we appear to have rather more documents from the close of the
second century and beyond than from the preceding decades, which seem
largely silent. As a result, Grappe remains sceptical about the historical

2'

Lit. "of the prince of Apostles", apostolorum principis - the identification seems
clear, but the phrase in question is usually thought to be that of Peter the Deacon, in
whose work De Locis Sanctis this extract is preserved. See WILKINSON1981: 194 n7;
ROWEKAMP1995: 336 1174.
Peter the Deacon, De locis sanctis 5.2.
See the excessively scathing critique of the Franciscan excavators'interpretation in
TAYLOR1993.

'

126

Bockmuehl

usefulness of such second-century sources. And on a conventional, 'onionpeel' approach to early Christian history his assessment doubtless has
some merit.
The trick, however, may be to slice the historical onion rather than to
peel it. Previous scholarship has adopted at least three diEerent approaches
to the sources, each of them with its own advantages and disadvantages.
Christian Grappe himself opts for a series of basically topical explorations
in the material. Eie sorts their presentation into five time periods: the
ministry of Jesus ("the circle of the disciples"), "the era of brotherhood"
(the church in Jerusalem), "the apostolic phase" (until AD 70), "the subapostolic phrase"' and '?he second century". The result is a caleidoscopic
treatment which, although conceptually fertile and impressively comprehensive in its treatment of the sources, seems analytically compromised by
its somewhat arbitrary and uneven chronological divisions. Several of
these divisions, in fact, would be exceedingly difficult to justify from the
sources, and depend on more precise dating of texts than most scholars
would be prepared to ~ e n t u r e . ~
One might have thought that a more workable chronological approach
could be derived from the three 'generations' that our sources themselves
imply: the apostles, their hearers, and those (like Irenaeus) who remember
them. Even on this model, however, the dates we may assign will in many
cases remain highly tenuous, and the inferences drawn from them correspondingly compromised or controversial.
A third way forward might be to slice the onion in ideological terms,
distinguishing between sources on the basis of their character as 'orthodox', 'gnostic', 'Jewish Christian? and so forth. Leaving aside the real or
perceived apologetic benefits of such an approach, it could only constitute
an unacceptably blunt tool of analysis. The categories are anachronistic
and too imprecise to do justice to the material.
No historically accountable study of Petrine tradition can escape
difficult and controversial decisions about the date of certain key sources.
My own study has led me to consider the time-scale of human memory as
providing a fourth approach, which attempts to localize Petrine memories
in their approximate geographical settings, and to interpret them dialectically. Peter was remembered above all in Rome and Syria, and to some
extent in Asia Minor, Greece, and possibly ~ ~ ~To ~be sure,
t . this
' ~
approach has its problems, too. But it may show a way out of a number of
other familiar analytical cul-de-sacs, and should do justice to the often
locally rooted nature of memory.
Cf similarly the critique in CASUREI*I.A
1997.
For a similar approach in a more general survey, see G~JIJARRO
1991, who also
shows that the two main centres of Petrine tradition were Syria and Rome.
lo

Syrian Memories of Peter

127

My suggestion in this study is that in asking how Peter was in fact

remembered, we will gain valuable historical insights for a more inclusive
appraisal of the man and his significance. By methodologically privileging
the remembered Peter of the first two centuries, we may be able to move
from a caleidoscopic to a cautiously historical evaluation of the sources. A
fuller exposition of this proposal must be left for another occasion. For
present purposes, a brief summary will sufiee. As Irenaeus and other
writers clearly show," Christian memory did remain for 150 years an
important point of reference for Simon Peter's public 'persona'in diverse
and even competing Christian circles. The importance of such memory was
indeed theological, in that it attached the young faith to the founding
reality of those who had seen and known the Lord (cf already Acts 1 :2 122; 1 Cor 9:l). But it also contributes materially to genuine historical
questions, sometimes precisely in its diversity: it is at least worth pondering which of the ambiguities and contradictions in Petrine tradition over
the first two centuries may be traceable to analogous tensions in the
character of the man or his message. Modem scholars too frequently overlook the extent to which posthumous memories of a person are indispensable for the sort of settled and reflected interpretation that the fragmented
and preliminary impressions of contemporaries can never provide. And it
remains one of the more formative facts of early church history that
Christians of remarkably different stripes did place great considerable on
the tradition of the apostles. A chain of 'living' memory of the apostles can
be shown to have survived until the late second century. After that, a very
different situation pertained.'2

Three named individuals

This paper will address the question of Petrine memory in Syria &om the
focussed perspective of three identifiable authors who wrote around the
beginning, the middle and the end of the second century - Ignatius, Justin
and Serapion. I propose to approach the evidence from back to iront,
beginning at the end of the second century.

"

See especially his 1,etter to Florinus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.20.6); cf Irenaeus,
liaer. 3.3.4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.5.8.
IZ To be sure, this does not necessarily mean the complete disappearance of the earlier memories. One may rightly wish to draw on later writers like Eusebius and Jerome
who attempted to collect scattered historical traditions about Peter. Their efforts, however, are much more clearly and explicitly archival, distinguishing between the valuable
and the spurious solely on the basis of a critical sifting of evidence. Living memory
ceased to exist after the year 200.

Bockmuehl

Serapion
Our first author is a figure who stands at the very end of the period 1 have
described as 'living memory', but he shows how it retained a certain
vitality in the negotiation of competing interpretations of Peter. Serapion
was the bishop of Antioch c. 190-2 1 1. Not a great deal is known of him;
indeed his fourth-century Egyptian namesake is much more familiar, since
he was a companion of Athanasius. Of our second-century Serapion, only
few fragmentary writings survive, including a letter against Montanism
and another to a certain Domninus who had fallen away during persecution. A further letter partially preserved by Eusebius addresses the church
at nearby Rhossus in Cilicia (Hist. eccl. 6.12.3-6). In this document, Serapion retracts his previous acquiescence in a particular group's request to
read the Gospel of Peter, on the grounds that he has now discovered it to
be heretical. This letter has often been controversially discussed in relation
to early Christian attitudes to pseudepigraphyi3 and to 'doceti~m'.'~Here,
however, I am interested in the light Serapion sheds on the survival of
living Petrine memory in Antioch - or rather on the lack of it. Serapion
begins with a statement about the church's view about the relative merit of
genuine and pseudonymous apostolic writings:
"We, brothers, accept Peter and the other Apostles just as Christ; but as experienced
people we reject the writings falsely written in their names, knowing that we did not
receive such things.""

Turning then to his pastoral visit to the church at Rhassus, Serapion admits
that he somewhat nalvely assumed everyone there (rod< xavrac;) to be
theologically orthodox (bpefi xiorst). It was this assumption that meant he
did not bother to read through the 'gospel in the name of Peter' which
certain people in the church brought to his attention.I6 Evidently he felt
this document was not likely to be a cause for concern: "I said, 'if this the
only thing that lies behind your squabble," then let it be read."'The implil3

Cf DUFF 1998: 225-29; MI~ADI 1986: 187-88, 205; B ~ o x1975: 125 26; B R ~ X

1984.
l4 BROX 1984, MCCANr 1984 and J ~ J N O D
1988 are among those who have rnghtly
warned against presuming either that the Gospel of Peter is in any obvious sense
'docetic', or that we know whom Serapion means by the term Aorcqrai.
l5 Q p c i ~y&p, &Gc;Cqoi, ~ a IIhrpov
i
at TOO< &licov< hxootcilooi; h n d c &q Epn~tpotxaput~ d p & &65
I Xpto~civ,r d Cji: bvdpart abroiv y~uG~niypacpa
to6pe8u. y~vclio~ovreq
671 t d roiaijra olt napelckfbpev.
l6 Td bx' abtoiv xpocpepbpcvov bvcipari nhrpou cbayykltov. Notc that while
the lener is addressed to 'you', those who presented the gospel are called 'they' apparently indicating a group within the church, rather than the leadership as a whole.
This impression is confirmed a few lines further on.
" E\ TOGTO t m i v p6vov t d S O K O ~bpiv
~ V n a p k ~ e i v~ L K P O W U X ~ Q V .

Syrian ~ e m o r i e sof Perer

129

cation appears to be that he acquiesced in the private reading of the text by

that group.'8 Significantly, Serapion concedes that he had not read that text
for himself. Since then, however, Serapion has received further information about a heresy among that group at Rhossus. This has led him to
change his mind and to attend to the matter urgently, both in writing and in
person. He evidently regards the heresy as related to the more recent views
of a certain Marcianus (or possibly Marcion), whose irrational and contradictory views he and his readers know only too well.'9 Serapion has now
obtained a copy of this Gospel of Peter from people who had studied it and
who had themselves inherited it from its originators - people whose views
resemble those he calls the Docetae. He has gone through the text carefully
and finds that "most of it does reflect the right teaching about the Saviour;
but some things are additi~ns".~'Unfortunately Eusebius does not preserve
for us Serapion's promised elaboration of this ~tatement.~'
Several things stand out. Serapion's opening statement evidently affirms
a fundamental distinction between authentic and pseudonymous apostolic
writings, accepting the former and rejecting the latter for public reading.
First and foremost, Serapion carefully affirms the authority of Peter, but
denies this to any document that falsely claims to speak in his name22- as
even the surviving fragments of the Gospel of Peter clearly do.23 Beyond
the straightforward question of authorship, the criteria for assessing the
authority of a text are complex. The bishop argues from the church's 'experience'(&~E p ~ ~ i p o ibeginning
):
with the question of whether writings
in the name of an apostle have been 'received' in the catholic tradition
(*rota6~aol, xapc;A&$opav), he complements this by asking about the
orthodoxy of their content. In the case of the Gospel of Peter, this is

l 8 UAUM1997: 105 rightly points out that a permission for public reading could, in
the nature of the matter, only have been given to the leadership of the church as a whole,
not to a group within it. He also compares Jerome, Ep 107.12.
l9 Q p & i 6
~k , & ~ E I ( P O~I a, ~ a I u f M p & v~o tX O I fjv
U ~a \ p & o ~ bc ~M a p ~ l a v 6 ~ .
<(ip ~ a %;aurCI,
i
kvavrtoGro, pq vo6v & kkriket, 13 paBfiocoBc 65 d v itpPv
typ&cprl. The reading Maplciov was apparently first proposed by ROBWSON and JAMES
1892: 14-15, following the Armenian version. (Cf also JUNOI)1988: 10 n20, citing
VAGANAY
1930: 2 n2.)
20 r d p6v xXzLova TOG bpeoi, 16you roit ooriipog, rtvd 66 rrpoo6ico~akpcvu.
Cf JUNOD1988: 5, who squarely blames Eusebius' incomplete quotation of Serapion for our interpretativedifficulties.
Cf t d 6i: bvdpatt aOr&v ysl~cwlypacpa.See similarly DUFF 1998: 227-28;
contra JUNOI)1988: 13.
On the narrator's '1' and 'Peter; see the study of N I C K I ~ 2001.
AS

"

*'

130

Bockmuehl

evidently not part of what 'we received', and therefore cannot carry apostolic authority.24
It seems highly significant that this bishop of Antioch had no
knowledge of the Gospel of Peter's content until it was brought to his
attention in Cilicia. He was apparently willing to tolerate its non-liturgical
reading at Rhossus, even as an acknowledged pseudepigraphon, as long as
it did not substantially contradict orthodox doctrine. His considered opinion on that question, however, is that while most of it agrees with 'right
teaching about the Saviour', some of it does not - and the document is
therefore not suited to public reading in terms of either authorship or
doctrine.25
Serapion's judgement on the Gospel of Peter did not immediately
prevail everywhere: it has been thought that the third-century Didascalia
and some early Syriac lectionaries may depend on that gospel in several
respects,26 and there is intriguing evidence of the Gospel of Peter's
popularity especially in Egypt and in Manichean circle^.^' By contrast, the
Jewish Christian source document of the Pseudo-Clementines appears, for
all its Petrine interest, not to draw on any apocryphal gospels.28
Serapion's fragmentary letter raises a number of other intriguing questions that are well worth bearing in mind. The bishop emphatically affirms
his acceptance of Peter's authority, and yet he feels free to reject what was
evidently a popular Pctrine document. 'I'his suggests that in parts of Syria
there was still an ongoing, sensitive debate about apocryphal literature in
Peter's name, and perhaps more generally about legitimate and illegitimate

"

Cf DUFF1998: 229, who concludes his discussion of Serapion as follows: "The

pseudonymity of a text would have been crucial for an assessment of its authority, for if
authentic its authority would have been beyond question, if pseudonymous it would have
had to be demonstrated on other grounds.'"
That it is also read by heretics is another important argument against it, as J[iNOI>
1988: 13-15 rightly suggests; but he significantly overstates the argument in concluding
that Serapion's only criteria for pseudepigraphy are the lack of catholic reception and the
heterodoxy of its readers - or even that what matters to Serapion is not the Gospel of
Peter but its readers. There is no warrant to assume that Serapion is unbothered by the
unorthodox 'additions"(npoo6tsorakpCva).
See STREC'KER
in RAUER1972: 247 -48, although the notion of Syrian influence is
now less widely followed (cf DENKER1975: 9-30; contrast I,OIIRMI\NN and SCIIlAK13
2000: 75).
27 See SCI~NEEMEI.CI~EU
1992: 217-18. For Egypt see Origen, Comm. In Matt. 10.17
and note the fact that all extant early MSS derive from there. Sec also the discussion in
LO~~RMANN
and SCHLARB
2000: 72-76, especially with reference to the intriguing sixth
or seventh-century Egyptian ostracon featuring a graffito picture of Peter and the inscription "Peter the Saint, the evangelist. Let us revere him and accept his gospel".
~f STRECKER in BAUER1972: 258-59; S r R F c K C R 1992: 492. ~ c t and
s the Pauline
epistles, by contrast, are not cited; S ~ R E C Knotes
E R the parallel with the Syrian church of
Edessa, where Tatian's Diatessaron accompanied the Old 'Testament.

Syrian Memories of Peter

131

views of the Jewish Christian figure of Peter. And if, as seems possible,
the Gospel of Peter's readers are primarily recruited fiom among heterodox Christian groups, Serapion walks a difficult tightrope in this regard.29
a)
Petrine
Judging from the fact that this largely ( z a p6v ~ k ~ t o vorthodox
text is read in heterodox circles, it is fair to wonder what sorts of people
were attracted to it and why. As for the Gospel of Peter itself, it probably
originated not much earlier than the mid-second century and seems to
presuppose the final form of all four gospels.30But this is a question more
relevant to a study of that apocryphal text than to that of Serapion, and
must be lef3 for another occasion.
Our conclusion must be stated in a somewhat dialectical form. First, and
most obviously, Serapion does not appeal to any independent and specific
memories of Peter, whether derived from the church at Antioch, his own
teachers, his contacts among the Docetae, or for that matter from the heretical group at Rhossus. The only criteria Serapion brings to the appraisal of
a doubtful text in the Apostle's name are those one would expect to find in
most later patristic texts: orthodox doctrine and catholic reception.3'
If that seems wholly negative, however, the same conclusion can be cast
in a somewhat more positive form. Serapion" judgment about doctrine and
reception may to us seem inanely conventional in the light of subsequent
church history. But in the second century such statements still have a
freshness whose rhetorical force was far from exhausted - as both Christianity's heretics and critics seem implicitly to acknow~ed~e.~'
We must
recall that Serapion writes at the same time that Irenaeus as an old man
appeals to his vivid memories of Polycarp, who had been one of the last
surviving contemporaries of the Apostles. In other words, Serapion stands
at the far reaches of that same window of living memory. In his day there
must still have been a few elders in the church of Antioch who personally
remembered the last living eyewitnesses of the apostle Peter's ministry.
"9 So e.g. JLJNOD
1988: 15. We significantly overstates his case, however, when (e.g.
on p. 13) he simplistically reduces Serapion's complex (if perhaps muddled?) criterion af
authenticity and 'reception'to a straightforward question of orthodoxy. A similarly misguided dichotomy between 'doctrine' and 'authenticity'is introduced by MEAD[: 1986:
205. 'This argument does not do justice to Serapion, although an instance of it may
surface in Const. Apost. 6.16.1.
30 Cf e.g. BROWN
1987; GRIEN1987; LDHRMANN
and SCHLARB
2000: 76; note
already ROBINSON
and JAMES1892: 33.
3' More specifically, in fact, it may be catholic tradition not about particular authors,
but about which boob have been received (rota?na ob xap~kbfbp~v).
j2 Evidence of this would include the Gnostic claims made for Basilides and Valentinus (Clemens Alex., Strom. 7.17) as well as the respective opponents~mplicitacceptance of the rhetorical premises (if not the conclusions) of Justin and Serapion. Note also
that neither Celsus nor Porphyry casts serious doubt on mainstream second-century
Christian claims about what Peter and other apostles had taught and done.

What might it mean in that connection for the bishop of Antioch to

insist that while 'we' receive Peter and the other apostles as Christ himself,
we are on the other hand experienced in rejecting falsely attributed
writings because we know that 'we' did not receive such things? I would
suggest that until about the year 200 it is legitimate to assume that this
statement still bears something of the force of a living personal and
communal memory in Antioch. To be sure, that memory now stands on the
point of being subsumed into managed church tradition. But it is a position
that remains important in view of the narrative stance of the mid-century
Gospel of Peter: that apocryphal text also claimed to represent the personal
authority and Wirkungsgeschichteof the Apostle Peter. It implicitly underscored just such a notion of apostolic pedigree, but departed from the fourfold gospel tradition in developing an innovative and more radical interpretation of
In other words, the mere appeal to the apostle as such
has long since become problematic and ceased to be self-authenticating;
and Serapion" additional argument from communal experience and
memory was hardly uncontroversiai. But his assertion that a supposedly
Petrine document was both heterodox and "not received'bas arguably still
an appeal to the living memory - as confirming what the apostle did not
say and would not have said. Precisely the same point is made around this
time by Irenaeus in his answer to Florinus, on the basis explicitly of personal, living memory.34

Justin
The philosopher Justin (c. 100-1 65), a native of Neapolis (today" Nablus)
in Palestine, moved to Rome via Ephesus after adopting Christianity
around the age of 30. He might thus be thought to reflect Christian traditions in all three locations, without however claiming any personal continuity with the memory of the first Christian generation. As far as we know,
he had no contact with Antioch, and thus he cannot of course directly attest
a continuity of Petrine memory between Ignatius and Serapion. We do not
even know if he became a convert in Samaria, in Ephesus or elsewhere.
Nevertheless, he describes personal contacts with Christians while he was
still a Platonist; more significantly, perhaps, he continues to identify with
Samaritans as "my people".35 Justin seems at least worth noting: he is a
named individual with Syrian connections who speaks about Peter within
the window of living memory.
j3

Cf NICKLAS200 1 : 326 and passim.

" Letter to Florinus (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.20.6; cf 5.5.8); also Irenaeus, Haer.
3.3.4.
35 Dial. 120.6; 2 Apol. 12; cf also his awareness of Jewish believers, Dial. 47.4; cf
Dial. 7-8.

Syrian htemories of Peter

133

To be sure, Justin in any case does not tell us a great deal about Simon
Peter. And most of what he does say about the apostle is straightforwardly
accessible in the New ~ e s t a m e n tHe
. ~ ~seems at first sight to know a great
deal more about his Samarian compatriot Simon Magus: his birth at Gitta,
his fantastic exploits in Rome during Claudius' reign, and the Roman
statue on the island in the 'Tiber, which supposedly honoured him as a god
in the words 'Simoni Deo Sancto"(1 A p l . 26.2). Since we know that the
inscription on that statue actually read Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio and was
dedicated not to Simon but to a Sabine tribal deity,37 it is fair to ask if
Justin ever personally saw this statue. On the other hand, the fact that
Semo Sancus was identified with Jupiter (i.e. Zeus) helps to understand
why Simon, who was also revered as Zeus, may have been associated with
that statue.38 In any case Justin remains entirely silent about the legendary
Roman conflict between Simon Magus and Peter, as it was famously developed in the mid-century Acts of Peter and later texts. The problems with
Justin" picture of Simon Magus, which was widely followed by other
early Christian writers," are fully discussed in the relevant literature and
need not detain us here.4o
Justin's tight-lipped comments on Simon Peter are sometimes adduced
as an argument in favour of the theory that little was known of Peter in
Rome until the late second century. The evidence, however, is hardly
decisive on this question. At the most obvious level, this argument runs
aground on the fact that Justin also has nothing to say about Paul, whose
presence in Rome few would doubt. Among the more specific considerations, moreover, we may perhaps note that the Dialogue with Trypho is
set in Ephesus around AD 135. At this stage there is no reason to assume a
familiarity with Roman memories of Peter either on Justin's part or, for
that matter, on the part of the Ephesian church. And neither of the two
Roman Apologies touch on matters that require references to Peter. The
First Apology's reference to the statue of Simon Magus, probably to be
dated around 155, may well be drawing on local Christian lore at a time
when Justin had only recently arrived in Rome. In any case he is not a
primary source of information about Christian memory of Peter in Rome,
Ephesus or Syria, to all three of which he was a latecomer.
--

--

See Dial. 100.4, 106.3.

37 The statue was rediscovered in 1574 and continued to attract considerable
attention, including e.g. that of VQL.TAIRFin his Dictionnaire Philosophique (1 764, S.V.
'Eclipse').
38 On Simon as Zeus cf Acts 8:lO; Justin, 1 Apol. 26; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.4; see
further LOGAN2000: 273.
3"f
e.g. Irenaeus, e.g. Haer. 1.27.1-3; 2.9.2; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.13.3; Cyril o f
Jerusalem, Procat. 6.14.
ca LOGAN 2000 offers a recent survey of the status quaestionis.
3b

134

Bockmuehl

There is, however, one important exception to Justin's relative silence

about Peter. Carehl reading of his Dialogue with Trypho shows that Justin
not only knew the Gospel of Mark, but quite specifically took it to represent Petrine memory. Justin clearly saw the four gospels as 'memoirs of
the apostles'and their successors, eyewitness remembrances whose most
famous literary analogy might be Xenophon's Apomnemoneumata about
~ocrates." In a notoriously disputed passage in the Dialogue, he refers in
passing to Jesus'relationship with Peter, James and John:
'"It is said that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his
memoirs that this so happened. as well as that he changed the names of two other
brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder' ..."12

Justin's phrase "in his memoirs'43 is rammatically ambiguous as it stands,

and has even been thought corrupt? Nevertheless, the specific argument
here, along with numerous references to "memoirs of the apostles" both
here and elsewhere, leaves no doubt that the phrase designates the Second
Gospel as the memoirs of Peter.

The phrase r a hxopvqpovciipara TGV hxm56Lwv occurs in Dial. 100.4;

101.3; 102.5; 103.6, 8; 104.1; 105.1, 5, 6; 106.1, 3h.4; 107.1: cf I Apol. 33.5; 66.3;67.3.
Although it was sometimes supposed that Justin used a harmony of the gospels (e.g. by
OSBORN 1973: 121), BARNARC)
1967 rightly concludes that Justin uses the term 'apostolic memoirs' to designate "evangelical narratives ... composed by the apostles or their
followers" (p56), which are "in substance identical with our Synoptic gospels" (p60).
HENGEI,
2000: 20 suggests more precisely that Justin's plural reference to 'apostles and
their successors' suggests not only that he knows or leas1 four such memoirs and the
identities of their authors, and most probably exucrly four. two apostles (Matthew, John)
and two 'successors' (Mark, Luke). 31-1.1 INZONI 1967 139 -40 and more recently
WECKEL 1999: 310 29 show that the only written gospels Justin uses and cites are the
four canonical ones. Cf similarly STANTON
2001.
Dial. 106.3: at TO ~ 1 m i v~ E T O V O ~ U K ~ V Uai.lrdv
I
I"I6rpov Eva r&v 13x0-

"

ordlov. ~ a y&ypdcpOai
l
kv roiq hxopvqpovclipuo~v abrot) ycyt;vqpkvov ~ u i
~ 0 6 ~ p0 ~, r dTOG K U ~& k k o y 660 h6Ekpo65, dodq Z E ~ ~ ~ U
d v~~O
a jIknwv0,J
p a ~ k v a ibv6pari TOG BoavspyGq, 6 koriv ukoi ppovtii~.. . .
43 kv r o i ~
ftnopvqpov~6puatv ~ 0 ~ 0 Note,
6 . just a few lines earlier, k v TO'^<
hnopvqpove6paoi ~&j-&noordkov
(Dial. 106.2).
" NB MnRc0Vlct.t 1997: 252 emends the admittedly awkward hnopvqpovc6puoiv
a0roG in MS Parisinus to hxopvtlpovelipaoiv <r&v &noor6kwv> alrroi). rhis
phrase is indeed used in the immediately preceding (106.1 ) and following ( 106.4)
context. The lectio di@cilror, however, is certainly the unemended text, as STANTON
2001: 7 also rightly notes. Cf also SKARSAUNL
2000 on M~Rc'ovfCli; note further
BYRSKOG
2000: 276 and n.llO. For an earlier argument against such an emendation see
also VAGANAY
1930: 151.

Syrian Memories of Peter

135

Despite occasional attempts to link this remark with the apocryphal

Gospel of peter:'
the identification of the passage concerned is in fact
unambiguous and unique among the ospels. Only Mark 3:16 refers to
Jesus "giving Simon the name" Peter? a phrase that Justin interprets as
- apparently drawing on
denoting a change of name (pcrwvopa~kva~)
early traditi~n.~'
And only Mark 3:17 gives the Aramaic or Hebrew nickname of the sons of Zebedee, ' ~ o a n e r ~ e s ' .In~ *other words, Justin knew
Mark specifically and uniquely as "the memoirs of ~eter"',4~
as indeed a
little earlier he identified the gospels as written by apostles and their
followers (Dial. 103.8).
Among other things, this obviously has important implications for the
place of Mark in shaping Roman memory of Peter. But for present purposes it is also significant to note the ease with which the Dialogue introduces this identification of that Gospel in the Ephesian context. For the
discussion with Trypho it is evidently not an apologetic motif, but can be
unproblematically affirmed.'* A connection between Peter and Mark is
often scornfully dismissed in modem critical literature. It seems to me a
case ripe for re-examination. Justin, at any rate, assumed Mark's role as
representative of Petrine memory to be a widely held assumption that was
-

"

5.g. PII~ I O F E R1990; GRAPPE

1995: 132 n32 and 235 n47, citing ARCIIAMWAULI
1909: 152-53. Cf also HAI.ll'iFR 1917: 173 n2. A full critique of the view that Justin
knew and used the Gospel of Peter was already offered by VACANAY
1930: 15 1-61.
"6 hndttqlt~v dvopa r@ Tipovt Ilkrpov. Lk 6:14, the closest parallel, uses the
verb h v 6 p a a ; ~ vand inserts ~ a lwhich
,
rules out Justin's understanding of the Marcan
phrase.
47 AS early as Paul's letters, 'Peter' or its Aramaic equivalent 'Cephas' had become
the name overwhelmingly used for this apostle, usually without the accompanying
'Simon'. The impression of a 'change'of name could be sustained even in the Gospel of
Mark (cf HENCrrL 2000: 262 n342). Justin finds in the written (y~ypdcpBat)account of
Mk 3:16 confirmation of the tradition (ro d x & i J ) about the change in the apostle's
name.
Although the Greek here is analogous to Mk 3:16, Justin in this case knows no
tradition of a change of name. The underlying name is usually assumed to be (x)wn 7 1 2
or, somewhat less plausibly, (x)tm713.
49 Cf similarly BARNARD
1967: 56; ABRAMOWSKI 1983: 353; see more fully THORNrON 1993, followed by Ht cKi 1 1999. 319-20; also HtN(;f-l. 1985: 68-69, 75 76. In the
earlier 20th century see also VAGANAY
1930: 151-52. GRAPPE1995: 132 n32 fails to
note the unique literary parallel with Mk 3:l(i-17. For the same reason BLACI,1994: 96
is also overly sceptical. The fact that Justin refers to Mark's link with Peter merely en
passant certainly does not make him "manifestly uninterested in this association"
(BLACK1994: 96): the context is in fact concerned with a very different matter, viz.
Christ's fulfilment of prophetic Psalms.
~f similarly AeRAMoWsKI 1983: 352. That its original purpose was specifically
antidocetic, as Abramowski also claims (cf 347 and passim), seems less self-evident to
me: but its potential usefulness in anti-Gnostic polemic is hardly in doubt.

"

"

136

Bockmuehl

not subject to serious doubt among Christians - whether in Rome, in Ephesus or for that matter in Syria. Justin has no personal memory to substantiate this claim, but he is representative of a wide Christian consensus that
pertained during the period of living memory.

Ignatius
We turn finally to St Ignatius (c. 3 5 4 . 1 lo), bishop of Antioch at the
beginning of the second century. On his journey to Rome for trial and
eventual execution he wrote a number of extant letters to churches along
the route of his journey. These writings reveal tantalizingly little about
Antiochene memories of Peter, despite the fact that the apostle was revered
as one of that church's founding figures. For present purposes, we must
forgo a detailed discussion of the continuing controversy about the authenticity of these letters, which has carried on for the last four centuries." My
working hypothesis, with the continuing (though not unchallenged) majority of scholarship since Zahn and Lightfoot, is to see the 'middle' recension of seven letters as authentic, and composed perhaps in the second
decade of the second century.52
Of course Ignatius, like Justin, may represent more than just Syrian
views. The importance of his writings is at least as great for our knowledge
of the church in Asia Minor as it is for S ria, and his letter to Rome sheds
interesting light on the situation there.' C.K. Uarrett, for one, regards
these letters to be very much more revealing of the situation in Asia Minor

'' Leading advocates o f a wholly

or substantially pseudepigraphic corpus include

WEIJENRORC 1969 and especially JOLY 1979 and RIIIS-CAMPS 1979 (note also thc latter's
arguments for a very early date o f the (four) authentic letters in RIUS-CAMPS 1989; R l t i s CAMPS 1995; RIUS-CAMPS 1997). Joly's position o f a pseudonymous authorship in the
later second century, crucially dependent on the hypothesis o f an interpolation in I'olycarp, Phil. 13, has recently found an enthusiastic advocate in HUBNER 1997 (subsequently expanded in ~ ~ C ~ B N E1999:
R
13 1-206, esp. 158--77). Important rebuttals o f the
earlier works have been offered by BAMMEL1982, SCHOEIXL 1985: 5-7 (cf Sclrot:i)i:l,
1992: 286-92), PAULSEN 1985: 4 and PAIJLSISN 1996: 935. 1iiJUNIcR'S article in the inaugural volume o f 7AC generated vigorous rebuttals in the same journal by I,INI)I(MANN
1997, EDWARDS 1998, SCI~OI.L.GFN1998 and VOC;T1999 (with further arguments against
Patripassian and anti-Marcionite interpretations in VCXT 2000. V w r 2001); the journal's
editors promised a concluding rejoinder by k i i i B N t R (see V w . r 1999: 63). although this
has yet to appear at the time o f writing. For a comprehensive survey o f 20th-century
ignatian scholarship (1870--1988, to be precise), see MUNIER1992.
52 Even so, the authenticity and the precise date are not crucial for my argument,
which is concerned with how Peter was portrayed by a named Syrian individual during
the period o f living memory (i.e. up to AD 200). For the significance o f the additional
spurious letters, see also SMITH 1986.
I' Note the choice o f title in TREVETT
1992.

Syrian Memories ofPeter

137

than of that in Syria. (He allows as a "guess", but does not uphold in practice, that Ignatius'response to Asia is conditioned by his experience in
Antioch.") It is true, of course, that his letters mention Antioch surprisingly rarely, and somewhat nervously (Phld. 10.1; Smyrn. 11.1-3; Pol. 7.1-2).
Rut as Christine 'I'revett has argued, this could also be because Ignatius
had reason to worry that his 'disciplinarian'approach to matters such as
Christianity's relationship with Judaism might not prevail in that church a justified concern, as Antioch's Christian leaders still found to their
dismay three centuries later.55
For our present discussion, we may simply note that Ignatius'very
limited Petrine references are in any case 'catholic'and uncontroversial, as
indeed for rhetorical reasons they would have to be. Hc continued, moreover, to be fondly remembered as a local saint in later centuries: his letters
were known;56and in the fourth century his relics were apparently returned
fiom Rome to a site near the Daphne Gate, where Chrysostom, then a local
presbyter, assumed them to be in the fifth."
Here, then, we may take lgnatius to be speaking of Peter as a member of
the Syrian church. Ignatius was probably a child when Peter and Paul first
came to Antioch, which makes later Antiochene and other patristic claims
about his immediate succession to Peter seem quite implausible.58 I'he
BARRETI"
1976: 240 (and passim). Much as NT scholars tend to treat epistolary and
other canonical authors, in BARRETT'S
hands Ignatius, too, becomes a man whose particular judgements (on Jews and Judaizers, in this case) are guided very much less by his
own setting and experience than by those of his intended readers.
Chrysostom, Adv. lud. 1.5; 4.7 and passim; cf WILKEN 1983: 68-79, 116-23.
Around two decades earlier, the Apostolic Constitutions similarly resist a seemingly
wide-spread attraction to Judaism (e.g.: 2.61; 6.25; cf 8.47.8), as does the Homoian (Arian) Longer Recension of lgnatius (cf SMITH 1986). MEEKS and WILKEN 1978: 18 conclude, "The active influence of Judaism upon Christianity in Antioch was perennial until
Christian leaders succeeded at last in driving the Jews from the city in the seventh
century." TREVUIT1992: 52-66 suspects that peace came to the church of Antioch after,
and quite possibly because, lgnatius departed (p. 600.
YJ The earliest reference is in Polycarp, Phil. 1 1 (cited in turn by Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
3.36), and in Chrysostom's day the Antiochene church evidently still knew the letters
(Hom. on St. Ignatius 4).
s7 Hom. on St. lgnatius 5. See previously Jerame. Vir. ill. 16.
SO, at Antioch, Chrysostom, Hom. on St. lgnatius 4; cf also Eusebius Hist. eccl.
3.36 (and note 3.22). Jerome, Vir. ill. 16 and Socrates, Hist. eccl. 6.8 regard him as third
in line from the Apostle Peter, but still an immediate disciple of the apostles. The sixthcentury chronicler John Malalas, also of Antioch, has Peter ordain first Euodius and later
lgnatius (IJist 10.246, 252). (In the context just cited, Socrates also reports a tradition
that lgnatius saw a vision of angels hymning the Trinity (cf Ignatius, Trall. 5.2) and
thereupon introduced the custom of antiphonal singing in the church. On this see
LIGI+TFOQT
1885: 2.1.30-3 1 .) For the Apostolic Constitutions (6.3.14), it is Paul who
ordains lgnatius, and Peter Euodius. It is an important argument for the latter man's

"

138

Bockmuehl

bishop himself gives no indication of any personal knowledge of Peter, or

for that matter of Paul. Ignatius is therefore a good example of someone
who may be writing out of a lively acquaintance with those in Antioch who
had personally known the apostle.

The Letter to Smyrncr

Of primary interest are two passages in the letters to Smyrna and to Rome.
First, in a much-discussed section of his letter to Smyrna, Ignatius either
quotes or at any rate paraphrases an early gospel tradition about the bodily
resurrection of Jesus (Smyrn. 3.1-3, LCI,):
"For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the Resurrection. And when
he came to those with Peter he said to them: 'Take, handle me and see that I am not a
phantom without a body.'59 And they immediately touched him and believed, being
mingled both with his flesh and spirit. Therefore they despised even death, and were
proved to be above death. And after his Resurrection he ate and drank with them as a
being o f flesh, although he was united in spirit to the Father."

We are here less concerned with the interesting question of Ignatius' docetic adversaries6' than with the implications of his statement about Peter.
First, it is clear that Ignatius mirrors the Pauline and Synoptic (rather than
the Johannine) perspective of Peter as the leading representative of the
disciples, both before and after the resurrection. The risen Lord appears "to
those around (nrpl) Peter", some of whom both may conceivably be
known either to Ignatius or to his contemporaries, if we take into account
both chronology and the uncomplicated informality of the description. The
phraseology identifying the Petrine group is familiar from the gospel of
Mark and its early second-century addition known as the Shorter Ending
(16.9 v . / . ; ~cf' 1.36). while the prominence of Peter among the witnesses to
the resurrection is stated or implied in Paul, all four canonical gospels and
~ c t s The
. ~ ~fact that he and his associates "despised" death suggests at

historicity that later tradition is most unlikely to have rnvenrrd a predecessor to a bishop
o f Ignatius' stature and importance.
59 3.2: ~ a 6 i 5 ~
np<ic; ~oric;n ~ p 11t.spou
i
I ~ L ~ E V .~ q q
a i ) ~ o i g ACrfkrc,
.
yrqicu-

cpqoa'tk p& K
60

U ~ ~ E T ETI
, O ~ K pi

S Q I ~ ~ V ~ ~O O
V ~~UTOV.

See e.g. recently the animated discussion in WUBNCR 1999, V < X ~2001
T el al.
See the circumspect discussion in H E C K ~ I 1999:
.
279 81 Recent studies o f the
Marcan endings include Kt LHOFFER 2000 and Cox 1993 (incl. pp. 139-45 on the Shorter
Ending).
C f lCor 15:s; M k 16:7, Lk 24:12, 34; Jn 21:l 22; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3: 15, 5:32;
10:39, 41; 13:31. Matthew is least clear about this, but 'the Eleven' appear in Mt 28: 16
and Peter is o f course explicitly entrusted with the kingdom legacy o f Jesus in Mt 16: 1819.

"

Syrian Memories of Peter

least the possibility that Ignatius knows Peter and some of those with him
to have suffered martyrdom.63
The quoted logion has been the subject of considerable debate.
Similarities with Luke 24:39 are generally conceded, but most scholars
consider it unlikely to derive from the canonical gospel tradition.64 Even in
antiquity the source was disputed: Origen proposed a document called
Doctrina Petri (possibly, but not necessarily identical with the Kerygma
~etrou),6'Jerome the Gospel according to the ~ e b r e w s while
, ~ ~ Eusebius
remained agnostic.67 Taking into account the presence of Peter and Petrine
motifs in the Ignatian as well as the Lucan context,68 it seems plausible to
suppose that Ignatius and Luke both paraphrase an early Petrine tradition
that identifies the risen Jesus as "flesh"((adp~) rather than an incorporeal
ghost (nvsijpa or 6atCldvtov).69
The combination of a resurrection appearance to 'those around Peter'
with a logion transmitted in a quasi-Petrine document raises tantalizing
questions about surviving reminiscences of Peter in Syria that may find
independent expression in Luke and Ignatius. Similarly, the affirmation in
v. 3 that Jesus "ate and drank with them after the resurrection"has both a
general parallel in Luke 24:41-43 (cf 24:30, 35) and an intriguingly
Petrine one in Acts 10:4 1 .70
Even if some sort of Petrine memory can here be sustained, it seems
nevertheless to be 'filtered' through Ignatius'anti-docetic and perhaps
apologetic intent in the context - a tendency that may already exist in the
cited source. We certainly cannot derive from this text any firm conclu'I'his is well demonstrated in BAUCKHAM
1992.
1985: 226; PAulatiN 1985: 92, who both assume
See the discussion in XHOEDL:L
an mdependent tradition. VOGT200 1 : 17 sees it as a compressed reformulation of Luke's
logion. Lk 24:39 reads, &err tdq ~cPp&gpoo ~ a rod<
i
1r6Saq pou 6rt k y b ~kpt
a b r b ~ :y ~ ~ q f i o cp~lr;
~ ~~ ta 16c.1c.
i
8t1 nvecpa oripwa ~ a borta
i
OGK E X E ~
~ a e G gt p k Beopeire E~ovra.
65 Princ. 1, pref. 8.
66
Vir. ill. 16.
67 Hist. eccl. 3.36.1 1.
68
Note Lk 24:33, 34, 43, etc.
69
Cf further S C H O ~ D E
1985:
L 228-29, who plausibly suggests that the frequently
adduced parallel in Philostratus",ife of Apollonius 8.12 illustrates "how certain pagan
opponents of Christianity went about providing an alternative to the story of Christ".
Cf also PAtiLSEN 1985: 93; SCtIOEDEL.. 1985: 227 (he suggests that Peter's speech
may also be echoed in Smyrn. 1.2 with its emphasis on Christianity's opening to the Gentiles in light of prophecy, p. 228). On the theme of eating and drinking after the resurrection, note further Jn 2 1:15 (the risen Jesus'conversation with Peter "atter breakfast'");
also Justin, Dial. 5 1.2 (where the theme even features in a passion prediction). VINLENT
1999: 270 denies any Petrine connection in Lk 24:39; but as VOGT 2001: 18 n17 rightly
points out, 24:34 does indeed make an appearance to Peter instrumental to the resurrection faith of the Eleven disciples (who might well be described as oi mpi nbrpou).
63

140

Backmuehl

sions about Ignatius' ability to draw on personal, or even second-hand,

memories of Peter. Nevertheless, it remains significant that, well within
the period of living memory, Petrine gospel tradition was confidently and,
it seems, uncontroversially, adduced against docetic interpretations of the
resurrection. In that respect, Ignatiusbppeal to Peter is not unlike Justin's7' the memory of Peter, quite possibly as an apostolic martyr, underpins the apostolic gospel and guards it against misinterpretation. Simon
Peter represents the centre of the gospel tradition like no other figure in the
early church.

The Letter to Rome

Our second Ignatian passage, Romans 4.3, plays explicitly on local memory of Peter and Paul. Ignatius is confident that his appeal to that communal
memory in Rome will serve as an effective cupratio henevolentiue, while
at the same time lending authority to his own emulation of the apostles"
fate (4.3):
"I do not give you instructions, as Peter and Paul did. They are apostles; I am just a
condemned man. They are free, but 1 am still a slave. But if 1 suffer, I shall become the
freedman of Jesus Christ; and 1 shall rise, free in him."?"

As he also does in Trall. 3.3 and Eph. 3.1 (cf 12.2), Ignatius takes pains to
distinguish his own position from that of the apostles, while taking for
granted that their ministry and teaching are remembered in Rome.
Although he himself is not an apostle, he wants to emulate the discipleship
of Peter and Paul.
Neither Ignatius nor any other ancient writer suggests that Peter, like
Paul, 'instructed' the Roman church in writing. The only other possibility,
therefore, is that Ignatius evidently appeals to a local memory of the personal presence, ministry, and (by implication) the martyrdom of both apostles in the capital.73 The uncomplicated, almost incidental nature of this
appeal suggests that this local memory of Peter could be safely taken for
granted when writing to the capital: for rhetorical reasons alone, not to
mention historical ones, the tradition of the apostle's death in Rome cannot
simply be of oriental origin.74Ignatius, although a Syrian, makes an appeal
Cf ABRAMOWSKI1983: 352.
I
kyd
o b ~ cbq
' Ilkrpoc; wul nufikoq S ~ u ~ & o o o pbupi i v . ~ K E ~ V OkAcG8~poi.
62 p i x p i vGv Sofihaq. &kk' hav xdQo, h x ~ k ~ b O ~ py ~o v5 f i o o p u'Iqooi)
~
Xplo~oi)
~ a ihvaoxfpopat
,
6v a h @ kA~b0cpoj.
73 Cf further SCHOPUEL
1985: 176-77; FISCHLR1993: 187 n25, previously Clil I MANN 1960: 125.
'7 Pace GRAPPE1995: 63, "De manikre assez paradoxale, les Ccrits mettant explicitement en lien la mort de Pierre avec Rome, loin de provenir de la cite du l,atium, ont en
commun une origine orientale." Even if Hippolytus, Gaius and the Canon Muratori may
be the earliest explicit Roman testimonies, local memory of Peter's death in Rome can be
"

Syrian Memories of Peter

14 1

of self-evident 'catholicity'. In view of this, it is all the more interesting

that this appeal is based neither on apostolic writings of the New Testament, nor probably on any other written source, but rather on orally transmitted memory that was evidently held in common in the East and the
What else might Ignatius know?

In the end, of course, the sum of these two passages still leaves Ignatius
relatively taciturn about Peter. The fourth-century interpolator of the
longer recension tried his best to compensate for this
but
Ignatius himself says little about Peter, and not a great deal more about
Paul - even when writing to a Pauline church like that in Ephesus (but cf
Eph. 12.2). One might have expected him to appeal more extensively to his
apostolic predecessors' testimony in discussing the passion and resurrection of Jesus or in seeking to win the support of the Roman church.
We can only speculate about the reasons for this silence; but one
consideration may be worth airing nonetheless. It would seem that Peter
was citcd as a figure of considerable importance for the diverse sorts of
Jewish Christian circles with whom Ignatius found himself at odds, and
whose vitality could be reflected in a range of writings ranging from
Matthew to the Pseudo-Clementines. On the one hand, various scholars
have pointed out that Ignatius shows a preference for the special material
in the gospel of Matthew ('M'). 'M'material seems to constitute a larger
proportion of Ignatius" gospel traditions than of Matthew'ss, even if he
sometimes uses it against the thrust of Matthew's redaction.77 At the same
time, of course, the viewpoints of Matthew and Ignatius seem pretty clearly at odds in a number of significant respects, especially on the Jewishness
of Christian faith and practice, the importance of Old Testament prophetraced archaeologically to the middle of the second century; and its local pedigree seems
plausibly documented in literary sources by late first and early second. What is indeed
"asset paradoxale", therefore, is the extent to which such recollection of Peter's death in
Rome so quickly became part of the bedrock of Petrine tradition in the East as well.
" The New Testament is silent on the matter. We have no evidence that Ignatius
knew relevant earlier texts like Asc. Isa. 4.2-3 or 1 Clem. 5.4 (notwithstanding Ign. Rom.
3.1; 4.3). which in any case describe Peter's suffering and martyrdom rather than any
'instruction' of the Koman church. Cf further BAUCKHAM
1992: 566, with respect to
SCI-IOEDEL
1985: 172-3 and BEYSCI~LAG
1956 (e.g. pp. 225-67); also pace FISCHFU
1993: 187 n25, 27. 1 expect to offer a fuller discussion of these texts elsewhere.
See e.g. Trall. 7.4 (Stephen assisted James, Linus Paul and Anencletus & Clement
served Peter); Magn 10.2 (Peter & Paul laid the foundation of the church at Antioch); cf
further Tars. 3.3 (Peter was crucified, Paul and James were killed by the sword) and the
Letter to Mary 4.1 (Idinus succeeded by Clement, a hearer of Peter and Paul).
TKI:VCTI 1992: 23; TREV1.n 1984: 60-64, following SrKEETER 1936: 504-507
and SMII SIBINC~A
1966.

"

142

Bockmuehl

cies, and the place of authority in the church. Indeed in some respects
Matthew may have been closer to the position of Ignatius'Judaizing opponents, as has been repeatedly suggested.78
If this is even approximately correct, it suggests that frequent recourse
to Peter might not have been straightforwardly in Ignatius' favour. In the
memory of Matthew and the Syrian church at least, Peter's Christianity
exemplified neither autocratic leadership nor a radical break with Jewish
identity and praxis. Ignatius, by contrast, may well have been Antioch's
first Gentile bishop. On the patristic view he was also the first after the
Jewish War, succeeding Evodius in AD 69.79If, despite certain historical
difficulties, this date and succession are even vaguely factual, we may ask
if Evodius may have died, whether violently or not, around the period of
Antioch's anti-Jewish pogroms of that same year." In due course, not
necessarily at once, this shadowy, but quite plausibly Jewish, figure would
have been replaced by Ignatius - a man who, as a Gentile, could more
easily represent the church to the city as a non-threatening religious group.
As such, he could have seen a diplomatic advantage in not placing too
much emphasis on Peter's association with the origins of his church.
In writing to the churches of Smyma and Rome, Ignatius appeals, like
Justin and Serapion, to a shared, 'catholic' memory of Peter. 'I-here are
reasons to suspect that in other respects lgnatius is not hlly representative
of mainstream Christian memories of Peter in Syria - or perhaps even in
~ n t i o c h . ~But
' those other memories must be the topic for another occasion. For now, we may conclude that Simon Peter appears here together
with Paul as an apostle and martyr in Rome, and he stands out as the leading source and authenticator of the apostolic gospel. lgnatius knows and
affirms a broadly supported tradition in this respect, which is clearly anticipated in the New Testament itself.82 This emphasis on a tradition of
Petrine memory is a focal point uniting the apostle's profile in the East and
West alike, and it constitutes an important link to the vitality of later Petrine traditions across a broad spectrum of second-century Christian belief.

" Cf similarly T K E V E1992:

~ 4546,SO-5 1; SIM1998: 270-87.
T9

Cf Eusebius' Chronicon and also, less specifically, t.iist. eccl. 3.22, 36. As I,rc;lr

1-

F
m
r 1885: 2.1.446-70 pointed out in an elaborate discussion, Eusebius' accession dates

are beset with a number of difficulties.

Cf Josephus, Ant. 7.4 1,46--53, 54-62, 10@-104, 108.
Cfsimiiarly TREVFTT 1992: 49.
Note already Gal 1: 18. The charge to 'remember' Peter and his teaching is perhaps
clearest in 2 Peter (1: 12- 15; 3: 1-2), but the importance of his role is evident elsewhere
too. Cf e.g. TROBISCH
2000: 87 88.

"

Syrian Memories of Peter

Works Cited
Abramowski, Luise, 'Die "Erimerungen der Apostel" bei Justin', in P. Stuhlmacher
(ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien: Vortriige vom Tiibinger Symposium 19112,
(WUNT 28) Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1983,34 1-53
Archambault, Georges (ed.), Justin: Dialogue avec Tryphon, A. Picard, Paris 1909
Bammel, Caroline P., 'Ignatian Problems', JTS 33 (1982) 62-97
Barnard, Leslie W., Justin Martyr: His Lije and Thought, UP, Cambridge 1967
Barren, C.K., 'Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius', in R. Ilamerton-Kelly and
R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity.
Essays in Honor of William David Duvies, Brill, Leiden 1976, 220-44
Bauckham, Richard J., 'The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature', in ANRW
2.26.1 (1992) 549-95
Bauer, Walter, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ET, R.A. Kraft el al., ed.
R.A. Krafi and G. Krodel, SCM, London 1972
Baum, Annin Daniel, 'Literarische Echtheit als Kanonkriterium in der alten Kirche',
ZNW 88 (1997) 97-1 10
Bellinzoni, A.J., The Sayings ofJesus in the Writings ofJustin Martyr, (NovTSup 17)
Brill, Leiden 1967
Beyschlag, Karlmann, CIemens Romanus und der Friihkatholiiismus, (Beitr. z. hist.
Theol. 35) Mohr Siebeck, Tabingen 1956
Black, C. Clifton, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Studies on personalities of
the New Testament, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia 1994
Brown, Raymond E., 'The Gospel of Peter and canonical gospel priority', N7X 33 (1987)
32 1-43
Brox, Norbert, Falsche Verfasserangaben:Zur ErWiirung derfruhchristlichen
Pseudepigraphie, (SBS 79) KBW Verlag, Stungart 1975
- 'Doketismus - eine Problemanzeige', ZKG 95 ( 1984) 30 1-14
Byrskog, Samuel, Story as History - History as Story: The Gospel Tradition ie the
Context of Ancient Oral History, (WUN?' 123) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 2000
Casurella, Anthony, 'Review of Christian Grappe, Images de Pierre aux deux premiers
sikcles (1 995); CRBR 10 (1997) 178-79
Cox, Steven Lynn, A history and critique ~Jscholarshipconcerning the Markan endings,
Mellen Biblical Press, Lewidon etc. 1993
Cullmann, Oscar, Petrus: Jiinger-Apostel-.Miirt~lrer.Das historische und das theologische Petrusproblem, 2nd rev. and augm. ed., Zwingli-Verlag, Zarich 1960
Denker, Jargen, Die theologiegeschichlliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums: Ein Beitrag
zur Friihgeschichte des Doketismus, (EHS 23.36) Lang, Berne I Frankfurt 1975
Duff, Jeremy N., A reconsideration ofpseudepigraphy in early Christianity, D.Phil. diss.,
Oxford University 1998
Edwards, Mark J., 'lgnatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Habner', 7AC 2
(1998) 2 14-226
Fischer, Joseph A., Die Apostolischen Vdter, (Schriften des Urchristentums) loth ed.,
Wiss. Buchges., Darmstadt 1993
Grappe, Christian, Images de Pierre aux dew: premiers si&cles,(EHPR 75) PUF, Paris
1995
Green, Joel B., 'The Gospel of Peter: source for a pre-canonical passion narrative?' ZNW
78 (1987) 293-301
Guijarro, Santiago, 'La Trayectoria y la Geografia de la Tradicibn Petrina Durante las
Tres Primeras Generaciones Cristianas', in R. Aguirre Monasterio (ed.), Pedro en la
lglesia Primitiva, Inst. San Jerbnimo, Editorial Verbo Divino, Estella 1991, 17-28

Bockrnuehl

Haeuser, Philipp, Des heiligen Philosophen und Martyrers Just inus Dialog mit dem
Juden Tryphon, (Bibl. d. Kirchenv. 33) J. KOsel, Kempten -- Munich 1917
Heckel, Theo K., Vom Evangelium des Markus rum viergestaltigen Evangelium, (WUNT
120) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1999
Hengel, Martin, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, ET J. Bowden, SCM, Idondon1985

The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An fnvestigurion of the
Collection and Origin ofthe Canonical Gospels, ET J. Bowden, SCM, London 2000

HUbner, Reinhard M., 'Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Rriefe des
Ignatius von Antiochien', ZAC 1 (1997) 44-72
- Der paradoxe Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im ,weiten Jahrhundert,

(VigChrSup 50) Brill, Leiden 1999

Joly, Robert, Le dossier d'fgnace diintioche, kd. de I'univ. de Bruxelles, BTUSSeiS 1979
Junod, Eric, 'Euskbe de CCsarCe, SCrapion d'Antioche et ~ ' ~ v a n g ide
l e Pierre: D'un
Evangile il un Pseudkpigraphe', Rivista di Storia e Lttteratura Religiosa 24 (1988) 316
Kelhoffer, James A., Miracle and mission: the authentication of missionaries and their
message in the longer ending of Mark, (WUNT 211 12) Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 2000
Lightfoot, J.B., The Apostolic Fathers, Part I / : S. Ignatius, S. Polycorp, 2 vols. in 3,
Macmillan, London 1885
Lindemann, Andreas, 'Antwort auf die "Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben
Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien"', ZAC 1 (1997) 185-94
Logan, Alastair H.B., 'Simon Magus', TRE 3 1 (2000) 272-76
LUhrmann, Dieter - Schlarb, Egbert (eds.), Fragmenfe apokvph gewordener Evangelien
in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache, (Marburger Theol. St.) Elwert, Marburg
2000
Marcovich, Miroslav (ed.), lustini Martyris Dialogw cum Tryphone, (Patr. Texte u. St.
47) De Gruyter, Berlin 1997
McCant, Jerry W., 'The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered', NZS 30 (1984) 258273
Meade, David G., Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relution.ship of
Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Ear& Christian Tradition, (WUN'r 39) Mohr
Siebeck, TUbingen 1986
Meeks, Wayne A. - Wilken, Robert L., Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four
C'enturies ofthe Common Era, Scholars Press, Missoula 1978
Munier, Charles, 'OQ en est la question d'lgnace d'Antioche? Bilan d'un sikle de
recherches 1870-1988', in ANRW 2.27.1 (1992) 359-484
Nicklas, T., 'ErzlUller und Charakter zugleich: Zur literarischen Funktion des "Petrus" in
dem nach ihm benannten Evangelienfiagment', VigChr 55 (200 1) 3 18-326
Osborn, Eric F., Jurtin Martyr, (BHT 47) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1 973
Paulsen, Heming, Die Briefe des Ignotius von Antiochia und der Brief dcs Polykurp von
Smyma, (HNT 18.2) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1985
- 'Ignatius von Antiochien', RAC 17 (1996) 933-53
Pilhofer, Peter, 'Justin und das Petrusevangelium', ZNW 81 (1990) 60-78
Rius-Camps, Josep, The Four Authentic Letters oflgnatius the Martyr, Pontifical
Institute, Rome 1979
- 'ilgnacio de Antioqufa, testigo ocular de la muerte y resurrecci6n de Jesus?' Bihlica
70 (1989) 449-73
- 'Indicios de una redacci6n muy temprana de las cartas autknticas de lgnacio (ca. 70 -90 d.C.)', Augustinianum 35 (1995) 199-2 14
- 'L'evangelista Mateu i I'apbstol Ignasi en confiontaci6 amb els cercles docetes de
Sfria', in J. Busquets (ed.), Fe i teologia en la histciria: Esttrdis en honor del Prof Dr.

Syrian Memories of Peter

145

Evangelista Vilanova, 287-301. (Scripta et Documents 56) Abadia de Montserrat,

Barcelona 1997
Robinson, J. Annitage - Montague Rhodes James, The Gospel According to Peter, and
the Revelation of Peter: Two Lectures on the Newly Recovered Fragments, Together
with the Greek Texts, C.J. Clay, London 1892
Rdwekamp, Georg (ed.), Egeria. Itinerarium - Reisebericht. Mi! Ausziigen aus Pelrus
Diaconus, De locis sanctis - Die heiligen Statten (Fontes christ. 20) Herder, Freiburg
etc. 1995
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm 'The Gospel of Peter: Introduction', in W. Schneemelcher and
R. McL. Wilson (eds.), New TestamentApocrypha, vol. 2, rev. ed. Clarke I
Westminster John Knox, Cambridge / Louisville 1992,2 16-222
Schoedel, William R., Ignatius of Antioch: A commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of
Antioch, (Hermeneia) Fomess Press, Philadelphia 1985
- 'Polycarp of Smyrna and lgnatius of Antioch', in ANRW 2.27.1 (1992) 272--358
Schbllgen, Georg, 'Die Ignatianen als pseudepigraphisches Briefcorpus', ZAC 2 (1998)
16-25
Sim, David C., The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism, (SNTW) Clark,
Edinburgh 1998
Skarsaune, Oskar, Review of Miroslav Marcovich (ed.), Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum
Tryphone (Berlin 1997), ZAC 4 (2000) 385-386
Smit Sibinga, J., 'Ignatius and Matthew', NovT 8 (1966) 263-83
Smith, James D.D., The lgnotian Long Recension and Christian Communities in 4th
Century Syrian Antioch, Ph. D. diss., Harvard Divinity School 1986
Stanton, Graham, Jesus Traditions and Gospels in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, UP,
Cambridge 2001
Strecker, Georg, 'The Pseudo-Clementines: Introduction', in W. Schneemelcher and R.
McL. Wilson (eds.), New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, rev. ed. Clarke I Westminster
John Knox, Cambridge / Louisville 1992,483--493
Streeter, B.H., The Four Gospels, 5th (rev.) impression Macmillan, London 1936
Taylor, Joan E., Christians and the holy places: The myth of Jewish-Christian origins,
Oxford UP, Oxford 1 New York 1993
Thornton, Claus-Jllrgen, 'Justin und das Markusevangelium', ZNW 84(1993) 93- 1 10
Trevett, Christine, 'Approaching Matthew from the Second Century: The Underused
Ignatian Correspondence', JSNT20 (1984) 59-67
- A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia Minor, (Studies in the Bible and
Early Christianity 29) Mellen, Lewiston 1992
Trobisch, David, The/irst edition of the New Testament, Oxford UP, Oxford Mew York
2000
Vaganay, Leon, L'kvangile de Pierre, (htudes bibliques) Lecoffre, Paris 1930
Vinzent, Markus, "Ych bin kein kbrperloses Geistwesen": Zum Verhiiltnis von Kdrugma
Petrou, Woctrina Petrin, Didaskalia Petrou und IgnSm 3', in R.M. Hikbner (ed.), Der
paradoxe Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im meiten Jahrhundert,
(VigChrSup 50) Brill, Leiden 1999,241-286
Vogt, Hermann J., 'Bemerkungen zur Echtheit der Ignatiusbriefe', ZAC 3 (1999) 50- 63
- 'Vertreten die Ignatius-Briefe Patripassianismus?' TQ 180 (2000) 237-5 1

- 'Sind die Ignatius-Briefe antimarkionitischbeeinflusst?'TQ 181 (200 1) 1- 19

Walker, Peter, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy
Land in the Fourth Century. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Clarendon, Oxford 1990
Weijenborg, Reinoud, Les lettres d'lgnace d'Antioche, Brill, Leiden 1969
Wilken, Robert L., John Chrysosrom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late
Fourth Century, University of California Press, Berkeley 1983

Wilkinson, John, Egeria's Travels to the Holy Land: newly translated @om the Latin)
with supporfing documents and notes, Ariel / Aris & Phillips, Jerusalem I Warminster
1981
Zahn, Tbeodor, Ignatius von Antiochien, Perthe, Gotha 1873

Der Herrenbruder Jakobus bei Hegesipp

Wilhelm Pratscher
Der Herrenbruder Jakobus war kein Jiinger des irdischen Jesus (Mk 3,3 135 11 Mt 12,46-50; Lk 8,19-21). Er gehorte aber - wohl aufgrund seiner
Christophanie l Kor 15,7 - schon friihzeitig zur Gemeinde in Jerusalem
und spielte in dieser eine immer wichtigere Rolle. Zur Zeit des soyenannten Apostelkonvents war er bereits im engsten Leitungskollegium, spiitestens nach dem Weggang des Petrus wurde er die dominante Personlichkeit
schlechthin. Sein EinfluD beschriinkte sich keineswegs auf Jerusalem, urnfaBte aber offenbar nur die Judenchristen (Gal 2,ll-14).
Der Herrenbruder Jakobus hat eine reiche ~irkungsgeschichte.'In der
werdenden katholischen Kirche blieb er als der erste Bischof Jerusalems,
als Ijeiliger und Miirtyrer in Erinnerung. Die jakobinische Gnosis feierte
ihn als den entscheidenden Offenbarungstriiger. Die vielEiltigste Wirkungsgeschichte aber hatte er zweifellos irn ~udenchristentun,2insbesondere des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts, von den judenchristlichen 'I'raditionen des
Johannesevangeliums (Joh 2,1- 1 1; 7,2-13) iiber das Nazarger- (Wieronymus. Adv. Pelag. 3.2) und Hebraerevangelium (Hieronymus, Vir. inl. 2)
bis hin zu den judenchristlich gepriigten Partien der Pseudoklementinen.

'

Vgl. PRATSC~IER
102-260; P A I N T 105-276.
~R
Der Term ,,Judenchristentum" wird im folgenden nicht primllr ethnisch im Sinne
der Herkunft der betreffenden Christen aus dem Judentum verstanden - ein solches Verstandnis ware aufgrund seiner Breite nicht mehr signifikant. Er wird auch nicht primtir
ideoioglsch verstanden als lehrm2iBig einheitliche GrMe - eine solche war das Judenchristentum nicht. auch wenn diesbezaglich in wesentlichen Fragen eine Einheitlichkeit
bestand. Er wird vielmehr prim& praxlsorientiert verstanden (wobei sich in dieser Praxis
natarlich theologrsche Grundentscheidungen spiegeln) als Bezeichnung fir diejenigcn
Christen jUdischer fierkunfi, die sich zu Jesus als dem Messias lsraels bekannten und
gleichzeitig weiterhin jadischen Traditionen verpflichtet wuBten (insgesamt oder in
wesentlichen Aspekten), vgl. STRECKFK
3 1 1 : Das Judenchristentum hielt ,,an der aberkommenen judischen Struktur von 'IReologie und Lebenshultung (Hervorhebung G.S.)
fest; insbesondere prakti~iertes die Forderungen des Gesetzes Moses mit seinen wesentlichen, auch ritualgesetzlichen Weisungen bis hin m r Beschneidungu. Nur wenn diese
zustimmen. C A R L E ~ O N
,,StrukturWnicht zu eindeutig festgelegt ist, kann man STRECKER
PAGLT740f weist zu Recht darauf hin, daB die Annahme einer ideologischen Einheit tnr
eine Definition unbrauchbar ist. Das Phiinomen des Judenchristentums ist so vielfliltig,
daB der Term tatsachlich als ,,umbrella term" bezeichnet werden kann (TAYI.OR3 13
u.6.).

148

Prabcher

Einen besonderen Platz in dieser Reihe nimmt Hegesipp ein3 (bei Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.4-18; 4.22.4)4. Fur die Funktionen und 'I'itel dcs
Henenbruders gilt das ebenso wie f"ur die Wertung seines Martyriums. Im
folgenden sollen nur die Aspckte des Textes in den Blick genommen werden, die seine thealogische Bedeutung und Stellung betreffen.

Die Funktionen des Jakobus

Jakobus als Priester
Eine grol3e Bedeutung hat die Kenniieichnung des Jakobus als Priester.
Nach 2.23.6 sei es allein ihm yestattet gewesen, .ra t i y w zu betreten.
Gemeint ist nicht, Jakobus habe als einziger Nichtpriester die Erlaubnis
zum Betreten des Heiligen gehabt,5 vielmehr ist er - im Gegeniibcr zum
amtierenden Yriestertum -- der einzig legitime Priester am Tempel. Jakobus
wird intentionaliter als Hoherpriester, als einiig legitimer Hoherpriester,
gesehen: Der Hegesippbericht spricht zwar nicht ausdrucklich vom Allerheiligsten, setzt es aber v o r a u ~Speitere
.~
Texte (der lat. und syr. Uhersetzer
Eusebs sowie Hieronymus, Vir. inl. 2 und Epiphanius, Pan. 29.4.3) explizieren das nur. Iler Rericht ist nicht als historischer mil3zuverstehen. als
hitte Jakobus als judenchristlicher Gegen-Hoherpriester gewirkt7 oder sei
wenigstens priesterlicher bzw. levitischer Ilerkunft gewesen.%tiglicherweise lag dem I-Iegesippbericht gar nicht primeir an historischer Genauig-

'

I-legesipp war ein aus dem Osten stammender, grofikirchlich ausgerichteter 'I'heologe. Euseb berichtet (tiist. eccl. 4.22.1) von seiner Reise nach Rom und dem dahei
erfolgten Zusammentreffen mit vielen Risch6fen. wobei er von allen die gleichc l.ehrc
erhalten habe. In dem folgenden wartlichen Zitat (4.22.20 berichtet er von seinenl Aufenthalt in Korinth, von seiner Freude an der rechten Lehre und van seinem lnteresse an
der Bischofsfolge in Ram. Euseb setzt also die Obcreinstimmung 1.tegesipps mit der
groOkirchlichen Lehrentwicklung voraus. Fraglich ist, ob Iiegesipp Juden- oder Heidenchrist war. (Belege bei PRATSCF~ER
105f Al I). Die Ungenauigkeit der Wiedergabe palllstinischer Verhaltnisse bzw. jadischcr 1,ebensweisen ist nicht t o ipso ein Argument gegen eine jadische (bzw. judenchristliche) Herkunft, da wir den Hegesipp-Text nicht mit
Sicherheit feststellen kbnnen und auch judenchristliche Tradenten keineswegs historisch
exakt vorgehen (wie schan die Darstellung des Jakobus zrigt). Jede Thesc geht von vorhergehenden Thesen aus. So ist auch Eusebs Meinung (Hist. eccl. 4.22.81, Hegesipp sei
Judenchrist gewesen, cine SchluDfolgerung.
' Wenn im folgenden die zucrst genannte (und bei weitem wichtigere) Euseb-Stelle
zitiert wird, geschieht das nur durch Stellenangabe. Die letztere Stelle setzt den Martyrertad des Jakobus voraus und versteht ihn indirekt als ersten Bischof Jerusalems.
wt.:le554 A I .
%it PAINTER126.
SOzuletzt wieder EISENMAN339 u.6.
RIESNER 2 14.

Der Herrenbrzrder Jakobus bei Hegesipp

149

keit, sondem nur an der Schriftgemill)heit der priesterlichen Charakterisierung des ~ a k o b u s . ~

Die Begrundung f i r das alleinige Recht des Jakobus, das IIeilige zu betreten, liegt in der Venvendung von Kleidung aus Leinen, nicht aus Wolle
(2.23.6). Wieder darf diese Notiz nicht als historisch richtige miDverstanden werden," sondern resultiert aus der Kenntnis der Tradition von der leinenen Priesterkleidung (Lev 6,3 u.6.). Auch theologisch leistet die Notiz
nicht, was sie will, da sie die Singularittit des Jakobus nicht stiitzt, sondern
ihn nur allgemein als Priester kennzeichnet. Insofern paDt sie gut zur
sonstigen legendarischen Ausschmuckung des Priestermotivs.
Auf welche Weise Jakobus das Priestertum ausUbte, zeigt der Schlussteil von 2.23.6: Allein pflegte er in den Tempe1 zu gehen. Man habe ihn
auf den Knien liegend und f i r das Volk um Vergebung bittend gefunden.
Seine Knie seien so hart wie die eines Kamels geworden, da er stiindig auf
ihnen gelegen sei, urn zu Gott zu beten und ihn um Vergebung f i r sein
Volk zu bitten. Das Gebetsmotiv wird gegen Ende des Berichts wieder aufgenommen (2.23.160: Der nach dem Stun von der Zinne und der Steinigung noch lebende Jakobus betet auf den Knien fUr seine Peiniger. Er tut
dies mit Worten Jesu aus Lk 23,34 und wird dadurch als Mgrtyrer in die
Niihe Jesu geackt. Die Intensittit des Gebetes wird insbesondere durch den
Vergleich mit den Knien eines Kamels erst eindrilcklich und bildhafi
herausgestrichen. Entscheidend ist: Der Priesterdienst des Jakobus vollzieht sich durch das Gebet. Der Tempel ist nach wie vor der Ort des Kultes. Der Tempeldienst ist aber kein Opferkult mehr, sondem besteht in Ankniipfung an Mk 1 1, I 7 // Mt 21,13; Lk 19,46; Apg 3,l im ~ e b e t . "Der
mediale Charakter des Tempels bleibt erhalten, wird aber in Aufnahme
prophetischer und frtlhchristlicher Traditionen umgedeutet. Die Intention
dieses Motivs ist klar: Jakobus wird durch seine Fiirbitte als der legitime
BAOCKHAM
1999a: 213--215 sieht hinter dem Motiv vom alleinigen Recht des
Jakobus, das Heilige zu betreten, die auf das eschatologische Israel bezogene Exegese
von Ez 44,15- 17 (nur die zadokidischen Priester darfen den Tempeldienst vemchtcn)
und Ps 118,19 (der Einzug durch die Tor der Gerechtigkeit): ,,...the account in Hegesippus, dating from long after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, was concerned
not with historical plausibility, but with exegetical deductions. James alone fulfilled the
conditions Ezekiel 44 lays down for entering the gates of the inner court of the Temple,
as James himself in Ps 1 18,19 says that he does!" (2 15). DaR Hegesipp gleichwohl die
Historizitit seiner Angaben voraussetzte, darfte anzunehmen sein.
lo Gegen EISLER
581; in neuerer Zeit EISENMAN
403f u.6. Ein Beispiel fir die Argumentation des letzteren unter Aufnahme der oben genannten f3elege bei Epiphanius und
Hegesippus: ,Da sowohl Hieronymus als auch Epiphanius diese Kopfbedeckung (siehe
Ex 28,39, W.P.) kausal mit der Tatsache in Verbindung bringen, daD er das Allerheiligste
des 'Tempels betreten durfte, k6nnen wir wohl schlieDen, daD Jakobus wirklich Ixinen
trug..." (406).
" Unter Zitierung von Jes 56,7.

150

Prutscher

Vertreter seines Volkes gezeichnet, der die Wegnahme der Siinde bewirken
soll. Er ist der einzig legitime Priester - und damit auch ktoherpriester.
Diese Auserwaltheit zeigt sich besonders auff'iillig in seiner Charakterisierung als Nasiriier (2.23.5): Schon vom Mutterleib an sei er heilig
gewesen. Wein und geistige Getriinke babe er nicht getrunken und auch
kein Fleisch gegessen. Er habe sich nicht die Haare schneiden lassen, kein
01 verwendet und kein Bad genommen. Hier liegen verschiedene Motive
vor. Die Heiligkeit vom Mutterleib an, die sich im Ver~ichtauf Alkoholgenull und Haasschnitt Bukrt, kennzeichnet nach Num 6,3.5 und Ri 13,4.7.14
den Nasirger (Haarschnitt und WeingenuD werden auch Ez 44,20f erwiihnt,
freilich nicht in nasiriiischer Akzentuierung). Der Verzicht auf Fleisch hat
im Verzicht auf das Essen von Unreinem Ri 13,4.7.14 eine Parallele, eventuell ist bei diesem Motiv aber nicht mehr der den Nasiraer beschreibende
kultische Aspekt prggend, sondern der a~kctische:'~
Jakobus ware dann als
Vegetarier verstanden. Der asketische Aspekt ist jedenfalls in den beiden
letzten Motiven gegeben: Venicht auf die Verwendung von 01 zur KElrperpflege, ebenso auf die Beniitzung eines ((iffentlichen) Bades, ein kulturkritischer ,4spekt,I3 der die Verwurzelung des Jakobus in den genuinen
Traditionen Israels zeigen soll.
Die Kennzeiehnung des Jakobus als eines lebensliinglichen Nasirlers
trim sicher nicht den historischen ~ a k o b u s .Zwar
' ~ kannte er durchaus einma1 cin zeitlich begrenztes Nasirat auf sich genommen haben (und Hegcsipp einen Reflex davon bewahren), doch lZlf3t sich darilber iiberhaupt
nichts Sicheres sagen. Immerhin war er dieser religi6sen Institution gegeni i k r psitiv eingestellt, wie Apg 21.23f belegt. Das Motiv ist ~umindcst
literarisch iiberh6ht und geh(lrt wie das der Askese in den Bereich der
Personallegende - ad mahrern Iacobi gloriam. Als einer, der schon vom
Mutterleib an & y i q ist, soll er von den ilbrigen Aposteln abgehoben und in
einmaliger Weise ausgezeichnet werden. Nur in dieser Einmaligkeit, in
diesem grundlegenden Hineingestelltsein in den Bereich des IIeiligen,
kann er die priesterliche Funktion giiltig ausfillen. Das Motiv des NasirE
ers, das an sich mit dem des Priesters nichts zu tun hat, wird bei Hegesipp
zu einer bedeutenden Sttitze der These der Pontifex-Funktion des Jakobus."
l 2 Jakobus soll offenbar als Vegetarier beschrieben werden, wie EIsr NMAN 339,
REHNHEIM
214 u.a. richtig meinen. PAINTER
126 halt es fir mOglich, daD der Hegesippbericht das aus judenchristlichen vegetarischen Traditionen schOpfte (Irenlius, Adv. haer.
1.24.2; 1.28.1; Epiphanius, Pan. 30.15).
I' Nach BAUCKHAM
1999b: 214 handle es sich bei alledem um ,,a case of avoiding
luxury".
'"egen
E I ~ E N M A339.
N
Vcrmutlich ist das Nasiraermotiv wegen des personallegendarischcn Charakters
jlingcr als das Priestermotiv.

"

Der tierrenbruder Jakobus bei Hegesipp

Jakobus der M;ssinnar

Neben dem aus dem Traditionsbereich Israels stammenden. Paradigma des
Priesters zur Reschreibung der Funktion des Jakobus steht das insbesondere aus der frilhchristlichen Tradition stammende: Er ist der entscheidende Missionar der ersten Gemeinde: Auf der Textebene ist er sogar der
einzige. Die 2.23.4 genannten Apostel spielen (anders als in der parallelen
R I-Quelle der Pseudoklementinen) keine Kolle. Alles ist konzentriert auf
Jakobus. Er verkilndigt Jesus als den Messias und gewinnt viele fir den
Glauben, erweckt aber auch den Zorn der Gegner. Im Unterschied zum
~riestermotiv'~
zieht sich das Missionarsmotiv durch den gesamten Text:
2.23.9 werden einige der Vertreter der sieben jiidischen Gruppen (vgl. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.5) for den Glauben an den Messias Jesus gewonnen," und zwar allein durch ihn. Nach 2.23.10 w&en sogar viele der
& p ~ o v z qdcs Volkes zum Glauben gekommen, nach 2.23.14 ist das Eryebnis dcs iiffentlichen Aufirittes des Jakobus auf der Zinne des Tempels,
daD viele voll ijberzeugung in L,obpreisungen ausbrechen. SchlieBlich lautet 2.23.18 der Riickblick des Erihlers, Jakobus sei ein glaubwiirdiger
Zeuge der Messianitiit Jesu gewesen.
%um mehrmaligen Hinweis auf das erfolgreiche missionarische Wirken
kommt die ursachliche Verkniipfung von Verkiindigung und Tod: 2.23.10
fihrt das Glaubigwerden sogar vieler &p~ovz&q
zum Aufruhr und zur Bitte
an Jakobus um Widerruf. Als dieser jedoch weiterhin flir Jesus Zeugnis ablegt, bedauern die Gegner" diese Bitte, beschlieSen seinen Tod (2.23.14f)
und setzen ihn im folgenden in die Tat um. Die missionarische Wirksamkeit des Jakobus l8st den Konflikt aus und ist somit das zentrale Paradigma in der Schilderung seiner Funktionen. Jakobus ist der entscheidende
missionarische Repriisentant des frilhen Christenturns. Mit dem historischen Jakobus hat das nur zum Teil zu tun. Nach Gal 2,9 ist er immerhin
einer der I-lauptverantwortlichen flir die judenchristliche Mission (in der
Formel Gal 2,7f ist Petrus fUr die judenchristliche Mission zustbdig).
Nach Gal 2.1 1-14 kiimmert er sich um die Judenchristen in der Diaspora Mission im strengen Sinn wird man das nicht nennen k8nnen. Dagegen ist
er bei Hegesipp ganz unproblematisch auch die in der Verktkndiyung
zentrale Pers6nlichkeit. Fr bleibt seinem Zeugnis bis zurn Martyrium treu.
Das Missionarsmotiv ist freilich in kaum ilberbietbarer Weise legendarisch
Dies findet sich nur am Anfang und am Ende des Hegesippberichts: 2.23.6

-l6

bzw.

2.23.16f.
l 7 Wie problematisch eine zu direkte historische Auswertung des Negesipptextes ist,
zeigt allein der Umstand, daD nach 2.23.9 die erwiihnten sieben Gruppen des Volkes
weder an die Auferstehung noch an das zukanftige Gericht nach den Werken geglaubt
htftten.
l8 Sic sind pauschal ,,die Schriffgelehrten und Pharisftet+'.

iiberhOht: Die ganze missionarische Kraft der friihen Kirche ist gleichsam
in Jakobus vereint.
Im Rahmen der Darstellung des missionarischen Wirkens des Jakobus
taucht eine Wendung auf, die eine ausgesprochene crux darstellt: ,,Wet ist
die Tar Jesu'?" (2.23.8,12). Um einen Abschreibfehler ( 8 6 p statt %pa)'9
kann es sich infolge des zweimaligen Vorkommens nicht handeln; auch ist
die UmschriA Wpa fiir die Tora uniiblich; nicht zuletzt mWte das Interrogativpronomen T i statt Ti5 lauten. Das Verstflndnis der Wendung thipa
roc' Irpoi, im Sinne von ,,Tar zu ~esus"~'paDt aufgrund der personalen
Antwort (2.23.8: Jesus ist der Erltiser; 2.23.13: Warum fragt ihr mich Uber
den Menschensohn?) ebenfalls nicht. Der I-Iinweis auf die Bildrede von
Jesus als der Tiir (Joh 10:7,9)~'erkllrt zwar auch nicht das merkwilrdige
Syntagma, bei dern ja Tilr und Jesus nicht identifiziert, sondern einander
zugeordnet werden. Wohl aber macht der Hinweis auf Joh 10 den motivgeschichtlichen Kontext deutlich: die Erlauterung der soteriologischen
Funktion Jesu mit Hilfe der TUrmetaphorik.
Der SchriAbezug wird auch in einer weiteren Interpretation als Hinterhatten auf Ps
grund der Wendung angesehen. Schon H.J. Schoe s
1 18,202' hingewiesen, was auch R. Bauckharn tutP' und in Kombination
mit Jes 54,12 xu einer respektablen These ausbaut: Jes 54,12 (die Tore des
eschatologischen Zion) und Ps 118,20 (das Tor Jahwes, durch das die
Gerechten einziehen) gehtirten in die frfihchristliche metaphorische Rede
vom messianischen Tcmpel. Die architektonischen Merkmale des messianischen Tempels seien metaphorisch auf das Heilswerk Jesu und die christliche Gemeinde angewandt worden. Aus ,,TorTTilr Jahwes" sei dabei ,,Tor/
Tilr Jesu" geworden. In der Jakobus zugesprochenen Exegese sei ,,JahweG
durch ,,Jesusb' interpretiert und ersetzt worden - unter Hinweis auf die
Verbindung beider durch den Kyrios-Titel. Das Tor JahweslJesu sei Jesus
selbst als das Tor des eschatologischen ~ e m ~ e l sDiese
. ~ ' enge Verbindung
Jahwe-Jesus 1mt die negative Reaktion der Gegner begreiflich erscheinen.
Auch ist die schriftgelehrte Exegese schon beim Priester-Motiv vorausgesetzt. Freilich bleibt bei dieser Losung ein g r o k s Problem: sie erkliirt zwar
WE10 554 A 1; DIBE1,IlJSi 6RI:EVEN 13 A3.
HENG~L.
88; EISENMAN
535.
SCHWARIL
69, PA~NTER
127 ASO. PAINTERweist hier auch auf das venvandte
Motiv des Weges hin.
SCHOEPS
1949: 4 14; weitere Belege bei PRATSCHI.K
1 13 A34.
3s 118 spielt in der frahchristlichen Christologie eine wichtige Rolle, vgl. nur Mk
1 1,911Mt 2 1,9; Lk 19,38; Joh 12,13; Mk 12,lOfll)vlt2 1,42; Lk 20,17.
B A U C K ~ ~1999b:
A M 209f.
Ebda 210: James interprets 'the LORD' as Jesus, and explains that the gate is
Jesus in his role as the Saviour (cf. Ps 118,21) granting enhance into the Temple."
(anlich 232).
"

*'

"

"
''

Der Herrenbruder Jakohus bei Hegesipp

153

den traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund des Syntagmas, nicht aber dieses selbst. Sie setzt n h l i c h die Ursprilnglichkeit und Sinnhaftigkeit des
Syntagmas auf der Textebene voraus. Dadurch bleibt unklar, wieso auf die
Frage nach der ,,Tur Jesu" mit ,,Jesus6' geantwortet werden kann.
Gut mliglich bleibt deshalb auch die haufig vertretene Auffassung, statt
von ,,Jesusu sei ursprilnglich von ,,Heii/Rettung" die Rede g e ~ e s e n . 'Die
~
Verwechslung von YI'ttr, und ;rYl'ttr, ist relativ leicht m6glich. Danach w b e
ursprilnglich nach dem ,,Tor zum Heil" gefragt worden. Die Antwort, Jesus
sei der Retter, wiirde durch die Aufnahme des vorausgesetzten Stichwortes
sehr gut passen. Auch die Antwort auf die Frage nach der TUr Jesu geht
mit dem Winweis auf den im Ifimrnel herrschenden und wiederkommenden
Menschensohn in dieselbe Richtung - trotz des jeweils eigenen Gehaltes
von ,,Erl6serU und ,,MenschensohnbL;die Variante spiegelt nur das christologisch Mtigliche. Das Problem bei dieser Ableitung scheint nur die Annahme einer (wohl) ararnaischen Vorlage zu sein, wodurch eine weitere
llnbekannte eingeffihrt werden muDte. Auch wenn die IAsung der crux
offen bleiben muf3, sachlich wird bei der letzten Deutung die soteriologische Funktion Jesu in der Antwort auf die gestellte Frage in gleicher
Weise zum Ausdruck gebracht wie bei der vorhin e r w h t e n Interpretation.

Die Titel des Jakobus

Die theologische Wertung des Jakobus kommt nicht nur in der Darstellung
seines Wirkens zum Ausdruck, sondem auch in den ihm zugeschriebenen
Titeln.
Im strengen Sinn noch kein Titel liegt bei Bruder des Herrn vor (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.4). Hegesipp greift hier eine alte Bezeichnung auf
(Gal 1,19), die Jakobus durch den Bezug auf seine Verwandtschaft niiher
charakterisierte, obwohl man das in der Regel gar nicht ffir nlitig hielt:
lKor 15,7; Gal 2,9.12; Apg 12,17 u.6. wird nur der Name ohne niihere
Kennzeichnung genannt. Das Syntagma ist bei Hegesipp nicht weiter
betont, es dokumentiert allerdings die WertschBtzung der leiblichen Verwandten Jesu, die freilich je nach Tradentenkreisen unterschiedlich ausgepr6gt war.
Der Gerechte

Ein ausgesprochen titularer Gebrauch liegt dage en bei G i ~ a vor.

q Der
Titel ist weit verbreitet. Er findet sich zuerst2Cj im HebriIerevangelium
26

A34.

SO tB. SCHUEPS
1949: 4 14 A l ; BRANDON124 A2; BRUCE 1 14f; PRAl"SCt1ER 1 13

'' PAINTER 125 vermutet, Jak 5,6 k6nnte den Titel ,,der Gerechte" voraussetzen. Vom

(Hieronymus, Vir. inl. 2) und Ev l'hom 12, weiters bei I'seudojosephus

(bei Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.20) sowie in der gnostischen und grookirchlichen Tradition (2.B. 1Ap. Jac., NIiC V, 32.3; 2Ap. Jac., NIiC V, 44.14
u.6. bzw. Klemens von Alexandrien, Hyp 6 bei Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.3;
Origenes, Cels. 1.47 u.6.). Fiir Hegesipp ist er aukrordentlich typisch
(2.23.4, 7, 12, 15 bis, 16 bis, 17, 18). Von der Zeit Jesu an bis in die eigene
Gegenwart hinein sei der Titel allgemein ublich gewesen (2.23.4).
Die erste Begriindung fur den Titel ist die Unterscheidung des Jakobus
von Trlgern desselben Narnens (2.23.4). Diese Regriindung trBgt historisch
nichts aus. Im Neuen Testament wird Jakobus anders oder uberhaupt nicht
nliher bezeichnet, sie geht wohl auf Hegesipp oder seine Quelle bzw. Tradition zurilck. Sie trlgt auch sachlich nichts aus, weil sie keinerlei
Anhaltspunkte fiir die Wahl gerade diese Titels bietet.
Das ist ganz anders bei der 2.23.7 vorliegenden Begriindung: das iiberma13 der Gerechtigkeit des Jakobus. Erliiuternd heiDt es: Er war die Gerechtigkeit, van der die Propheten sprechen. Sollte es sich dabei ebenfalls
um einen Titel hande~n,~'worauf die Satzkonstruktion hinweisen kannte,
wilre aber kein anderer Sachverhalt beschrieben als bei 6I~aroq.Mit dieser
Begrandung ist sicher historisch Richtiges angedeutet. Immerhin verlangte
Jakobus auch von den Judenchristen der Diaspora die Einhaltung dcr rituellen Toravorschriften (Gal 2,ll- 14). entsprechendes gilt umso mehr f i r
Jerusalem. Es ist gewiB kein Zufall, dal3 er sich in Jerusalem vie1 langer
halten konnte als die Mitglieder des Zw6lferkreises (oder gar die Wellenisten um Stephanus). In der immer prekiirer werdenden Stimmung vor
dem Beginn des Jiidischen Krieges ist das kaum anders zu erklken, als daB
er in dieser Hinsicht nicht negativ aufgefallen ist. In dieselbe Kichtung
weist auch der Protest der Pharisiier gegen die durch den Hohenpriester
Hannas I1 betriebene Hinrichtung des Jakobus (Josephus, Ant. 20:197203): Er richtete sich zwar unmittelbar gegen die illegitime Einsetzung
eines Gerichtshofes und die Fiillung eines Todesurteils. Bei dem Protest
gegen das Verfahren als solches wird man aber kaum den Protest gegen die
Begrllndung des Todesurteils ausnehmen kdnnen. Die Pharisaer werden
auch die sadduzSiische Begrundung des Todesurteils abgelehnt haben.
Das Aufkommen des 'I'itels Siicaq setzt eo ipso ein hohes MaD an
Kontext der Ausbeutung der Arbeiter her assoziiert der Verfasser das Motiv der
Verfolgung der Gerechten. Ein titularer Rezug legt sich hier aber kaum nahe. WAKI) 801
ist zu Recht zurUckhaltender: ,,In the I-etter of James 5:6, the just one is the one killed by
the wicked rich, a description in line with the Jewish view of the righteous martyr..."
Eine andere Frage ist, ob der Titel eventuell schon zu Lebzeiten des Jakobus entstand,
was nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann (vgl. BALICKIIAM
1999a: 17: ,,perhaps already
before his death, certainly thereafter").
So BAUCKHAM1999b: 206f. Er sieht in diesem Titel eine Variante LU Gilcaio~.

Der Herrenhruder Jakobus be; Hqesipp

155

Observanz von Tora und mtindlicher Halacha v o r a u ~ . *Von

~ der Nachwelt3' brauchte das nur noch verkliirt zu werden, so daO Jakobus als der
exemplarische Gerechte verstanden werden konnte, wie etwa Simon hen
Onias (Josephus, Ant. 12:43,157; mAv 1:2). In Jakobus sah man in der
judenchristlichen Tradition erfillt, was in der Tradition vom ~ e r e c h t e n ~ '
zu sagen war (vgl. nur Jes 3,lO; 53,ll; 57,l; Ps 1,5f u.6.). D d er das
Martyrium erlitt, pradestinierte ihn geradezu, als der leidende Gerechte in
Erinnerung zu bleiben.
Von grCiI3ter Bedeutung ist schlieI3lich fdr die theologische Wertung des
Jakobus als des exemplarischen Gerechten die Parallelisierung mit Jesus.
Dieser gilt in der friihchristlichen Tradition allyemein als der Gerechte
schlechthin (2.B. Mt 27,19; I,k 23,47; Apg 3,14; 1 Petr 3,18; 1 Joh 2,l).
Wenn Jakobus bei Hegesipp so betont als der Gerechte gezeichnet wird,
steht er f i r die Tradenten dieser Auffassung in unmittelbarer Parallelit& zu
Jesus. Die an der Passionsgeschichte der Evangelien orientierte Darstellung des Martyriums bei Hegesipp und in den Parallelen R I-Quelle und 2
Ap ~ a c bestiitigt
~*
und verstiirkt das nur noch.
Bei der Wertung Jesu als des Gerechten ist die Betonung der Ubereinstimmung mit der Tradition Israels vorausgesetzt, freilich nicht in strenger
pharisliischer Perspektive, sondern in der von Jesus behaupteten Ubereinstimmung seines Verhaltens mit dem Willen Gottes. Dieser steht hinter den
expliziten Formulierungen von Tora und Halacha und kann in diesen gegebenenfalls nur unzureichend zum Ausdruck kommen. Indem Jesus den
urspriinglichen Gotteswillen eschatologisch proklamiert und in seinem Tun
in Kraft setzt, erweist er sich als der wirklich Gerechte. Gerecht sein heifit
nicht, quantitativ die Tora erflullen, sondern qualitativ. Durch die Parallelisierung mit Jesus ist ein iihnliches Verstiindnis von Gerechtigkeit auch f i r
Jakobus anzunehmen. So sehr der quantitative Aspekt bei ihm in deutlich
anderer Weise als bei Jesus gegeben ist, durfie doch aufgrund der Parallele
der qualitative der entscheidende sein.
A L \ I K ist
~ ~aufgrund
~
seiner HHufigkeit der prHgende Titel des Jakobus
bei Hegesipp. Zum Teil wird er ohne Hinzufdgung des Namens venvendet
(2.23.12,15 bis, 16 bis, 17, 18). Er n8hert sich gleichsam einem Eigennamen - eine auBerordentlich hohe Wertschgtzung: Nicht einmal sein Name
ist nCitig, wenn man von ihm redet. Sein Titcl genilgt.33
Das wird allgemein anerkannt. Vgl. nur RAUCKHAM214; PAINTER 125.
Das Martyrium spielte zweifellos eine wichtige Rolle bei der Festigung des %!catog-Titels. Fur die Nachwelt war Jakobus damit eo ipso ein leidender Gerechter. Painter
157 sieht Jakobus 2.R. in ,a succession of righteous sufferers including Jesus, Stephen,
and James the son of Zebedee".
3' Dazu umfassend MACH.
Vgl. dazu noch den Abschnitt Ober die theologische Wertung.
33 Auch darin besteht eine erstaunliche Parallele xu Jesus, dessen Titel ,,Christusm
"O

'''

,, Oblias "

Eine ausgesprochene Crux liegt in dem "Titel Oblias vor. Der diesbezugliche Text lautet 2.23.7 lapidar: ,,Er war ein Oblias, was im Griechischen
lu;ptoxfi zo6 Aao6 heist." Eine ganze Reihe von Liisungsversuchen wurde
vorgetragen. Manche sind sprachlich weit hergeholt und sachlich nicht mit
der griechischen ~bersetzungverbunden, sodass sie nicht ernsthaft in
,Y
E.
Frage kommen, wie n+w (Gesandter: H.J. ~ c h o e ~ sK) ~ ~~ (Anhiihe:
~tauffer)~',K ~ (Korbgeflecht
K
: E. Meyer - W. ~ a u e r oder
) ~ ~ KL/QK
(Trauernder: S. ~ e r o ) ~ Bei
' . der Rilckflihrung auf BY+ 3 K (Vater des Volkes: A. ~chlatter)" ist zwar der Bezug zum ha@ der ~bersetzunggegebcn,
nicht aber der zu mptoxfi. Zudem dilrfte der Wegfall des o doch nicht
ganz unbedeutend sein.
Auch die RUckfUhrung auf BY %Y (Schutzwall des Volkes: H.J. 1,awlor)39 ist aufgrund des letzteren Umstandes nicht ganz unproblematisch,
obwohl sie ansonsten hijchst interessant ist und vielleicht die grgfite
Wahrscheinlichkeit fdr sich hat. R. ise en man^' miichte dem Problem des
Wegfalls des n entgehen, indem er die zweite tialfte des Wortes Oblias
von ka& ableitet; hinter der ersten Silbe Ob- sieht er ein TY oder rYn
(Schutz, Bollwerk). Die zweisprachige Herleitung ist freilich schwer denkbar, ebenso wie die Anderung von T zu f3. lmmerhin ist bei dieson I,&
sungsversuchen die griechische ~bersetzungin Ansatz gebracht - ein ganz
gewichtigcs Argument.
Das gilt auch f"ur die Liisung von R. ~ a u c k h a m ~der
' , den merkwurdigen
Titel vom Syntagma BY 5 3 1 (Wall dcs Volkes) her erklgrt. Als Hintergrund verweist er auf das friihchristliche Selbstverstandnis als des esehatologischen Tempels, das in vielfiiltiger Weise zu belegen sei: z.B. die
Christen als Steine des Tempels 1 Ptr 2,5; die Apostel und Propheten als
Fundament Eph 2,20; Petrus als Fels, auf dem der Tempel errichtet ist Mt
16,18; Jesus Christus als Fundament 1 Kor 3,11 oder als SchluBstein Eph
2.20; die Slulen Jakobus, Petrus und Johannes Gal 2,9. Jakobus als
,,Schutzwall des Volkes" passe gut in diese Metaphorik. Die Grundlage
dieser Beschreibung sei Jes 54,11 f, ,,the key prophetic passage describing
schon in neutestamentlicher Zeit immer starker als Eigenname verwendet wird.
SCHOEPS
1950.
35 S T A U F F ~
134f
K A1I .
36
NEVER/
BAUFR 3 13.
37 GFKO 440.
38 %HI,ATTER
80.
j9 LAWLOR8.
40
EISENMAN455.
" BAUCKHAM
1995: 448-450; 1999b: 206-208. PAINTER127: "...0blras may bc an
inaccurate transliteration o f the Hebrew for 'Bulwark o f the People'," legt sich aber sonst
nicht fest.

"

Der Herrenbruder Jakobus bei Elegesipp

157

the architectural features of the eschatological ion".^^ V 12 finde sich das

entscheidende Stichwort 521 (hier: Umfassungswall). Zwar laute die
iSbersetzung in LXX mpifbhq, nicht m p t o ~ q ,doch letzteres sei eine
iiberaus passende Wiedergabe. Positiv an dieser LISsung ist nicht nur die
Beriicksichtigung der griechischen ~bersctzung,sondern auch die Einordnung in die Tempelmetaphorik des friihen Christentums. Problematisch
scheint mir nur die sprachliche Gestaltung: Der Wegfall des n am Ende
und insbesondere der Wegfall des 1 bci gleichzeitigem Aufiauchen des o
am Anfang des Syntagmas.
Auch die L6sung, Oblias sei Verschreibung mr ObdiasIObadja, scheint
nicht grundstCtzlich Uberholt zu sein. Sie geht auf C. Torrey zuriick, der
eine Anspielung an den kaniglichen Hofbeamten Obadja 1K6n 18,3-16
annahm, der die Jahwepropheten vor Ahab und Isebel schiitzte. Diese eher
unverstiindliche Anspielung ersetzten K. Baltzer und H. KISster durch Obd
1. Die Verbindung von m p t o ~ r und
j d$%iaq ist bei dieser L6sung verbaliter, nicht bloD der Sache nach wie 1 K6n 18, gegeben. Auch die 2.23.7 folgende (fieilich mit dem Stichwort 61~atm6vqverbundene) Rede vom
Prophetenzeugnis w&e so gut verstehbar. Der Ehrentitel rb&jia5/0badja~~
M r d e den Ebed-Jahwe von Deuterojesaja assoziieren lassen (auch ohne
Bezuy auf Obd 1); immerhin wird der Herrenbruder Jak 1.1 als koi,
60ijhoq bezeichnet. Bei dieser Interpretation w k e Jakobus als fdr das Volk
leidender und sterbender (und es so beschlltzender) Gottesknecht verstanden und wie bei S i ~ a t weng mit Jesus verbunden worden. Sein Wirken
und Leiden warden jedenfalls bei dieser L6sung bestens zusammenpassen.
Freilich - es bleibt die Ungesichertheit einer Textverderbnis und insbesondere das Problem der griechischen Ubersetzung. Letzteres diirfte vielleicht
doch den Ausschlag gegen diese Interpretation geben.

Die theologische Wertung d e s Martyriums

Schon bisher wurde deutlich, da13 das Wirken des Jakobus in enger Parullele zu dem Jesu beschrieben wird: Von seiner Gerechtigkeit sprachen
schon die Propheten (2.23.7), er ist der Gerechte (2.23.4 u.(i.), er ist unparteiisch (2.23.1 O), seine Gegner sind die Schrifigelehrten und Pharistier
(2.23.10 u.6.) und er hat groaen missionarischen Erfolg (2.23.10). Weitere
Aussagen sind m i t t e l b a r rnit dem Martyrium verbunden: Jakobus widersteht der Versuchung auf der Tempelzinne (2.23.10,12f; vgl. Mt 4,5-71lLk
B A ~ J C K ~ I1999b:
A M 208.
3 e r Name Obadja erscheint im Griechischen in unterschiedlichen Schreibweisen:
'Awiaq Obd 1 u.6.; 'AfISbu 1K6n 18,3 u.6.; A w a lChr 3,21 u.6.; 'A$apia Esra 8,9;
'O@ia lChr 7.3; 'QfMiaq
Josephus, Ant. 8.329 u.6.
42

"

4,9-121, der A n l d mr den TodesbeschluD ist die Botschaft vom baldigen

Kommen des Menschensohnes zum Gericht (2.23.13; vgl. Mk 14,62//Mt
26,64; Lk 22,69), das Martyrium findet warend eines Passafestes statt
(2.23.10; vgl. Mk 14,111Mt 26,2; Lk 22,l) und sein letztes Wort ist cine
Bitte um Vergebung (2.23.16; vgl. Lk 23,341. Auch sein Tod ist schon in
der Schrifi vorhergesagt (2.23.15; vgl. Mk 14,27//Mt 26,31 u.6.) und ~ i e h t
aufsehen- und furchtemegende Ereignisse nach sich (2.23.18; vgl. Mk
15,38/IMt 27,51-53 u.6.). Bei alledem ist Jakobus vie1 enger mit Jesus
verbunden, als es Apg 7 Stephanus ist. Sein Bild ist bewuDt nach dem Jesu
gestaltet. Sein Leben und sein 'rod sind Nachvollzug des Wirkens und
Sterbens Jesu. Von keiner anderen Persiinlichkeit des fruhen Christenturns
gibt es theologisch gewichtigere Aussagen. Er steht damit weit uber allen
anderen Christen. Er ist im Leben und im Sterben der vollkommene
Rep-entant Jesu.
Wie sehr sein Martyrium theologisch gewilrdigt werden konnte, zeigt
insbesondere der SchluRsatz des Hegesippberichts: ,,lJnd sofort belagertc
sie Vespasian" (2.23.18). D.h. die Niederlage im Aufstand gegen Rom mit
der Eroberung Jerusalems und der Zerstiirung des Tempels ist die Folge
des Todes des Jukobus. Als Datum des Martyriums w b e an die Jahre 66
oder 69 zu denken, je nachdem, ob man den Beginn des Krieges oder der
Belagerung Jerusalems angesprochen sieht. Reide Male steht der Text im
Widerspntch zu der unbedenklichen Angabe Josephus, Ant. 20.200, wonach das Martyrium in der Vakanz zwischen den beiden Prokuratoren
Festus und Albinus im Jahr 62 stattgefunden habe. Diese geschichtstheologische Deutung des Martyriums riickt Jakobus in ahnlicher Weise ins Zentrum des Interesses wie Ev Thom 12,M wonach seinetwillen Himmel und
Erde geschaffen worden seien.
Eine Parallele zu dieser Deutung des Martyriums liegt in cinem alschlich Josephus zugeschriebenen und bei Origenes und Euseb uberlieferten
Text vor. Wegen seiner geradezu massiven Jakobusverehrung kann er
kaum von einem ~ n b e t e i l i ~ t e nsondern
?~
nur von einem Vertreter der
Jakobustradition stammen. Euseb zitiert den Text unmittelbar nach dem
Hegesippzitat (Hist. eccl. 2.23.20): ,,Dieses Schicksal widerfuhr den Juden
als Rache R r Jakobus, den Gerechten, den Bruder Jesu, des sogenannten
Christus; denn obwohl er der Gerechteste war, hatten ihn die Juden getiitet.'"' Euseb betont in der Einleitung des Zitats, selbst die noch klar
denkenden Juden hltten geglaubt, das Vorgehen gegen Jakobus sei die [Jrsache filr die Relagerung gewesen (2.23.19), jedenfalls habe Josephus
keine Bedenken zu einer solchen Interpretation gehegt (2.23.20). Freilich

" Dazu PRATSCHER1 5 1

4s

46

1 57.

Gegen B E R N ~ ~ E25I M
1.
fjbersetzung HAEUSER-GARTNER,
ed. KRAFT, 144,

Der Herrenbruder Jakohus bei Hegesipp

159

ist Euseb nicht prima am Tun-Ergehen-Konnex interessiert, sondern an

der zeitlichen Einordnung des Martyriums und an der Betonung der Bewunderungsdrdigkeit und Beliebtheit des Jakobus infolge seiner Gerechtigkeit - es geht ihm nicht um die judenchristliche Pointe, sondern urn das
groflkirchlich interessante Motiv. Er widerspricht dem Kausalkonnex allerdings nicht explizit.
Anders Origenes, der auf die Pseudojosephus-Stelle dreimal zu sprechen kommt: Kornm Mt 10.17; Cels 1.47; 2.1 3. Eine genaue Herkunftsangabe bietet Origenes sowenig wie Euseb. Im Matthluskommentar betont
er, nach Josephus sei der Tod des wegen seiner hervorragenden Gerechtigkeit im Volk Uberaus berilhmten Jakobus der Grund gewesen fGr die Lei~ V ?Jako~
den des Volkes und die Zerstiirung des Tempels. Die ~ L K C X L O C ~des
bus sei so groB gewesen, dal3 seine Hinrichtung das giittliche Strafgericht
zur Folge gehabt habe, was auch die Meinung des Volkes gewesen sei.
Origenes geht nicht auf den Schuld-Siihne-Konnex ein, sondern gibt seiner
Verwunderung Ausdruck, daB der Nichtchrist Josephus Jakobus eine
solche Gerechtigkeit bescheinigt habe. Der hohe sittliche Standard des Jakobus ist somit der Punkt, an dem Origenes interessiert ist. Wahrend er
hier nicht kritisch Stellung bezieht zurn Schuld-Siihne-Konnex des Pseudojosephus, tut er es Cels 1.47: In diesem Punkt lehnt er die judenchristliche
Tradition ab. Nicht von Jakobus Tod, sondern von dem Jesu hiitle Josephus
reden sollen. Der Aspekt des hochstehenden Ethos wird dagegen wie in
Cels 2.13 uneingeschrwkt beibehalten.
Der Konnex van Martyrium des Jakobus und Jildischem Krieg spiegelt
sich auch in der 1. Jakobusapokalypse von Nag Hammadi (NHC V 36.1618): Nach seinem Tod werde das Land sofort in Krieg verwickelt. Ein
wenig anders heiflt es nach 2Ap Jac, NHC V 60.20-23, die Ignoranz der
Gegner gegeniiber der Predigt des Jakobus habe die Zerstiirung des Tempels verursacht. ~ h n l i c hauch die in den Pseudoklementinen, Rekognitionen I, verarbeitete Quelle: Die Tempelzerstarung sei erfolgt, weil man
das Ende der &it der Opfer nicht habe einsehen wollen (R 1.64.1).
Jedenfalls ist der Konnex mehrfach bezeugt. Die zum I'eil sehr groDen
Differenzen zwischen den verschiedenen judenchristlichen Berichten uber
'
nicht fiir eine Abhflngigkeit vom
das Martyrium des ~ a k o b u s ~sprechen
~ e g e s i ~ ~ t e xsondern
t , 4 ~ eher ftir eine gemeinsame dahinterliegende Quelle
oder ~ r a d i t i o n .Der
~ ~ Konnex ist jedenfalls weitverbreitet und zeigt die
aukrordentlich hohe Wertschkung des Herrenbruders Jakobus in der
judenchristlichen Tradition.

47

Vgl. PRATSCIIER238-255.

" Gegen JONES 323 u.6.

49

Vgl. auch PAINTER179-1 8 1 ; BAUCKIIAM

1999b: 201-206.

Pratscher

Zusammenfassung
Der Bericht des Hegesipp iiber das Martyrium des Herrenbruders Jakobus
ist eingebettet in eine umfassendere judenchristliche Tradition fiber diese
hervorragende Peranlichkeit des frtihen Christentums. Zum Teil mit diesen Parallelen, zum Teil ohne sie zeichnet Hegesipp ein Bild des Jakobus,
das mit der historischen Wirklichkeit nur mehr bedingt ubereinstimmt, das
aber dessen hohe Wertschitzung ilberaus eindriicklich vor Augen stellt:
Jakobus ist der einzig legitime Priester, der durch sein Gebet im Tempe1
die priesterliche Brackenfunktion zwischen Gott und seinem Volk ausiibt.
Er ist exemplariseher und erfolgreicher Missionar in der Verkhdigung der
Messianitiit Jesu. Er ist der Gerechte und der Beschiitzer des Volkes. Er
wird bei all dem in enger Anlehnung m die Darstellung Jesu in den Evangelien geschildert. Sein Martyrium schlieOlich wird als derartiger Frevel
betrachtet, daD die 7Rrst6rungen des Jildischen Krieges als gattliche Strafe
angemessen erscheinen. Eine insgesamt ganz ungewOhnliche Wertschtitzung eines ReprZisentanten der frilhen Kirche, dessen zweifellos gegebene
groBe historische Bedeutung von seinen Anhhgern in kaum zu uberbietender Weise legendarisch gesteigert wurde.

Literaturverzeichnis
Bauckham, Richard, 'James and the Jerusalem Church', in idem (Hg.), The Book ofAcfs
in Its First Century Setting. IV: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, Eerdmans I Paternoster, Grand Rapids I Carlisle 1995,4 15-480
- James; Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage, Routledge, London - New York
1 999 ( 1999a)
- 'For What Offence Was James Put to Death', in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds),
James the Just and Christian Origins, (SupNovT 98) Brill, Leiden 1999, 199-232
( 1999b)
Bernheim, Pierre-Antoine, James, Brother of Jesus, SCM, London 1987
Brandon, Samuel George Frederick, Jesus and the Zealots; A Study of the Political
Factor in Primitive Christianity, UP, Manchester 1967
Bruce, Frederick Fyvie, Men and Movements in the Primitive Church; Studies in Early
Non- Pauline Christianity, Paternoster, Exeter 1979
Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity', in W. Horbury - W.D. Davies - J. Sturdy
(Hgg.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, 111: The Early Roman Period, UP,
Cambridge 1999,73 1-775
Dibelius, Martin, Der Brief des Jakobus, hg. und erg. v. H. Greeven, (Meyers krit.-exeg.
Komrn. Ob. d. NT 15, 1I . Aufl.) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GOttingen 1964
Eisenman, Robert, Jakobus, der Bruder von Jesus; Der Schlflfsel zum Geheimnis des
Fruhchristentums und der Qumranrollen, Ubers. D. und G. Bandini, Bertelsmann,
MUnchen 1998
Eisler, Robert, 'IpoL?;/km&lk; od $amat.riaag; Die messianische UnabhZfngigkeits-

Der Herrenbruder Jakobus bei Hegesipp

16 1

bewegung vom Aufireten Johannes des Tdufers bis zum Untergang Jakobs des Gerechten nach der neuerschlossenen Eroberung von Jerusalem des Flavius Josephus
und den christlichen Quellen, 2 (Religionswissenschaflliche Bibliothek 9) Winter,

Heidelberg 1930
Gero, Stephen, " Q$Xiaq reconsidered', Musdon 88 (1975) 435 -440
Hengel, Martin, 'Jakobus der Herrenbruder - der erste ,,Papst"?', in E. GraDer - 0. Merk
(Hgg.), GIuube und Eschatologie; FS W.G. Kummel, Mohr Siebeck, Tabingen 1985,
71-104
Jones, F. Stanley, 'The Martyrdom of James in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and
Christian Apocrypha, including Nag Hammadi: A Study of the Textual Relations', in
D.J. Lull (Hg.), Society ofBihlical Literuture; 1990 Seminar Papers, Scholars Press,
Chico CA 1990,322-335
Krafl, Heinrich (I-ig.), Eusebius von Caesarea; Kirchengeschichte, 3. Aufl. Kbsel,
Manchen 1989
Lawlor, Hugh Jackson, 'The Hypomnemata of Hegesippus', in idem, Eusebiana; fi3sq.v
on the Ecclesiastical History of Euseb, Bishop ofCaesarea, Clarendon, Oxford 1912,
1-107
Mach, Rudolf, Der ilatldik in Talmud und Midrusch, Brill, Leiden 1957
Meyer, ArnoidlSauer, Walter, 'Jesu Venvandtschafl', in E. Hennecke - W. Schneemelcher (Ha.), NeutestamentlicheApokryphen in deutscher Libersetzung, Bd. 1,4.
Aufl. Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1968,312-321
Painter, John, Just James; The Brother of Jesus in History and Trodition, U of South
Carolina Press, Columbia SC 1997
Pratscher, Wilhelm, Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobtrstradition, (FRLANT
139) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GBttingen 1987
Riesner, Rainer, Jesus als Lehrer; Eine Untersuchung rum Ursprung der EvangelienUberlieferung, (WUNT 217) 3. Aufl. Mohr Siebeck, Tabingen 1988
Schlatter, Adolf, Der Chronograph aus dem zehnten Jahre Antonins, (Texte und Untersuchungen 12,I ) Hinrichs, Leipzig 1894
Schoeps, Hans Joachim, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Mohr
Siebeck, Tubingen 1949
Schoeps, Hans Joachim, ',,Jakobus b G i ~ a t qat d$l\a$'"Neuer L(lsungsvorschlag
in einer schwierigen Frage', in idem, Allr frrlhchristlicher Zeit. Religiomgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1950, 120-125
Schwartz, Eduard (Hg.), Eusebius Kirchengeschichte; Kleine Ausgabe, Hinrichs, Leipzig
1908
Stauffer, Ethelbert, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christ;, (Dalp Tb 33 1 ) Francke,
Bern 1957
Strecker, Georg, 'Judenchristentum', 7'heologische Reafenzyklopddie 17 (1988) 310-325
Taylor, Joan E., 'The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly
Invention?', VigChr 44 ( 1 990) 3 13-334
Ward, Roy Bowen, 'James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries', in ANRW 11 26,1
( 1 992) 779-8 12
WeiS, Johannes, D m Urchristentum; hg. u. erg. v. R. Knopf, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
Gattingen 1917

'The origin of the Ebionites

Richard Bauckhum

Who were the Ebionites?

Though every definition of 'Jewish Christians' has problems, the most usehl
is probably that they were believers in Jesus, of ethnic Jewish origin, who
observed the Tora and so retained their Jewish identity.' Though a few of the
Fathers seem to use the term Ebionites for all such people, there is sufficient
evidence to show that the Ebionites were a specific group or movement
among several differing types of Jewish Christianity. In particular, they
should be distinguished from the Nazarenes (Nazoreans). In my view, the
Naz.arenes, as their name suggests (it was simply the term Palestinian Jews
used for Christians), were the group in most direct continuity with the pre-70
Jerusalem church.2 In thal sense their origin does not need explanation, but
the origin of the Ebionitcs, sometime in the post-70 period, does need explanation. What accounts for their distinctive characteristics? - is the question
this essay will address.
Patristic reports of the Ebionites (excepting Epiphanius)
The patristic evidence about the Nazarenes is unanimous in regarding their
observance of the Tora as the only characteristic worth mentioning that
distinguished them from Catholic Christians. Even Epiphanius, who is unequivocal in regarding them as a heresy, admits he has no knowledge of heretical beliefs held by them.3 As we know from Jerome" excerpts fmm their
commentary on Isaiah, they even viewed Paul and his Gentile mission with
full appr~val.~
The Ebionites, on the other hand, were, from Irenaew onwards, regularly characterized not only by their observance of Tora but also
C f MIMOLMI 1998: 15; CARLErON PAGET 733 742.

* Recent scholars who take this view include PRIK Z; DE BOER; MIMOUNI 1998: chapter

2. MIMOUNI 1998: 86 and n3, makes the important methodological point that the silence of
the heresiologistsabout the Nautrenes is not negative evidence that they disappeared after 70,
but positive evidence that their christology was considered orthodox and so there was no
cause to mention them, whereas the unorthodox Ebionites were frequently mentioned.
On the strategy Epiphanius uses to classifL the Nazarenes as heretics, see MIMOUNI
2001.
PKITZ 64-65.

The Origin of the Ebionites

163

by their (in the eyes of their patristic critics) inadequate christology, as well
as, sometimes, by their antagonism to Paul. What we know of their own
writings, as we shall see, confirms these descriptions and adds at least one
other distinctive feature: their view of the sacrificial cult. That the Fathers,
apart from Epiphanius, do not refer to this is unproblematic, since it was not
necessarily a view objectionable to Catholic Christians.
Irenaeus' account (Waer. 1.26.2; 3.2 1.1; 5.1.3) makes the following points
about the Ebionites: (1) They use the Gospel of Matthew only. (2) They consider Paul an apostate from the Iaw. (3) 'fie writings of the prophets they do
their best to expound diligently. (4) They practice circumcision and observe
the Law. (5) They revere Jerusalem as though it were the house of God. (6)
They deny the virginal conception and say that Jesus was begotten by Joseph.
(It is not clear whether, at 1.26.2, Irenaeus means to say that, in other respects,
the Ebionites'views of Jesus resembled or did not resemble those of Cerinthus.5)
Other patristic accounts before Epiphanius add little to this account. 'heir
interest is especially in Christology. According to 'Fertullian, the Ebionites
"did not think that Jesus was the Son of God', (De praescript. haer. 33.1 I), but
that he was "mere man and only of the seed of David (De Came Chr. 14).
According to Eusebius, they considered Jesus "a plain and common man who
was justified only because of his progress in virtue, born of the intercourse of
a man and Mary'YHist. eccl. 3.27.2). Origen (Cels. 5.61; followed by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.27.3), in one of his several references to Ebionite Christology, distinguishes two kinds of Ebionites: those who accept the virginal conception and those who do not. I l e other evidence makes it very likely that
Origen is here distinguishing the groups properly called Nazarenes and Ebionites, and is improperly extending the latter name to both groups.
The Gospel of the Ebioniles
Epiphanius" much hller and not entirely consistent account of the Ebionites
draws on significant literary sources unknown to the earlier Fathers as well as
on his own deductions and guesses. His most valuable contribution is the
quotations he provides from a gospel he attributes to them, and which is
therefore called by modern scholars the Gospel of the Ebionites. If this was
indtwd the gospel used by the same Jewish Christians Irenaeus calls Ebionites,
then these quotations from it, relatively meagre though they are, are our only
unequivocally firsthand source for Ebionitism. There is good reason to think
that this Gospel of the Ebionites was used by the Ebionites of whom Irenaeus
knew. Ostensibly there is a problem in Irenaeus'account: the E b i o n i t e s k
of the Gospel of Matthew seems to contradict their denial of the virginal

conception. 'I-he Gospel of the Ebionites was attributed to Matthew (fi. 4 ) 4

and seems to have been based especially, though not exclusively, on the
Gospel of Matthew we know as canonical. But its narrative began with the
preaching of John the Baptist (fi. I), not with the genealogy and infancy
narrative that comprize the first two chapters of canonical Matthew. It is also
consistent with what Irenaeus and later Fathers say about the Ebionites"
Christology that the account of the baptism of Jesus in the Gospel of the
Ebionites (fr. 3) adds the words of Psalm 2:9, "Today I have begotten you"
(otherwise found only in Luke 3:22 D), to the words of the heavenly voice as
given in the canonical Gospels, presumably indicating Jesus'adoption as Son
of God at that time. Thus the problem in Irenaeus' account is resolved if we
suppose that it was this Ebionite Gospel of Matthew, rather than canonical
Matthew, that the Ebionites known to Irenaeus used.
The Ascents of James
Epiphanius also knew and attributed to the Ebionites material that has come
to u$as parts of the Pseudo-Clementine literature. In doing so Epiphanius is
not as undiscriminating as is sometimes alleged. This material has real
afftnities with what we otherwise know of the Ebionites, but it also has
significant differences which make Epiphanius' attempt to combine it with his
other information about the Ebionites very problematic. It may be that the
sources of the Pseudo-Clementines (other than the one we an:about to single
out) have an Ebionite background but represent a considerable development
of Ebionite ideas and should not be regarded as typically Ebionite. For our
present purposes we shall leave them aside. But there is one section of the
Pseudo-Clementines (Recognitions 1.27-7 1 or 1.33-7 17) that incorporates a
distinctive source, whose theology has significant differences fiom that of the
other postulated sources or of the Pseudo-Clementines as a whole.$ This
source has often, in my view correctly, been identified as the work Epiphanius
'Ia~cbf3ou),Ydescribes briefly, and
calls the Ascents of James ('Av-Opoi
treats as an Ebionite work (Pan. 30.16.7).'0 Whether this passage in the
1 have followed the numbering of the fragments in VIELIUUER - SrECKER 169-170,
since this is probably the most readily accessible translation of them. but I have quoted the
Greek text and the English translation in HOWARD 4049-4051.
The two most recent discussions of the source vary in their view of its extent. According
to VAN VOORST it extends from 1.33.3-1.71.5; according to JONES 1995 it extends from
1.27-7 1. Both think there are redactional interpolations within the passages.
For the history of scholarship and the identification of the source, see VAN VOORST
chapters 1-2; Jones 1995: chapters 1 and 4.
JONES 1995: 147, claims that "the differences are more striking than the similarities",
whereas VAN VOORST 45, considers that "the similarities outweigh the dissimilarities"!
l o There is no need to suppose that Epiphanius derived the information in 30.16.8-9 from
the Ascents of James.

The Oriqin v f ~ h e.Eb:bioni~es

165

Clementine Recognitions is in fact dependent on the same work to which

Epiphanius refers is of little significance in our present context, since I shall
argue that its source can in any case be shown to be Ebionite. But for
convenience I shall refer to it by the title Ascents of James.
Neither of the two recent studies of this source allow that it should be
classified as Ebionite, although both have no doubt that it is Jewish Christian.
Robert Van Voorst write^:^
"[Mlost modem rcsearchws reserve this term [Ebionite] for the more extreme forms o f Jewish
Christianity, especially those holding an adoptionist christology opposed to any form of prcexistence. An ideal o f poverty is also characteristic o f Ebionism. As the [Ascents o f James]
has a form o f pre-existence christology and shows no evidence o f adoptionism or an ideal o f
poverty, its community probably should not be considered Ebionite."

'fie issue of Christology is an important one, which we shall discuss

presently. As for the ideal of poverty, it should be said that only one of the
ancient sources of information about the Ebionites (Epiphanius) attributes an
ideal of poverty to them. We shall consider the issue of the name Ebionite in
the final section of this paper. For the time being, we should note that, even if
the Ebionites held an idea) of poverty, there is no reason why they should
express it in every writing originating from them, while, furthermore, it is by
no means clear that the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions have preserved the
whole of the source used in 1.27133-71. An argument of this kind from
silence has no force if there are other, convincing reasons for connecting this
source to the Ebionites.
Stanley Jones does not explicitly discuss whether the Jewish Christian
community to which he attributes the Jewish Christian source he identifies in
Recognitions 1.27-71 should be considered Ebionite, even though he argues
that it is dependent on the Gospel of the Ebionites.12 There are probably two
reasons for this. One is that he does not think the source was at all closely
connected with the work called the Ascents of James that Epiphanius
describes. Whether or not he is right about that, he is certainly correct to argue
that, since that issue is in doubt, the character and origins of the source should
be argued on the basis of the source itself and not pre-determined by what
Epiphanius says about the Ascents of James. Presumably he thinks that the
aqsociation of the source with the Ebionites has been a result only of the
assxiation of it with the Ascents of James and EpiphaniusYdentification of
the latter as Ebionite. Once conclusions derived from Epiphanius are
disallowed in discussion of the source, then the question of a link with the
Ebionites simply does not arise. However, one would have thought that the
source's dependence on the Gospel of the Ebionites, which Jones himself

' ' VAN VQORST 17% 180.

l 2 JONES 1995: 148-149.

argues, would be sufficient reason to raise the question whether the source
itself was Ebionite.
Secondly, Jones' own conclusions about the origin and context of the
source would probably have ruled out a description of it as Ebionite even if he
had considered this. He concludes:
"In conclusion, the present study has managed to gain a profile of a Jewish Christian writing
circa the year 200 C.E. quite possibly in Judaea or Jerusalem. The author's attention to James
the bishop, particularly if he called him 'archbishop',I3 might lead to the suspicion that the
author was a Jewish Christian 'bishop' or presbyter. He will probably have submitted to the
authority of the 'archbishop' at this time (the leading gentile Christian bishop in Jerusalem
[Narcissus?]), but he does not look at the current development of incorporation into the larger
church without trepidation."I4

Such a close relationship with the Catholic church in Palestine is certainly not
conceivable for Ebionites. But Jones' conclusions here are very insecure. It is
clear that the source approved of the (or a) Gentile mission (1.42.1 ; 1.64.2).
but this does not demonstrate that it approved of the Catholic Christianity
contemporary with i& still less that the latter approved of its own community.
A close relationship with Catholic Christianity would be unlikely if Jones is
correct in identitj4ig the source as strongly anti-Pauline.Is Jones' location of
the community "quite possibly" in JudaeaI6 or even Jerusalem is based on the
source's concern for the land of Israel and Jerusalem (he refers to 1.30.3;
1.31.2; 1.32.4; 1.37.2--4; 1.38.3; 1.39.3),17 but this cannot show that the
community lived in the land. Such a concern is entirely plausible in a Jewish
Christian group exiled from the land. Rut in any case, although an Ebionite
presence in Jerusalem is extremely unlikely, there could have been llbionite
communities in the land, as well as in Transjordan and Syria where our other
information places them. Finally and most importantly, Jones himself cites, in
connexion with the source's attitude to Jerusalem, Irenaeus' statement that the
Ebionites "revere (adorent) Jerusalem as if it were the house of God" (Haer.
1.26.2), insisting that this means more than that they pray in the direction of
Jerusalem, which Irenaeus has commonly been taken to mean.lg
We certainly c m o t consider that the case for identifying the source of
Recognitions 1.27133-71 as Ebionite has been rehted. The most important
l3 JONES (1995: 166 n30) refers to 1.68.2, but (in view of the occurrence of this title,
outside the bounds of the source, also in 1.73.3) leaves open the question whether this title
was in the source or has been added by the redactor.
l 4 JONES 1995: 166-167.
I S JONES 1995: 166.
l6 Cf also JONES 2001: 542, where the claim is slightly stronger: "These passages also
make it likely that the author is himself writing from within Judaea."
l 7 JONES 1995: 130, 158. In JONES 2001: 541-543, he also discusses 1 S4.4 (Syriac);
1.57.1,4 (Syriac); 1.63.1 (Latin); 1.64.2.
I g JONES 2001: 542.

The Origin ofthe Ebionites

167

element in such a case,which is the understanding of sacrifices in both this

source and the Gospel of the Ebionites, has not yet been adequately put
forward. Jones notes two substantial points of agreement between the source
and this Gospel, which persuade him that the former is dependent on the
latter.lY The first is that both the source (1.54.6-7) and the Gospel (fr. 2) say
that the Pharisees were baptized by John. This
ment is not especially
impressive, since it seems to be an inference from Matthew 3:7, according to
which "many of the Pharisees and Sadducees were coming for baptism'" ( t p
~ o p k v o y&xi t o ~ x ~ t o p aThough
).
Jones judges this 'We most remarkable
common elemcnt,"O it is in fact much less so than the second. This concerns
the saying of Jesus unique to the Gospel of the Ebionites:
fjI.80~ K ~ T ~ ~ K K~ LdLQuoiaq,
$
~ a pq
l x a h p & ~ o QGEtv,
6
of) x a l i o ~ r a ic2cp'bpGv
bpyq. "I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you do not cease from sacrificing, the wrath will
not cease from youn (fr. 6).

The repetition x a W r p 8 ~f xaim~ratmakes this a nice example of lex talionis.

The meaning is that if the Jews do not heed Jesus'command to give up offering sacrifices, divine judgment will fall on them. It is a reasonable inference
that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE is in view. The
Ascents of James surely alludes to this saying of Jesus:
"At his coming, by the mercy of God, he [the prophet predicted by Moses, i.e. Jesus] would
admonish them fust to stop and cease with their sacrificing" (I .39.1 Syriac).
"... whom he [Moses] had predicted would appear and who first of all would admonish them
by the mercy of God to cease with (cessare a) sacrifices" (1.39.1 ati in).^^

The reference to the mercy of God implies that should they not obey Jesus"
admonition they will experience judgment (cf 1.37.4 Latin), as the saying in
the Gospel of the Ebionites states. 'There is reference to the abolition of sacrifices as the purpose of Jesus' coming also in these passages:
"...The coming of the prophet who was prepared to come to abolish sacrifices" (1.37.3
Syriac).
"...The arrival of the true prophet, who would reject (esset ... repudia~wur)sacrifices together
with the place" (1.37.3 Latin).
"For as Christ was ready to be revealed for the abolition of sacrifices..." (1.54.1 Syriac).
"For when the coming of Christ was near, on the one hand to check (reprimendo) sacrifices..." ( 1.54.1 Latin).

A
-

1995: 148- 149. He adds: "One may also ask if the vegetarianism of the Gospel
4 t h e Ehionita ... was not of influence on the source of R[ecognitions] 1 (see R 1.30.1)"
(149). But this is entirely invalid. 1.30.1 echoes the commandment not to eat blood found in
Gen 9:4. It by no means prohibits the eating of meat.
20 JONES 1995: 148.
2' All my quotations from the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71 are fmm the
translations in JONES 1995.
lY JONES

The Ascents of James understands the command of Jesus to abolish sacrifices

as that to which Moses referred when he predicted the coming of a prophet
and warned that everyone who does not obey him will be destroyed (1.36.2).
Accordingly, the destruction of Jerusalem is the consequence of refusal to
obey this command of Jesus (1.37.2-5; 1.39.1-3; 1.64.1-2).
The idea that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred
because the Jews refused to heed Jesus' mission to abolish sacrifices and to
obey his command to cease sacrificing is unique to the Gospel of the
Ebionites and the source we are calling the Ascents of James. Although it is
not impossible that a non-Ebionite writer has borrowed this idea from the
Gospel of the Ebionites and developed it at length in his own work, it seems
much more probable that this author himself belonged to the Ebionites. 7'0
what we know that the Gospel of the Ebionites said about sacrifices, the
Ascents of James adds an explanation of the Mosaic laws on sacrifice. The
Israelites'worship of the golden calf made Moses realize that idolatry was too
ingrained in them to be abolished all at once. Therefore he permitted them to
yo on offering sacrifices, but to otTer them only to God and to do so only in
one place. This was only half of the task of correcting their idolatry. Moses
predicted the coming of the prophet like Moses who would complete the task
by abolishing sacrifices (1.35.5-1.37.2). In this way the Christology of the
Mosaic prophet is closely integrated with the idea that Jesus came to abolish
sacrifices. A further feature is that Jesus instituted baptism to replace
sacrifices as a means of forgiveness of sin (1.39.2), a notion that in this form
seems not to be found anywhere else.22 The other themes are not so
completely distinctive. They certainly differ from the accounts of the
sacrifices in Hebrews (where sacrifices are replaced by the one sacrifice of
Christ), Barnabas (where the sacrificial laws were never intended literally and
Israel was wrong to offer sacrifices), the Syriac Uidascalia (26) (where the
ritual laws are punishment for Israel" idolatry), and the other parts of the
Pseudo-Clementines (with the idea of the false pericopae or post-Mosaic
interpolations in the Tord). But Justin, like the Ascents of James, sees the
laws of sacrifice as a remedial measure, given to the Israelites hecause of their
hardness of heart and tendency to idolatry manifested in the worship of the
22 it is found in 1.48.5, in a passage that is probably a redactional interpolation in the
material drawn &om the Ascents of James, but even there it is found only in the Latin version,
not the Syriac, and so is probably not original. SKARSAIINE- 297 298 compares Ascents of
James 1.39.2 with Barn 5:l-2 and Justin, Dial. 13. But Bamabas refcrs to the blood of Christ
rather than to baptism, whereas in the Ascents of James there is no reference to Christ's
sacrificial death. Justin implies (rather than directly stating) that baptismal remission of sins
replaces sacrifices, but he too makes a close link with the blood of Christ (Dial. 131, while he
also understands baptism to correspond to and replace circumcision (Dial. 12; 18; cf
SKARSAUNE 303-304), an idea not found in the Ascents of James. Justin does not refer to a
command of Christ to the Jews to cease circumcizing.

The (higin o f ~ h Ebioniles

e

169

golden calfL3 (Dial. 22.1; 27.2; 43:l; 44.1; 45.3; 46.5, 7; 67.8; cf also
Irenaeus, Waer. 4.14.3; 4.15.1-2). However, the integration of such an
interpretation of sacrifices into a Christology of the prophet like Moses who
came to complete the work Moses had begun by abolishing the sacrifices
Moses had permitted seems to be distinctive to the Ascents of James.
In connexion with our claim that the Ascents of James is an Ebionite work,
three other topics need discussion. ' b e first is its view of the law. Is this
consistent with the patristic descriptions of the Ebionites as distinbwished by
their observance of circumcision and the Tom? 1.35.2 might be taken to mean
that the Decalogue alone is of permanent validity, while the rest of the Tora
was imposed by Moses because of the people's idolatrous tendency revealed
in the worship of the golden calf (1.35.5-6).24 In that case, the information
that Israel was blessed by God '"whenever they observed the law without
sacrifices" (1.37.1 Syriac) would have to refer to the observance of the
Decalogue alone, the rest of the Law being categorized with sacrifices. However, 1.71.5, recording that the graves of two Christians were miraculously
whitened by themselves every year, implies the validity of the purity laws.
Moreover, 1.33.5 shows a positive attitude to circumcision. According to
1.44.1, Christians observe Passover at the same time as other Jews (a practice
Origen specifically attributes to Ebionites: In Matt. Cornm. 79). Finally, we
must take account of the strong insistence of the Ascents of James that the
only difference between Jewish Christians and their fellow-Jews is that the
former recognize Jesus a5 the Messiah and the latter do not (1.43.2; 1S0.5; cf
1.44.2). It seems hardly possible that this claim could be made by Christians
who observed no more of the Tora than the Decalogue. So probably the
author's fwus on the issue of the sacrificial cult has had the effect of
obscuring other aqpects of the Tora that his community nevertheless did
observe.
Secondly, there is anti-Paulinism. Towards the end of the extant text of the
Ascents of James, after James has, over the course of seven days, persuaded
the high priest and the whole people to be baptized, "a certain hostile person"
(1.70.1 Latin: homo quidam inimicus; cf Syriac 'a certain man who was the
enemy') arrives, attempts to dissuade the people h m being baptized, stirs up
violence in which many die, and pushes James down a flight of stairs, leaving
him for dead (1.70.1-8). James in fact survives, and the "ostile person"
receives letters from the high priest and sets off for Damascus to persecute
3 13-320, who sees Justin as dependent on a Jewish Christian argument.
LOI)EMANN 162; L ~ G A S S E19; JONES 1995: 160. Syriac Didascalia 26 distinguishes
( I ) 'We Ten Words and the Judgments"((Exod 20--23), which were given before the incident
of the golden calf and are of permanent validity, and (2) the "Second Legislation", comprising
all the laws given after the incident of the golden calf and imposed as punishment for Israel's
idolatry.
23 SURSAIINE

24

believers there (1.71.4; cf Acts 9:l-2). There is no doubt that the anonymous
enemy is Paul and also that this passage describes Paul before he becarne a
Christian. For this reason it is by no means so obvious as most scholars
assume that the passage is anti-Pauline. We do not know how the Ascents of
James, if its narrative continued, understood Paul's conversion on the road to
Damascus or regarded the Christian Paul. But, conversely, we cannot draw
any conclusions from the fact that the anti-Paulinism of this passage, if such it
be, is not directed at Paul's attitude to the Law, as the anti-Paulinism of the
Ebionites was according to Irenaeus (Haer. 1.26.2) and Epiphanius (Pan.
30.16.9). To portray Paul as attacking the Law at this stage of his career
would not have been plausible.
Strong evidence for an anti-Pauline intent in the passage is the phrase "a
certain hostile person" (1.70.1; cf 1.70.8; 1.71-3). It quite probably alludes to
Matthew 13:25,28 (despite v 39) and portrays Paul as someone who sowed
weeds among the wheat of the church. In that case, Paul would be being
considered an enemy of the church who continued, covertly, as such after his
conversion. The fact that Paul is called '%he enemy" outside the passage
derived from the Ascents of James (Recognitions 1.73.4) and (by Peter) "the
man who is my enemy" in the Pseudo-Clementine Epistle of Peter to James
(2:3) confim the view that it is used in an anti-Pauline way within the
passage derived fkom the Ascents of James, but by the same token throws
doubt on whether it belonged originally to the text of the Ascents of James or
is a redactional rewriting of the text at some stage of its integration with other
Pseudo-Clementine material.25 However, the fact that Paul's action in our
passage has the effect of preventing the conversion of the high priest and the
whole Jewish people assembled in Jerusalem, which would otherwise have
occurred as a result of James's witness, must make it very Iikely that the
passage has an anti-Pauline intent. This is surely a retrojection into Paul's preChristian career of a Jewish Christian belief that it was Paul the Christian
who, through his scandalous attacks on the Tora, prevented the Jewish people
as a whole fiom recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. But the only Jewish
Christian group for whom this anti-Pauline attitude is attested are the
Ebionites.26
Thirdly, we must consider the Christology of the Ascents of James. The
identifications of Jesus as the prophet like Moses, predicted in Deuterono-

SOG. STRECKER, cited by VAN VOORST 154.

Anti-Paulinism is attested for the E h a i i e s only in one passage of Origen cited by
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.38, where Origen may simply be generalizing fkom his knowledge of
Ebionites; cf LEGASSE 93. Of course, other sources of the Pseudo-Clementines, besides the
Ascents of James, are anti-Pauline, but in my view represent views indebted to Ebionism,
even if not typicalIy Ebionite.
25
26

The Origin of the Ebionites

171
I

my,27 and as the Messiah, which is said to be all that distinguishes Jewish
Christians from other Jews, are the main features of this text's Christology
and are entirely consistent with the 'adoptionist' Christology attributed to the
Ebionites by the Fathers and probably attested by the Gospel of the Ebionites.
It is true that in 1.33.1-3; 1.34.4 (Latin and Armenian) and 1.44.56, there is
another figure, the True Prophet who appears to Abraham and Moses and is
identified with Jesus. This is not the prophet like Moses, but the pre-existent
figure familiar from other parts of the Pseudo-Clementines. Jones rightly
attributes his appearances in our passage to the redactor, not the original
s o u r c e . 2 8 But even after the elimination of this preexistent True Prophet from
the text, it remains a question whether the Ascents of James attributes preexistence to Jesus.
Van Voorst answers this question af%rmatively,29 while according to
Jones, who adduces the same evidence as Van Voorst, the matter "is not quite
c l d . 3 0 Van Voorst has two pieces of evidence. The first is that Jesus is
twice called 'Wle eternal Messiah" (1.43.1; 1.44.2; another occurrence, in
1 -63.1, is not considered part of the original source by Van Voorst).31 But, as
Van Voorst admits,32 this need not refer to his existence from eternity past
(although the Syriac interprets it in that sense). It could mean that the Messiah
will continue forever and be designed to distinguish the Messiah fiom the
other messiahs (anointed ones) of Israel's history whose office was
temporary. Secondly, Van Voorst appeals to 1.60.7: "he took a Jewish body
and was born among the Jews" (Latin) or "he took a body from the Jews and
became a Jew'' (Syriac).33 This undoubtedly refm to the incarnation of a preexistent figure, but it is such an exceptional passage that, given the undoubted
presence of a good deal of redaction at many points in the material derived
from the Ascents of James, one must doubt its originality. It is certainly a
weak basis for attributing a Christology of pre-existence to the Ascents of
James.

27 According to VAN VOORST 164, the Ascents of James "has the most highly developed
use of the Mosaic prophet in early Christian literature".
28 JONES 1995: 151-152. VAN VOORST also takes this view, with the difference that he
places the beginning of the source document at 1.33.3 (see VAN VOORST 32-33). Both
locate 1.44.5-6 within a large redactional interpolation in the source.
29 VAN VOORST 164.
30 JONES 1995: 161.
31 JONES considers 1.442 as part of a redactional interpolation, and thinks the phrase
m y be redactional in all three of its occurrences, since "the closing phrases of R 1.43.1 and R
1.63.1 have the appearance of glosses" (1995: 16 1 n. 12).
32 VAN VOORST 112.
33 VANVOORST 134-135,164.

The origin of the Ebionites

The Ehionife literature

if the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Ascents of James were Ebionite texts,
the implications, not only for their beliefs, but also for their origins, are considerable. The Gospel of the Ebionites was undoubtedly composed in Greek,
dependent especially on the Greek Gospel of Matthew, which it was evidently
intended to replace (since it was attributed to Matthew), but dso on the other
Synoptic Gospels, with examples of very clear dependence on Luke. In its
harmonizing combination of Gospel texts, with the addition of some new
material and doctrinal corrections of its sources, it is a learned production
comparable with Tatian's Diatessaron, taking Matthew as its base rather as
Tatian took J0hn.M George Howard has also shown that in many specific
respects its text is typical of the harmonizing tendencies of the second
century, both in transmission of the Gospel texts themselves and in the use of
the texts by writers such as Justin.35 In these respects it is very different from
the other two non-canonical Jewish Christian Gospels that survive in
fragments. The Gospel of the Hebrews, composed in Greek, seems entirely
independent of the canonical Gospels, while the Gospel of the Nazarenes,
apparently composed in Aramaic, is close to Matthew" Gospel, but whether
it is dependent on the canonical Greek Gospel or related to it in some other
way is disputed.3While a few of its variants from Matthew's text might be

influenced by Luke or Mark, it is not a product of harmonizing Gospels. By

comparison with these other Jewish Christian Gospels, what is striking about
the Gospel of the Ebionites is that it does not seem to reflect already existing
Jewish Christian Gospel traditions, but to be a very carefblly composed
substitute for the Synoptic Gospels, created largely through harmonization of
their texts and with a deliberate theological agenda that required modifications of its sources.
?he Ascents of James, presumably also composed in Greek, is similarly
dependent on the canonical Gospels of Matthew and LukeJ7and on the Book
of Acts, as well as on the Gospel of the Ebionites. Its narrative is more freely
composed than that of the Gospel of the Ebionites, so far as our limited

34

BERTRAND.

35 HOWARD 40374049.
36 VIELHAlJER and SWCKER

154-157; KL,IM 37-38. VIE1,ELZIJER and S'lTZECWR

call it "a targumistic rendering of the canonical Gospel of Mt" (1 57).
37 JONES 1995: 140- 14 1 . Some borrowings from these Gospels could have been already
made by the Gospel of the Ebionites and known by the author of the Ascents of James in the
laner text. MARTYN's investigation of the possible dependence of the Ascents of James on
the Gospel of John was inconclusive.

The Origin oj'rhe Ebionite.~

173

knowledge of the latter allows us to judge, but it may have been intended, at
least in part, as a kind of alternative to the story of the early Jerusalem church
as told in Acts. But there is one point of dependence on Acts which is
especially revealing for the author's debt to Acts. When Moses'prophecy of
the prophet like Moses is quoted in 1.36.2, the quotation is drawn not from
Deuteronomy itself (1 8: 15-1 6, 19) but from Acts 3:22-23. It makes the same
selection of words h m Deuteronomy 18:15-1 6a and 19, diverges from both
the MT and the LXX of Deuteronomy just as Acts 3:22-23 does, and
conflates words from Leviticus 23:29 with the end of Deuteronomy 18:19 just
as Acts 3:22 does. The only difference from Acts is that the Ascents of James
omits the words "from among your brothers". This passage is the key Old
Testament text in the Ascents of James and the lynch-pin of its Christology. It
is surely significant that the author knows it, not directly from Deuteronomy,
but from Acts. As with the Gospel of the Ebionites, we have the impression
that the Ascents of James has been composed on the basis of the Catholic
Church's literature in order to provide an alternative and substitute for it, with
a different theological agenda.
Although our available evidence is very limited, there is some reason to
think that this literature of Catholic Christianity was accepted and used by
Palestinian Jewish Christians of the second century. As I have argued in detail
elsewhere, the Apocalypse of Peter was written in Palestinian Jewish
Christian circles during the Bar Kochba war.38 It is certainly dependent on the
canonical Gospel of Matthew,39 probably dependent on 2 Peter?() and may
Hegesippus'account of the death of James,
also be dependent on
which he certainly drew from Palestinian Jewish Christian traditions around
the middle of the second century, contains many close verbal allusions to the
Gospels of Matthew, Luke and J0hn.~2We cannot be sure that they are not
due to I-fegesippus himself (who may or may not have been a Palestinian
Jewish Christian himself 31, but the extent of them suggests that at least some
of them were already in his source.
However, the most interesting of these indications, for the sake of its
relevance to the origin of the Ebionites and their literdture, is a tradition that
Julius Africanus reports in his Letter to Aristides (apud Eusebius, Iiist. eecl.
1998a: especially 176-1 94; see also, more briefly, BAUCKt IAM 1998~.
1998a: 1 72- 183.
1998b.
In BAUCKWAM 1985,I argued that Apocalypse of Peter 2 : s - 6 reflects an independent
tradition of the parable in Lk 135-9. 1 am now a little mom inclined to think the Apocalypse
of Peter here dependent on the Gospel of Luke.
42 BAUCKttAM 1999: 204-205.
43 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.8, deduced h m his writings that he was, but may have done
so mistakenly.
38 BAUCKHAM
39 f3AUCKHAM
40 BAIICKHAM

174

Bauckham

1.7-10) in the fmt half of the third century. Africanus, who was born in
Jerusalem (Aelia Capitolina) and lived part of his later life at Emmaus (Nicepolis), reports this as one of two traditions about the genealogy of Jesus that
he knew as handed down by the descendants of the family of Jesus. He
probably found them in written sources deriving fiom Palestinian Jewish
Christians.44 The fust of the two traditions he reports is an explanation of how
the two divergent genealogies of Jesus that we know in the Gospels of Luke
and Matthew should be reconciled. It is an ingenious (far too ingenious,
modem readers invariably think) solution which depends on the practice of
levifate marriage. In the course of it, Africmus cites one name, Estha (a
grandmother of Joseph), which is given in neither of the two Gospel genealogies but which he says has been handed down by tradition (Hist. eccl. 1.8).
What &canus reports is therefore a traditional explanation of the genealogies, which presupposes the two genealogies as we know them in the canonical Gospels,45 and to which the Jewish Christian circles from which it comes
attributed the authority of the relatives of Jesus, who were well remembered
in Palestinian Jewish Christian traditions, as we know especially fiom
Hegesippus. For the explanation to be of concern the two genealogies must
have been accepted without question. Since both trace Jesus' descent through
Joseph, acceptance of these genealogies does not in itself entail acceptance of
the virginal conception, but they occur in the two Gospels that report the
virginal conception and the form of both genealogies, as they occur in these
Gospels, is adapted to that belief (Matthew 1: 16; Luke 3:23). It seems necessary to suppose that the Jewish Christian circles, which appealed to the authority of the relatives of Jesus and from which this tradition about the genealogies comes, accepted both the genealogies and the narratives of the virginal
conception that they found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Against this
background, the absence of both a birth narrative and a genealogy from the
Gospel of the Ebionites seems especially pointed.
This evidence suggests that the dominant form of Jewish Christianity in
the second century, and the one that derived most directly fiom the Palestinian
churches that had been under the leadership of the relatives of Jesus down to
the early second century, was the Nazarene form that the Fathers recognized
as having no major doctrinal differences fiom the wider Catholic church. In
these circles the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were doctrinally unproblematic and were freely used. (Perhaps the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the
Gospel used by Aramaic speakers, while the Greek Gospels of Matthew and
Luke were the Gospels used by those who were primarily Greek speakers.)
44 On the distinction between the two separate traditions, see BAUCKHAM 1990: 355-

356.
45 The text of the Lukan genealogy was evidently a variant one which omitted the names
Matthat and Levi (Lk 3:24), making Melchi the grandfather of Joseph.

The Origin of the Ebionifes

175

The Ebionites, who did find these texts theologically unacceptable, needed a
new literature to replace them. The case resembles that of Marcion, whose
carefully edited selection of Christian writings was created to provide for a
new movement for which the writings already in use in the churches were
theologically unacceptable.
The Ebionite literature therefore suggests that Ebionism originated, probably some time in the second century, as an attempt to reform Jewish Christianity by revising its beliefs. It remains to consider whether the distinctive
features of Ebionite Christianity can be understood in this way.

The Gospel of the Ebionites was apparently designed to reduce the rather high
christology of its sources, the Synoptic Gospels, to the 'adoptionist' Christology that the Fathers regard as typical of the Ebionites. There may be a clue to
the motivation behind this reductive approach to Christology in two passages
of the Ascents of James:
"[The priests] frequently sent to us asking that we speak to them about Jesus whether he is the
prophet whom Moses predicted, who is the eternal Christ.For only in this regard does there
seem to be a difference between us who believe in Jesus and the unbelieving Jews" (1.43.1-2
Latin).
"Therefore the Jews have erred about the first coming of the Lord. Between them and us there
is a diswrd about this matter alone. For even they h o w and expect that Christ is coming. But
they do not know that he is already come in humility, namely, the one called Jesus" (1.50.5-6
Latin).
"...Our quarrel with them is this: whether this one who is coming and has come or another
who has yet to wme is the one prophet..." (1.50.7b Syriac).

The single difference between Jewish Christians and other Jews seems to consist not in a difference about the sort of messianic figure in question, but only
in whether Jesus is that figure, already come "in humility" and to come again.
If the first Ebionites lived alongside other Jews in the period after the two
revolts, when the rabbinic movement was growing in strength and toleration
of diversity in Palestinian Jewish communities diminishing, it is easy to see
that a Christology that was uncontroversial in this sense, differing from
widely accepted Jewish messianic expectations only in its claim that Jesus is
the Messiah, could be attractive, both as a defence against the charge of
apostasy from Judaism and as a form of the Gospel that other Jews could be
persuaded to accept. It is even possible that the first Ebionites were Jews who
had come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah but found the exalted
christological claims made for him by other Christians unacceptable.

According to Acts, what made members of the Jerusalem church suspicious

of Paul were the reports (in Luke's view, mistaken) that he was persuading
Jews to abandon the observance of Tora. This, rather than Paul's policy on
Gentile converts, is likely to have been the continuing problem for Paul's
reputation among Jewish Christians. The Ebionites no doubt inherit some
such strand of anti-I'aulinism in Jewish Christianity. Rut the problem was
aggravated with time, as the largely Gentile church increaqingly came to
suppose that Jews who become Christians must abandon the observance of
Tora and interpreted Paul in this sense. 'The anti-Paulinism of the Ebionites
was doubtless aimed at the Paul of the Catholic church, the Paul who
condemned their faithfulness to the Tora as justification by works of the law.
This Paul could easily be seen as the Paul who identified believing in Jesus
with apostasy from the Law and thereby sabotaged the witness of Jewish
Christians to their own people. We can see why the Ebionites wished to
dissociate their movement entirely from Paul.

While the idea that the cultic laws in the Tora were a compromise with
Israel's tendency to idolatry is not peculiar to the Ebionites, what does seem
to be original with them is the claim that Jesus came to abolish sacrifices and
that it wac the failure of the Jews to obey his demand that sacrifices cease that
resulted in God" judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
AAer the first revolt and, even more, after the second, when hopes that the
Temple in Jerusalem might be restored in the near future must have been
finally dashed, the loss of the Temple and its sacrificial cult was a problematic
issue for many Jews. Some, like the author of 2 Bmch, saw it as divine
judgment on the sins of the nation, following the precedent set by the Babylonians' destruction of the first Temple. Jewish Christians in general must
have seen it as the fulfilment of Jcsus'well-known prophecy of the
destruction of the Temple. Where Jewish Christians had to differ from many
other Jews who understood the event as divine judgment was in considering
the destruction of the Temple to be final. Hope for a new Temple building on
Mount Zion is remarkably absent from all early Christian literature and was
not entertained by the Ebionites in spite of their reverence for Jerusalem. The
Ebionite claim made considerable sense in the post-70 or post-135 period:
Jesus had come to abolish sacrifices and since the Jews would not stop
sacrificing God stepped in to ensure that they cease. To this we must add the
Ebionite view that Jesus came not only to abolish sacrifices but to replace

The Origin of the Ebionites

177

them with the rite of baptism for forgiveness of sins.% This was the Ebionite
answer to the problem of filling the gap left in Jewish religion by the
cessation of the sacrificial cult after 70.47
We can begin to see that the Ebionite version of Christian belief could
have been very appealing to some Jews in the period after the revolts. It
offered a form of messianism free both of the tendency to 'two powers'
heresy to be seen in the Christian movement generally and of the messianic
militancy that the failure of the two revolts discredited. It had both an
explanation of the destruction of the Temple and a positive substitute for the
sacrificial cult. It may be that the Ebionites began as a small group of Jewish
Christians which grew as previously non-Christian Jews were attracted to it.
The name 'Ebionites'

Greek writers usually call the Ebionites 'Efhovai OL The ending is a common
way of turning the Aramaic determined plural (-aya) into Greek, as also found
in cDaploaio5 ra3Lthaioq 'Eppai 01, W ~ o p a i o tThey would have been
known in Aramaic as K731?K, or in Hebrew as D~IlYtK3,'the poor.' Incidentally, the derivation of the Greek term used by the Fathers fiom Aramaic
shows that the Ebionites lived mainly in primarily Aramaic-speaking areas (as
Epiphanius, Pan. 30.18.1 maintains), where no doubt Greek was also spoken.
Klijn and Reinink are mistaken in saying: "lreaneus [sic] and Origen obviously spoke of Jewish-Christians who lived in the Hellenistic world" [they mean
not in Palestinel.48 Ebionites in places other than Syria-Palestine, such as
Cyprus where Epiphanius knew them, must have brought with them the Greek
form of their name that originated in the Syrian-Palestinian areas of their
origins and major communities.
From Tertullian onwards the Ebionites were supposed to be named after a
founder called Ebion, but this is almost certainly a mistake made because of
the common habit of naming sects after their founders. Several of the Fathers
knew that the word meant 'poor' in Hebrew but explained its use only in
mocking, derogatory terms, as indicating poverty of intelligence or the poverty of the Mosaic law or their poor opinions of Christ. Only Epiphanius claims
to report how the Ebionites themselves explained their name (in his view
deceitfully):
46 This may have an exegetical basis in Isaiah 1:ll-16, where "wash yourselves" (v 16)
could be understood as referring to the baptism for forgiveness that replaces the sacrifices
God repudiates in the preceding verses. There are several indications that Palestinian Jewish
Christians read Isaiah 1-5 as prophetic of the Jerusalem church and its history.
47 It is remarkable that the idea that the sacrificial cult originated as a remedy for idolatry
can be found also in rabbinic b-adition: LevR 22.8 (p176). Perhaps this tradition and the
Ebionite view have a common origin in the post-70 situation.
48 KLIJN and REININK 7 1.

178

Bauckhum

"But they themselves are obviously proud of themselves saying that they are poor because
they say, they sold their belongings in the time of the apostles and laid the money at the feet
of the apostles and because they laoked for poverty and the abolition of worldly goods. And,
therefore, they say, everyone calls us poor ones" (Pan. 30.1 7.2).49

Since Epiphanius thinks this is only what they say about themselves, not the
truth, he is unlikely to be inventing this explanation. He must have hcard it
from someone, but this does not necessarily make it reliable. It could evcn be
an explanation which later Ebionites gave but which was not the original significance of their name." Certainly, we must admit that the attempt to show
that the early Jerusalem church called itself 'the poor-as k e n adequately
disproved.51 If the term Ebionites had been continuing a u.%e that went back
to the earliest days of the Christian movement, we should certainly have
evidence for this usage other than the Ebionites'own selfdesignation.
The name of the Ebionites must surely be connected in some way with the
long Jewish tradition of referring to the pious poor: those who both lacked
material wealth and also responded to that condition by placing all their faith
and hope in God. In this tradition the poor become exemplary of the proper
attitude of humility and dependence towards Gad.It is doubtful whether thc
terms for poor ever came to designate a pious attitude regardless of external
circumstances,5* but no doubt a wide variety of types of hardship - including
religious persecution - could quali@ people to see themselves as God's poor
ones. It is not ditlicult to imagine that the first Ebionites found thernsclves in
circumstances of relative deprivation, perhaps because they were refugees at
the time of one of the Jewish revolts or perhaps because of discrimination
against them by their non-Christian Jewish neighbours. But it may still be
worth asking why they chose this particular term, ll73K, rather than near
synonyms, 'IY or '71,which were also used of the pious poor in the biblical
literature and later Jewish writings, such as those of the Qumran community.
Moreover, there may be a more specific reason why they chose to make 'the
poor'their normative self-description.
Again the Ascents of James may come to our aid. Jones has pointed out
how the theme of the land is important in this ~ o r k . ~The
3 predictions of the
Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem and the 'lemple in 70 CE seem to
indicate that, whereas unbelieving Jews will be exiled from the land, the
believers, though escaping the city through divine guidance, will be preserved

'ltranslation from KI,IM and REININK 185.

So KECK 1966: 59: "a sectarian, etiological exegesis of Acts promoted by the
Ebionites in defense against the imperial church.
s1 KECK 1965 and 1966.
s2 See the survey in WINGST chapter 3.
53 JONES 200 1.
50

The Origik of the Ebionites

179

in the land (1 -37.2 Syriac; 1.39.3). Jones connects this with 1.61-1-2, where
Caiaphas criticizes Jesus for teaching "vain things":
"He said that the poor were blessed, he promised that there would be earthly rewards.?he
placed the highest reward in earthly inheritance; and he promised that those who observed
righteousness would be filled with food and drink. He is caught teaching many such things"
(1.61.2 Latin).
"...He called the poor blessed and promised earthly rewards so that they, the virtuous, would
inherit the earth and would be filled with foods and drink and things similar to these" (1.61.2
Syriac).

Thomas's reply does not reject this as misinterpretation, but points out that
the prophets made the same kinds of promises, though Jesus went beyond
them to show "how these things should be received" (1.61.3).
The passage of course alludes to the Matthean beatitudes (Matt 5:3-6):
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,for they will be filled."

Jones proposes that the Ascents of James takes "the earth" in the sense of the
land: "the poor will truly inherit Judaea, inhabit the holy city Jerusalem, and
be filled with food and drink in an earthly kingdom of heaven" [cf 1.55.4].54
The Old Testament source of the third of the Matthean beatitudes is Psalm
37:11, and the inheritance of the land by the poor rather than by their oppressors is the overall theme of this psalm (cf 9,22,29,34). It is worth noting that
it is in the Qumran pesher on Psalm 37 that the community calls itself, among
other titles, ''the congregation of the poor" ( D s ~ t t l ~
i ~ 44171 [4QPsa]
nfY
2:lO; 3:lO). Quoting Psalm 37:11 ("And the meek [D?l3Y] shall inherit the
land, and enjoy peace in plenty"), it comments:
"Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the poor (D71l'JZtK;I n7Y) who will tough out
the period of distress and will be rescued from all the snares of Belial. Afterwards, all who
shall possess the land will enjoy and grow fat with everything enjoyable to the flesh" (4Q171
2:9-12).

Later we learn that "the congregation of the poor ... will inherit the high
mountain of Israel and delight in his holy mountain" (3:10-11). This exegesis
of Psalm 37 thus resembles closely the expectations of the future to be found
in the Ascents of James.
The Hebrew equivalent of n z o ~ o i(poor) in the fmt Matthean beatitude
could well be U713Y (cf 1QM 14:7),55 but since Psalm 37: 11, the source of the
third Matthean beatitude, has D?lIY, banslated npmE5 in Matthew, the synonymous D?Il?K would be a more suitable word in a Hebrew version of the
54

JONES 2001 : 545.

55

In LXX n z o ~ 6 qtranslates 71Y 39 times, 57 22 times, and 1 1 ~ 121.~

180

Bauckham

first beatitude. The Ascents of James takes this first of the terms for the
blessed from the first Matthean beatitude ('the poor' - without 'in spirit') and
attributes to them the reward specified in the third Matthean beatitude (*'shall
inherit the land). By omitting 'in spirit' and privileging the term 'the poor"
over the other descriptions of the blessed in the following beatitudes, this
version of the beatitudes has adapted them to designate the community of the
as those who will inherit the land with the paradisal plenty it
poor ('DT3173~;I)
will yield in the messianic age.
Resides this allusion to the beatitudes, the only parts of Jesus' teaching to
which the Ascents of James as we have it alludes are Matthew 10 5 , the command not to enter any Samaritan town (1 S7.3); the saying that occurs in both
Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, on God" preference for mercy rather than sacrifice
(1.37.2); and the command to cease sacrificing that is found in the Gospel of
the Ebionites (1.39.1). The beatitudes are thus of considerable significance. It
may be relevant that in Matthew, and thus quite possibly also in the Gospel of
the Ebionites, the beatitudes are the first passage that could be read as a
reference to the community of believers in Jesus. This would mean that 'the
poor' would be the first words refemng to them.
Probably this passage of the Ascents of James preserves for us the Ebionites'selfdesignation as 'the poor,'its derivation from the opening words of
the Matthean beatitudes, and something of the significance it had for them. It
expresses the community's eschatological hope of restoration from the disinherited condition in which they find themselves to their destined place on
Mount Zion in the centre of the land and people of Israel.

Bibliography
Bauckham, R., 'The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter,' JBL 104 (1985)
269 -287
Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Earfy Church, Clark, Edinburgh 1990
- 'The Apocalypse of Peter,' in R. Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish
and Christian Apocalypses, (NovTSup 93) Brill, Leiden 1998, 160-258 (1998a)
-- '2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter,' in R. Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on
the Jtwish and Chriktian Apocalypses, (NovTSup 93) Brill, Leidcn 1998,290- 303
(l998b)
- 'Jews and Jewish Christians in the land of Israel at the time of the Bar Kochba war, with
special reference to the Apocalypse of Peter,' in G.N. Stanton and G. G. Strousma (4.1,
Tolerance and Intolerance in Eurb Judaism and Christianity, UP, Cambridge 1998,228238 (1 99&)
- 'For What Offence Was James Put to Death?,' in B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (ed.),James
the Just and Christian Origins, (NovTSup 98) Brill, Leiden 1999, 199-232
Bertrand, D.A., 'L'Cvangile des ebionites:une harmonie Cvang6lique antkricure au
Diatesmn,' N7S 26 ( (1980)548-563

The Origin of the Ebionites

Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity,' in W. Horbury, W. D. Davies and J. Sturdy (ed.),
The Cambridge History of Judaism; vol. 3: The Early Roman Period UP, Cambridge
1999,733 -775
de Boer, M.C., 'The Nazoreans: living at the boundary of Judaism and Christianity,' in G.N.
Stanton and G.G. Strousma (ed.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and
Christianity, UP, Cambridge 1998,239-262
Howard, G., 'The Gospel oftbe Ebionites,' ANRW 2.25.2 (1988) 4034-4053
Jones, F.S., An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: PseudoClementine Recognitions 1.27-71 (SBL Texts and Translations 37, Christian Apocrypha
Series 2) Scholars Press, Atlanta 1995
Jones, F.S., 'Jewish Christian Chiliastic Restoration in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions
1.27-7 1,' in J. M. Scott (ed.), Restoration: Old TestamentJewish and Christian Perspectives, (JSJSup 72) Brill, Leiden 200 1,529-547
Keck, L.E., 'The Poor among the Saints in the New Testament,' ZNW 56 (1965) 100-129
- 'The Poor among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran+'ZNW 57 (1966) 54-78
Klijn, A.F.J., Jewish-Christian Gospel Traditions, (VigChrSup 17) Brill, Leiden 1992
Klijn, A.F.J. and Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidencefor Jewish-Christian Sects, (NovTSup 36)
BrilI, Leiden 1973
Ugasse, S., 'La polkmique antipaulinieme d m le judeo-christianisme hktkrodoxe,' BLE 90
(1989) 5-22,85-100
Luedemann, G., Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity, ET M.E. Boring, Fortress,
Minneapolis 1989
Martyn, J.L., 'Clementine Recognitions 1,33-71, Jewish Christianity, and the Fourth Gospel,'
in J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks (eds.), God's Christ and His People (N.A. Dahl FS),
Universitetsforaget, Oslo, Bergen and Tromsij, 1977,276-29 1.
Miouni, S.C., Le judio-chistianisme ancien: essais historiques, Cerf, Paris 1998
- 'Qui sont les Jesskens dans la Notice 29 du Panarion d ' ~ ~ i ~ h adenSalamine?,'
e
NovT 43
(2001) 264-299
Pritz, RA., Nmarene Jewish Christianity, M~agnes,Jerusalem 2 992
Rehm, B., Die Pseudoklementinen: 11: Rekognitionen, (GCS 5 1 ) Akademie-Verlag, Berlin
1965
Skarsaune, O., The Proof@orn Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's ProoFText Tradition:
Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, (NovTSup 66) Brill, Leiden 1987
Van Voorst, RE., The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Javish-Christian
Community, (SBLDS 112) Scholars Press, Atlanta 1989
Vielhauer, P. - Strecker, G., 'Jewish-Christian Gospels,' in W. Schneemelcher and R. McL.
Wilson (ed.), New Testament Apocvpha, vol. 1, James Clarke - WestminsterIJohn Knox,
Cambridge - Louisville 1991, 134-178
Wengst, K., Humility: Solidmity with the Humiliated, ET J. Bowden, SCM, London 1988

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

Joseph Verheyden
The life and career of Epiphanius of Salamis are not particularly remarkable when compared with that of some of his more prominent contemporaries. We was born sometime between 3 10 and 320 in the neighhourhood of
Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As an adolescent he was attracted to the monastic life and for a while he lived in Egypt (Pan. 26.17.4-9). llpon rcturning to Palestine at about the age of twenty, he founded a monastery at
Eleutheropolis of which he was the abbot (Pan. 40.1.6). In 367 he was appointed as bishop of the see of Salamis (near Famagusta in Cyprus) where
he composed all of his writings. He died in 402103 on returning home from
Constantinople.'
In one respect, however, Epiphanius is an atypical character among the
Fathers of the fourth century. He did not receive the standard education of
so many of his colleagues and throughout his life he remained deeply suspicious of explaining the faith in terms that were not directly borrowed
from Scripture. Yet he was not an ignoramus. He is the author of several
works. He wrote a book on weights and measures (De mensuris et ponderibus, 392) and another one in which he comments on the symbolism of the
stones of the high priest's breastplate (De gemmis, 394195). tlis other writings are much more polemical or apologetic. lie must have written extensively against the practice of producing and worshipping images, though
most of what he wrote on this subject is now lost.2 His letter to John, the
bishop of Jerusalem, from ca. 395 contains a long refutation of 0rigen.s
tea~hing.~
Earlier already he had voiced his dislike of Origen in his two most
important works, the Ancoratus (374) and the Panarion (375-78). The
former is an exposition, in the form of a letter to the church of Syedra in
Pamphylia, of what he regards as the orthodox doctrine on the Spirit, the
Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is a guideline for the way
the little bark of the Christian community has to follow to find a safe
haven and to become 'anchored"(hy~upo.cd<). In 12.7-1 3.8 E iphanius
incorporates a list of all the 'heresies' that threaten the ChurchPThis list
I For this information on Epiphanius, see, a s . , Wlr 1 I A M ~xi- xvi; Df-CHOW
25-56;
P<)IIRKIER
29-5 1 .
Cf. DECIIOW
392-397.
xiv-XV.
WILL.IAMS
Ed. HOI.L2@-22.

'

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

183

constitutes the f m e w o r k of his other major book. The Panarion (lit.. 'the
medicine chest" is a work on h e r e s i o ~ o g Epiphanius
~.~
has collected information on no less than eighty 'heresies' or 'sects"6 for which he also
offers the antidote in often very laborious refutations. On occasion he has
integrated some of his earlier writings in the Panarion.' In addition, he has
quoted and preserved many other documents. By way of conclusion he also
adds a comment on the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church (de
Fide), which for him is identical with the Creed of Nicaea.
With the Panarion Epiphanius ha5 composed the most extensive survey
of heresies and sects that has been preserved from ancient Christian
literature. To the opinion of many modern scholars, he has also composed
the most confusing survey, an achievement that is not to be underestimated
in the field of patristic heresiology. The discipline suffers from many
deficiencies, from a more or less systematic lack of interest in historical
accuracy to a more or less cultivated lack of intellectual honesty. Heresiography is not the most appealing kind of literature. And as far as we know.
Epiphanius certainly was not a very sympathetic character either. The
Nicene Creed is the ultimate norm in doctrinal matters and Epiphanius will
always remain blind for possible imperfections in some of its formulations.* He was equally obsessive in his controversy with Origen, which in
402 eventually drove him to Constantinople for a completely useless
confrontation with John Chrysostom. In a sense, one could say that, according to the expectations of the genre, as an heresiologist he was made of
the right stuff. Modern scholars almost invariably have highlighted this
negative side of his character. He has been called "a watchdog sniffing out
heresies" and the like? and this is certainly not altogether untrue. Yet one
should not forget that in his time Epiphanius was closely befriended with
Jerome and that Augustine thought highly of his work (Anc.). '1'0 his credit
it should also be observed that on occasion he made some real efforts to
obtain accurate information." Moreover, through his quotations, he has
preserved for later generations not a few documents that otherwise would
have been lost or known to us only fragmentarily. Where these can be
checked it appears that he is rather accurate in his citations. One should
also realise that he cannot be blamed for all of the criticisms that have been
Quoted below according to the edition of H ~ L Land
. the English translation o f

WILL.IAMS.

'

The number is symbolical and refers to Song of Songs 6:s- 9, as hc explains in the
prooemium.
See his critique of Marcion's canon in Pan. 42.1 1-12, and the epistle to the
Christians o f Arabia on Mary's virginity in Pan. 78; cf. also the long excerpt from Anc.
65.1-73.9 on the Pneumatomachi in Pan. 74.2-10.
94).
""~rthodox~,to him, means the Nicene faith" (DECI~OW
Cf. METLGER214.
'%II.I
IAMS xix (on Basil, Ep. 258).

formulated about his method of writing. Ofien he had to work from incomplete sources and second-hand material. Often too, as a theologian of
rather limited capacities, he was overwhelmed by the task he had set for
himself in the Panarion.

Jewish-Christian 'sects' in the Panarion

What Epiphanius has to say about Jewish-Christian 'sects' can be found in
chapters 28-30 of his Panarion. The implication of this is obvious, but may
be worth reminding. It is as an heresiologist that he comes to write about
these groups. Those that are mentioned in the Panarion are there because
they are condemned. Epiphanius did not write a history of the Christian
dogma (no one did at that time). The Panarion was not intended to 'understand'these doctrines or to win over again to the Catholic Church the
groups and individuals that held them. The refutations are meant primarily
to admonish and to strengthen the reader, not to convince the 'heretic'. In
short, when one is on the list, one is out of the Church. The poor Ebionites
did not stand a chance.
The Ebionites are dealt with in chapter 30. They are listed last of the
first group of ten Christian heresies that begins with Simon Magus in Pan.
21 (the first twenty chapters are on pre-Christian 'heresies')" and last of
three Jewish-Christian groups. In this section Epiphanius most probably is
following the arrangement of Hippolytus'Syntagma (now lost), with two
exceptions. He leaves out the Ophites, Cainites and Sethians (they are
mentioned later in Pan. 37-39). Instead he has a chapter on the Gnostics or
Borborites. Epiphanius seems to have assimilated here Flippolytus' final
observation on the links between the Nicolaites and certain licentious
Gnostics (see Filaster) and Irenaeus' information that such groups descended from Basilides and Carpocrates (FIaer. 1.28.2).12
'The other difference is perhaps of more importance. Between the Cerinthians and the Ebionites, Epiphanius has inserted a chapter on another
Jewish-Christian group, the Nazoraeans, for which he is our oldest and
possibly even our only source. He has little to say about them and even has
to admit that on certain points he does not know their position (29.7.6). All
this inspires little confidence and the Nazoraeans of Pan. 29 may well be to
a large degree the product of ~ ~ i ~ h a n i u s ' i m a g i n a t il3o n .
I'

On Epiphanius' broad concept of 'heresy', see the studies by FRAENKIL,

Moursout~s,YOUNG, and POURKIER

85-91.
' ~ O U R K I E R103.
I' Though this is usually not sufficiently recognized in studies on the Nuoraeans.
415-475; DE BOfrR; NODE1-TAYLOR 254-265;
See, e.g., P R l T i 29-47; PUURKIER
MIMOUNl 1998b; B1-ANCWETII?R~ 1993 and 2001 : 133-15 1 . A major problem is the fact

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

185

The information that Epiphanius has to offer on the Ebionites in chapter

30 of the Panarion by far exceeds what is known of this group from other
ancient source^.'^ Epiphanius never cared much about a clear presentation.
But, as in other instances, this chapter too can be roughly divided into four
parts: an introduction that situates the group in the wider spectrum and
offers some geographical and historical information about its founder and
its members; a description of its doctrines and teachings; a refutation that
cannot always be clearly distinguished From the description; and a short
conclusion in which the group is compared to one or another beast." Some
of his information is found in other authors too. Epiphanius certainly was
acquainted with Irenaeus' Adversus haereses and with several of Eusebius'
writings, and he has clearly used them, though he never quotes his predecessors by name.I6 'This kind of information is of some interest, even if it is
highly suspicious, because it illustrates how Epiphanius has adapted, and
at times corrupted, his sources.I7
In one of his letters Jerome describes as follows the fate of those Jews
who want to be Christians, yet do not want to give up certain features of
their former religion: Quod vulgo Nazaraeos nuncupant, qui credunt in
that ancient authors used the same name (in various forms) to cover distinct phenomena
(see MIMO~JNI
1998b). The information Jerome has to offer about the 'Nazaraei' (Vir. Ill.
3) differs considerably from that of Epiphanius. Epiphanius was probably not acquainted
:
246), and much of what he has to
with members of the sect (so PRIIZ35, diff. ~ t BOLR
43).
say about them "is his own invention and does not indicate a separate source" (PRIIZ
PRITL.nevertheless concludes that in 29.7 Epiphanius may have relied on a source "dealing with a split in the Nazarene ranks, resulting in the sect of the Ebionites". In 29.7.2 6
Epiphanius adapts information that is also found in Irenaeus with regard to the Ebionites
(Haer. 1.26.2) in his description of Nazoraean theology. The Nazoraeans confess Christ
as the Son of God (29.7.3). The reason why they figure in the Panarion is that they still
cling to the commandments of the Law, and therefore "are not in accord with Christians"
(29.7.5). In so far, the chapter is very much a doublet of that on the Ebionites in Pan. 30,
exce t that the latter definitely propagate heretical teachings on Christ (see below).
lP See the surveys and quotations of relevant material in KLW-REININK 19-43 and
passim; KKH 384-397; KLIJN 14-16 and 65 77. Cf. also the preceding contribution by

R. BAUCKIIAM.
Cf. DUMt4I.R and (;RANI 1999: 76.
E.g., when dealing with the meaning of the name Ebion in Pan. 30.17.1-3. This
information is based above all on Origen and Eusebius (cf. K a ' H 2 18).
" Cf. what he has to say about the geography and earliest history of the group and the
person of its founder. For the information that the Christians fled Jerusalem immediately
before or during the first Jewish War and settled in Pella in Transjordan, Epiphanius
most probably depends upon Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.5.3. However, he goes beyond his
source when he adds that both the Nmraeans (Pan. 29.7.7-8) and the Ebionites (30.2.78) originated and recruted among those who had fled Jerusalem. Epiphanius even asserts
that some of these Christians returned to Jerusalem later on (Mens. 15). For a critical
assessment of the historicity of the flight and of the way it is used by Eusebius and
Epiphanius, see VERHEYDEN
1990: 376-383. For some, however, the historicity of the
Pella tradition remains unabated; see most recently MANNS53-42.
"

l6

186

Verheyden

Christum, filium Dei natum de Maria virgine, et eum dicunt esse, qui sub
Pontio Pilato at passus est el resurrexit, in quem et nos credimus, sed, durn
volunt et Iudaei esse et Christiani, nec Iudaei sunt nec Christiani (Ep.
112.1 3).18 Epiphanius has a similar kind of definition in Pan. 30.1.3-5
when describing how Ebion has absorbed all sorts of doctrines. Specifically with regard to his aiming at being a Jew and a Christian alike, Epiphanius observes: "He has the Christians' name alone - most certainly not
their behaviour, vie oint and knowledge, and the Gospels' and apostles'
agreement in faith.'pAnd similarly, "while professing to be a Jew, he is
the opposite of dews - though he does agree with them in part."20 As a consequence, "since he is practically midway between all the sects, he is
nothing."21 As a matter of fact, the whole of Epiphanius' description in
Pan. 30 is intended to demonstrate, not just that the Ebionites or other
Jewish-Christian groups are wrong in their convictions, but that, in his
view, it is simply impossible to become a Christian and to remain faithful,
in one way or another, to the requirements of the Law. Jewish-Christianity
is a false solution to the question of the relationship between Christianity
and Judaism, and it leads to an aporia and to absurdities. This is argued in
Pan. 30 in various ways.

The dangers of syncretism

As Epiphanius sees it, the Ebionite movement shows a marked tendency
for mixing up things. It does not stop at an attempt to reconcile Christian
faith with Jewish practice. This is said with so many words in the very first
lines of ch. 30. Ebion is "a monstrosity with many shapes", almost the
personification of the "mythical many-headed
He has concocted

'' In the previous lines Jerome referred to them as 'Ebionites', 'qui Christianos esse
se simulant'.
l9 30.1.3 XpwrtavGv po6Xszat E p t v z6 kndvupov p6vov (ot ydp FqnouGCV tfiv ZE zpG<tv ~ a r le v yvhpqv ~ a zqv
i yv&orv ~ a zr)v
i z&v ~ b a y y s i
mpi X I C T Z E
o u~y ~ a z d f l ~ o t v )Jerome
.
knew the Panarion,
Aiov ~ a &noo~6Xov
but he does not have to depend on Epiphanius in his letter.
30.1.5' IouGaiov GC Gauzov bpoAoyGv ' IouGaiot~& v z i ~ ~ t z a~ta, i z o oupt
cpovhv a b z o i ~kv pkpar.
30.1.4, p k o o ~68 c b ~~ t m i vdnavzov z u y ~ u v w vobggv X ~ ~ I U K E VIt. is worth
noting that the parallelism between the two descriptions is not complete. Ebion may not
be a Jew, though professing to be one, but at least he agrees with certain doctxines held
by the Jews. Be also calls himself a Christian, which he is certainly not, for there is
nothing on which he can claim to be on one line with good Christian teaching. In Pan.
29.7.5 and 29.9.3, Epiphanius gives a similar paraphrastic description also for the Wazoraeans.
22 30.1.1 : zo~i)popqovZ E ~ ~ O T I O V
~ a ~ii ) $E I ~ I Ev ~t j j ~p ~ f ) ~ u o p & ~v qA~U K E cpcihou E1Gpaq bcpth6q popcpfiv kv Gauz@ h v a z u n o o d p ~ v o ~ .

*'

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

187

his teachings not only from Christian and Jewish tradition (nowhere is it
said that Ebion is of Jewish descent), but he has also assimilated elements
of Samaritan purity law which is said to be more radical than that of the
Jews (30.2.3). The problem becomes even worse if one realises that the
Ebionites do not rely on orthodox Christianity or Judaism but on certain
movements within these religions. Their inspiration is not the Judaism of
the Rabbis or the Christology of the canonical gospels. They have been
influenced by such Jewish sects as the Ossaeans and the Nasaraeans
(30.1.8) and by other Jewish-Christian groups ranging from the Nazoraeans to the Cerinthians. No limit is set to this kind of irresponsible assimilations, and the reader should nut be surprised about what comes out of such
a mess. In the end it appears that the Ebionites would have given up the
essentials of their own theology. That is the point of the strange observation in 30.3.1-2 that later generations of Ebionites no longer held to
Ebion's view that Christ is begotten from a man, but indulge in all kinds of
esoteric speculations about Adam and Christ and about the gigantic
proportions of the heavenly ~ h r i s t It. ~should
~
be evident to everyone that
such a mixture simply cannot work. For Epiphanius Ebionite Christianity
is a most obvious example of the dangers of syncretism.

A singular theology and false arguments

The modern reader of Pan. 30 would have wished to have more information about what exactly the Ebionites took over from their predecessors,
but that is not Epiphanius' prime interest. He rather wants to show that the
Ebionites hold quite singular views on Christ and the prophets, and that
they argue for them on the basis of a corrupted version of the Scriptures.
The argument that heretics have corrupted the Scriptures had already a
long history in Christian polemics.24 In fact it works in a double way. It
helps to illustrate the wickedness of the opponent and at the same time it
constitutes a first step in the refktation: if a doctrine can only be maintained in this way it sure must be false. This is shown above all for the gospels but it is also briefly touched upon for the Jewish Bible.

23 Such views were transmitted to them through groups or individuals who claimed to be
followers of Elxai (see also 30.17.5-8). On these passages &om Pan. see KLIM-REININK
61-65 and LUTTIKHUIZEN
129-134, who concludes that the connexion between the Ebionites and Elxai is the result of Epiphanius' assumptions. "The sole base for this supposition seems to have been his opinion that Elxai's book was used by several Trans-Jordan
sects, the Ebionites included."
24 See the evidence that is collected and discussed by BLUDAU
6-14 (on JewishChristian groups); LE BOULLUEC; EHRMAN3-46 and 47-1 18 (anti-adoptionistic cormptions); GRANT1993: 1-13.

Who has ever heard of orthodox Jews who refuse to accept the writings
of the Prophets or part of the Torah and who propagate vegetarianism? Yet
according to Epiphanius these are among the core doctrines of the Ebionites. To what sort of absurdity this leads is shown in 30.18.4-9. The
Ebionites "anathematize", "disregard", "blaspheme" and "make fun of' the
OT prophets and accept only Christ as "the prophet of truth"(30.18.5, TOV
X p t o ~ o vxpocpljrqv A ~ Y O M ~
&Aqe~ia<).'They would likewise have
eliminated from the Torah the stories in which the Patriarchs, Noah or
Moses are said to have eaten meat. And when confronted with this most
extraordinary treatment of the Law they will answer, in an almost Pauline
way, that these stories are now rendered futile since the Gospel has come,
and they will boast that "Christ has revealed this to me".25
'The vegetarianism of John the Baptist and of Jesus is an important issue
too in the Ebionite interpretation of the Christian life. It is one of two particular features of their theology that receives a detailed discussion in Pan.
30. The other is the belief that Jesus was born a mere man and was proclaimed the Son of God only at his baptism. To argue for these doctrines the
Ebionites have constructed a gospel of their own. Epiphanius quotes seven
fragments of this gospel. These excerpts are among the more interesting
sections in the chapter.
Epiphanius says the Ebionites would accept only the Gospel according
to Matthew, as do the Cerinthians, which they themselves call the Gospel
"according to the Hebrews" (30.3.7). In 30.13.2 he adds that what they call
"the Gospel of Matthew" or "the Hebrew one" actually is not identical
with the canonical gospel of Matthew, for it is "not entirely complete, but
is corrupt and mutilated" as he goes on to demonstrate with the excerpts.
The confusion about the title of this gospel is probably the result of a
rather unlucky attempt by Epiphanius to assimilate the information he
found in his sources about a Jewish-Christian gospel.2"
A.F.J. Klijn has recently convincingly argued that the excerpts of
Jewish-Christian gospels that are quoted in patristic sources (and in some
N'T codices) can be assigned to three distinct writing^.^' A "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (GH) originally composed in Egypt is attested by
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind and Jerome (nos. 1-3,
13-15, 21-22 of his list of 36 authentic passages).28 Jerome is our chief

kv

*'

V
&XLC)'IE~ );at (pqm " ~ t q~ p ~ TiC a
~p~ & V ~ Y I V & K E L V
~6p(d).
kAB6vt0~706 ~Gayyc-;Aiou':...Xpto'16(; pot h l t ~ ~ a k l l ~ ~ .

30.18.7-9 ~ K E L V ~ ~L ~Z

'I@

So KLIIN-&MINK 30 and KLIJN 15.

KLIJN 41. KI'IJN has collected 36 passages (and 20 that contain material that
probably is not authentic).
See now also DORIVAI.
8-26, who examines above all Origen's comment on the
books of the Old Testament in his Commentary on Ps 1 , which he considers to be a
reference to the OT canon of this group rather than of rabbinic Judaism of Origen's time.
26
27

"

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

189

patristic source for the existence of a "Gospel according to the Nazoraeans" (GN) that is to be located in the region of Reroea (nos. 16-20, 2324).29The seven excerpts that are quoted in Pan. 30 (nos. 6-12: 30.13.2-3;
30.13.4-5; 30.13.6, repeated with some slight variation in 30.14.3;
30.1 3.7-8; 30.14.4; 30.16.5; and 30.22.4, repeated in 30.22.5) are all that
is left of a third gospel with evident Jewish-Christian features. It is commonly called "the Gospel according to the Ebionites'YGE). This gospel
probably was composed somewhere in Transjordan. It is widely accepted
that the quotations are reliable, even though they are used polemically (or
should one say, because they are used in this way). 'The fragments have
been studied quite intensively in the past years.30
There can be little doubt about it that the author of GE must have been
acquainted with at least the gospels of Matthew and of ~ u k e . It
~ 'is also
quite obvious from the fragments that, as a rule, canonical Mt is the
author's primary source and guide. In so far, GE could be called "their
gospel of Matthew" (30.13.2). On the basis of the excerpts that are preserved GE has often been called a gospel harmony.32However, gospel harmony may be a somewhat misleading label. It is not so much that it is difficult
to imagine Epiphanius' 'poor' Ebionites being involved in the kind of critical study of the gospels that would be required to realise such a work. The
problem rather is that in several of the fragments GE is less interested in
harmonising conflicting accounts in the gospels than in rewriting the gospel accounts to support typically Ebionite teaching on Christ. The Ebionites applied several strategies to obtain their goal. Ofien the rewriting is
quite drastic and it usually needs little comment as to its purpose.33
In one of the excerpts John the Baptist is made a prominent defender of
a vegetarian life-style by omitting the 'locusts'in his diet and a play on the
word h ~ ~ l ~In . his
" comment Epiphanius adds that the Ebionites have
In addition, KLIJNalso lists two passages quoted by Eusebius (nos. 4-5) and a
number of glosses that have been preserved in the margin of four NT codices (566: nos.
25, 34; 1424: nos. 26-30, 32-33, 36; 899: no. 31; 4: no. 35).
30 See BERTRAND1980; HENNI-.; ~ ~ O W A R D
KLIJN-REININK
;
28-38; KI.IJN 65 77;
K K t i 316-358; MIMOUNI1998a: 258-272; NLIRYNCK157-160 (749-752). The fragments were edited with English and Geman translation by resp. KI.IJN and LIIHRMANN
32-55 (who does not distinguish between G N and GW).
-" The evidence for the influence of Mk, Jn and Acts is more debated.
'"* See the title of the article by BERTRAND;cf. also HOWARD.
" "GEb is not simply a harmony of gospel parallels. The author of GEb makes a free
use of the gospel text and also combines and conflates different passages of the same
gospel" (NEIRYNCK751). See also KOHLER276 and 279.
30.13.4 -5 kykvsro' Iocivvqq $axrtl&v, uul tt,jhQov n p d ~abrdv @ a p t o a i o ~
' I~poobAupa.~ a ETXEV
i
6' Iwcivvq~EvSupa hxd
~ a kpaxrlo0qaav
i
~ a xkaa
i
r p y 6 v ~ a p q l i o u ~ a (dvqv
i
G~pparivqv x ~ p iT ~ VbacpOv abroc. ~ a i ,r d
$p&pa abroc, cprpi, pOAt Ciyptov, 06 0 y ~ k o t g4 rob pdvva, c b ~k y ~ p i qkv
t h a i y . f v a Gjf3~v p ~ r u a r p I ; y ~ mttd v r j q hAqf)&iaq A6yov &\q yr&cGog ~ a i

''

190

Verhqden

'replaced'&~pl$
with ky~pi5.3"he substitution of $pcjpa for ~pocpq(so
Mt 3:4) may be surprising, as the former could refer to (boiled) meat (cf.
Rom 14:15.20; 1 Cor 8:8.13). But in any case the matter really is about
John's vegetarian diet.36
The corruption of the text is more drastic still with regard to Jesus. In
their Gospel the Ebionites have Jesus say: "1 have came to abolish sacrifices and if you do not stop sacrificing the wrath will not cease from
The least one can say is that the author of GE "semble quclque peu emportC par son particularisme doctrina~".~~
There simply is no such verse in the
canonical gospels. The critique of the offer cult (and indirectly of the Temple) is known from the Gospel of Matthew (9: 13 and 12:7) and from other
Jewish-Christian groups.39In GE it is formulated after the model of Jesus"
teaching on the Law in Mt 5:17, but his very words are now reversed to
hvrl Cl~pISovxotijowriv BytcpkGa 6v pC11rl. The wild honey John used to eat is
compared to the manna of the desert (Nu 1 1 :8 and Ex 16:3 1) and to "a cake of honey"
(kytcpi~kv klaicp). The text of the fragment follows the order of Mk 1:4 6 (presentation of the Baptist - his activity - his dress and diet) and agrees with Mk for the
beginning (cf. Mk 1:4a). Against M~sc;nvx(350, 357) and KOHI F K (278, 287), NrlKYNCK (750f.) has recently again defended the influence of Mk on GE. For KOHIr K the
"inversion" of the Mt order results from "ged8chtnismilssiger Zitation der matthtiischen
Geschichte" (287). The rest of the fragment is closer to Mt, esp. for the description of the
dress, which is identical with Mt 3:4a (only the article before EvSupu IS lacking). rlcioa
' I ~ p o o 6 l v p a could be a contamination of the way Mt in 3:s (Mk 1:Sa) describes the
various groups coming to be baptised, if the expression was not directly borrowed from
Mt 2:3 (so NEIRYNCK
750). The Pharisees may havc been imported from Mt 3:7 where
one also finds the verb E p ~ o p a i(diff. Mk 1:s par. Mt 3:s kuxopc6opat). HOWARD
(4043) considers "the alternation of synonymous words" (here @@pa - rpocpq), together with "stylistic chiastic inversion" ( E ~ X EbV' Iodvvqq and pCLt dyptov before
kylcpiq diff. Mk/Mt) and "the substitution of words which are orally and v~sually
similar" pig - tytcpi~),as literary features of GE. Should one reckon with influence
from Lk 3: 1 1 for the substitution of @p&pa?
?' Kmt1 tentatively suggests that the Ebionite reading might be older than the locust
tradition, "perhaps conveying the impression that he was a new prophet 11keMoses". But
he of course also agrees that "the GE form would allow the Ebion~testo argue for
vegetarianism in the case of John the Baptist" (329). GE contains an allusion to the desert
experience of Israel, but does not turn the Baptist into the New Moses (afier all John does
not provide for others). Rather than Moses, John is modeled after Elijah who in I Ki 10%
is described as eating cakes (328 n3).
The quotation also illustrates "that the Gospel is 'falsified and distorted"', and,
through the wordplay, that GE was originally composed in Greek (cf. Kl IJN 68;
BrRTRAND 1980: 555).
" 30.16.5 &C,
t d XUP' abtoic; ~bayyGLlov K U ~ O ~ ~ E Y ~O &
Q plk~E
6r1
i , fih@O\l
~ a ~ a k i i o ardg
t Buoia~, ~ a kdv
l
pq narioq&s TOG 06civ. 00 nairocrui hcp'
bphv bpyq.
BERTRAND
1980: 558.
39 Cf. SCI~OEPS
219-242. Epiphanius had mentioned it before when dealing with the
Elkesaites (19.3.6); see also 30.16.7.

"

'*

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

19 1

have him say the exact opposite.40 If in 5: 17 Jesus said, "Think not that I
have come to abolish the Law and the prophets" (pq voploqrs 6z1 ijA0ov
rod5 npoqqra<), he now says that he has in~arah6crat r d v vdpov
deed come to abolish part of the Law. In this fragment a veiled allusion to
the group's views on vegetarianism is combined with a critique of the
Temple cult and an awareness of Jesus'divine powers as the one who is
able to supersede this aspect of Jewish religious life. Ironically, the fragment has a Pauline ring (cf. Kom 4: 15).4'
A similar strategy for turning a text into its opposite is applied in still
another excerpt. According to GE Jesus would have refused to cat the paschal lamb with his disciples.42The fragment combines the question of the
disciples in Mt 26:17b (with a variation of the word order at the end: TO
naoxa cpayci v) with Lk 22: 15, which however is radically altered by
adding pq.43Jesus now emphatically denies that he is looking forward to
eating the Pascha with his disciples. His negative stand towards the laws
on the Pascha and towards eating meat is still further stressed by the irreverent ~ p f ~ Again
a ~ .Jesus
~ is said to have transgressed the Law in order
to maintain some peculiar position on the abstinence from eating meat.4s

* Cf. KOtfl.~u283: "bewusste Anspielung auf Mt 5.17 ... die Aussagen dieser Stelle
inhaltlich 'ersetzcn"'.
4 ' Unless it is an allusion to Jn 3:36 (so KWH 343).
42 30.22.4 aitroi 68 hcpavIoavtc5 hcp' kavtbv T ~ T
V ~ hAq0ciaq
S
h~okou0iav
fiklakav rd bqtdv, bx&p t o r t x6ot cpavcpdv k~ rGv oove~cuyp6vov165t;ov.
uai knoitlaav rodq p a 0 q t a ~pEv M y o v t a ~no5 OEhstq t'cotpcfoophv ool t d
n u o p rpaysiv, K U ~ubrdv 6fiOcv kkyovra "pq kntO\q,ttp kxeoripqoa lcphaq
toGro 10 I l a o ~ acpaysiv pc0' bpo?vW.x6Ocv 66 oit cpopa0~oezat4 abro?v bq6oupyia. r f i ~h~okou0ia; ~ p a j o l j o qd~r i rd pG ~ a rd
l fird kart np6oOEra;
&vri ydp roc d x s i v kxteupiq hx&Olipqoaabtoi npoac06vro TO pq txlppqpu.
abtdq Sh h k r l o k Eksycv k n ~ & ) p i ~t n. ~ W p q a aTOGTO r d n & m a cp~ycivp&B
a
...).
bpbv. The fragment is partly repeated in 30.22.5 (TOGTOr d n & o ~ ~pGaq
'' This and the previous excerpt are quoted by HOWARDas examples of a "converse
construction" (4048), a technique that is also known in the Gospels. HOWARDrefers to
Mk 6:8 E\ 1.111 bd@ov pdvov diff. MtfLk, and to Mt 17:10-13 (the Baptist is Elijah)
diff. Jn 1 :2 1. The first case clearly is the stronger one. It is less obvious that the instances
he quotes from the MS tradition (Mt 12:32; 24:36; Jn 9:27) were al meant to be "converse constructions". HOWARD
considers this excerpt a good example of "the harmonistic
~ K One should not forget, however, that by reading
nature of GE" (4048; cf. K O ~ Z L 284).
L,k 22: 15 immediately after Mt 26: 17, GE has combined verses from two different
contexts.
Probably nothing should be concluded from the absence of npd roc pc xaOsi v.
If that were the case Epiphanius would certainly have mentioned it in his comment.
45 "The verbal divergences seem to support sectarian doctrines such as vegetarianism
... and anti-sacrifice (?)" (KWH 345-346). Cf. BERTRAND
1980: 558. KOHLERretains
only the first aspect (284: "[ein] konsequenter Vegetarier"). KOCH is perhaps too hesitant
to conclude from this excerpt that GE must have contained a passion narrative (347: "can
only be conjecturedn;ctr. BERTRAND
1980: 559: "suftit B confmer").

"

Other sections of the canonical gospels were simply omitted in GE.

Thus its author did not bother about the differences in the genealogies of
Mt and Lk. They were left out altogether, as were the birth and infancy
narratives in Mt 1-2 and Lk 1-2.46 The omission o f the genealogy is mentioned twice. In the fragment quoted in 30.13.6 it is said that GE begins
with: "It happened in the days of Herod, the king o f Judea, e t ~ " . ~I'his
? is
repeated in a slightly variant form in 30.14.3, but now it is also positively
stated that the Ebionites have left out the genealogy (napa~onto).JSThe
"6 Except for one or two elements on the Baptist that were taken up elsewhere in GE
(cf. 30.13.6).
47
fi 64 & p ~ TO?)
q nap' ubtoi5 Ebayy&kiou E X E ~6 f l " ~ ~ C V E T Ok~ ~ ~fipk-i

patq ' 13pca)Sou $uotAkog rfiq ' IouGaia~<kxl h p x t ~ p k yKatbpa> fili0Cv < r t p
' I d v v q q <bv6part> j3anri<ov fkintiapa p ~ r a v o i a qkv t @ ' Iop&ivn norap@,
O vat t r ykvouq ' Aapdv 706 I s p k y , na'iq Z a ~ a p l o uwal ' Ehl6 % ~ A ~ Y E T 1
o d b r , r a t k5tfip~ovronpdq abrdv ndvreq." HOLLhas assimilated the text to the
one that is found in 30.14.3 (see n481.
a ~ U ~ U K ~ ~ ~ ydp
U V rT dC ~
nu@
~
r@ MarBaiq yev&aAoyia< d p ~ o v r u tTQV
~ ~ C V E T Opqoiv.
.
t v ~ a I)pCi ~
ClpxQv noteio0at rjzq npoeixopc;~,~ C Y O V T E6~ r ~
q
ijhBtv rt5
patq ' HpqiSou @otAkwq r f i ~ 'Iou6alag t n i & p ~ t ~ p kKatdrcpa,
' I d v v q q bvdpart $aari<ov $&rrriopa peravoiay kv r@ 'IopSavn norap@,
K U ~rd ktfjq. WILLIAMS'translation is inaccurate when it reads that the Ebionites "falsify" the genealogical tables in Mt. GE combines Lk 1 :5 and 3:3 (fiA~Ev),with some further elements from Lk 39-3 in 30.14.3, with Mk 1:4-5 par. Mt 3:s 6. The fact that the
Ebionite 'Gospel of Matthew'would have begun in a very Lukan way is odd indeed (so
Ktx'li 332)" but would be less so if they themselves called it "according to the Hebrews"
(see above). Instead of wqp6ooov f3drnrtopa p&ravoIa< (Mk 1:5, preceded by [ b ]
@x'cI(ov kv rfi Bpqpcp r a i , and Lk 3:3), GE has paxri(ov. The figura etymologica
is only found in Acts 19:4. Another echo from Acts may be 65 hlikycro ~f VUL b~ yCvoug 'Aapdv roc i&pi',ythat is not as such in I-k i :5 and was regarded as an interpolation by BOISMARD
(329-330). However, it reminds one of Acts 4:6 " Avvaq h p ~ t e ...wal. 600t fiaav k~ y&voug h p x i s p a r t ~ o i If~ . there is influp&65 ~ a Katacpa5
l
ence of Acts, the composition of this excerpt is less consistent than RER'TRAND
would
have it (1980: 556: a. Lk 1:s and 3:2-3 k y k v ~ t o- ' I d v v q q ; b. Mk 1:4-5 ' lcodvvqc,
- norap@;a ' L k 1 :5 65 - ' EA~oaf3er;
by Mk 1 :5 at - ndrvr~q).BERTKAND
does not
mention either that GE, in the very first words, seems to have mixed up two different
'beginnings' of the gospel. Lk 1:s is the beginning of Luke's gospel, as Mt 3:l (kv 61:
raiq ilpCpatq k ~ ~ i v u t q !is) the beginning of Matthew's for those who exclude the
genealogy and infancy narrative (cf. MASSAUX
356; HOWARD
4040). KOHLERpoints out
that, if this fragment preceded the one on John's baptism (Pan. 30.13.4- 5), CiE would
have switched from Lk to Mt, as it did in the fragment of 30.13.2-3 (see below). But this
works only if one agrees with KOWLERthat there is no need ("nicht zwingendn) also to
reckon with influence of Mt andlor Mk in 30.13.6. KLIJNargues that the second version
may be the more original one because of wai rd kcfiq. "This would mean that he [i.e.,
Epiphanius] is aware that the text continues", but he recognizes that the argument is "not
very strong" (69). He is inconclusive about the omission of ciq 6cpsotv hpaprlrjv after
p~ravoiaq(Mk 1:s par. Lk) and of kv 7fi kpqpc~,(Mk 1:s par. Mu'Lk). "We wonder
whether these elements were deliberately omitted by the author of the present Gospel or
whether Epiphanius was merely summarising its text" (70). If GE read j3anrijwv for

Epiphanius on the Ebioni~es

193

result is a neat contrast between John, who is referred to as the son of

Zachariah and Elisabcth and even as a descendant of Aaron (Lk 1 :5), and
Jesus, who has no forebears, which is rather surprising for a group that
wanted to stress the humanity of ~ e s u s In
. ~the
~ comment that follows in
30.14.4 Epiphanius observes that for the Ebionites, "Jesus is really a manq'
(rov p6v ' Iqoofjv 6 v r w &v0poxov ef vat), but that Christ "has entered
him ... and was united with him" (Xpiorov 62 kv aGr@ ysyevfioeat
...ouvaip0Svra tr: aGr4). As the text now runs, the final clause of the
comment contradicts the preceding: "Christ himself is the product of a
man's seed and a woman." The text is probably corrupt. This conclusion
makes sense, however, if one accepts the emendation proposed by Woll on
the basis of Pan. 28.1.5 and reads: "Christ himself <is from God on high,
but Jesus> is the product of a man's seed and a
This emendation also makes sense of the next excerpt and the comment
that follows immediately after in 30.14.5. Epiphanius continues, "But
again they deny his humanity on the basis of the Saviour's words." He then
quotes a somewhat free rendering of the dialogue between Jesus and his
mother and brothers in Mt 12:47-50~'. This quotation, if originally From
G E , ' ~ does not contain any remarkable differences from the canonical
text.s3 It is the way it was supposedly used by the Ebionites that is criti~ i s e d . 'According
~
to Epiphanius they would find evidence in it that Jesus
was not a human being at all, for he regards only those who do the will of
~qpGooov,it clearly focused on the baptism o f John rather than on its preaching, o f
which it is said in M t 3:l-2 that it took place in the desert and that it was a message af
repentance.
49
KWH, following SCIIO~PS (164), regards the emphasis on John's descent from
Aaron as "another way by which John the Baptist was subordinated to Jesus" (332).
&Elvat ubrdv rdv Xpiorov < k ~roc B v o 0&oc, rdv 62 Irpohv> & K onkpp a r o ~bv8pdq ~ a yiu v a i ~ d qycyevvqp6vov.
5' nitkiv 62 hpvoBvrai ~ l v a iai)rov &vOpoxov, 6fj0cv hxd TO?)Idyou o
G
e l p q ~ c vb a o ~ q pkv r@ h v a y y ~ h ~ v aa6r@
i
651 ihjod fi pqrqp oou ~ a ol
i
66&k(po\ oou E50 Borq~dolv,671 r i pod
~
kori pqrqp ~ a i tlllickqoi;
,
~ u 6t ~ rsivaq rqv p i p a Bnt toOq paOq~dqEqq. o6roi etoiv o i h6ekqoi pou ~ a i(l
prjrqp K U ~(rSchqui oi x o t o h v t y rd Ockqpura to6 n a r p d ~pou.
" This is 'questionable' according to KOCH 341, and also to Kt IJN who thinks that
Epiphanius quoted from memory (75), which could account for the absence o f 706 6 v
obpavoi q and the systematic use o f the plural in the parallel o f 12:50.
53 Some o f the differences are also attested in the MS tradition o f Mt, even though the
text o f GE cannot be linked to one particular text-type. BER'IRAND (1980: 557) and
KOI~LER (282 n l ) prefer the reading Bni rod5 p a B q t a ~rqv ~ c i p uin CE, as the lectio
difficilior, to the text o f Ho1.1.. Most remarkable perhaps is o i X ~ ~ O ~ V~dT @eA?)pt~rU
E ~
roc n a s p 6 ~pou, instead o f M t 12:50a, and the inversion o f the order o f v. 50 as in L k
8:21. M a s s ~ u x353 reckoned with influence o f M t only (diff. 13t:RTRAND 1980: 558 and
KOEI1,ER 282).
So also Kocu 34 1.

"

the Father as his kin. If the Ebionites would have propagated such kind of
metaphorical kinship, which in itself is not impossible, Epiphanius ccrtainly has stretched the limits of this interpretation by concluding from this
excerpt that they deny the human nature of Jesus. One has the impression
that Epiphanius has anachronistically introduced some of the issues of later
controversies on the nature and person of Christ into his presentation of
Ebionite Christology. The effect, though, of the sharp contrast between
30.14.3-4 and 30.14.5 cannot be overlooked. The Ebionites are lost in their
own speculations and hold utterly nonsensical views on Christ and Jesus.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the observation that, by leaving
out the genealogy, they give away a good argument in support of their
teaching that Jesus was born a mere man, and one that had been used
precisely in this way by Cerinthus and Carpoerates (30.14.2).~' Were the
Ebionites less instructed in the subtleties of exegetical reasoning? Or were
they more radical even than Cerinthus?
A strange and rather complicated combination of elements from various
gospel passages and from the Book of Acts is found in the citation from
the Ebionite version of the call of the disciples." Though there are verbal
similarities, this version does not so much follow the pattern of any of the
call stories in the canonical gospels, except for what is said about Matthew, as that of the election of the Twelve in Mt 10:2-4 and parallels.57
55 "It is Strange that the Ebionites did not follow the same exegesis, since they also
were interested in demonstrating the humanity of Jesus" (Ktx'ti, 332). There IS no reason
to assume that G E must have contained the genealogies because they were most useful
(so VIGNI:33).
30.13.2- 3 bv T@ Y O ~ Vnap' U ~ T jO E~ ~ ) u Y Y E ~~ ~a( r~ dM u ~ 0 a i o vbvopqopkvy. o b d~k y 66 xhqpcorcit(p, &Aka vevo0copkvc; uui fiuporqplaopCvq ('Ep p a i ~ d vSi: roGro ~ a l o i j o l v )tpcpkperut (5x1 LyCvc~ci TI; hvqp bvcipa~l '1x1-

~ 0 6 5 ,~ a a ib r d ~cbr kr6v T ~ I ~ ~ K O V T6Uj. I : ~ ~ h C < u llpaq.

ro
uai kX0ojv c\; Kucpapvaodp ciofjh0cv c i rqv
~ o l ~ i a vZipovo; roi) I;n~~h@kvro;IlC~po\iu a l
hvoikaj r o o ~ b p aabro6 c l n e v napcp~6pcvoq nupa rqv kipvqv T I P E ~ I ~ S O ~
,
Zepc6aiot). KUI Zipova uai 'Avkt&3i&t&ptlv'I~odvvqv~ a ' iI a ~ o p o v uiodq
Gpkav ~ a BuSiTcliov
i
~ a Zipova
i
rdv jtlhorqv tcai ' Io66av rdv' Io~aplrSrqv,
~ a o6l rdv MarOaiov ~aO&[bp&vovhxi roc rcAoviou & ~ a A e o a~ a qiu d o l i i;
roii
Bqod; poi.' Y p i i ~o6v PoOhopa~c l v a ~6 c ~ a 6 i ) obnoorbhou; ~ paprOplov
'IopaqA.
" The quotation opens with a 1,ukan-like introduction (cf. 1-k 1 :5 kykvc~o ...TLC,
bvbparl) and combines elements that have a parallel in Lk 3:23 ( ~ u abrdq
i
fiv ' Iq006s ...&o&i BTGV TPIUKOVTU),
and in Lk 6:13 (Kai i;Kh~~aprvo;;
cf. also Jn 6.70)
and Acts 1:2 (oGj k~chC{aro).'The reference to Jesus coming to Capernaum and to the
house of Simon Peter combines 1,k 4:31a ( ~ u i~aOfjA0cvc\ j KacpapvaoOp; maybe
also Lk 7:l par. Mt, as KOHI.ER 276 suggests) and 4:38a (clofjA01:v c i s T ~ \ V o i ~ i a v
Z i p o v o ~ ) As
. in Mt 10:2 (and 4:18) the double name Simon Peter is used, but in CiE it is
expressed in a way that is typical for Acts (10:5.18.32; 11:13; so KL IJN 66, but diff.
KOtiI.ER 276, who calls it an "eigener Zusatz", possibly after Mt 8: 14). Jesus opening his
i
16 orcipa ub~oir,but with a ~ i m p l e
mouth has a parallel in Mt 5:2 ( ~ a &voi:uc,

Epiphanius on the Ebionires

195

The text as it is quoted is probably incomplete, for the list o f apostles

contains only eight names.58Matthew is mentioned last and that may have
been a reason why Epiphanius quotes this passage when explaining that the

c i n ~ vfor Mt's B6i6uo~cvubrodq Akyov) and in 17:27. The introductory description

of the location may contain an echo from the call stories in Mt 9:9 par. Mk 2: 14 ( ~ a p d y o v , and rrapa r q v Bdlaooav in 2: 13), in Mt 4:18 par. Mk 1 :16 (ncpinar6v 61:
resp. ~ u rrupkymv,
l
nu@ r q v edhaooav rfis ruktkaia5), and in Lk 5:l (fiv kar d q ~ u p ar q v kipvqv rsvvqoup1:r, with a supplementary echo from Jn 2 1: 1 (knl
rqq OdAaoaqq rqq ?'1~cpiuSoq, cf. Jn 6:1.23; difE KCIHLER 276: "eigene Bezeichnung"). The verb B c ~ k k ~ a p qmay
v stem from the commission of the Twelve (cf. Lk
6:13, but is now part of Jesus' speech; so N ~ I R Y N C
752
K n196, diff. KOHLER273: "ohne
Entsprechung bei den Synoptikern"; see further also Jn 6:70; 13:18; 15: 16.19 and Acts
1:2). The list of the eight disciples is given in the accusative as in Mk 3:16- 19 par. Lk,
but in an arrangement that only partially agrees with Mt 10:2-4 par. Mk (Thaddaeus,
Simon the Zealot, as in Lk 6: 15, and Judas the Iskariot, as in Mt). The order John-James
is found only in Acts 1:13 (K0ti1FR 274). I'he reference to the call of Matthew (without
'Levi', as in Mt 10:3) is influenced by, but is not identical with, Mt 9:9 (for k ~ a k s o a ,
see 9: 13 and 4: 18 par. Mk). The final cause may contain another echo of Mt 10:2 par.
( r 6 v S u i s c ~ airnoo~6louq). It reminds one of Mt 10:s 6 (BERTRAND
1080: 553;
KCI~~LER
275: "eine Sachparallele"and 276: "in eigener, abgewandelter Formulierung"),
and maybe also of Mt 1928 par Lk 2230 (so Kt-IJN 66), and also contains an expression
that is found repeatedly elsewhere in the gospels ( ~ i qpapr6ptov).
According to KLIJN,"the quotation is a composite of words, expressions and phrases
from the Synoptic Gospels. A slight preference for Luke emerges" (66). But not every
one can accept such a conclusion. The procedure should perhaps not be called "a close
literary conflation of the synoptic texts" (MAnl1,A 200 nS), but the elements from which
this composition is assembled often have a quite literal parallel in one or another of the
canonical gospels. K 0 w l . t ~has difficulties with the apparently unmotivated combination
of literal citation and free rendering. He concludes, "so wenig und schlecht sich das oben
besprochene Fragment als Zusammenarbeitung schriftlicher Vorlagen erklaren Itisst, so
leicht und gut versteht es sich ohne Problemc als eine Darstellung, die auf den nach dem
Gedachtnis benutzten Evangelien des Mt u. Lk fusst" (277; cf. 276). it is indeed difficult
to find in this quotation, more than in any of the previous ones, "cine planm&sige
Zusammenarbeitung der Texte der synoptischen Evangelien"' (276). In so far, GE is not a
harmony in the usual sense (cf. NEIRYNCK
752: "not simply a harmony of parallel
versions"; diff. HOWARD4039, who has no problem calling the composition "a
harmonistic arrangement of various and sundry sections in the synoptic gospels"). Rut
one should not exaggerate the number of texts that are involved. The overall picture is
less chaotic than KONLER is inclined to believe. The introduction describing the situation
and leading up to the direct quote from Jesus' words is composed of elements that have a
parallel in similar introductory clauses, which stem from parallel stories (Mt 4:18 par.
and Lk 5:l) or from the same context (Lk 4:31.38). The rest of the excerpt is clearly
inspired by Matthew. He is the only one to link the Manhew of 10:3 to Levi-Matthew of
348).
x Only in MI (10:5-6) is the list of the Twelve followed by a word of
9:9 ( M ~ s s ~ u
Jesus about the mission to Israel (cf. KOIII.ER).And Mt emphasizes, more than Lk, that
the romise of 19:28 is given to the Twelve.
KLIJN66 suspects another lacuna after 6q k < ~ i k < a r u6piq.

'

196

Verheyden

Ebionites called their gospel after at thew.^^ But the fragment does not
end with the call of Matthew. The final verse ("I wish you to be twelve
apostles for the testimony of Israel") goes beyond the interest in the person
of Matthew. This may be an allusion to Mt 10:5-6 (see n57). If one also
reckons with influence of the saying in Mt 19:28 par. Lk 22:30, the explanation is somewhat more complicated. In the gospels Jesus promises the
Twelve that once they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel, while in GE "the apostles are held to be witnesses to ~srael".~'This
may have been the real purpose of the passage in GE. It emphatically
propagates that, by the very words of Jesus, the mission of the Twelve is
limited to Israel only.6' It was not enough for the Ebionites to avoid every
possible allusion to a failure of the mission to Israel, they also gave a p s i tive interpretation to the expression &\< papzrjptov which in the gospels
has a decidedly more ambivalent, if not a negative, c ~ n n o t a t i o n . ~ ~
The longest excerpt from GE is quoted in 30:13:7-8. It is the Ebionite
version of the baptism of ~ e s u s The
. ~ ~primary source is Mt 3:13-17, but
there have also been included elements from the two other synoptic
accounts of this story as well as from other stories in the synoptic gospels
59 Being mentioned last, LLl'investit
comme porte-parole de ses compagnons et comme
redacteur de I'EE" (BERTRAND
1980: 553), though one could also conclude from the text
(all the apostles are addressed) that it was called by others 'the Gospel of the Twelve'
(cf. KLIM 66, diff. KOHI-ER 273).
60 KZIm 67.
Cf. BERTRAND
1980: 554. Other peculiarities that are noted by BERTRAND may be
less significant. GE turns the story into a word of Jesus, but there is an element of
dialogue in all of the call stories. Peter is mentioned as third only, but was this meant to
stress the collegiality of the Twelve as BERTRAND thinks? Afier all, Jesus first comes to
the house of Peter. In GE the election of the Twelve is apparently the first event in Jesus'
public ministry (BySvszo zrq dvqp), but so is the call story in Mk 1:16-20. There is no
confession as in Jn 1:49, but neither is there in the synoptic call stories, and thus one can
hardly say that its absence is due to the 'psilanthropist' doctrine of GE (554).
62 Admittedly there with the dative instead of the genitive as in Pan. 30. KOCH 325
considers papzrjptov to be a mistranslation of an original Hebrew ;rfY (meaning either
'congregation' or 'witness'), but the evidence he cites from LXX (Ex 16:34; 27:21; Jer
37(30):20; Job 15:34) is not conclusive (no cases of papz6ptov with gen.).

63-Kal pszd zo ~ 1 m i vnohha hntcp8pst 6 ~ ZOO

t ha05 fla7ctto0Svzog fihesv
wal 'Iqooiiq wal B$an.cioeq bnd zo6 'Imivvou. ~ a &q
l dvfih0~v&no zo6
.
GGazoq, Qvoiyqoav ot obpavol ~ a E lF ~ E V td nvsifpa zd &YLOV kv E I ~ E Intpto'c&p&&~aesh006oqg ~ a &toc;h006oq~
l
riq aDz6v. ~ a cpovi(
l
hw 705 obpuvob
l
Gy6
XByouoa 06 pou &f b utd.5 b dyanqz6q, Bv oot qb66~qoa,~ a nahtvoqpspov yrykvvq~aoc;. wat eb0dq nsptShapy~szdv zonov cpkg pkya. 6 1 6 6 ~ .
cpqoiv, 6 'Ioavvqg h6yst a h $ : 06 ziq s t , K ~ P L E ; at ndrhtv cpovrj
obpavoO npog aCtz6v. oGz6g Bozw 6 ut65 pou 6 dyanqz65, hcp' 6v q Q 6 6 ~ y a~. a l
z62&,cpqotv, 6 ' I d v v q q ?cpoo~so&vabz@ Ehsysv: GSopai oou, w6pts. 06
Banrtoov. 6 62 hwdhuoev abzdv hkyov- Bcpsq, Bzt o 6 . r ~Bozl npSnov nhqpMfjvat ncivza.

Epiphunius on the Ehioni~es

197

and possibly also from Acts and the gospel of John, and there is even one
element that is not found as such in the canonical writings (the great
light).@TWOfeatures are particularly to be noticed. GE has inverted the
order of Mt 3: 13-1 7 and has placed the dialogue between John and Jesus
after the baptism.65Moreover, it contains all three versions o f the heavenly
voice proclaiming Jesus as the Beloved and the Son of God that are known

6" The introduction o f the fiagment ( p ~ r d

TO E ~ X vE ~ o k h d is
) puzzling in a gospel
that had omitted both the birthlinfancy narrative and the genealogy, for what can have
preceded the story o f Jesus'baptism? One such episode may have been that of the
election o f the Twelve, since Jesus is there still called 715 hvqp. Should one also include
other stories about Jesus demonstrating that he was a virtuous man deemed to be called
Son o f God as the Ebionites taught according to Pan. 30.18.6 (61a 62 hpcrqv Biov
qrcov~uE\S T O r a k e i d l a t ui6v OEO~?
The opening words have a parallel in 1k
, 3:21
(kv T@ $anrioBfivat d x a v ~ aT ~ Vkadv real ' IqaoG...), but the two main verbs
were taken from Mk 1:9. The omission o f &15 r q v ' Iop&&vqv is not surprising if this
Fragment followed immediately after the one that is cited in 30.13.6. The next clause
combines elements o f Mk 1: 10 par. Mt 3: 16 and Lk 3:22a, but GE has avoided the rather
complex composition o f Lk and also the participle construction with which Mk and M t
A E P I O T C ~ ~ ~(cf.
G Lk, but now the dove is no
begin this verse. The expression kv E I S C ~
longer an element in a comparison but rather "be sujet de I'action", as Bf RTRAND 1973:
46 and 1980: 557 calls it) is found in Pan. 28.1.5 (cf. 30.14.4) and also in lrenaeus (Haer.
1.26.1) and Hippolytus (Ref. 7.33.2 and 10.21.3) with reference to Cerinthus, but the
V 3: 16 par. Mk) is unique. HOWARD
(404 1 and 4047) points
combination with E ~ ~ E(Mt
to the "semantic-sonant chiasmus" in Mt (&f~ E V...rarafkXivoL) and Lk (~ara$fivat
...EISEI), but GE's "preference for harmony" apparently resulted in a quite different text.
' A v o l y o is used by Lk and Mt (the latter with the plural o i obpuvoi) and the ISoly
Spirit is mentioned by Lk. The double participle ~aOEk~o60qq
~ a &i\ 0 E h O o r i ~
has
~ ~a
parallel in Mt (rcarafki vov at kp~dpcvov,cf. Jn 1 :33 ~ a ~ a $vov
a i ~ a pCvov),
l
but the order 'dove - descent' is Markan (HOWARD4041). The words o f the heavenly
voice are introduced as in Mt (but without 1606 and with the singular obpuvdc), and
quoted first in an almost identical way (the order o f pov) as in Mk 1 :1 Ib par. Lk 3:22b,
and a second time as in Ps 2:7 (Lk D). I h e 'great light' has no parallel in the canonical
versions o f the baptism (for nrpthdpno see Lk 2:9 and Acts 26.13). The motif occurs
in different forms in the Old Latin MS tradition (a g') and was apparently also known to
Tatian ('La mighty light ... flashing upon the Jordan"). Justin mentions "a fire" (Dial.
88.3). KIJJN reckons with influence from Tatian in GE (73). BERTRAND does not
speculate about the possible connections between the I>iatessaron and GE (1980: 563:
"qu'il surtise d'avoir montrk que de telles oeuvres ont pu exister"), but regards GE as the
oldest known example o f a gospel harmony. For VIGNF 34 and 76-77, GE might be
identical with Tatian's 'fifth source'. John questioning Jesus has a parallel in Mt 1 1 :3,
but that may not be the first parallel (see below). 'I'he words from heaven are repeated
after Mt 3:17b (but with kcp' dv for 69' 3) and with a slightly different introduction.
The dialogue between John and Jesus that follows contains elements from Mt 3:14-15
(KI-IJN also refers to the dialogue in Jn 1:32 34, but recognizes that "the theological
background is different"), but also from various other stories (see below).
65
"This order o f events is more logical" (KLIJN 72). Cf. K W H 339, for whom it also
"strengthens an adoptionist explanation o f the canonical account".

198

Verheyden

from the synoptic accounts.% The baptism of Jesus is a core passage in

Ebionite theology. It is at his baptism that Jesus becomes the Christ, as
Epiphanius observes in 30: 14:4 (see above)." No wonder then that the proclamation is repeated thrice.68The Markan version and the variant 1,ukan
form are quoted one after another after the Spirit has descended and entered in Jesus, as in the canonical accounts. The Matthean version is added
ta the dialogue with John and addressed to him ( n p o ~aittdv) in answer to
his question, 06 zlq ~ ( i ,~ 6 p t This
~ . expression has been com ared to
John's question about the identity of Jesus in Mt 1 1 :3 par. Lk 7:g6! but the
setting and the context are quite different. This is no longer the kind of
dialogue or questioning that is found in Mt 3:14-15 or Mt 11:3, where
Jesus is not yet called ~ 6 p t o 5and John even leaves open the possibility
In GE
that Jesus is not the Coming One (1 1:3 q Etcpov xpooSo~c;>p&v;).
the dialogue follows after John has witnessed in Jesus an epiphany of the
~ord.?'This explains the differences between the Matthean version of the
dialogue and that of GE. Jesus is addressed as the Lord and after John has
again heard the heavenly voice, this time speaking to him personally, he
falls to the ground (npoaarocliv) and instead of the question of Mt 3: 14 he
Mt 3: 17, speaking about Jesus in the third person; Mk I: 1 1 par. Lk 3:22, in the
second person; and the variant reading of I,k 3:22 quoting from Ps 2.7, which may have
been known to GE either as part of the textual tradition or of an exegetical or catechetical
tradition. It has repeatedly been suggested that, because it is the 'lectio dificilior', it may
represent the original reading (see, e.g., BERTRANI,1973: 12- 13 and 131-132; Vlci~r
21-24 and 108 115; EIIRMAN
62-47; and most recently P F T E R S ~45
N 46). But it is also
in a sense the most appropriate reading for the author of GE, and for that reason also
perhaps more suspect than these scholars might think.
"C'est au moment du bapteme que le Christ est constituk par I'union de JCsus ct de
I'Esprit" (BER'TRAND 1973: 46). Cf. I-IliNNF 66: "Tout est dans I'adverbe oqpcpov:
aujourd'hui le nouveau roi dalise les promesses messianiques; aujourd'hui, JCsus rev&tu
de I'Esprit commence sa nouvelle mission." According to HENNEthe fragment is a
carefully composed account with a double goal: it presents Jesus' baptism as an act of
fidelity to God that also involves the people, and as the beginning of a new era (60). tle
may be overstating his case, however, when arguing that fik0sv expresses both Jesus'
will to be baptimd ("la volont6 propre du Christ") and his solidarity with the people
coming to John (30.13.6). The gen. abs. (instead of Luke's I v s@ with inf.) would indicate that a new era had begun (60). HFNNEfurther notes that GE very much emphasi~es
the reality of the event, which of course is not completely absent from the synoptic
accounts.
68
'Wne des f a ~ o n sde preserver integralement ces oracles, specialement importants
pour la theologie, 6tait de les combiner tous en triplant I'tvtnement" (BI R I K A N I ) 1980:
557). KOHLERrightly observes that the prime reason for the repetition is probably not a
concern for harmonisation (2811, and B E R ~ R A Nseems
D
to agree: "Les dvangiles
synoptiques sont utilises concurremment sans grand souci d'harmonisation" (1973: 45).
69
So KI.IJN7 1.
70
John thus receives an answer to his question, not from Jesus, but from God Himself
(HENNE70).

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

199

now asks Jesus to be baptised by him: 66opai aoo, K ~ P I E , 06 p~ WRTIaov. It is not about Jesus coming to be baptised and John objecting to it
(3: 14a b 62 ' I o a v v q ~Sts~uSliusv),but about John recognizing that Jesus
is the Son of God and asking for baptism fiom Jesus and Jesus refusing it
(b 6& k~uSliucrsv)with the same words as in 3:15b (&cp~S...).71
This is no
longer the scenery of Mt 3: 14-1 5, or, for that, of Mt 1 1:2-6, but rather that
of Mt 175-6 (with the disciples falling on their faces in v. 6, the bright
and the repetition of the heavenly proclamation of 3:17 in v. S),
and perhaps also of Jn 21:12 (with the disciples meeting the Risen Lord
and asking him , though they very well realized who he was)73,or even of
Lk 8:28 (where the Gerasene demoniac confesses Jesus as the Son of the
Most High God and bids Jesus not to torment him, 66opat aoo, pij pa
f3aaaviomq). Epiphanius has no further comment on this excerpt, except for
the outcry, "See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, slanted, and
nowhere straight!",74 and in a sense that may be the bottom line of his
interest in the fragments from GE. The Ebionites can defend their views
only by mutilating the gospels.
" The use of ~ o k 6 o
is perhaps not so inappropriate as KLIJN might think (73). Cf.
BERTRANI)
1980: 557: "inverse le rapport de subordination". On the other hand, the
omission of x6oav bi~atoo6vqvis remarkable indeed and has led some to suggest that
GE might depend on a pre-Mt version of the dialogue. Thus KLIJN73, ctr. MASSAUX
352
and KOHLER
280 ("deutlichster Hinweis auf das Zugrundeliegen des Mt"), who repeats
K o t s r k ~ ' sexplanation that Stuatoorjvq may have dropped out because it waq "recht
ungew6hnlich in this context. However, both MAS~A~JX
and KQHl.ER are in turn then too
hesitant for the first half of the excerpt (280-28 1: "kaum schriftliche 'Tischvorlagedes
Mt", but rather "ein frei auf den synoptischen Evangelien basierender 'Eigenbericht"').
By relocating the dialogue between John and Jesus at the end and Jesus refusing to
baptize John, GE h a s created a most dramatic effect. 'The reader might have wondered
why Jesus came to John to be baptized by him. The voice liom heaven declared that the
baptism of Jesus served other purposes than John's baptism of repentance. HFNNEis
probably wrong when he once more invokes Jesus' solidarity with the people (71: "il
Ctait poussk par un mouvement de pidtrf largement rCpandu'7. Jesus'baptism has changed
the meaning baptism had in John's preaching. This may explain why Jesus then refuses
John to be baptized by him. The baptism of Jesus is an act of divine intervention, and this
is perhaps also reflected in the final ~AqpcdIfivatndvta (HEME 74).
7 h h i c h for KWH might have been the source of the 'great light' motif (339).
Compare t3t HTRANU 1973: 46: "Ie prodige souligne la transfiguration et la transformation
exceptionnelle du baptise", which is perhaps rather more correct than his later comment
(1980: 557: "simple expansion du merveilleux"). HENNErather emphasizes the contrast
between the function of the motif in GE (68: "signale une intervention divine") and in Mt
17:2 and Acts 9:3 ("elle enveloppe le Christ et manifeste aussi sa divinite'").
" Of course one cannot fail to note that a) ...&
inIGE takes up the words of the
heavenly voice of Mt 3:17. In Jn 1:19 the same expression was used by the Pharisees to
question John himself, but with negative result.
74 30.14.1 (Ipa 61: tdv nap' abroii; napamnotqptvqv xavta~b0svStiiuo~a-

Alav. x k xdvra ~ o l i a ko4d

,
~ a lobbsplav
,
bpe60qra E~ovta.

200

Verheyden

Epiphanius does not say whether he knew of other fragments, but the
assumption clearly is that the Ebionites must have rewritten other parts of
the gospels in a similar way to support their teachings.75 Besides this
gospel they would also have possessed a variant version of the Acts of the
Apostles (30.16.6)~~
Though nothing is said about it, they must probably
have rejected all of Paul's letters, for it is hard to imagine how a group that
propagated the kind of base rumours about the apostle that are reported in
30.16.8-9 could still have any interest in his writings. It may be the reason
why Epiphanius refrains from arguing and quoting from Paul's letters.77
Epiphanius does not tell the reader where he got his information on GE
from. There is no reason to think that it was mediated to him by Joseph the
Jew of Tiberias who is his source, and the hero of the long story in 30.412. On the contrary, in this story it is told, in a way that is both elegant and
ironic, how a prominent Jew, who was acquainted with the patriarch and
stood in the service of the emperor, eventually is converted to Christianity
after secretly having read a Hebrew translation of the gospel of Matthew
and of John as well as of the Book of Acts. These books he had found
hidden in the archives of the patriarch who himself died a Christian. The
contrast with the GE fragments that are quoted immediately after is
obvious. The Ebionites do not accept the very writings that were cherished,
be it secretly, by some from the leading classes of their people.78

Confronting Jesus and the Law

In chapters 19 and following the polemics against the teachings quoted in
the fragments from GE is further supported by a more or less systematic
defense of 'oi-thodox' Christology. Thus Epiphanius explains at length that
Jesus was not born a mere man, as the Ebionites contend (30.20.5-7 and
30.29.10-11), and that he was born of a virgin, which they deny (30.20.175 There are a couple of instances where he refers to an incorrect interpretation of
Scripture without quoting the text (see 30.26 on Peter and 30.29 on the virgin birth).
76
Two other writings are mentioned in 30.15.1 (IlspioSot nk~pou)and in 30.16.7
('Av@aQpol 'Ia~dfbu),but it is debated whether these stem from Ebionite circles.
These writings have not been preserved as separate works and Epiphanius does not explicitly quote from them. Xt has been suggested that both works made up two of the sources
of what became the Pseudo-CIementine corpus. See the brief assessments in KLJJNREMMK 32-38 and MIMOUNI
1998a: 277-285. In 30.23.1-2 Epiphanius refers to several
other forged books in the names of the apostles.
In 30.25 he takes up the defense of Paul, arguing that he was born a Jew. On the
anti-Paulinism in the 'Ava$aQpotand in one other source of the Pseudo-Cfementines
2002.
(the Kqp6ypaza Ilezpou), see VERHEYDEN
78 On this episode, see, a.o., KocH 374-383 and THORNTON.
THORNTON
emphasizes
the belletristic aspects of the story, but tends to underestimate its polemic dimensions
within the context of Pan. 30.

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

20 1

4.9-1 1; 30.30-3 1). 'fie gospels also contradict the Ebionite teaching about
abstaining from meat. This is argued in 30.19.1-5, with reference to Mt
1 1:18-1 9 and also to Lk 24:42-43 and Jn 2 1:13 (about eating fish!), and
the comment, "He is a glutton and a wine-bibber" can mean only the eating
of meat and the drinking of wine (30.1 9.3).79
However, the absurdity of Ebionite practices and teachings reaches another level and indeed a climax in the eyes of Epiphanius, when it appears
that some of the basic tenets of Jewish Law that are still held by them are
refuted by and in Jesus according to the evidence of the gospels. Now the
problem is not that the Ebionites alter the Scriptures or that they propagate
singular thoughts on the person of Jesus, but that they force themselves
and others to preserve certain practices that were mandatory according to
Jewish Law, yet were no longer kept by the large majority of Christians on
the explicit authority of Jesus. The Ebionites stand in conflict both with the
Law, for they defend what in other matters they had criticized, and with
Jesus himself.
Three issues are mentioned in particular (see the list in 30.32.1): the
concern for upholding (some of) the purity laws (30.21-22). gractising circumcision (30.26-28), and Sabbath observance (30.32-33).8 In these sections polemics and rhetoric often go hand in hand. The three are not
unrelated, as Epiphanius illustrates in his comments.
As to the first, Epiphanius deals with the Ebionites'preoccupation with
purification and with stipulations regarding food. Their claim that Peter

r" Epiphanius does not seem to have noticed that the counterpart of his comment with
regard to John turns the Baptist into a vegetarian!
Observance of the Law, above all for these three issues, and the more or less acute
forms of anti-Pauline polemics that result from it, is still widely regarded as the core feature (so MIMOUNI1998a: 70: KAESTLI249), in any modem definition of ancient Jewish
Christianity. CAKI.ETONPAGET sees three difficulties with such a "praxis-based definition". Ile wonders how one should define this praxis. Furthermore, it is not clear how to
distinguish on the basis of this criterion alone between Jewish Christians and Judaizers
(74 1 : "more haphazard and unstructured"). And third, one should also consider the theological questions that were raised by such groups. But CARLETON
PAGETnevertheless
also concludes that it best meets the conditions of a definition that is "sufficiently narrow
to refer to something we can call an entity, and sufiiciently broad or open-ended to take
account of a range of evidence, almost all of which is Iiterary"(740). MlMOrJNl still mentions two other components in his definition: Jewish Christians are (ethnic) Jews who
have come to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Faith in Christ is what singles out Christian
Jews from non-Christian Jews, but it did not prove to be a unifying factor as Epiphanius
amply demonstrates by comparing the views of Cerinthus, the Nazoraeans, and the
Ebionites. According to Pan. 28.2- 3, Cerinthus firmly opposed Peter's mission to the
Gentiles, and the GE fragment about the election of the Twelve speaks of their testimony
for Israel (30.13.3), but Epiphanius does not say whether this included only Jews or also
'Judaizers'.

202

Verheyden

was fond of bathing rituals (30.21.1-2)*' is countered with a reference to

Scripture and with an argument ad hominem. For Epiphanius it is no
wonder that the Ebionites need these purifications, "since they are defiled
themselves and often have much to do with sex" (30.21.2). The observation that Peter, of all people, should be the last to be suspected of such
practices, because it was he who opposed to have his feet washed by Jesus
(30.21.3-4) is rather farfetched, if not somewhat ridiculous. The citation
from Mt 15:20 in 30.21.6 is appropriate of course (Jesus concludes the
discussion with the Pharisees and scribes on purification by proclaiming
that "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man"), and is given its
full weight by combining it with the quotation from Isa 29:3 in Mt 15:8-9
that discredits the opponents as people whose "heart is far from God" and
who cling to "the commandments of men" (30.21.5).'~ Peter is the hero
also of the part on food laws. The vision of Acts 11:7-9 is quoted to
demonstrate that God had declared clean all food (30.22.6). The Ebionites
on the contrary thought they had found evidence in Peter's objection in v.
8 that he was referring here to his custom of abstaining from meat (see also
30.2 1.1). Epiphanius replies that this is an incorrect interpretation
(30.22.9). Peter's objection, understandable as it is for a law-abiding Jew,
is overruled by the Lord and he consents to it. So, far from being an icon
of Ebionite theology, Peter is the model of the Jew who converted to
Christianity and was able to leave behind the commandments of the Law.
By way of conclusion, Epiphanius emphasizes once more that, though the
vision obviously is about the call of the Gentiles ('We uncircumcised"), it
is equally obvious that it is also about "the foods prohibited by the Law"
(30.22.11 x ~ p iz6v kv z@ v6pq &zqrlyop~upCvov).
Chapters 26 to 28 deal with the Ebionite teaching on circumcision. They
would have argued for it, following Cerinthus in this, on the basis of an
erroneous interpretation of Mt 10:25, where it is said that "it is enough for
the disciple that he be as his master". This verse they applied to the
circumcision: "Christ was circumcised; you be circumcised too!"83 The
text that follows is corrupt, so the purpose of the citation from Job 38:11 is
somewhat obscured, but the point seems to be that, like the waves of the
sea, the Ebionites destroy their own principles by their teaching on circum-

''

Epiphanius gives no source for his information here (but see 30.15.3, when referring to the H ~ p l o h i ) .
The Ebionite interest in purification rituals is further illustrated in the story in
30.24 about the meeting of John the apostle and Ebion in a bathhouse. This rather
amusing story that is known through Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.4 (with Cerinthus in the role of
Ebion), serves to demonstrate that Ebion was already confronted by the apostles, as was
also the case with Simon Magus in Acts and in the Pseudo-Clementine literature. See
KKH 257-259.
83 30.26.2 n&p~&~p?j@q,
( ~ q ~ ibv X
, p t o ~ o ~ , a 06
i n&przp?j0qzt.

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

203

~ i s i o nEpiphanius'
.~~
reasoning here is double and rather strenuous (or subtle, if one prefers). On the one hand he shows that the Ebionites' position
on circumcision is contradicted by their own teaching on Jesus. On the
other hand he argues from the gospels that Jesus has fulfilled the Law and
its requirements and brought about a new and higher form of circumcision.
It should be reminded, Epiphanius observes, that Jesus was circumcised as
a child and did not himself decide to be circumcised (30.26.8). Hence,
those who like the Ebionites hold that Jesus was born a mere man cannot
say that Jesus demanded circumcision. Things would have been easier for
them if they had accepted that he was born "from heaven as God", because
then circumcision could have been considered as part of God's plan
(30.26.9). That Jesus "came to fulfil the Law and the prophets, not to
destroy them" (Mt 5:17, quoted in 30.27.2)'~ is to be understood in two
ways. By truly being circumcised on the eighth day he really complied to
the Law. However, by accepting also uncircumcised Greeks among his
followers, Jesus put an end to the Law and introduced "a greater circumcision in truth" (30.27.8). That is how Epiphanius interprets the wish of
some of the Greeks "to see Jesus" in Jn 12:20-22 and Jesus' reply, "Now
has come the glory of God", which is not found as such in Jn 12 but may
be a free rendering of v. 23 (see 30.27.7-8). Thus Epiphanius can say that,
at the same time, "the Law was fulfilled, one that had stood until his time,
and was abolished and yet brought to fulfilment in him."86 Epiphanius then
goes on explaining why Jesus was circumcised. It appears that his circurncision served many purposes and can be used as an argument against
various other heresies too. It was proof that he really was born a man, that
his divine and his human nature are to be distinguished (30.28.2-3.8-9),
and especially it was meant "to deprive the Jews of an excuse", for the$
could certainly not have accepted "an uncircumcised Christ" (30.28.4).
Moreover, by declaring that circumcision is irrelevant for discipleship (so
Jn 12:20-22) Christ finally took away the doubt of Abraham that had led
God to impose circumcision upon him (30.28.67). Christians do no longer
need this visible mark "to keep them from forgetting the God of their
fathers", and so Epiphanius sees no reason why the Ebionites would be
proud and boast of their circumcision (30.26.1). He comes back to the
This is described in an even more plastic way with an example taken fxom the
wildlife, as Epiphanius also does elsewhere (see 30.26.4 on the adder eating itself and the
conclusion of the chapter in 30.34.7). See above 1115.
'* Note that Epiphanius here quotes 'correctly' a verse that the Ebionites had used in
a corrupted form in GE (see above).
86 30.27.3 t.nt z o d q yydp tnkqpofito TO t v vdpq ~tpqpGvov,Em5 abzoi,
706 ~p5vouGtapuCoav uai Bv abz@ hyto~dp~vov,
& i g nhfipmfia 62 p&Bioza-

pEVOV.
Cf. 30.28.9, with a nuance: because he was circumcised, he was entitled to abolish
the practice.

issue in 30.33.1-3, in connection with the Sabbath observance, and adds

two more arguments against circumcision. The second of these is the
often-repeated observation that the Jews do nothing but imitate practices
that are customary among other nations whom they despise.88 The first
argument is somewhat unexpected. Since only male persons are circumcised, it cannot be a sign of salvation, for women would then be excluded
from it (30.33.2). Of course, the terminology that is used is Christian ("if
the former circumcision had been for sanctification and the inheritance of
the kingdom of heaven"), and perhaps it is not ap ropriate to describe the
purpose of the practice as it was seen in the Torah.9!
The third issue is about the Sabbath observance. Again a double reasoning is followed. This time the first reasoning depends on what Jesus has
said about the Sabbath. The other confronts the Ebionites with a contradiction in the Law. With rhetorical exaggeration E iphanius claims that
"Jesus did his best to heal mostly on the Sabbath."' Jesus did so in two
ways: he healed a paralytic (Jn 523-9) and a blind man (Jn 9: 1 4 1 ) from
their illness, and he "healed them from the Sabbath, for he explicitly performed a kind of work that was forbidden on Sabbath (9:14 making clay)
and even ordered the healed paralytic to carry his bed ( 5 3 ) . It is from
Jesus that the disciples learned that "the Sabbath was abolished" and that it
was allowed to pluck grain on a Sabbath (30.32.3). Jesus had proclaimed
that "the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day" (Mt 12:s par.). Epiphanius here takes up the reasoning he had followed before when dealing
with circumcision. The Sabbath was temporary. In Jesus "a greater, eternal
Sabbath" has come, "of which the lesser, temporary Sabbath was a type."91
The Sabbath prescribed by the Law was "abrogated and fulfilled" in Jesus.
People have now found rest in
But it is not only the disciples who
broke the Sabbath. Even the priests themselves did so when offering the
daily sacrifice or when circumcising children on that day. For Epiphanius,
one cannot uphold the whole of the Law, for it contains inconsistencies. In
sovereign disregard (or ignorance) of what Jewish or rabbinic tradition
might have to say about this, he concludes: either one observes the Sabbath
and postpones circumcision until the next day, or one keeps to the require-

= 30.33.3, why boast on circumcision, "when both idolators and Egyptian priests
have ityY,as well as other nations. It is "a senseless custom".
89
Cf. also 30.34.2, where one fmds yet another nuance. The greater circumcision
does not save "one portion of the people, males only", and is not performed on "one
member only, but by sealing the entire body and cutting it off from sin".
90 30.32.1 kv yap cra$$&zqcpthoztpsizat za nhsiaza Ospanc6stv ' IqooGg.
9' 30.32.9 06205 Guzt zo psyd oa$flazov ~ a &i6tov,
i
06 ~6x05fiv zd pt~ p d v~ a xfiowatpov
l
oaflI3azov.
* 30.32.9 wai RUVTFS &VOPWZOL &ylot kv abzq &v&na6uavzo.

ment that a child be circumcised on the eighth day and breaks the Sabbath
rest (30.32.1 1-12).
After this Epiphanius takes up again the quotation from Mt 10:25 that in
his opinion was the basis for the Ebionites to practice circumcision. The
saying certainly is about imitating Jesus, but, as Epiphanius observes, it is
about imitating him in suffering persecution from the hands of the Jews
(30.33.6)! He then takes the polemics one step further yet by addressing
Ebion in person, twice calling upon him to "stop mimicking Jesus in
circumcision" (30.34. I .3), and instead to begin imitating Jesus in the many
and great miracles he has performed (30.34.3-4). But of course, Epiphanius adds, this would be impossible, "because of your wrong belief"
(30.34.4). Indeed, the Ebionites would not even be able to heal in the name
of Jesus Christ, for it would mean that they would have to perform
healings on the Sabbath (30.34.5)!
Epiphanius briefly concludes the chapter by reminding the reader once
more of the strange variety of teachings about Jesus that are held by this
group, some arguing that he is born a mere man, others transforming him
into a heavenly power only (30.34.6; cf. already 30.1 9), and by comparing
the group to all sorts of poisonous fish that is left on the beach after a flood
(30.34.7).

Conclusion
Epiphanius has written a biased account of the Ebionites, but that was to
be expected from a heresiologist. Several elements in it are most probably
inaccurate or simply historically incorrect. One should mention here in
particular what Epiphanius has to say about the 'leaderbf the sect and its
origins. However, this does not make his presentation completely worthless. Epiphanius has preserved some interesting and probably reliable
information on Ebionite doctrines and teachings for which he is our only
source (the GE fragments). Moreover, by focusing on Christology and on
the Ebioniteskoncem for observing the Law he has certainly pointed out
the two most important features of their theology.
Pan. 30 offers an important illustration of how a fourth-century Church
Father thought about (earlier) attempts at reconciling belief in Jesus as the
Christ with continuing observance of certain aspects of the 'Torah. By the
time Epiphanius was writing the Panarion Jewish-Christian movements
had long become a marginal phenomenon, and they certainly represented
no threat for the Great Church. It may explain why he is not that well
informed about these groups. On the other hand, it is striking that he still
spends so much pages on refuting the Ebionites (and with them all similar
kinds of movements and theologies). The reason may well be that he is

206

Verheyden

fully aware of the importance of the issues that are addressed by the
Ebionites and the likes. Yet in Epiphanius'opinion, their attempt at reconciling Christian faith with Jewish practice must necessarily fail. It is a
failure not only because of the particularities and the ambivalence of Ebionite teachings on Christ, but above all because it is simply made impossible through what Jesus did and said. Jesus did not come to abolish the
Law, but to fulfil and to transform it. In Epiphanius' understanding this
means that for the Christian "all things are pure, when they are received
with thanks and praise to God"(30.22.10: a strange conflation of Rom
14:20 and 1 Tim 4:3). A new and far greater circumcision is performed,
without blood and for all (30.27.7-8; 30.33.2). And a new rest is found in
Christ (30.32.8-9). The very nature of Sabbath observance, circumcision,
or purification has been transformed. The Ebionites failed to see that for
Christians these requirements of the Law have now received a new meaning as words of Jesus.

Bibliography
Bertrand, D.A., Le baptPme de Jesus. Histoire de l'ex&>se our deux premiers si2cles,
(Beitr. aus d. Gesch. d. bibl. Exeg. 14) Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1973

- 'L'tvangile des tbionites: une harmonie 6vangtlique anttrieure au Diatessaron" N7S

26 (1980) 548-563
Blanchetikre, F., 'La secte des Nazartens ou les ddbuts du christianisme', in id. - M.
Herr (eds.), Aux origines juives du christianisme, Cerf, Paris 1993,65-9 1
- Enquste sur les racines juives du mouvement chrktien (30-1351, (initiations) Cerf,
Paris 2001
Bludau, A., Die Schri$t/dlschungen der Hdretiker. Ein Beitrag zur Textkritik der Bihel.
(NTAbh. I 1) Aschendorff, MUnster 1925
Boismard, M.-h., 'kvangile des hbionites et probltime synoptique (Mc 1,2-6 et par.)', RRB
73 (1966) 321-352
Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity', in W. Horbury et al. (eds.), The Cambrrdge
History of Judaism, vol. 3, UP, Cambridge 1999, 73 1-77.5
Danielou, J., Thdologie du Judbo-Christianisme, Desclee, Paris / Tournai 1957
de Boer, M.C., 'The Nazoraeans. Living at the Boundaries of Judaism and Christianity',
in G.N. Stanton - G.G. Stroumsa (eds.), Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism
and Christianity, UP, Cambridge 1998, 239 -262; an earlier version of this article
appeared as ' ~ ' h v a n ~ i lde
e Jean et le Christianisme juif (nazorten)', in Marguerat, Le
cikchirement, 179-202
Dechow, J.F., Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity. Epiphanius of Cyprus and the
Legacy of Origen, (Patr. Mon. Ser. 13) Mercer, Macon GA 1988
Dorival, G., 'Un groupe judbo-chdtien mtSconnu: les Htbreux', Apocrypha 1 1 (2000) 736
Dummer, J., 'Ein naturwissenschaflliches Handbuch als Quelle f i r Epiphanius von Constantia', Klio 55 (1 973) 289-299
Ehrman, B.D., The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Eflect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, Oxford UP, Oxford - New York
1993

Epiphanius on the Ebionites

207

Fraenkel, P., 'Histoire sainte et hdrdsie chez S. Bpiphane de Salarnine', RTP I2 (1963)
175-191
Grant, R.M., Heresy and Criticism. The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature, Westminster - J . Knox, Louisville KY 1993
- Early Christians and Animals, Routledge, London / New York 1999
Henne, P., ' ~ ' ~ v a n ~des
i l e~bionites.Une fausse harrnonie. Une waie superchdrie', in A.
Kessler et al. (eds.), Peregrina Curiositas. Eine Reise durch den orbis antiquus. FS D.
Van Damme, (NTOA 27) Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Universit&tsverlag, Freiburg CH
/ GGttingen 1994, 57-75
Holl, K. (ed.), Epipkanius (Ancoratus und Panarion), I (GCS, 25) Hinrichs, Leipzig 1915
Howard, G., 'The Gospel af the Ebionites', ANRW 11.25.5 (1988) 4034-4053
Kaestli, J.-D., 'Ou en est le debat sur le judeo-christianisme', in Marguerat, Le de'chirement
Klijn, A.F.J., Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, (VigChrSup 17) Brill, Leiden 1992
Klijn, A.F.J., - Reinink, G.J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, (NTSup 36)
Brill, Leiden 1973
Koch, G.A., A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius' Knowledge of the Ebionites. A
Translation and Critical Discussion of Panarion 30, Ph.D. diss. U of Pennsylvania
1976
Le Boulluec, A., La notion d'he're'sie duns la litte'rature grecque, 2 vols, ~ t u d e auguss
tiniennes, Paris 1985
Lilhrmann, D., Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache, (Marburger Theol. St. 59) Elwert, Marburg 2000
Luttikhuizen, G.P., The Revelation of Elchasai. investigations into the Evidence for a
Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of fhe Second Century and Its Reception by
Judaeo-Christian Propagandists, (TSAJ 8) Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 1985
Manns, F., Le Jude'o-christianisme. Me'moire ou prophe'tie? (TH 112) Beauchesne, Paris
2000
Marguerat, D. (ed.), Le de'chirement. Juifs et chre'tiens au premier si2cle, (Le Monde de
la Bible 32) Labor et Fides, Genbve 1996
Massaux, E., Influence de l'kvangile de saint Matthieu sur la litte'rature chr8tienne avant
saint Ire'nke, Publications Universitaires - Duculot, Leuven - Gembloux 1950; repr.
(BETL 75) UP - Peeters, Leuven 1986; ET: The InJuence of the Gospel ofMatthew
on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, (New Gospel Studies 5/1-3) 3 vols.,
Mercer - Peeters, Macon GA - Leuven 1990-1993
Mattila, S.L., 'A Question Too Often Neglected', NTS 4 1 (1995) 199-2 17
Metzger, B.M., The Canon of the New Testament. Ifs Origin, Development, and Significance, Clarendon, Oxford 1987
Mimouni, S.C., 'Pour une definition nouvelle du JudCo-Christianisme ancien', NTS 38
(1992) 161-186
- Le jude'o-christianisme ancien. Essais historiques, (Patrimoines) Cerf, Paris 1998
[1998a]
- 'Les nazordens. Recherche Btymologique et historique', RB 105 (1998) 208-262
[1998b]
Moutsoulas, E.D., 'Der Begriff 'Haesie' bei Epiphanius von Salamis', Studia Patristica
7 (1964) 362-371
Neirynck, F., 'The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark', in J.-M. Sevrin (ed.),
The New Testament in Early Christianity, (BETL 86) UP / Peeters, Leuven 1989,
123-175; repr. in id., Evangelica II, (BETL 99) UP 1Peeters, Leuven 1991,715-772
Nodet, 8. -Taylor, J., Essai sur les origines du christianisme, (Initiations bibliques)
Cerf, Paris 1998

208

Verheyden

Petersen, W.L., 'The Genesis of the Gospels', in A. Denaux (ed.), New Testament Textual
Criticism and Exegesis. FS J . Delobel, (BETL 161) UP / Peeters, Leuven 2002,33-65
Pourkier, A., L 'hkrbiologie chez kpiphane de Salamine, (Christianisme antique 4) Beauchesne, Paris 1992
Pritz, R.A., Nazarene Jewish-Christianity. From the End ofthe New Testament Period
Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, (SPB 37) Brill, Leiden 1988
Schoeps, H.J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Mohr Siebeck,
Tffbingen 1949
Taylor, J.E., 'The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity. Reality or Scholarly
Invention', VigChr 44 (1 990) 3 13-334
Thomton, T.C.G., 'The Stories of Joseph of Tiberias', VigChr 44 (1990) 54-63
Verheyden, J. 'The Flight of the Christians to Pella', ETL 66 (1990) 368-384
- 'The Demonization of the Opponent in Early Christian Literature. The Case of the
Pseudo-Clementines', in A. van der Kooij (ed.), Religious Polemics in Contexts
(Papers o f the LISOR 2000 Conference: forthcoming)
Vigne, D., Christ au Jourdain. Le Baptame de Jksus duns la tradition jude'o-chrktienne,
(GB) Gabalda, Paris 1992
Williams, F., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, (NHS 35-36) Brill, Leiden 19871994
Young, F.M., 'Did Epiphanius Know What He Meant by 'Heresy'?', Studia Patristica
1711 (1982) 199-205

Les elkasaltes : Ctats des questions et des recherches

Cette pdsentation des elka(;ai'tes, un groupe de chretiens d'origine juive se

caractirisant par des traits baptistes, va se dtrouler en plusieurs temps : aprks
un titat des questions et un etat des sources, vont &re examines, dans les
grandes lignes, les probl6mes de I'origine et de I'histoire du mouvement ainsi
qu'un de ses krits, ci savoir I'Apocalypse d'Elkasai' ou Revelation d9Elkasdi.

tat des questions

Cet dtat des questions sera en fait un etat de la recherche sous une forrne
programmatique - autrement dit, on y trouvera une presentation de I'ensemble des dossiers relatifs a w elkasdites.
1 2 juddo-christianisme elkasdite est un mouvement religieux document6 de
mani&re indirecte a partir du IIIe sikle et ce jusqu'au X sikle. I1 s-it
apparemment d'un mouvement interstitiel de chrdtiens d'origine juive qui a
emerge au Ile siecle et a disparu A une date dificile a determiner. I1 est attest6
aussi bien dans 1'Empire romain que dans I'Empire iranien, mais il pdt bien
etre plutGt originaire du I%re iranienne, notamment des regions de Babylonie
ou d' Assyrie.
Definir le judelo-christianisme elkasdite est un exercice dificile et pdrill e u , du fait m&medes multiples facettes qui ont dQ marquer ce mouvement
religieux, du moins au regard de la documentation. lJne ddfinition du judCochristianisme elkasai'te doit, en eRet, envisager au moins trois aspects : le
premier releve du judai'sme general (en rapport avec les rituels) ; le dewieme
du judaisme nazorden (en rapport avec les croyances) ; le troisikme a la fois
du judai'sme general et du judasme nw,o&n (il s'agit du phenom6ne baptiste
qui o t r a v e d I'un et I'autre).' Voici done une definition du judeo-christianisme elkasdite qu'il est actuellement possible de proposer : (( le judb-christianisme e 1 h " t e est une formulation plus ou moins dcente designant un
mouvement religieux dont les traits caracteristiques de la doctrine et de la
pratique paraissent originaires de certains groupes baptistes relevant aussi
I La plupart des critiques, plutbt que de parler du judarsme gkneral et du judaSsme
nazorkn, pdRrent parler de judabme et de christianisme sans autre prkision. I1 semble
qu'une tellc formulation est dificile, du moins pour le 11' siecle et surtout en Orient iranien.

bien du juddisme gdndral que du juddisme nazoden, ct dont les membres

reconnaissent comme fondatew un personnage qu'ils nomment Elkasdin.
Cette ddfinition prt4sente I'avantage d'dviter de se dkider s w la question fort
ddlicate du caracten: prophktique ou messianique de I'elkasbisme. Elle
dispense aussi de se prononcer plus p k i d m e n t sur les relations entre d'une
part, I'elkasziisme et d'autre part, le judai'sme gdndral et le judaisme nazorkcn.
Elle Cvite enfin de choisir entre le caractere historique et reel ou le caracdre
littdraire et fictif du personnage d'Elkasdi. Elle insiste uniquement, en
revanche, sur la perspective eminemment baptiste de I'clkasjisme, au sujet de
laquelle tous les critiques sont d'aillews d'accord.
Le judb-christianisme elkasaj'te est une question relevant aussi bien du
juddisrne gkneral que du juddisme nazorikn, voire meme, mais dans une bien
moindre mesure, du mazdeisme. Cette question touche done directement ou
indirectement d'assez nombreuses (( religions N.
Parmi les dossiers concernds, on peut citer ceux de I'Iran arsacide et sassanide, cornme cew du mazdeisme, du judaysme general et du juddisme
n d n coexistant dans une Babylonie au demeurant fort ma1 eonnue, du
moins pow les deux premiers sikles de notre ere. I1 convient aussi de citer,
pour les sikles suivants, toujours en Babylonie, le judaisme et le christianisme se considdrant, I"
et I'autre, comme (( orthodoxe )) - sans oublier
d'autres groupes matginaux prdsents dans la region A cettc epoquc, les
marcionites par exemple.
Le dossier historiographique de l'elkasdisme est relativement imposant,
malgrd la raretd des delles monographies sur ce sujet. En effet. outre le
fameux ouvrage (( fondateur N de Wilhelm Brandt paru a Leipzig en 1912,2an
ne peut relever ici que les ktudes de Luigi Cirillo parue a Cosenra en 1984l et
de Gerard P. Luttikhuizen parue B Tiibingen en 1985.J En revanche, d'assez
nombreuses contributions, sous forme d'articles de dictionnairesbt d'etats de
la question.6 ont Ctd publicks.
W BRAND1, Elchnsor, ern Relrgronsstrfter und ~ e r nWerk, Lerp~rg19 12
L. CIRII 1.0, Elchusar e glr elchusartr Un confrrhuto alla ~torrodelle communrtu
giudeo-crrstrane, Cosenza 1984
G P. LIJITTIWIJl7FN, The Ra~elatronafElchmar Invcvtrgatrons infothr Evrdc~ncrfiro
IIesopotamran Jewrsh Apoca(vpse of the Second Century and 11s Reception hr Judect
Chrrsrran Propagandrsts, Tobingen 1985
G . RNU.II,LT., cc ElchsaTtes )), dans D~ctronnatrede the'ologre cutholryue 4R ( 191 1 ), col
2233-2239 ; W BKANDr, (c Elkesartes i ) , dans En9~clopaedraof Rel~gronand Ethics 5
(1 9 12) 262-269 , H 1,I CILRCQ, tc ElcksaRes n, dans Dictronnurre d 'arche'ologre chrktrenne
er de Iihugre 4 0 (1921) col 2609 , G BARDY, cc ElchasaTtes D, dans Catholrclsme 3 (1952)
1504 -1 505 ,G STKECKf K, (( ElkesaT w , dans RAC 4 (1959) 1 17 1 1 186 ( G S I Rl CKt K,
tc Elkesai i), dans Eschafon und Htstorte Aufsatze. Gettingen 1979, 320 -333) , J P A\MIICSEN, cc Alchasai t), dans Encyc(opaedra lranrca I (1985), 824 825 , Ci STRI C K
L R. (t The
Baptist Sects )), dans The Anchor Bible Drctronary ii (1992) 430-43 1
ti En dernter Iteu, voir K RlJ1X)L PFI, (< The Baptist Sects; )>, dans W ~ i 0 K I I I 1 R Y W I1

Mimouni

21 1

Le judhhristianisme elkasdite peut Ctre abordd de plusieurs points de

w e , dont Ies principaux sont dkrdre doctrinal ou rituel.
L'approche doctrinale de I'elkasdsme est capitale, I1 serait vain cependant
de tenter une synthkse de la doctrine elkasdite, la documentation actuellement
disponible ne le permettant gukre. En revanche, l'etude de quclques thematiques est envisageable, notamment celle du (( couple de I'ange et de Iksprit )),7
celle du (( sceau des proph6tes )),8 celle du cc vrai proph6te )kg et celle dc la
cr &mission des pdchds )).'O
L'approche rituelle de l'elkasaiisme est egalement possible partir de I7etude des rites baptistes juifs et des rites baptistes chrdtiens, voire mCme des rites
lustraw mazdtjens ; et peut4tre aussi par une comparaison de ces rites avec
les rites baptistes mandkns qui pdsentent a la fois des similitudes et des
diffdrences.I I
Bien d'autres dossiers inttressent tgalement de pks et de loin le judtochristianisme elkasalte. Mentionnons au passage ceux des villes dc Harran,
dans le Nord de la Mdsopotarnie, et de Hira, dans le Sud de la Mbopotamie,
qui ont servi de rehges aux judhhriitiens d'avant et d'apnls l'kmergence de
I'islam - tout comme elles I'ont Ctfjd'ailleurs pour les demiers tenants des
philosophies et thdosophies ntoplatoniciemes issues du paganisme et pour
toutes une foule de minoritCs religieuses dites (( hettrodoxes )), c'est-&-direen
rupture avec leurs autoritds se qualifiant dbrthodoxes.

DAVIES - J. STURIIY (M.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3 The Early Roman
Period, Cambridge 1999, 483-492 ; L. CIRII,L,O, (( Courants judko-chdtiens D, dans I,. PIETKI (kd.), Histoire du christianisme,t. I Le nouveau peuple (des origines a 2501%Paris 2000,
308-3 17. Encore plus &emment, voir C. JtILLIEN - F. JULLIEN, Apdtres des conjin.7.
Processus missionnoires chrhtiesn dam I 'Empire romain iranien, Paris 2002, 137- 1 5 1.
I1 est possible que cette thkmatique, que I'on rencontre par ailleurs dans le nazo&isme,
releve aussi du dossier du manichtisme. A ce sujet, voir G.G. SIROUMSG (( IR conflit de
I' Ange et de 1'Fsprit : traditions juives et chdtiennes n, RB 88 (198 1) 42-6 1.
11 est possible que cene thkmatique relkve aussi du dossier du manichkisme. A ce sujet,
vou G.G. SIROUMSA, (( Seal of the Prophets. The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor B,
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986) 61-74 (= (( "Le sceau du prophtte" : nature
d'une mktaphore manichkenne 14 dans idem, Savoir et Salul, Paris 1992,275-288).
11 est possible que cette thtmatique, que I'on rencontre par ailleurs dans I'kbionisme,
releve sussi du dossier du manicheisme. A ce sujet, voir E. PETERSON, tc IR traitement de la
rage par les elktsaltes d'apds I-lippolyte t), dans RSR 34 (1947) 232-238 ; E. PETERSON,
(( Die Behandlung der Tollwut bei den Eichasaiten nach Hippolyt (Ein Beitrag m
r Geschichte
des Ritus und der Theologie der altchristlichen Taufe) n, dans Fdhkrche, Judentum und
Gnosis, Freiburg 1959,221-253.
l o Cette demikre inthresse aussi Iknsemble des p u p e s baptistes plus ou moins marginaux par rapport aux judarsme et christianisme institutionnels.
En ce qui conceme le baptisme, vou K. RUDOLPH, ct Antike Baptisten. Zu den Clberlieferungen [fber frilhjlidische und frilhchristliche Taufkekten B, in Si&ungsber. d Sdchs.Ak.
d Wiss. zu Leiprig, Phi-hbt. KI., t. 12114, Berlin 1981, 1-37.

2 12

Les elkaratfes

Au regard de cet inventaire, est-il encore besoin dc souligner I'extreme

diversit4 et Ctendue des dossiers touchant de prks ou de loin au judeo-christianisme elkasdite, mouvement religieu dont I'importance demographique a
cite pourtant somme toute, vraisemblablement, assez rkduite. II est cependant
important de considcfrer I'importance ideologique - c'est-a-dire philosophique
et thbsophique - de ce mouvement religieux, qui semble avoir Cte fondamentale, surtout quand on songe que des religions comme le manicheisme et
le manddisme, sans parler de l'islam d'avant les Abbassides, en sont sans
doute issues ou en tout cas ont subi partiellement son influence, de manikre
directe ou indirecte.
En ce qui conceme I'islam, il s'agi! Cvidemment d'une hypothese, acceptde
par certains, contest& par d'autres. A I'origine, il semble que ce soit plutiit
1'6bionisme qui ait e x e d une certaine influence, pour ne pas dire plus, en la
matiere, mais, il n'est nullement exclu que I'elkasdisme ait aussi exerce une
certaine influence, notamment apds I'arrivke de I'islam en Babylonie et en
Assytie.12

tat des sources

La documentation sur le judeo-christianisme elkaWte est presque uniquement
indirecte. Elle provient principalement des traditions chdtieme, manichkenne
et islamique, mais aussi dans une mesure bien moindre des traditions judiiiquc
et mazdknne.
I1 existe aussi, selon toute apparence, une documentation directe mais qui
est transmise de maniere indirecte : il s'agit principalement de 1'Apocalypse
d'E1kasdi ou RCvtSlation dX1kasdi (= Livre d'Elkasal).
Le caractere indirect des attestations sur le judh-christianismc clkasaYtc
rend particulierement ardue leur approche a cause de leur caractere partial et
partiel. Par codquent, on convient de se rdsoudre, faute de mieux, a ne
pouvoir atteindre les elkasaites que par I'intermkdiaire de ieurs ddtracteurs
chretiens, manichdens, islamiques, voire mazdeens et Cventuellement juifs.
D'ores et dejA, il est important de relever que les sources juives babyloniennes sont apparemment silencieuses sur les elka.saites.i3 Ce silence ne cioit
pas Ctre jug6 comme etonnant, car les sources juives babyloniennes, a la difTkrence de leurs homologues palestiniemes, sont t d s discretes quant aux elkments etrangers au judalsme. A moins qu'il soit possible d'identifier dans
certains passages du Talmud de Rabylone des traces de I'elkasdisme. comme
M.P.RONCAGl,IA, cc klements ~bionitesct ElkCsaRes dans le Coran. Notes et hypot h h a, Proche-Orient ChrPlien 2 1 (1 97 1 ) 10 1-1 26 ; J. DORVA-HADDAD, cc Cordn, predication naziu&nne)t, Proche-Orient Chrktien 23 ( 1973) 148- 1 55.
l 3 Voir cependant I . STERN, tc Elisha und Elxai. Ein Beitrag zur thalmudischen Cieschichte )), dans Ben Chananja (Szegedin) 1858,35-37, qui a proposk de voir dans tltsha bcn
Abouya la figure d TIkasaF.

cela pourrait etre le cas notamment en Kiddushin 71b (a Babel la solitaire est
en sante, la Mddne est a la mort ))), ou il est question de I'inimitie entre dew
communautt5s, I'une vivant en Babylonie et I'autre en Md&ne, cette dernitre
etant accustSe, par I'autorite de I'exilarcat, de professer une doctrine diffdrente
et de diffuser une croyance dCvib.14

La documentation sur I'elkasdisme rel&vesurtout de la tradition chrdtienne,

qui lui est bien kvidemment hostile Ctant donne son caracthe presque exclusivement hdrdsiologique. I1 s'agit des tdmoignages contenus dans ITlenchos (=
ReFutatio) d'Hippolyte de Rome et dans le Panarion d'Gpiphane de Salamine.
Auxquels, s'ajoute I'important thoignage d'Orig&nevia E&be de Ce&e
dans son Histoire eccl&iastique. Tous les temoignages cidtiens psttfrieurs a
la fin du IVe sickle dependent directement ou indirectement d'Epiphane de
Salamine.
Irippolyte de Rome est le premier a mentionner, dam son Elenchos d i g 6
a Rome vers 235, les elkasdites, 3 propos desquels ils rapportent de prkieuses
informations qui semblent remonter aux a n n k 220 (Elenchos 9.13.1-1 7.2 et
10.29.1-3).'6
kpiphane de Salamine, dans son Panarion compod en Palestine de 374 a
376, parle des elkasaites a plusieurs reprises, mais en les dbignant non seulement sous ce nom mais aussi sous celui d?cc Osseens )) (Panarion 19) et sous
celui de tt SampscSens )) (Panarion 53). I1 est t5galement question des elkasa'ites
dans deux passages de la notice consacnk aux ct Ebionites )) (Panarion 30.3.1 6 et 17.4-8). Cette tenninologie diversifit%ne va pas sans poser de probl&mes
aux critiques.l 7
En relation avec ces notices, il serait important de ne pas omettre en arnont
les sommaires de I'Hprnnesticon de Joseph de Tibdxiade et en aval ceux de
1,'Anakdphalaiosis d'un auteur inconnu (a moins qu'il faille considdrer
Epiphane de Salarnine c o m e I'auteur, m a l e les apparentes contradictions y
figurant - lesquelles se comprendraient A condition de considkr le Panarion
comme une auvre antdrieur a 1' Anakdphalaiosis).

l4 Voir A. BOCHI.ER,cc Les Dosithkns dans le Midrasch )), REJ 42 (1903) 220-232; 43
(1 903) 50-7 1.
I S A.F.J. KI,IM - G.J. REININK, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Leyde
1973, 54-47. On les trouve Pgalernent rtfunis et traduits dans F. BOVON - P. GEQ1.TRAIN
(ttd.), kcrirs apvcr~pheschrktiens, t. 1, Paris 1997, 843--864.
l 6 Voir S.C. MIMOUNI, Le judbo-christinnisme ancien. EYsais historipes, Paris 1998,
293-304.
l 7 Voir CIRILLO, op. cit. (n6) 313-315, qui estime qu'~piphane a dispose5 de deux
sources pour rtfdiger ses notices : I'une orale et I'autre &rite.

I1 ne faut pas oublier aussi une liste hCdsiologique qui figure dans IXncoratus, autre oeuvre dTpiphane de Salarnine presentant I'avantage d'etre anterieure au Panarion.

La documentation sur le judko-christianisme elkasditc releve aussi de la

tradition manichknne avec la Vita Mani, retrouvk dans le Codex Manichkn
de Cologne, et avec quelques autres attestations, en copte et en parthe (pour la
tradition directe), en syriaque et en arabe @our la tradition indirecte). La Vita
Mani, intitulke (( Sur I'origine de son corps n, relate les premi&resanndes de
Mani au sein d'une communautC baptiste dc MCdne.IYLes chercheurs ne sont
pas d'accord q u t B I'identification elkasditc ou non de cette communaute,
au point de parler de complexitd des formes religieuses du baptisme
elchasdfte w.20 I1 parait pdftrable cependant de considerer, du moins dans
I'ttat actuel de la recherche, le caractere elkasdite de la communaute baptiste
dans laquelle Mani a passt! ses vingtquatre premieres anndes, tout en reconnaissant que la diversit6 sans doute e x e m e du point de vuc rituel ct doctrinal
du mouvement elkasai'te.
Les te'rnoignages isiamiques el mmde'ens.

Dans un texte arabe du

si&cle,le Fihrist al-Ulh, cc Catalogue dcs Sciences )) d"bn an-Nadim, on trouve, dans le cadre d'une notice hkrisiologique
sur le manicheisme, des informations relatives au milieu d'origine de Mani et
de ses parents - c'est-&dire sur les elksasdites. Dans cet dcrit, qui cst une
vtritable encyclopcidie sur la culture islamique, on peut en effct lire trois
passages sur les elkasaftes designds par le mot arabe mughtusilu, qui littiralement signifie cr ceux qui se lavent n, correspondant au mot grec Baxtiorat
(baptistes) - B la diffkrence pds que le terme arabe connote la pratique des
ablutions et non pas celle de I'imrnersion comme c'est le cas pour le terme
grec.2' Globalement, les donncSes rapportees par Ibn an-Nadim confirment
celles de la Vita Mani : (1) la communautd des rnughtmila correspond a cellc
des bapristes dtablie dans Ies environs de Seleucie-CtCsiphon ; (2) le chef des

l a On trouve dans BOVON - GEOL:PRZIN, op. cit. (n15) 864 -872, les attestations sur les
elkasanesdam la Vita Mani du Codex manichten de Cologne.
l 9 Voir MIMOUNI, op. cit. (n 16) 308- 3 16.
20 Voir par exemple JULLIEN - JULLIEN, op. cif. (n6) 143, qui acceptent, pour la communautC baptiste de Mmi, la rtfkrence B EIkasaI mais semblent refuser le caractere ekasaYte
du mouvement qui utilise sa figure.
2i Pour le texte arabe, voir G. FLOGEL, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schrijien, Leipzig
1862, 328,340,341, pour une traduction franpise, voir M . TAKDIEIJ, L.e Munic-heisme,Paris
1981 1997~,5-6 et G . MONNOT, Penseurs muMllmuns el religions iraniennes. 'Ahd ulJabbar CIses dmanciers, Le Caire - i3eyrouth 1974, 3 1 6- 3 1 7.

',

mughtasila, al-Khasayh, correspond au fondateur des baptistes, Alkasaio~.~~

Ces attestations semblent &re les dernieres concernant les e l W t e s .
On trouve encore de parcimonieuses mentions concernant les e l b " t e s
dans la tradition mazdbnne : il s k i t essentiellement d'une mention dans
I'inscription de Kartir, qui remonte au dgne de Vahram I1 (277-293), laquelle
ferait kference a ce groupe mais sous le nom de (( nazokns )).=

Le probleme de l'origine du mouvement elkasaite

Les chercheurs sont exMmement divids au sujet de I'origine du mouvement
e l k a t e . Outre des Clements sur la question de son fondateur, on va pdsenter
quelques hypotheses sur la genese de ce mouvement.
Plusieurs critiques, sans doute avec raison. ont estirnt! possible de
distinguer entre dew formes d'elkasalisme : I'une, la plus ancienne, s%tant
d<5velopp&dans ]'Empire iranien dbs le debut du IIe sikle ; I'autre, la plus
rthnte, dans Ixmpire romain dks le IIle sikle. De toute Cvidence, les dew
formes semblent avoir diverge sur le plan de leurs croyances et de leurs
pratiques. Dans la Vita Mani du Codex manichkn de Cologne, on trouve des
sikle. Dans 1'Elenchos et dms
renseignements sur la forme iranienne au
le Panarion, on en trouve sur la fonne romaine des IF-IIIe sikles dam le
premier et du IVe siecle dans le second. I1 faudra cependant se garder chaque
fois de trop gendraliser et f o d i s e r les informations foumies dans les
sources, au risque de donner une image trop synchronique de l ' e l k ~ s m eet
pas assez diachronique, c'est-Mire distinguant les Cpoques et les lieu raison pour laquelle, on se doit de renvoyer le plus souvent possible aux
documents.
Tout cornme les Cbionites, les elkasaites paraissent avoir CtC antipauliniens
- la seule idormation il ce sujet provient d'Origtne, via E&be de CCsarCe,
qui a6rme que ce groupe rejette entikrement l'A@tre Paul (Wist. eccl. 6.38).

Ir

Lefondatev du mouvement

Le mot cc elkas;aYtes D, tout comme le mot ct Cbionites D, vient du latin

Elcesaei, qui est une translittdration du grec ' E A ~ & a a i forgC
o ~ a partir du
nom d'un pemnnage historique ou mythique, difldremment orthographic!
selon les citateurs chrdtiens, rnanichkns et musulmans.
Origtne via E d b e de C
est le premier A foumir la forme 'EAKEa a i ~ apour
i dcjsigner les membres du mouvement (Hist, eccl. 6.38). MCthode

"A ce sujet, voir plus bas.

23 Voir S.C. MIMOUNI, cc Les nwx)&ns. Recherche etymologique et historique D, RB 105

(1998) 251-260. Voir dgalement I'opinion contrast& de C. JWLLIEN - F. JIILLIEN, cc Aux
frontihres de I'iranitc! : nasraye et Rrktyone des inscriptions du mohad Kirdir. Enquete
lin6raire et historique )), Numen 49 (2002) 282-335.

d0lympe transmet la forme E A ~ a o a i tgalement

o~
pour dcjsigner les membres du mouvement (Symposium 8.10). Epiphane de Salamine, pour dksigner
les membres, utilise le tenne 'EA~euaiot (Panarion 53.1.1 et aussi Anaktphalaiosis 15.5).
Hippolyte de Rome, dans I'Elenchos, appelle le fondateur du mouvement
9.13.1). gpiphane de Salamine, pour nommet Ie fonda' H A ~ a o a (Elenchos
i
teur, donne deux formes plus ou moins semblables : d'une part, 'HSSai
(Panarion 19.1.4) ; d'autre part, HAtaloq (Panarion 30.3.2 et 53.1.2). Dans
ThMoret de Cyr, on rencontre encore la forme ' E h ~ ~ o pour
a t dtsigner le
meme personnage (Haer. fab. comp. 2.7).
Augustin, empruntant certainement ses renseignements A kpiphane, traduit
01 par Elcesaei et HN3Lcai par Elci (Sur les hedsies 32).
'EA~&oai
Bans la Vita Mani du Codex manicheen de Cologne, le nom du fomheur
du mouvement est transmis sous la forme ' A h ~ a a a i q: elle correspond la
forme ' H k ~ a o a tdHippolyte, mieux attest& et plus ancienne que celle
d"piphane (CMC 94.1 1.23 ;95.13 ;96.1 3.19 ;97.3.13.15-16).
Dans les notices du Fihrist a l - U l h d%n an-Nadim, le fondateur de la
communautt!est appeld al-Khasuyh - ou al-fiasayh dans certains manuscrits.
Ces difftsrentes lectures rambent toutes A I'expression aramknne 303 5.l1-1,
(( fodpouvoir cachd n, qu'essaie de rendre la translittkration grecque HA,
a force/ uvoir n, ~ a ou
i cai, (( cachC >) - selon les indications m h e s que
donne giPhane de Salamine en Panarion 19.2.2 et 53.1.2. Les diffdrentes
orthographes grecques peuvent alors aidment s'expliquer par la translittkraue qui ne rend pas de r n a n i k uniforme le n aramten pour des
raisons de phondtique - la forme grecque ' A A ~ a o a i stransmise par la tradition manichknne, est sans doute la plus pmche de la forme aramknne origi1mle.2~
En dtpit de I'opposition de certains savants, I'existence historique d'un
personnage que ses disciples oat appelt! en a m d e n 701, '/*n et en grec
W A ~ a a a iayant
,
v k u au IF sihle en Transeuphratene, dans I'Empire parthe,
est une these envisageable en I'absence d'arguments contradictoires.25

*'

L'hypothk avan& par M.-J.LAGRANGE, ic La gnose rnandhne et la tradition

CvangClique D, RB 36 (1927) 501-503, qui propose de voir dans le norn d ' E h r I'expression hdbraYque -3 5 ~ cc,dieu cache u, un hapax, devenu 'HI~aoa\chez Hippolyte et
'II-Igai chez kpiphane, n'est guke convaincante au regard des diffdrentes translinhtions
grecques (n = esprit doux .t &fa).
25 Parmi les critiques favorables B I'historicitk, voir principalernent BRANDT, op. cit. (n2)
8 ;J. THOMAS, Le mouvement baptbte en Palestine et Syie ( I S 0 av. J . X . - 300 up. J.-C.),
Gembloux 1935, 154, n2 ;G. STRECKER, op. cit., R4C 4 (1959) 1171-1 186. Patmi ceux qui
sont dkfavorables B I'historicitd, voir principalernent BAREILLE, op. cit., Dictionnaire de
thkologie catholique 4/2 (1 9 1 1) 2233- 2239 ; KLUN - REMRJK, op. cit. , VigChr 28 ( 1974)
283,11245(voir aussi KLlJN - REINRJK, op. cit. nl5,54-67) ; H.J. SCtiOEYS, Theologie und
Geschichte des Judenchristemms, Tnbingen 1949,325-327 ;TARDIEU, op. cit. (n21) %-12.

21 7

Mimouni

L'appui principal de cette hypothtse se trouve maintenant dans le Codex

manichkn de Cologne oh Mani, citd par ses disciples imxnckiiats, parle
d'cc Elkhasay )) comme d'une personne delle et d'un fondateur de mouvement
religiew.
Ue toute faqon, que I'on tienne ou non pour I'historicitt! dXElW-, on ne
voit pas la difference 9 considerer que ce nom puisse renvoyer 8 un personnage historique ou ti, un personnage anonyme, d'autant que dans les deux
cas, il est fait tout simplement njference au fondateur du mouvement
e l b i t e , qui, en tout etat de cause, s'est fait appeler ainsi par ses disciples,
mCme si son nom a pu Ctre tout autre B I'origine - le nom est de toute
evidence symbolique, il a kt6 port4 cependant par un personnage historique
dont le patronyme veritable demeurera a jamais dans I'anonymat. I1 est fort
probable que la dimension historique d'Elkasai' demeure ddfinitivement en un
clair obscur, accessible seulement travers la conduite des membres de son
mouvement qui, elle, n'est connue que par des documents en provenance de
I'adversite - c'est dire le caractere hypothetique de tout ce que l'on peut
avancer en la matiere.
D'apds kpiphane de Salamine, Elkasdf est un juif de naissance et de
croyance, devenu fondateur d'un nouveau groupe apds avoir rejet6 le fondement cultuel et social du judai'sme, B savoir, le sacrifice sanglant i n s t a d par
les patriarches et p e e t u 6 dans la pratique pascale, au cours de laquelle la
victime animale est egorg& puis consumtte par le feu sur I'autel. Ainsi, au
sang et au feu des sacrifices, Elk& oppose I'eau, qui devient ainsi I'instrument thaurnaturgique du mouvement.
I1 convient de noter encore que, d'apds ce mCme gpiphane, E-"l
aurait
eu un hire du nom de 'Ic;<al (Panarion 53.1.3) - il s'agit peut-fttre d'une
dfdrence implicite B une tradition elkasdite concernant la jurndlitd d'ElkasaT,
symbolique fort dkveloppde au Proche-Orient ancien.

Lcr genkse du mouvement

Si I'on en croit I'Elenchos d'liippolyte de Rome, il semble que I'origine du
mouvement elkasaile soit a situer dans la sphere de lxmpire iranien. En effet,
Hippolyte de Rome dans I'Elenchos, qui qualifie Elk& de cc parthe )),
tkmoigne plus prkisdment de 1'(( ancrage n de la figure-phare du mouvement
dans le juddsme babylanien de son temps, au demeurant fort ma1 connu.
Quoi qu'ii en soit de I'historicite de ces faits, seul ce document foumit une
id& de la gentse du mouvement au tout ddbut du n(:sikle.
Pour situer la gen&sedu mouvement, la plupart des probltjmatiques historiographiques k e n t e s partent de I'Apocalypse dTlkasaf quklles cherchent B
situer dans le temps et dans Ikspace. En revanche, pour situer le mouvement
Pour TARI>IEU, ibid 9, par exemple, EUrasaf est cc un personnage mythique qui a
historicist2 - audelii de cette affirmation aucune d6monstration n'est cependant avanck.
)),

(St&

218

Les elkasaaes

elksdiste dans le temps et dans l'espace, elles se fondent rarement sur les
Clhents f o e s par l'ensemble de la documentation.
C7estle cas notarnment de G.P. Luttikhuizen qui, en s'appuyant principalement sur des elements provenant de l'Elenchos, au sujet d'une prophetie
enonde a une dpoque ou les Parthes vaincus ont tte obliges de se sownettre a
17empereur Trajan, a souligne la perspective dans laguelie aurait pris
naissance L'Apocalypse d'Elkasai, a savoir : vers la fin de la guerre de Rome
contre les Parthes (I 14-1 17), au moment oh la defaite de ces derniers est
apparue comme in6luctable, en 116 selon toute vrai~emblance.~6
Ainsi, selon
ce critique, en Babylonie, la defense du territoire et de l'identite parthe aurait
kte trtis nettemat marquee au sein des communautds juives, dont les
insurrections successives montreraient suffisamment leur engagement
politique aux ciitks du pouvoir arsacide. Les rdvoltes juives contre les
envahisseurs romains, celle du temps de Trajan mais aussi celle du temps de
Marc A d l e , attestent en effet d'un tel sentiment en faveur des Parthes, qui
semble avoir fortement animC les communautes juives de la Diaspora
iranienne. Pour ce critique, d7apresles informations de i7Elenchosmais aussi
~
Ctk (( regues )), redigks et
du Panarion, les (< RkvClations d 7 E)) auraient
diffusks dans un milieu proche de la cause parthe, sow influence juive et
probablement sous la mouvance des communautes de Babylonie, milieu dans
lequel cette oeuvre aurait 6te produite. En bref, les conclusions de G.P.
Luttikhuizen sont les suivantes : 17Apocdypsed'Etkasai, qui reEverait du
genre apocalyptique, aurait Ctd utilike par des propagandistesjudh-chrdtiens
qui 17auraientchristianist - d'ailleurs, est-il prtcisC, la nature syncrbtique de
cette oeuvre, d& nombre d'observances typiques, ne presente pas une
doctrinejuive (( orthodoxe >).
La Wse de G.P. Luttikhuizen a et6 severement rnalmenk par les critiques
de F.S. Jones et de L. Cirillo.27 Sans entrer en matiere, outre 17existenceindeniable d'un profond sentiment antiromain dam les milieux juifs de la
Diaspora babylonienne, d i m qu'il est dans tous les cas difficile de
considerer avec G.P. Luttikhuizen que 1'Apolcalypse d7Elkasai ait 6te a
l'origine un texte issu du juddisme babylonien, par la suite recupkre et
christianid par des comunautes judb-cbdtiennes de Transeuphrathe - il
apparait plutiit comme un texte, ou le texte, de fondation du mouvement
elksdite.28

26 Voir LU'MKHUIZEN, op. cit. (n4).

27 VOUla recension de F.S. JONES, dans JAC 30

(1987) 200-209, B laquelle a rkpondu

G.P. LUTTKHUIZEN, (( The Book of Elchasai: A Jewish Apocalypse P, Ada Orientalis 5
(1987) 101-105. Voir aussi L. CIRILLO, (( Elchasai e la sua "Rivelazione" )),Rivista di storia
e letteruttirareligiosa 24 (1988) 31 1-330 ;L. CIRILLO, L'Apocalypse d'Ellchasai:son r6le
et son importance pour l'histoire du judailsrne n, Apocrypha 1 (1990) 167-179.
28 A ce sujet, voir plus bas.

Malgre toutes les difficultes et les risques, il semble toutefois possible

d'avancer une hypothkse au sujet de l'origine du mouvement elkasai'te. Au
regard d'une documentation,on peut penser que ce mouvement religieux a ete
fond6 par un personnage n o m C <( Elkasdi B, A partir d'un groupe juif dkja
existant. Ce groupe juif, se caract6risant essentiellement par des pratiques
baptistes, qui pourrait Stre celui des o s e n s , aurait kt6 etabli vers la fin du Ier
sikle en Syrie sous domination parthe (Epiphane de Salamine, Panarion 19).
Cette fondation pourrait se situer durant le rrfgne de l'empreur Trajan, aux
alentours de l'an 100 Pippolyte de Rome, Elenchos 9.13-17.1). Il est fort
possible qu'Ekx+, avant de fonder son propre groupe, ait 6t6 un judeocwtien ebionite (Epiphane de Salamine, Panarion 30). Quoi qu'il en soit, en
se proclamant proph* parmi les osseens,29 Elkasai' aurait ainsi 7
66 un nouveau group religieux se designant sous le nom de sampsCe11 (Epiphane de
Salamine, Panarion 53). L'Apocalypse dYElkasdiaurait alors trks bien pu etre
r&%gCedurant les guerres romano-parthes du temps de Trajan (Hippolyte de
Rome, Elenchos 9.13-17.1).
Le caractrfre judio-chrktien de ce mouvement ne fait pas de doute. Autrement dit, il s'agit d'un groupe de chretiens d'origine juive, qui semble s'etre
constituk, iors de la guerre entre Rome et les Parthes, a la suite d'une rev&
lation faite A un pasomage appeld. Elkasai", consider6 cornme prophete >) par
ses disciples - les elkasdites &ant ceux, du moins selon les Peres de l'Eglise,
qui ont reconnu en E b - un prophrfte.
Cette hypothese essaie de prendre en compte toutes les d o m k s des
traditions chrdtienne, manichknne et islamique. Les sampshns sont les
elk=-tes des traditions chr6tienne ainsi que manicheenne et les mughtasila
de la tradition islarnique. Elle repose bien-entendu sur une forte part d'incertitude, inevitable en la matic?re. Elle est cependant ti rapprocher de celle Cmise
par J. DaniClou, qui a considCrC que t< l'ekasdisme est un mouvement jud6ochrdtien heterodoxe, voisin de l'ebionisme, mais se rattachant ti la Syrie de
1'Est >),autrement dit, 1'Osrdne et 17AdiaMne,r6gions de langue arameenne
de la Transeuphratk-ne.30
Ajoutons que ce mouvement s'est sans doute trouve assez vite marginalid,
tant par rapport au juddisme pharisien qu'au judaisme nazorkn, peu portks a
promouvoir les groupes aux caractkres prophetiques trop marques - du moins
depuis la fin du P siecle.

29 I1 est difficile d'identifier avec une certaine assurance ces cr osstfens )) dont la graphie
varie parfois selon les manuscrits : (( osseniens B (('Osaqv&v) dans l'un - pour Panarion 19,
1, 3 ; 2, 2 ; 5 , 4 ; (( e&niens )) ( ' E o q v & v ) dam un autre - pour Panorion 19, 5 , 1. Rien
n7em@che,mais rien n'autorise non plus, de penser qu'il s'agit d'esshiens ayant S U T V ~ C U ,
sous une f m e ou sous une autre, ?
la i
restructuration du judafsme sous la houlette des
pharisiens.
30 Voir J. DANI~Lou,Nouvelle Histoire de l'hglise, t. I, Paris 1963,90.

Les membres de ce mouvement se sont tres vite retrouves dam 1'Empire

parthe, a la suite du retrait des troupes romaines lors de l'accession au pouvoir
d7Hadrien. C'est pourquoi, semble-t-il, il n'en est guere question dam les
sources occidentales chrktiennes avant le debut du El? siecle, epoque ou des
missionnaires e h - t e s &vent dam 1'Empire romain pour y fonder des
communautds.

Le probleme de l'histoire du mouvement elkasairte

Pour etablir l'histoire du mouvement elkasajite, jusqu7a ces dernieres decennies, les chercheurs ont dtd entikrement dependants des sources chretiennes
dont le caractere h6r6siologique ne peut evidemment que les rendre suspectes.
Depuis, les apports des sources manichbnnes, mazdiennes et islamiques
n'ont pas encore 6t6 suffisamment exploitks. Assurkment, ils devront l'&e a
l'avenir, mCme s'ils ne sont pas toujours faciles a apprecier, soulevant parfois
des contradictions avec les sources chr6tiennes.
Dans les sources chrdtiennes, par rapport aux judeo-chrdtiens nazoreens,
les judh-chrktiens elk-tes
sont prksentks comme des cr hCtCrodoxes B,
essentiellement parce qu'ils n'acceptent de recomaitre que la messianite de
Jksus, reftsant la divinitd du Christ. De ce point de vue, les elkasdites
semblent avoir 6tk tres proches des 6bionites : en realite, les premiers sont
beaucoup plus dloignes du judabme et du christianisme que les seconds.
~ ~ i ~ h souligne
a n e d'ailleurs que << n'ktant ni chrdtiens, ni juifs, ni paiens,
mais quelque chose d'intermaaire, au fond ils ne sont rien B (Panarion
53.1.3).
Le mouvement elkasdite pksente un certain nombre de traits qui le situent
dans la categorie des groupes religieux Csotdriques, parrni lesquels on peut
notamment relever celui de ne m m e t t r e les (( myst&resineffables )> qu'aux
disciples jug& dignes (Elenchos 9.1 5.2). Sans compter, que les membres du
mouvement sont autorisCs a renier leur foi exterieurement pourvu qu'ils la
conservent intkrieurement (Panarion 19.1.4,8; 19.3.1-3).
L'influence du mouvement elkasdite n'est nullement a nkgliger, du moins
s7il faut en croire Epiphane de Salamine qui affirme que le Vita Mani - il
s'agit vraisemblablement de I'Apocalypse d'Elkasdi - a kt6 adopt6 par les
osdens, les nasardens, les nazorkns et les 6bionites (Panxion 19.5.5 et
53.1.3). Elxdi, toujours d'apres le mBme hdr&siologuese serait afiliC sous
Trajan au groupe des ossCens (c'est-adire des esdniens), formant un nouveau
mouvement se d6signant sous le nom de sampskns (Panarion 19.1.4 et 2.2).
Ces informations, cit&s a titre, d'exemples, sont difficiles a 6valuer d'autant
que les filiations avan&s par Epiphane de Salamine, doivent Btre consid6r6es
c o m e suspectes. Dam le cas prksent, il est difficile en effet d'accepter que
les elkasdites aient dte unis a des ess6niens comrne certains critiques

Mimouni

22 1

I7acceptent,31du fait mCme que cette affirmation d"piphane ne peut itre

recoup& d'une quelconque autre manikre. Est-il alors possible dW~rmerque
cc les comunautCts baptistes du Jourdain ont presque partout kt6 assimilks
par I'elkdisme )) - c o m e le fait M. Tardieu ?32 Difficile 8 dire de m a n i h
aussi claire, devant I'absence de tout autre thoignage. Quoi qu'ii en soit,
Mani parait a I'kvidence avoir ete tr&s influenct par le systkme elksdite,
notamrnent en ce qui concerne les missions qui seront une des dimensions
maj~uresdu manichtlism? tout au long de son existence.
A plusieurs reprises, Epiphane rapporte qu'8 son tpoque, durant le dgne
de l'empereur Constance 11 (337-361), deux femmes, Marthus et Marthana, st:
pdtendant de la descendance d'Elkal, ont ttC vhtrcSes cc comme des dksses ))
dans les communautcis elkasa'ftes d90utre-Jourdain(Panarion 19.2.4 ; 53.1.5).
I1 mentionne tigalement que les c( crachats et autres saletks du corps )) de ces
dew femmes sont recueillis et utilids c o m e (< rernMe contre les maladies ))
(Panarion 19.2.5) ou ct dans des p h i l a c t h et des amulettes )) (Panarion
52.1.6) - ce theme du recueil du crachat 8, props de Mahomet est prtsent
dans la Sira d'Ibn Ishaq. Dans le Panarion, Epiphane affirme que Marthus est
morte au moment ou il dcrit alors que Marthana est encore vivante. Dans
I'Anakephalaiosis, les dew femmes sont mentionnth toutes deux comme
vivantes - cilciment qui sernble renforcer l'hypothtfse de I'antkioritci de cet
krit par rapport au premier.
Dans cette pdsentation du mouvement elkasaite, on va donner des elkments quant 8 sa localisation gdographique, avant de passer 8 sa littdrature, a
ses pratiques et croyances.

La localisation ge'ographique du mouvement

IRS sources convergent pour situer le foyer des elkasaites dans I'Empire
iranien, plus prcicidment en Babylonie ou en MCsopotamie du Nord s'ii faut
en croire J. van Arnersfort.33
A partir du IICE sickle, le mouvement elMte semble s'etre: introduit dans
I'Empire romain en Orient puis en Occident par I'interrnt5.diaire de missionnaires. On comait la mission elksaTte par les Peres de ~'kgiise.Hippolyte
(Elenchos 9.13.1-17.3) rapporte I'existence d'une mission elkwile 4 Rome
dans la premiere moitit! du HIc sikele (vers 220, durant le &gne d'Ht5liogabale
1217-2223) - I'hCdsiologue donne mCme le nom du missionnaire : Alcibiade
d'Apamk en Syrie. Orig6ne (via E d b e de C6&,
Hist. eccl. 6.38) mentionne tgalement une mission e h W e a C & d e de Palestine plus ou moins
8 la meme Cpque (vers 247, d u m t le &gne de Philippe I'Arabe [244-2491).

Voir THOMAS, op. cir. (n25) 155.

32 Voir TARDIEU, op. cit. (n2 1) 12.
33 Voir J. VAN AMERSFORT, VigChr 41 (1 987) 410.

me

Toujours au
siecle, pour 1'Empire iranien, plusieurs communaut6s
elkasdites sont attestdes dans la Vita Mani du Codex manichhn de Cologne.
On doit relever notarnment une cornmunaute dans le sud de la Balylonie, en
MCene : c'est celle oG Mani a v6cu jusqu'i l'fige de 24 am en Babylonie
(entre 220 et 244) - il s'agit en tout cas d'une donnh de l'hagiographie manicheenne. Le meme document signale d'autres communautes a Kokhe, un des
quartiers de SCleucie-Ctksiphon, a Naser qui est B situer entre Seleucie et
Sippar ainsi qu'a Pherat au bord du Golfe Persique.
D'une maniere gdnCrale, des communautks e l k d t e s semblent avoir kte
implantks sur tout le pourtour du Golfe Persique.
On peut relever que c'est a 1'6poque ou Alcibiade arrive a Rome que le
#re de Mani a int6,pC une communautk e b - t e (vers 220).
Au IVe .siG.de, Epipfiane de Salamine mentionne la prdsence de communautb elkasdites, sous l'appellation d'c o k n n e s )) et de ({ samps6ennes n, en
Nabat&, en Iturke, en Moabitide, en Aridlitide et en PCr& (Panarion 19.1.1 ;
53.1.1).

On est assez mat inform6 quant aux ouvrages en usage dans le mouvement en
dehors de maigres indices dont la fiabilite est pafois sujette ti caution.
%s e l h - t e s rejettent certains passages de 1'Ancien Testament ainsi que
des Evangiles, et completement les Lettres de Paul de Tarse - du moins s'il
faut en croire Origkne (via Eusebe, Hist. eccl. 6.38), car Hippolyte et
~ ~ i ~ hne
a disent
n e rien du caractere antipaulinien de ce mouvement.
L'usage de la thkorie des fausses-@ricopes pour justifier un usage stlectif
des Ecritures renvoie a celle que l'on rencontre fkkquement dans la
littkrature pseudoclkrnentine Cbionite.
D'ap*s la Vita Mani du Codex manichkn de Cologne, les elkasdites, ou
du moins la cornrnunautk baptiste d'ou est issu le fondateur du manicheisme,
utiiisent et mditent un Nouveau Testament, y compris les Lettres de Paul
(CMC 92.3-93.20). Ils lisent aussi des apocryphes juifs c o m e 1'Apocalypse
d'Adam (CMC 48.16), de Seth (CMC 50.8)' dYHCnoch(CMC 52.8 et 58.8) et
de Sem (CMC 55.8) ou cWtien cornme I'Apocalypse de P a ~ l . 3 ~
Concernant Paul, il y a contradiction entre l'affirmation d'Origi3ne et ce qui
est rapport6 dans la Vita Maai du Codex manichken de Cologne oa sont mentiomds Cgalement plusieurs passages des lettres pauliniennes (Ga 1,l. 11-1 2
en CMC 60.12-23 et 61.15 ;2 Co 12,l-5 en CMC 61.1-14).35

34 J.-M. ROSENSTHlEI-K, (( C.M.C. 60, 1 3 4 2 , 9 : contribution A I'ktude de 1'Apocalypse

apocryphe de Paul B, dans L. CIRILLO - A. ROSELLI (ed.), Codex Manichaicur Coloniensis.
Atti del simposio internazionaIe (Rende-Amantea3-7 set. 1984), Cosenza 1986,345-354.
35 Voir A ce props H.D. BETZ, ((Paul in the Mani Biography (Codex Manichaicus
Coloniensis) B, dans CIRILLO- ROSELLI, op. cit., 215-234.

Les elkasdites reconnaissent surtout un livre qui semble leur avoir etC
propre :il s'agit de I'Apocalypse dYElkasaiou Revelation d'Elakasai.

Les pratiques et les croyuwes du mouvement

Pour traiter de ces questions, on exp!oitera essentiellement les elements fournis par Hippolyte de Rome et par Epiphane de Salarnine qu'on complktera
avec la Vita Mani du Codex manicheen de Cologne.

Les pratiques. D'uae &&re gendrale, on peut due que les elkasdites respectent B la lettre les observances de la Torah, notamment en ce qui conceme
la cuconcision, le sabbat et les jeirnes (Elenchos 9.14.1 ; 9.16.3 ; Panarion
19.5.1 ;30.17.5).
Ils observent aussi des prescriptions alirnentaires tres strictes, rehsant par
exemple de consommer le pain grec ou pain de froment (CMC 90.1) - interdiction qui figure parmi une des <( dix-huit mesures >) edictees par les
pharisiens a la veille de la destruction du Temple de Jerusalem (mShab 1.4 ;
bShab 13b-1% ;yShab 1.4 [3c-dl).
Ils ruaintiennent JCrusalem comme direction de la priere, disant, selon
~ ~ i ~ h aque
n e cew
,
de I'Orient doivent prier en direction de l'occident et
ceux de l'occident en direction de l'Orient, cew du Nord vers le Sud et ceux
du Sud vers le Nord (Panarion 19.3.5). Ce qui ne les emgche pas d'etre
oppods aux sacrifices qui se pratiquent au Temple de Jerusalem (Panarion
19), et se refusent par consiquent de consommer toute viande (Panarion
53.1.4) - ce trait est ant&ieur ri 70.
Les elkasdr'tes procMent ri de nombreuses ablutions et immersions, ii tel
point qu'ils ont CtC categorises parmi les groupes baptistes judeo-chretiens, au
meme titre que les 6bionites.36 Ils affecte, en effet, l'eau le pouvoir de
pardormer les pkchks, et non plus au sang et au feu des sacrifices, et vont
jusqu'a manifester pour l'eau une vktkation particulikre, la considhant comme un dieu et la regardant comme le moyen par excellence de la propagation
de la vie (Panarion 53.1.7). C'est ainsi que sont pratiquds dans ces groupes
plusieurs rituels d'immersion dont un pour la remission des ptkhes et un pour
la guerison des maladies notamment le traitement de la rage et le traitement
de la phtisie et de la folie.37
Les elkasaites exercent l'usage de la divination et de l'astrologie (Elenchos
9.14.2 ; 16.1-4 ; 10.29, 3) qu'ils empruntent, du moins selon leurs
d&tracteurs,au paganisme38 - ce denier point doit etre nuand, surtout quant
36 Voir B ce props, THOMAS, op. cit., 146156.
37 Voir S.C. MIMOUM,
rituel mystique

(run
ehez les Baptistes judko-chretiens des
premiers sikles de notre &re )), dans P.B. FENTON - R GOETSCHEL (a)
Expkrience
,
et
kcrime mystiquar dans l a Religions du Ltvre. Actes d'un colloque international tern par le
Centre d'e'tudesjuives. Universite'de Paris IVSorbonne 1994, Leyde 2000,55-74.
38 Voir F.S. JONES, The Astrological Trajectory in Ancient Syriac-Speaking Christianity (Elehasai, Bardaisan, and Mani) n, dans L. CTRELLO - A. VAN TONGERLOO (&
Atti
I.),

224

Les elkasai'tes

on sait combien les juifs de ]%tiquit6 ont etd t&s actifs, ou considdr6s
comme tels, dans ces domaines. D'apnis Wippolyte (Elenchos 9.14.3 ;
10.29.3) et kPiphane (Panaripn 19.4.3-6)' ils pratiquent aussi des incantations
et des formules magiques. Epiphane rapporte mtme une formule esotkrique
elkasate translitttsrk en grec de I'aramden dont il donne une traduction, errontie d'ailleurs, en soulignant que dans I'Apocalypse d'Elkasdi il est
recommand6 de ne pas la comprendre mais seulement de la dciter (Panarion
19.4.3-6) : il s'agit, selon M.A. 1,evy, de cinq mots aramths, ecrits une
premih fois de gauche a droite et une seconde fois de droite a gauche pour
former deux vers avec les mCmes mots - la phrase c o m e n p n t par ant;,
cc je N, et se terminant par selam, cc paix )), on obtient le dit suivant : (( Moi,
votre tdmoin, Ije serai tdmoin pour vous] au jour du grand jugement. Paix )).39
Enfin, les elkasaks sont invites de manitire expresse au mariage,
mkprisant toutes formes diverses de continence en usage dans dkutres
groupes chrtStiens (Pirnarion 19.1.7).
Les croyances. Le mouvement elkasai'te apparait plutcit c o m e un
mouvement prophdtique et non pas comme un mouvement messianique c'est-&-dire mettant ses espoirs dans la mddiation d'un prophtite : Jcisus dtant
le dernier des prophetes, le cc sceau des prophetes )) - raison pour laquelle il
est design6 comme (c Christ )).
Pour les elkasaftes, le (c Christ )) est un ange dvdlateur qu'ils dhignent
comme le cc Fils de Dieu )) (Elenchos 9.13.2). A partir de cette repksentation
angklique, ils dkrivent le <c Christ )) avec des dimensions gigantesques et de
m a n i h exemement prkise, en le doublant d'un ttre ferninin de mCme
stature appelC Saint-Esprit (Elenchos 9.13.2-3) - description fantastique qui
fait penser a d'autres que I'on trouve dans 1'kvangile de Pierre pour le corps
JCsus dont la tete dkpasse le ciel ou dans le Shiour Qoma pour le corps de
Die~.~o
Aux dires des hedsiologues chrdtiens, dans I'elkasai'sme, s'il est certes
question du Pkre, du Fils et de 1'Esprit saint, le cc Fils )) n'aurait jamais ete
identifie a Jdsus en tant que tel, pas plus d'ailleurs qu'h quelqu'un dd"autre.I1
parait toutefois permis de penser que I'emploi de cc Christ )) est une dference
implicite Jesus - du moins si I'on suit Epiphane, qui va mtme jusqu'a
aflirmer qu'il n'est pas certain que les elkasdites identifient en Jesus le Christ
(Panarion 19.3.4) : trait htsdsiologique utilid pour les renvoyer plutcit du &tf
du judajsme que de celui du christianisme, ce que ne manque d'ailieurs pas de
faire 1VvQue de Salarnine en classant les elkasdites, sous le nom d ' o d n s ,
del terzo congreso internmionale di studi ~Manicheismoe Orientd cristiano anticou. Arcavacata di Rende - Amantea, 31 agosto-5 settembre 1993, LouvaikNaples 1997, 183-200.
39 M.A. LEVI, (t B e m h g e n zu den arabischen Analekten des H e m Prof Hirtig )),
Zei~~chrifi
der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschclfl 12 ( 1 858) 7 12.
40 A ce propos, voir STROUMSA, op. cil., RB 88 (1981) 43-44 et J. FOSSUM, (t JewishChristian Christologyand Jewish Mysticism )), VigChr 37 (1983) 260--287,s@c. 260-263

parmi les groupes sectaires juifs, et ce qui ne I'empikhe nullement d'en

reparler, sous le nom de sampskns, lorsqu'il traite des groupes se~taires
chrt5tiens.
Par ailleurs, pour les elkasai'tes le Christ a transmi& de corps en corps et
en dernier lieu dans celui du Christ (Elenchos 9.14.1 ; 10.29.2 ; Panarion
30.3.5 ; 53.1 .8).4' Ce theme de la mdtempsycose du Christ venu h plusieurs
reprises dans le monde avec un corps different s'apparente a celui du (( Vrai
Prophtite )) que I'on rencontre frcSquemrnent dans la littkrature pseudo-cldmentine dbionite. 11s croient ainsi que le Fils, qu'ils appellent le (( Grand Roi ))
(Elenchos 9.15.1 ; Panarion 19.3.4), peut Mndficier de plusieurs incarnations
et apparitions, a commencer par Adam et en tenninant par Jtsus. En d'autres
termes, I'elkasdisme semble considerer Jesus, qui est ddsigne plutiit c o m e le
Christ )), pour le dernier de la chaine des messies issus d7Adam.
L'elkasdisme, m a l e la proclamation du Messie maintient I'observance de
la Torah, de ce point de vue, sa (( messianologie )) difEre donc profondbment
de celle avancke par Paul de Tarse qui s'est proposci de ne plus prescrire une
telle observance pour les paiens reconnaissant le Messie Jesus - on peut par
condquent cornprendre leur opposition ii cet ap6tre.

Prdsentation d'un dcrit elkasai'te : 17Apocalypsed'E1kasai' ou

Rdvdlation d7Elkasai'
L'Apocalypse d'Elkasdi ou Rdvdlation d'ElkasaiW,connue aussi sous le nom
de Vita Mani est un texte postuld par nombre de critiques qui estiment pouvoir en retrouver des fragments dans des krits cmiens, voire manichkns.
I1 s'agit d'une apocalypse j u d h h r 6 t i e ~ e s'inspirant
,
en partie d'aapocalypses juives, plus ou moins contemporaines, comme I'Apocalypse d'Esdras
(= IV Esdras), I'AApocalypse de Baruch (= I1 Baruch) ou I'Apocalypse d'Abraham. Mais A la diffdrence de ces demitires, 1'Apalypse d'Elkasdi est un
texte fondateur de (( religion )), tout au moins d'un mouvement religieux ayant
dcupdrtf aussi bien des ClCments pharisiens et chrdtiens que des CICments
paiens.
Cet ouvrage, dont on ne trouve plus trace aprks le IV siecle, contient un
message rdvkld au cours d'une vision (Elenchos 9.13.2-3) a la manibre des
textes prophdtiqucs et inspirds - raison selon laquelle, la tradition chdtienne
I'a consid&&comme (( un livre tomM du ciel )), du moins d ' a p h Origene via
E&be de CCsrk (Hist. eccl. 6.38).
Gkndralement, on estime qu'il a ate d i g t i en ararnkn pour les raisons
suivantes : (1) le nom d'Elkasai' qui est de formation aramcSenne ; (2) le fait de
4 ' D'aprh FOSSUM, op. cit. (n40), 270-27 1, Hippolyte traduirait ceue thciorie en tertnes
de philosophie grecque, s'inspirant de la doctrine pythagoriciemede la rn6empsycose.

considker 1'E:prit Saint comme un Ctre fkminin ; (3) la formule CsotCrique

rapport& par Epiphane qui est dans cette langue.
Les editions et les traductions de ces fragments sont relativement nombreuses : elles montrent lYint6r2tdes savants pour ce texte qui pose d'6pineu.x
problkmes d'ordre litternire et historique.42
On va examiner suecessivement les problkmes relatifs a son titre, B son
contenu et a son auteur.
Le titre que l'on donne a cet ouvrage, Apocalypse d'E1kasdi ou RevClation
d'Elkasdi, n'est pas attest6 dans la documentation ancienne. I1 repose sur une
apprkiation de son contenu considCr6 a tort ou A raison comme relevant du
genre littdmire des apocalypses ou revelations. Cependant, il est certain que le
mot Elkasaz ou Elxai a figure dans le titre de l'ouvrage (Elenchos 9.29.1 et
Panarion 19.6.4), de mike que pour le mot trait6 ou livre (Elenchos 9.17.1) raison pour laquelle nombres de critiques prefeent le designer tout
simplement sous le nom de (< Livre d'Elkasai' >>.
Les critiques divergent pour savoir quels sont les fragments a attribuer a
1'Apocalypse d'Elkasdi, confondant parfois les attestations sur le mouvement
et les fragments de 1'0uvrage.~3De toute evidence, 17Elenchoset le Panarion
sont les seuls ecrits a avoir conserve des fragments de 1'ApocaIypse d'Elkasdi,
a l'exclusion de la Vita Mani souvent convoquee a ce propos ainsi que d'un
passage d70rigkne rapport6 par Eusbbe de Ckaree dans son Histoire ecclesiastique.
Dans l'Elenchos, 1'Apocalypse d'Elkasdi parait 2tre citk d'aprks l'ordre
des mati6res de l'ouvrage. Si tel est le cas, le texte de l'Elenchos, en 9.15.19.16.4, redomerait une section entiere de I'euvre qui parle des rituels
d'irnmersion et des conditions dans lesquels ils sont effectues - on apprend,
par exernple, que les officiants ekasaites ne peuvent pas procaer a m lustrations les jours dklards astrologiquementndfastes (Elenchos 9.16.2-3).
Les fragments conserves dans le Panarion permettent de se faire une assez
bonne id& de ce qu'a et6 la structure litt6raire de 1'Apocalypse d'Ellcasa1,
donnant aussi des indications sur les pratiques et les croyances du
mouvernent.

42 Pow les editions, voir notamment A. HILGENFELD (Cd.), a Elxai libri eagmenta H,
dans Novum Testamenturn extra canonem receptum, t. 111. Hemae Pastor Graece, Leipzig
1881,220-240 ;H. WAITZ, (( Das Buch des Elchasai, das heilige Buch der judenchristlichen
Sekte des Sobiai P, dans Harnack-Ehntng. Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte, ihrem Lehrer
Adolfvon Harnack zu seinem siebzigsten Gebtutstage (7. Mai 1921), dargebracht von einer
Reihe seiner Schiiler, Leipzig 192 1, 87-104. Pour m e traduction fianqaise, voir L. CiRKLO,
(( Livre de la RevClation d'EIkasaf n, dans BOVON - GEOLTRAIN, op. cit. (n15) 829-872.
43 C'est semble-t-il notamment le cas de CIRILLO, op. cit., dans BOVON - GEOLTRAIN,
op. cit. (n15) M3-872. Le mgme CWLLO, op. cit. (n6) 3 17, est cependant d'un avis
different.

Mimouni

227

Dans la Vita Mani du Codex manicheen de Cologne, cette oeuvre n'est pas
explicitement attest&, si ce nkst par certaines expressions comme par exernple (( les eaux profondes )) pour les purifications (CMC 94.13 et Elenchos
9.15.4).
Observons que le demier fragment de I'ouvrage elkasaiYe foumi par
I'Elenchos, qui porte sur I'exhortation a cacher a w infidtles les c< mysttres ))
ineffables du trait6 (Elenchos 9.17.1)' montre le caracttre Csoterique du
mouvement. I1 en va de mCme avec la citation de I'amgmmme aramknne,
p&d& de I'exhortation a ne pas en rechercher le sens, fournie par le Panarion, en 19.4.3. Ces dew indications suggtrent que 17Apocalypsed ' E l k a s aaY
CtC peutCtre un texte &serve seulement a un certain nombre d'elkasdites, a
ceux qui en I'occurrence connaissent la formule s&te.
I1 convient de dire encore un mot sur le genre littbraire de cette oeuvre.
Habituellement, il est convenu de la ranger parmi le genre dit des (c apocalypses )) ou des (( dvClations )). Pourtant, F.S. Jones a propod de la considkrer
plutbt c o m e un document relevant de la littdrature litwgico-canonique chktienne, a I'Cgal par exempie de la Didachk.4 G.P. Luttikhuizen, quant a lui, a
r e h t categoriquement I'hhypothtse, pr6fCrant maintenir sa position en faveur
de la litteratwe apocalyptique.45 De fait, voir dans cette oeuvre un livre de
&vClation, n'emeche nullement de penser qu'elle ait pu servir aussi de
cc livre de rituel )).
L'Apocalypse d'Elkasai' a etC, selon tout vraisemblance, redigke en
MCsopotamie durant le &gne de Trajan, sans doute au cours des longues
campagnes contre les parthes mendes par cet empereur (1 14-1 17) - voire au
wurs de la dure occupation de cette dgion par les Romains (1 16-123). L'auteur de I'Apalypse d'Elkasdi, qui pale 11 la premibre personne, s'adresse
avec autoritt! B ses disciples qu'il appelle (( enfants )> (Elenchos 9.15.1 et
Panarion 19.3.7). 11 s"it
donc d'un responsable de wmunautk, se pdsentant comme son tdmoin au moment du jugement dernier (Panarion 19.4.3) - B
1'Cgal de JCsus qui, dans 1'Apocalypse de Jean, est qualifid de ttmoinfidPle
(Ap 1,5 et 3,14). L'auteur est par con@uent B situer dans le mouvement
judhcMtien e l h - t e du Ile sitcle et son ouvrage doit &treconsidti& comme
le premier tkmoignage du christianisme en Mdsopotarnie, d'un christianisme
certes particulier, croyant Zi I'astrologie, A la magie et A la divinite des
Clements naturels. I1 est dificile de savoir si I'auteur est dellement Elkasaf:

44 F.S. JONES, cc The Genre o f the Book of Elchasai. A Primitive Church Order, Not an
Apocalypse )), dans A. &EN (kd.), Historische Wahrheit und theologische Wissertrchaji.
Gerd Ltidemann zum 50. tieburgstag, Beme 1996,87- 104.
45 G.P.LUITKHUIZEN, cc The Book o f Elchasai : a Jewish Apocalyptic Writing not a
Christian Church Order n, SBL 1999 Seminar Papers, Atlanta GA 1999,405-425.

d'autant que I'historicitk de ce personnage est discutk - c'est en tout cas un

prophkte chari~matique.~6

Conclusion
I1 est bien evident que chaque chercheur a la ficheuse habitude de magnifier,
d'amplifier, voire d'idhliser, dhne certaine manitre, son projet ou sujet de
recherche. I1 faut bien recomaitre qu'ii est difficile d'khapper cette tentation. I1 nkst d'ailleurs pas absolurnent nkessaire d'y khapper car, cette acheuse habitude, $ condition de s'en rendre compte et donc de la relativiser,
constitue une petite part, si ce n'est une grande part, de la motivation du
chercheur.
Au tame de ce parcours, on doit se demander ce qu'est devenu, apres le
IV sikcle, le mouvement elkUte. On en trouve des traces trks eparses ici et
la dans la documentation postdrieure il cette Cpoque : toutes reposent sur la
tradition littdmire, B I'exception peutCtre de la derniere, qui est celle fournie
par Ibn an-Nadim, au Xesikle, et qui semble attester la pdsence d'elkasaftes
dans les rnarais du bas-pays mhpotamien, en Mddne, sous Ie nam de
mughtasila que Ikuteur musulman aurait connus.
MGme si on laisse de ciitk, son Cventuelle influence sur I'islam dont il a
ddjd dtk question, pour l'historien des religions, I'elkm-sme est un mouvement religieux relativement important, A cela au moins dew causes ou raisons
majeures : (1) il est il la fois le produit du judai'sme gkndral et du juda'isme
nazortkn, sans oublier les mouvements baptistes qui ont tant influend ses
rituels d'eau ;(2) il a donnt naissance, en milieu de parcours, au manichCisme
d'une part et, en fin de parcours, au mandkisme d'autre part.
Pour le manichkisme, il s'agit maintenant d'une dvidence qui ne semble
plus susciter de problemes majeurs. Pour le mandtisme, en revanche, il n'en
est pas de meme, il s-it toujours d'une hypothkse : on peut se demander, en
effet, si I'elkaMsme ne se trouverait pas A I'origine du mandeisme qu3I
convient toutefois de distinguer du saMisme47 - autrement dit : on doit se
demander si le mandeisme ne serait pas un dkveloppement de l'eIkasaf~me.~8
Enfin, relevons que les swialistes du christianisme dans lxmpire iranien
ont tendance a dire que l'absence de documents empkhent de retracer avec

46 Pour plus de Wisions, vou plus haut les remarques relatives A la gent?se du
mouvement et le r61e de I'Apmafypse d'EIhai'en la mati&re.
47 A ce pmpos, vou M. TARDIEU (( Sabiens coraniques et 'Sabiens' de Harran B, dans
Journal aiatique 274 (1986) 1-44. Vou aussi C. GENEQUAND, (( IdBlatrie, astrolEttrie ct
sab6isme )I, dans Shrdia Islamica 89 (1999) 109-128.
48 Vou &j& E. RENAN, tc Note sur I'identitt!de la secte gnostique des ElchasaTtes avec les
MendaRes ou Sabiens )), dans JOIVMIasiatique 6 (1855) 292-294.

exactitude l'histoire de sa @nCtration dans cette dgion du monde.49 11s acceptent de faire remonter cette pendtration aux demieres annees de la dynastie
parthe des Arsacides, qui a regnd cinq sihles avant d'etre chasske du pouvoir,
en 226, par la dynastie perse des Sassanides. Ils consid&rentcependant que la
christianisation de 1'Ernpire iranien pourrait remonter a la fin du IF sikle : en
se fondant sur la tradition de 1 ' ~ ~ l i sperse,
e
ils estiment, en effet, que les
premiers (( missionnaires }> sont Venus d'Edesse, en Osroene, oh le christianisme est dkjh bien implantC, devenant meme religion d'~tat,des le debut
du IIIe siecle, sous le roi Abgar D[ (179-214). I1 y a la m e sorte de
contradiction, provoquee sans doute par l'absence totale de documents
attestant de la prksence de commaut6s chretiennes dans ]'Empire iranien
avant la moitid du
siecle, en dehors Cvidemment des donnees de la
tradition qui tente d'etablir un lien entre le debut du N e siecle et (( les
origines )), en faisant remonter la christianisation du pays A 1'apCitre Thomas
qui se serait arrCtd A Skleucie-Ctksiphon au cows de son voyage en Inde, ou
encore son disciple Addaii, lui meme second&par deux compagnons, Aggai' et
Mari - il convient en l'occurrence de prkciser que si la tradition attribue a
Thomas ou Addai la fondation du siege patriarcal de Skleucie, sans doute estce dans le but de prouver que cette Bglise est bien, elle aussi, de fondation
apostolique, a I'egal d'Antioche. Ce faisant, ils omettent les judeo-chretiens
elkasdites, qui sont attest& dans I'Empire iranien des le dkbut du sihle, et
dont les communautes semblent relativement nombreuses et florissantes au
ZTI" sikle, du moins si I'on accorde trait aux informations en provenance de
la Vita Mani du Codex manicheen de Cologne. Il sernble bien, en effet, que
I'elkasdisme ait ktk la premikre forme connue du christianisme dans 1'Empire
iranien.50

49 Voir en dernier lieu R LE COZ, Hiktoire de ~ ' E ~ ~daOrient.

ise
Chrktiens d'IraR, d'lrun
et de Twquie, Paris 1995,2 1.
50 Allant dans te m&me sea, voir JULLIEN - JULLIEN, op. cit. (n6) 137-15 1.

A nameless God:
Judaeo-Christian and Gnostic 'theologies of the Name'
Guy G. Strournsa
"Wer darf ihn nennen"
Goethe, Fuusr I, 3432

In his research on the vexed question of the nominu sucru, i.e., the
shorthand for divine names, and their origin in early Egyptian Christianity,
the British papyrologist C.H. Roberts reached the conclusion that the
'Divine names', or nominu sacra, found in various papyri from Roman
Egypt were a creation of the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem.
In other words, they had been invented by the earliest Jewish-Christians,
i.e., those Jews in first-century Palestine who believed Jesus to be the
expected Messiah, and whose understanding of Jesus Christ and his nature
was totally established upon Jewish religious categories.' As Roberts has
made abundantly clear, the norninu sacra reached Egypt together with
Christianity, through Jewish-Christian channels. We know, indeed, of
various contacts between Jerusalem and Alexandria at the time, among
~ power and mystery of the divine names
both Jews and ~ h r i s t i a n s .'The
would remain a highly visible characteristic of Egyptian Christianity in the
following ~enturies.~
In his argumentation, Roberts established himself
upon the well-known fact that there had been "a theology of the Name" in
the mother Church even before 70.~
Can we determine with some precision the elements of this 'theology of
the Name,' i.e., of the Divine Name among the Jewish-Christians? As the
main character of this theology was its esoteric character, any attempt at
such a determination will perforce remain somewhat speculative. Yet, such
an attempt is not only possible, but might also shed some light upon
C.H. ROBERTS,
Manuscripl, Society and Belief in Early Chrisriun E ~ y p t ,L.ondon
'The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: a Proposal', JBL 117
1979, 26-28. L.W. HURTADO,
(1998) 655-573 convincingly argues that IFI ( I p y ) represents a Greek gematria.
See G.G. STROUMSA,
'Alexandria and the Myth of Multiculturalism', in L.
PERRONE
(ed.), Origeniana octava: Origcme e l a trudizione allesundrino / Origen and the
Alexandrian Tradition, lcuven 2003,23-29.
'The Making of Monastic Demonology: 'Three Ascetic
See for instance D. BRAKKIJ,
Teachers on Withdrawal and Resistance', Church History 70 (2001) 19-48.
RoeER.rs, Manuscript, esp. 47.

A nameless God

23 1

Jewish, Christian and Gnostic conceptions alike. As the documentation is

at best fragmentary, and as our categories (such as Judaism, Christianity,
Gnosis, and so on) reflect more directly the mind of modern scholars than
ancient realities, only a global approach of the texts may be useful here.
Although the question of the Divine Name in early Judaism and
Christianity has received considerable attention, such an approach might
permit to see things in a fresh perspective.

The unutterable Name

The Tetragrammaton, in Hebrew Shem ha-Mephorash, or 'explicit Name',
(or Shem ha-Meyuhad, or kyrion onoma, i.e., proper name) appears some
six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible. Yet, since the times of the Exile,
the Jews have sought to avoid pronouncing the name of their God, and
have developed a highly complex series of substitutes and circumlocutions,
in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. While the reasons for this dramatic
departure from common usage in Antiquity can only be guessed, it stands
to reason to see in it a will to insist on the radical difference between the
God of the Israelites and those of the other peoples, idols not to be put on a
par with Him. Elias Bickerman claims that the Elephantine papyri clearly
reflect this attitude. According to Bickerman, referring to God's name
would have meant letting Him appear together with the idols.'
Instead of YHWW, Elohim and Adonai (my Lord) were used during the
Second Commonwealth, or the Greek and Aramaic equivalents of the
latter, Kyrios and Mari, as well as such substitutes as ha-Shem (the Name),
ha-Kadosh (the Holy One), Elohei ha-shammaim (God of the heavens), EiI
Elyon, or Z~ypsisros.Even in the Temple liturgy, there was an almost total
interdiction to use the Tetragrammaton: only the High Priest on Yom
Kippur could pronounce it. This process soon led to a hypostatization of
the Name of God, which eventually stood for God Himself. In Deuteronomy, God dwells in heaven, while His Name dwells in the Temple. There is
here the beginning of a duality in the divinity, as if God's name was his
representative upon earth.6
The God of Israel was a strange god indeed. He was already a faceless
deity in a world where one could everywhere admire the statues of the
gods: even in His Temple, no sculpture of Him could be found. As this
God was the God of heaven, the Temple in Jerusalem was soon perceived
E. BICKERMAN,
The Jews in the Greek World, Cambridge MA 1998. See also H.
BIETENHARD,
art. bvopa, in G. KIT- EL, ed., TDNT, V, 242-283.
See C. TI~QMA,
art. 'Gott, 111; in TRE 13, 628-635 (629-630), on transformations
of the Tetragrammaton and restrictions on mentioning it after the destruction of the
Temple.

232

Stroumsa

to be the dwelling place of ).{is Name, rather than of God Iiimself (see for
instance 2 Kings 21:4; cf. Jeremiah 7:12, about Shilo). Now, He would
also remain anonymous among cultures for which a nameless deity was
felt to be imperfect.
A similar evolution can be detected among the Samaritans. Like the
Jews, the Samaritans considered their God (who was of course the same as
that of the Jews) to be an anonymous deity.' Some documents present the
Samaritans as worshipping a deity called Ashema, i.e., the Name (cf.
2Kings 17:30).* In Memar Marqah 1.4, for instance, Moses reveals the
'Great Name'. For this work, indeed, Moses, "whose name was made the
Name of his Lord", is said to be vested with the Divine ~ a m e . ~
Some powerful consequences were drawn from such characteristics.
One of them would be to develop esoteric traditions about the (secret)
name of God: God indeed had a name, but this name was (usually)
unpronounceable. These secret traditions had serious implications, and the
following pages hope to analyze some of these implications. The most
important one, probably. is the fact that God's Name eventually came to be
perceived as another person, a second Deity, as it were. In a sense, it could
almost be argued that the insistence on the uniqueness of God, Iiis abstract
nature, His radical distinction from all other known Deities, entailed the
eventual distinction between Him and His Name, i.e., the rise of a Divine
Hypostasis. This hypostasis, as we know well, also became the carrier, as
it were, of Divine anthropomorphism. We shall see here how the Jewish
traditions about the secret Name of God were reinterpreted among the
earliest Christians.

Kyrios
Apocalyptic literature shows a clear interest in secret names of heavenly
entities. The book of Enoch, in particular, tells us about the names of the
angels. One of them, Beqa, "spoke to Michael to disclose to him his secret
See BICKERMAN,
The Jews in the Greek Wvrld, 266.
See M. EDWARIIS,
'Simon Magus, the Bad Samaritan', in M.J. EI)WAR1)S and S.
SWAINE,
eds., Porlraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Litercrture
of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1997,69-9 1 , esp. 72.
See J. FOSSUM,
The Name of God and the Angel ofthe Lord: Samaritun and Jewish
Concepls of intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, (WIINT 36) Mohr Siebeck,
Tllbingen 1985, 87, 95, 1 1 1 . Fossum also quotes from the Odes of Solomon 39:7: lrvosh
et ha-Shem and lmsho shemeh de-Mariutha, and further points out that Syriac
Christianity, which has strong roots in Palestinian Jewish-Christianity, retains clear
traces of Jewish speculations on the Divine Name. In this context, Fossum refers to 'I'he
Homilies of Narsai (Edessa, fitth cent.), which refer to 'the Hidden Name' ().lorn. 2 2 ,
Fossu~,p 10 1 ).

'

A nameless ~ o d

233

name so that he would memorize this secret name of his, so that he would
call it up in an oath in order that they shall tremble before it and the oath.
He then revealed these to the children of the people, (and) all the hidden
things and this power of this oath, for it is power and strength itself.'"' A
similar conception is also found in the Apocalypse of Abraham (10:9),
where Yaoel, the angel with the doubly theophoric name, speaks about
"the Ineffable Name which is dwelling in me".
While the dating of Enoch's book of Similitudes, to which this chapter
belongs, remains highly debated, this text seems to reflect a rather
common attitude toward the end of the second Temple period. It also
echoes the power attributed to names in general, and to divine names in
particular.
A striking example of this power of the divine name is found in a
fragment of Artapanus's Greek romance on Biblical figures (written in
Greek in the late third of early second century B.C.E.). Moses, appeasing
before Pharao, tells him that the master of the universe has ordered him to
release the Jews. When Pharao asks him the name of this god, Moses "bent
forward and pronounced it into his ear. When the king heard it, he fell
down speechless but revived when taken hold of by ~ o s e s . " "
This passage reflects the magical power of the divine Name, and of he
who utters it.I2 Moses (whom Artapanus identifies with Museus) is such a
powerful magician because he knows the Name. Hence, one can infer that
this Name is not divulged to anyone, that it is esoteric, secret.
For Alexandrian Jews, knowledge of the Tetragrammaton remained a
prerogative of the Temple in Jerusalem. Kyrios became, in the LXX, the
natural heir of YHWH, and soon acquired some of the power of the
unpronounceable divine Name. In this connection, Bickerman points out
that Kyrios used absolutely is a Hebraism, as the word in Greek is usually
attributive, such as Kyrios Zeus, for instance. In Hellenistic Jewish literature, Kyrios is thus an arrheton onoma, to be avoided as much as possible:
l o IEnoch 69:14-15. 1 am quoting E. ISAAC'S translation in J.H. Charlesworth, The
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Garden City NY 1985. The attempt of Ch.
KAPLAN,
'The Hidden Name', JSOR 13 (1929) 181-184, to interpret this passage in the
light of Midrashic and Kabbalistic sources, is marred by a totally anachronistic use of
texts.
" Artapanus, fragment 3 (from Eusebius, Praep. evang. 9.27.1-37. 1 quote J. COL1.INS'S translation in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 11, 901. The
fragment appears also, in a slightly different form, in Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
1.23.154.2 (1 55 MONDCS~:.RT-CASTER).
On the magical power of the Divine Name, as uttered by Moses, see for instance R.
MEKKELBACH
and M. Toni, ABRASAX: Ausgewdhl~ePapyri reiigiiJsen und magischen
Inhalte, (Papyrologica Coloniensia 17) Opladen 1990, 179-181, and J. GAGER,Moses in
Greco-Roman Paganism, Nashville 1972, 134- 16 1.

One does not find it in the oldest parts of the Sybilline books, in the Letter
of Aristeas, IV Maccabees, Ezechiel the Tragedian, and almost not in
Josephus. l 3
Hence, for Philo, the God of Israel is almost nameless. Discussing the
divine revelation to Moses in the burning bush (Exod 33:13 ff.) Philo
points that "it is a logical consequence that no personal name even can be
properly assigned to the truly Existent"((.$ 6vrt npdq &L@tav). He then
interprets "I am He Who is"(Exod 3:14) as being "equivalent to 'My
nature is to be, not to be spoken"' (Icrov T$ &fvat dcpuwa, ob Lfy~08cl$.'4
Elsewhere, in The Life of Moses, God answers to Moses, who asks Him
what he should tell to the Israelites: "First tell them that I am He Who is,
that they may learn the difference between what is and what is not, and
also the further lesson that no name at all can properly be used of Me ( 6 ~
obuv 6vopa rd zapdzav BE' kpoij ~ ~ p t o k o y ~ i r atot ) ,Whom alone
existence be~ongs."'~Again, in Who is the heir? Philo writes: "The third is
concerned with the name of the Lord ( b REI)I, bv6parq wupiou), not that
name the knowledge of which has never even reached the world of mere
becoming - He that is cannot be named in words - but the name which is
given to His ~otencies."'~
According to Lucien Cerfaux, such texts point to
the fact that for the Jewish community in Alexandria, Kyrios had a power
similar to the one held by YHWH in the Jerusalem Temple. He is thus able
to imagine "a closed religious community, organized around a secret and
esoteric divine title*'." In De confusione linguarum, Philo goes further, and
identifies the Name of God to His Logos, and to the Archangel: "...God's
first-born, the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels, their ruler
as it were. And many names are his, for he is called 'the Beginning'and
the Name of God, and his Word, and the Man after His image, and 'he that
sees,' that is ~srael.'"~
The most common appellation of the God of Israel in Hellenistic Greek,
however, and in particular in the Septuagint, is Kyrios, the Lord, a term
also commonly used to refer to kings in the ancient Near East. Kyrios, of
course, would then become one of the most important denominations of
Jesus Christ in earliest Christianity. Wilhelm Bousset's classical monograph, written in the early twentieth century, has remained the major study

"

See L. CERFAUX,'Le titre Kyrios', in Recueil Lucien Cerfoux, I, Gembloux 1954,

1 -188, esp. 95.

''
l7

Mut. 11; LCL 5, 146147.

Vita Mosis 1.75; LCL 6, 3 14--315.
Quis rer. div. her. 170; LCL 4,368-369.
L. CERFAUX,'Le titre Kyrios', 96-97.
Conf. ling. 146 (LCL 4,88-9 1).

A nameless God

235

of the term.19 At the same time, it seems to be responsible for a serious

misunderstanding of the term in New Testament scholarship. Bousset,
indeed, did not identify the Jewish background of the term, indicating the
Divinity, and looked mainly in Greek religious traditions and practices for
the original milieu for parallels and significance. Cerfaux, however, did
identify properly these Jewish and ancient Near Eastern origins of the
term. For Bousset, Kyrios, referring to Jesus Christ, had become a secondary god among some small Hellenistic communities. Cerfaux, on the
other side, insists upon the fact that the title Kyrios is characteristic of the
'Judaeo-Aramaic' Church (identical to what Jean DaniClou called 'Jewish
Christianity'), while for the 'Greek' Churches Jesus was a Theos of sorts.
For him, it is due to his dignity as King Messiah that Kyrios was first
attributed to ~ e s u s . ~ ~

Early Christian speculation on the Name

When Paul spoke in Athens, at the Areopagus, about the "unknown god"
(agn6stos theos) to whom the pious Athenians had consecrated a temple
(Acts 17:23), his listeners most probably considered the Jewish god as "the
unknown god par excellence". As Pieter van der Horst pointed out in his
excellent study, this was due to the fact that the Jewish god "could not be
called by name and he had no image, not even in the inmost recess of his
single unapproachable sanctuary in ~erusalem".~~
More than anyone else, DaniClou has insisted upon the Jewish-Christian
theologournena in the earliest strata of Christian literature. The fact that his
definition of the concept of Jewish Christianity is much too broad to be
heuristically useful has prevented a general acceptance of some of his best
intuitions and arguments. This is the case, for instance, in his remarks
about the Name of God. Danielou identified the Divine Name as one of the
earliest titles of Jesus Christ, a title that was given up quite early, he adds,

l9 Wilhelm BOUSSET,
Kyrios Christos, Giittingen 1913 (I use the English translation,
Nashville NY 1970).
" CERFAUX,
up. cit., esp. 59-63
P.W. VAN DER HORST,'The Altar of the "Unknown God" in Athens (Acts 17:23)
and the Cult of "Unknown Gods" in the Graeco-Roman World', in his Hellenism,
Judaism, Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, 2nd ed. Leuven 1998, 207. Although
the name of the Jewish God usually remained unknown in the Hellenistic and Roman
world, some did h o w His name, such as the Roman intellectual and antiquarian Varro,
in the first century BCE, who refers to Iao. See Lydus, De mansibus 4.53, in A.
MOMIGWO,'The Theological Efforts of the Roman Upper Class in the First Century
B.C.', in his On Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Middletown CT 1987, 63 and n5.

236

Stroumsa

as it was "unintelligible and dangerous in Greek milieu".22 As Danielou

argues, the Jewish speculations on the Name had been carried through
apocalyptic literature and could also be found at Qumran. As he was able
to identify similar speculations in some Gnostic texts, he emitted the
hypothesis that Gnosticism grew upon an "archaic theology, of JewishChristian character, marked by Jewish speculation".23
As we have seen, for instance with Philo, Jewish speculation on the
Divine Name went far beyond Apocalyptic trends, and was as widespread
in Hellenistic milieus. It is thus not surprising in the least if we are able to
detect this speculation also in various texts of the New Testament.
In one of his farewell discourses in John's Gospel, Jesus says: "I have
made your name known to those whom you gave me from the world. They
were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word"
(John 17:6).24
As reflected in the text from Philo's De conhione linguarum, the
identification between God's Name and His Logos was known in Jewish
circles. The verse from John's Gospel quoted here shows that for its
author, logos and onoma were interchangeable. "This interchangeability,"
points out Gilles Quispel, one of the most consistent followers in DaniClou's footsteps, "implies that the Name was hidden and unknown before
Jesus revealed
The same identity between logos and onoma seems even to be in the
~
or
background of the Prologue to John's Gospel (John 1: 1 - 1 8 ) . ~Memra,
Memra ha-Shem, indeed, appears in the Targum Neofiti instead of Elohirn.
Memra is also God's Name, revealed to Moses from the burning bush. As
Quispel points out, New Testament scholarship has too often remained
skeptical, hesitating to adopt these insights for the interpretation of the
Fourth ~ o s ~ e l . ~ ~
Such a hesitation, however, appears quite unjustified when one looks at
all the evidence from other layers of early Christian literature, in particular
from the Apostolic Fathers. For the Shepherd of Hermas, "the name of the
Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and supports the whole world.
22 J. DAN~I~LOU,
La the'ologie du Jude'o-Christianisme,Paris 1958, 2nd ed. 1991, ch.
6,235-25 1: 'Les Titres du Fils de Dieu'.
23 Ibid,247.
24
'EipavGpwoB oou zd dvopa z o i ~CtvOprino~<065 EiSw~d<pot k~ to6
i
EGmca~,~ a zov
i 16yov aou zszfipq~av.
~ 6 0 ~mi
0 ~?pav
. ~ h p o ahzorjl;
25
G. QUISPEL, 'Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity', in J.H. CHARLESWORTH,
ed.,
John and the Dead Sea ScrolIs, (1972) New York 1991, 137-157, see 149-150. See
further C.H. DODD,The interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge 1953,93-96.
26 This has been argued by C.T.R. HAYWARD,'The Holy Name of the God of Moses
and the Prologue of St. John's Gospel', NTS 25 (1978) 16-32.
27
QUISPEL,'Qumran...', 151.

A nameless God

237

If then the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what do you
think of those who are called by him, and bear the name of the Son of God,
and walk in his commandment^?"^^ The Divine Name appears in
Clement's First Epistle, where Jesus Christ is the Name's revealer: it is
thought him that God "called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to
the full knowledge of the glory of his name" (59.2). In the Didache, we
find a liturgical invocation (in the blessings after meals) of God's Holy
Name, for whose sake all things were created (10.2). Here too, Jesus Christ
seems to be closely related to the Name. In the Epistle to the Colossians,
Jesus Christ is described in the following words:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the fustborn of all creation; for in him all things in
heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through him and for him."
(Go1 1:15-16)

What is said here about Jesus Christ is exactly what was said about the
Name in the Didache: the whole world was created for his sake. The
identification of the Divine Name and Jesus Christ is made explicit in the
Hymn in the Epistle to the phi lip pi an^:^^
"Therefore God also highly exalted him
And gave him the name
That is above every name
So that at the name of Jesus
Every knee should bend,
In heaven and on earth and under the earth,
And every tongue should confess
That Jesus Christ is Lord,
To the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:9-11)

Many scholarly efforts have been devoted to these last two texts. What
counts here is the univocal character of their testimony: Jesus Christ is the
bearer of the Name. In other words, he appears to be the Hypostasis of the
Nameless God, carrying and revealing the Name. In a way, Jesus Christ IS
the Name of God, i.e., the Name that can be uttered.30

Similitude 9.14.5 (LCL 256-259).

See further 2Thess 3:6, t v bvdpart to5 ~upiou'Irpoij Xptoro6, and the
confession of the Name in Heb 13: 15.
30 On the name of God and the name of Jesus in the New Testament, see the recent
Der Name tiottes und der Name Jesu: Eine neurestamentstudy of A. SUCK-SCHRODER,
liche Studie, (WMANT 80) Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999. This study includes a large bibliography. It is a puzzling fact that the issue of the names of God and of Jesus seems to have
attracted relatively little interest on the part of New Testament scholars. One of the main
conclusions of this study is that Jesus's name and God's name are referred in very
similar ways.
29

Stroumsa

Jesus and the Name

The Ascension of Isaiah is a Christian work, originally redacted in Greek
probably in the second half of the second century, but which is based in
great part on earlier Jewish material, mainly from an Apocalyptic nature.
In 1:7, we read, in the name of Isaiah: "As truly as the Lord Liveth, whose
name has not been sent into this world ..." This refers clearly to God's
secret name and to early Jewish traditions about the divine hypostases.31
All these different early Christian texts stem from milieus close to JewishChristianity, and here seem to reflect a Jewish-Christian theologoumenon
about the hypostatical Name of ~ o d . ~ ~
The Jewish origin of this conception is borne by the Rabbinic traditions
about God's archangel, usually called Metatron, who is said to carry God's
Name: 137 nW3 lnvw lllWm (Metatron whose name is like his Mat e r ' ~ } .Such
~ ~ a striking isomorphism is much more easily understood as
reflecting a Jewish source to a Christian conception than the other way
around. Even if the Rabbinic evidence is later than the earliest Christian
texts, it is rather hard to imagine that the Rabbis felt the need to invent a
divine person which would play a role similar to that of Jesus. Rather, it
stands to reason to claim that the figure of Metatron reflects an earlier
Jewish archangel figure, which would become identified to Jesus among
the first Christians. Saul Liebermann has shown that the name Metatron,
stemming from metathronos (sitting next to [God's] throne), is equivalent
to synthronos, (sharing [God's] throne), a term which might have been
avoided due to its possible Christian connotation^.^^ In late antique
Judaism, the names of God would become the topic of much speculation,
in particular in the mystical and theurgical trends reflected in the Hekhalot
literature, with its strong esoteric character.35

3' See E. NORELLI,

Ascensio Isaiae, Commentarius, (Corp. Christ. Ser. Apoc. 8)
Turnhout 1995,92-93.
32 See also Barn. 9.8 (372-373 LCL), where Jesus's name, as a nomen sacrum, is IH,
i.e., 10+8, which has in Hebrew the value of vn, alive.
33 bSan 38b.
34 S. LIEBERMANN,
Appendix A in I. Gmenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah
Mysticism (AGAJU 14; Leiden, Kbln, 1980). On Metatron, see also Reuyot Yehezkeel:
'Metatron, like the Name of the Power', and 3Enoch, in which the seventy names of
Metatron are hidden names.
35 See for instance K.E. GRCIZINGER,
'The Names of God and the Celestial Powers:
their Function and Meaning in the Hekhalot Literature', Jerusalem Studies in Jewish
, g8ttliche Name. Geheimnis und
Thought 6 (1987) 53-69, as well as P. S C ~ E R'Der
Offenbarung in der Merkava-Mystik', in A. und J. ASSMANN, T. SUNDERMEIER, eds.,
Geheimnis und Offenbarung, (Schleier und Schwelle 2) Munich 1988, 143-1 59.

A nameless God

239

In early Christianity, the name of Jesus was to acquire the magical

virtues of the Divine Name in Judaism. The wer inherent to the name of
Jesus is referred to, for instance, by Origen?ct is in monastic literature, in
particular in texts emanating from the monks of the Egyptian desert,
however, that the power of Jesus' name is mainly recognized. Its mere
pronunciation makes the demons flee away in awe. In his treatise on the
Divine Names, Pseudo-Dionysius refers to "the principle of divinisation?"
which is "nameless and none the less stemming from all names'? (Div.
nom. 1.6, 596A). This "marvelous name"(Judges 13:18) is of course
Christ. It has been recently convincingly argued by Istvan Perczel that
such argumentation seems to come directly from the Origenist tradition,
and ultimately stems from the Jewish-Christian tradition on Jesus Christ as
the Father's Name. Evagrius here echoes Origen when he says that Christ
is the Name of the ath her.^' The bulk of the evidence, however, comes
from the magical papyri and tablets.38

Gnostic speculations
Some of the early Gnostic texts and traditions offer a renewed discussion
of God's secret name and of Jesus Christ as bearing the Divine Name. The
evidence from the Gnostic material highlights the significance and role of
this theologoumenon. That one can easily detect in early Christian Gnosticizing literature a high status attributed to the name of Christ is clear. See
for instance Acts of Thomas 27: the true name of Jesus must remain secret.
By far the most important reflection on the Name in ancient literature is
found in the Gospel of Truth, one of the texts discovered in Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi. As eminent a scholar as Bentley Layton is quite
certain about its authorship: according to him, this text, "one of the most
brilliantly crafted works of ancient Christian literat~re"~
is the first Christian homily, written most probably by Valentinus, in early second-century
See Cels., 1.6, 21, 25, 67. H. CIIADWICK,
in his translation, also refers to Cels.
6.40; 7.37.
37 1. PERCZEL.,
""Th60logiens" et "magiciens" dans le Corpus dionysien', Adamantius
7 (2001) 54-75, esp. 57. PERCZEI.
refers to Origen, Comm. in Matt. 16.8 and Comm. in
Rom. 7.3, as well as to Evagrius, Kephalaia Gnostica 6.27. PERCZEL'S
view that the
Dionysian corpus was redacted by an Origenist monk from Palestine stands to reason; see
his 'God as Monad and Henad: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Peri Archon', in
ibid. (n2) 1 193- 12 10.
PEURONE,
38 See for instance M.W. MEYI-R
and R. SMITH, eds., Ancient Christian Magic:
Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Princeton NJ 1993, 56. See further M.J. EDWARDS,
'Chr2stos in a Magical Papyrus', Zeifschrifffir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 85 (1991)
232- 235. The script (with an eta rather than a iota) clearly points to a Gnostic or other
heretical source, as duly noted by EDWARDS.

Alexandria. Due to its importance, this text will be quoted here at some
length.
"Now, the name of the father is the son. It is he who in the beginning named what
emanated from him, remaining always the same. And he begot him as a son and gave him
his name, which he possessed. It is he in whose vicinity the father has all things: he has
the name, and he has the son. The latter can be seen; but the name is invisible, for it
alone is the mystery of the invisible, which comes into ears that are wholly full of it,
because of him. And yet, the father's name is not spoken. Rather, it is manifest in a son.
Thus, great is the name!
Who, then, can utter his name, the great name, but him alone who possesses the name
- and the children of the name in whom the father's name reposed and who in turn
reposed in his name! Inasmuch as the father is unengendered, it is he who alone bore him
unto himself, as a father might be supreme over them as lord. And this is the true name,
confirmed by his command in perfect power. For this name does not result from words
and acts of naming, but rather his name is invisib~e.'"~

This text has attracted much attention. For DanitSlou and Quispel, for
instance, it clearly reflects a Jewish-Christian background. It is J.E.
Mdnard, however, who has most consistently insisted in his commentary of
the Gospel of Truth upon the Jewish elements in this passage.40 JeanDaniel Dubois, on his side, has offered an exhaustive review of the
evidence, summarizing, in particular, the views of these three ~cholars.~'
A very different hermeneutical road has been trodden by Raoul Mortley,
who argues that the Gospel of Truth is quite late, and should be explained
in the context of the Arian debate.42 Mortiey's valiant argument does not
object to the Judaeo-Christian background of the text, but claims that "this
is not important".43

39 Gospel of Truth, NHC 1, 38.6-39.6, quoted in Layton's translation, in B. ~ , A ~ I O N ,

The Gnostic Scriptures, Garden City NY, 1987, 262-263. The discussion on the name
goes on until 4 1.3. See also, for instance, Tripartite Tractate, NHC 1, 5.65 -66.
40 MENARD'S
findings, presented already in 1962, are found in particular in his
L 'Evangile de Vkritk,(Nag 1.4ammadi Studies 2) Leiden 1972.
4' J.-D. DUBOIS,
'Le contexte judalque du "nom" dans I'Evangile de Vdritk', Revue
de Thkologie el de Philosophie 3 (1974) 198-216; this article includes a thorough
bibliography.
R. MORTLEY,
'The Name of the Father is the Son (Gospel of Truth 28)', in R.T.
WALLIS,
ed. and J. BREGMAN,
ass. ed., Neoplatonisrn and C;nosticism, Albany N Y , 1992,
From Wordr to S~lence,Bonn 1986, esp. 107 109.
239-252. See further R. MORTL~:Y,
See Further E. THOMASSEN,
'Gnostic Semiotics: the Valentinian Notion of the Name',
Temenos, Studies in Comparative Religions, 29 (1993) 14 1- 156, and E. THOMASS~N,
'Adyog dnd otyfig xpo~3cOhv(Ignatius, Mag. 8,2)', in Texts in their Textual and
Situational Context, eds. T. FORNBERG
and D. HELLnOl.M, Oslo I Copenhagen 1995,
847-867. 1 wish to thank Jean-Daniel Dubois for kindly calling my attention to these
studies.
[bid.. 243.

''

24 1

A nameless God

On the contrary, it seems to me that recognizing the original background of the early Christian speculation on the name of God and the name
of Christ is absolutely crucial for the understanding of the early history of
Christian theology. Some other Gnostic texts shed some more light on the
matter. Another text from Nag Hammadi, the Gospel of Philip, a Valentinian anthology, offers a quite similar, though much shorter, discussion of
the Name:
"Only one name is not uttered in the world, the name that the father bestowed on the son;
it is above every other - that is, the name of the father. For son would not become father
had he not put on the name of the father. Those who possess this name think it but do not
speak it. Those who do not possess it do not think it. Yet for our sakes truth engendered
names in the world - truth, to which one cannot refer without names.&

Later in the same text, one finds a brief discussion of the names of Jesus
Christ: "Jesus is a private name, Christ (the anointed) is a public name," in
Layton's tran~lation.~'In the light of the various texts discussed here, it is
permitted to see here a reflection of the exoteric and esoteric names of the
Divinity.
The Extracts from 'I'heodotus is another Valentinian anthology. This
text, too, reflects the same theology of the Name: the Father's Name is
Possession of the Name will
'unnameable', (onoma an6nomu~ton).~
permit the Gnostic to enter the divine Fullness, the pleroma, and to avoid
being sto ped in their ascent by the Limit (horos) and the Cross
( s r a u r o s ) ~The visible part of Jesus is the Wisdom and the Church of the
seeds above (sic!), while its invisible part is the Name, which is the
monogenous son, i.e., ~ e s u s . ~ ~
The most important text in our present context, however, is probably
Irenaeus' report on Valentinian mythology, in particular on the teachings
of Mark the Gnostic, another Valentinian theologian." The 'Tetrad'
(fetractys) revealed to Mark alone the secret cosmogonic myth: the
fatherless Father, desiring to express the inexpressible and to give form
(morphh) to the formless, pronounced a word (logos) similar to Himself.
This Logos then stood next to Him. The logos uttered by the Father was
His own Name, including thirty elements and four syllables. At the
Gospel of Philip NHC 11, 54.5-15. 1 quote according to

LAYTON,

The Gnostic

Scriptures, 330.

'' Gos. Phil. 56.3-4

(332 LAY-TON).

46

Clem. Alex., Exc. Theod. 31.3. 1 quote according to F. SAGNARD,

ed., transl.,
C/ement d 'Afexandrie, Extraits de Thdodote, (SC 23) 2nd ed. Paris 1970, 126- 127.
47 EXC.Theod., 22.4 (102-103 SAGNARD).
*49 Ibid., 26.1 (1 10-1 I3 SAGNARD).
See the important study of N. FBRSTER,Marcus M a p s : Kulr, Lehre und
Gemeindeleben einer valentinianischen Gnostikergruppe; Sammlung der Quellen und
Kommentar, (WUNT 1 14) TUbingen 1999, esp. 229-248.

Endzeid, all the elements of that Name will become a unique letter and
sound. God's Name, which is God's Logos and God's Form (cf. Phil 2: 6,
where Christ is said to be en morphl fheou), is obviously His Son.
At the next stage of the cosmogonic myth, the Tetrad shows Mark the
beautiful feminine figure of Truth (alztheia), whose cosmic body is made
up of the twenty-four letters of the alphabet [twelve members of two letters
each]. Truth, in her turn, pronounces a word (logos), which is a name (onoma): Jesus-Christ. Truth then adds that Jesus is not really "the ancient
Name" lpalaion onoma). Rather, I2sous is only the sound of the Name, not
its power. The full Name, indeed, is not made up of only six letters, but of
thirty. So the exoteric (or pronounceable) element of the Name is
IHCOYC, while its esoteric element is made of twenty-four letters.50Logos
and onoma, here too, seem to be interchangeable.
Later on, Irenaeus describes various rituals practiced by the
Valentinians. Some of them are said to proclaim redemption with the
following formula: "The Name hidden to all Divinity, Lordship or Truth,
which was worn by Jesus of Nazareth in the zones of the light of
Christ...", adding some phrases supposed to be ~ebrew." This is not the
place to offer a full interpretation to this puzzling and fascinating Gnostic
grammatology. Its striking parallels with some of the earliest forms of
Jewish mysticism have been duly noticed a long time ago. Moses Gaster,
in particular, noted a very long time ago the similarity of the figure of
Aletheia with the Shiur Qoma, God's cosmic body in late antique Hebrew
texts.52 Gaster's observations became in their turn the starting point of
Gershom Scholem's fascination with the Gnostic parallels to some of the
earliest conceptions of Jewish mysticism.
In a study published a long time ago, I have called attention to some of
the most striking similarities between Jewish, Christian and Gnostic
texts.53 I shall here recall only one parallel: in the longest remaining
passage of the Shiur Qomah, Metatron is said to possess two names. One
Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.14.1-9. I am quoting according to A. ROUSSEAU and L.

DOUTRELEAU,
eds., transl., Trdnde de Lyon, Contre les hkr&sies,I, vol. I1 (SC 264) Paris
1979,206-233.
5' Adv. Haer. 1.2 1.3 (300-30 I ROUSSEAU-DOUTRELEAU).
FORSTER has shown that
chapters 17-21 in Ifenaeus' text might come from Valentinian circles not directly
connected with Mark.
52 M. GASTER,
'Das Schiur Komah', in his Studies and Texts, London 1923-1928,
vol. 11, 1330-1353, esp. 1344. FORSTER does not refer to the Jewish parallels in his
otherwise comprehensive work. In Samaritan traditions, for instance in the Memar
Marqa, God is also called Truth. The same divine meaning of 'truth' (KWlP) is also
found in Mandean texts. For references, see Fossw, The Name of God, 160.
53 G.G. STROUMSA,
'Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ', HTR 76
(1983) 412--434.

A nameless God

243

includes twenty-four letters, the other only six ('IYUD~)." It is hard to

believe in a Valentinian influence upon Jewish circles, much easier to
think that Mark's theology retains here an earlier Jewish conception about
the esoteric and the exoteric Names of God, the second one being also the
Divine Hypostasis.
Some similar conceptions based upon the magical power of letters and
syllables can be found in other ancient religious cultures. Much of these
conceptions from the classical world have been analyzed a long time ago
by Franz Dornseiff. The Indian context, however, which offers striking
parallels, still deserves further study."
It is perhaps time to conclude. This very incomplete study was only
intended to call attention to some surprising, even paradoxical consequences of the powerful objection, on the part of the Jews, to name their God.
In the ancient world, a nameless god was a rare case indeed. In refusing to
name their God, the Jews, who sought to emphasize the unbridgeable
ontological difference between Him and the idols all around, paradoxically
opened the door to the growth of Divine hypostases, carrying God's forms
and God's name. A divine hypostasis permitted some concrete perception
of an overly abstract God, some kind of direct contact with the Deity.
Esoteric patterns of religious thought were quite widespread in ancient
societies. In Israel, the unpronounceable name of God offered a particularly favorable terrain for the development of esotericism.
One of these divine hypostases, Jesus Christ, succeeded particularly
well. God the Father had lost His name. This name eventually became
another divine figure, sometimes called God's Son. This son, then, took
His Father's name: as if the history of religions reflected some Oedipal
processes. In that sense, those Jews who believed (perhaps somewhat
prematurely) that the Messiah had come and that the history of human
suffering and injustice was about to end, launched a process which they
could not carry to its end: the Gnostics, who built, as we have seen, upon
the stones provided by the Jewish-Christians, sought to bring it to its
logical end by murdering, or at least demoting, the Father of Jesus Christ.

"

Merkavah shelernah, MUSAJOFF,

ed., 39b. Long Divine Names are also found in
magic context. See for instance L. SHIFFMAN,
'A Forty-two Lener Divine Name in the
Aramaic Magic Bowls', Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies, vol. 1, London 1973,
97-102.
'-'F. DORNSEIFF,
Das Alphabet in Magie und W s t i k , (Stoicheia 7) Leipzig 1925. A.
PADOUX,Recherches sur la symbolique et I'inergie de la parole duns certains textes
tantriques, Paris 1963.

The house of Leontis 'Kaloubas'

-a

Judaeo-Christian?

Zeev Safai
The house of Leontis at Beth Shean (ancient Scythopolis), from the fourth
and the fifih centuries, was excavated in 1964 and published in brief in
1973,' and the inscriptions it contains were gathered in a collection of
synagogue inscriptions.2 The mosaic is described in the collections of
mosaics as belonging to a synagogue in every sense.3 The present article
suggests the probable identification of this structure as a Judaeo-Christian
house of prayer. At first glance this proposal would seem to be overly
audacious, but as we shall see, such a premise is not without basis.

The structure
The house of Leontis (fig. 1, p. 264) is not a normal synagogue, but rather
a private dwelling, the eastern wing of which was excavated. The eastern
side is 23 m. in length; its width has not been determined. The structure
consists of a large courtyard around which are rooms. The two rooms in
the northeastern comer were designated as a place of prayer (fig. 1, no. 3).
The wall between them was removed, and a breathtaking mosaic pavement
was laid, with a slight south eastern orientation. If the owner of the house
had chosen either of the two other rooms in the eastern wing (fig. 1, nos.
1-2), the worshipers would have directly faced Jerusalem. Furthermore,
even in room 3, the one destined as prayer hall, the mosaic pavement could
have been laid with a deviation of 90'. so that it would have been directed
to the holy city.
The mosaic and the inscriptions
The mosaic (fig. 2, p. 265) is one of the most magnificent to have been discovered in the Land of Israel, and is of an unmistakably pagan nature. It
consists of three panels. The uppermost contains two scenes, one a
depiction of Odysseus lashed to the mast of a ship, lest he be seduced by
the song of the Sirens, below which is an additional pagan scene of a sailor
N. ZORI,'The House of Kyrios Leontis at Beth Shean,'IIEJ 16 (1966) 123-34.

* L. ROTW-GERSON, The Greek Inscriptions from

the Synagogues in Eretz-Israel,

Jerusalem 1987,30-34 (Web.).

See e.g. M. AVI-YONAH,Art in Ancient Palestine, Jerusalem 198 1 , 275.

battling with a monster, with a nude Siren above the former. The central
panel contains a large inscription encompassed by 26 doves, and the
bottom panel portrays a vista of the Nile River, the Nilometer, and the god
of the Nile.
A number of inscriptions are inlaid in the mosaic. The first reads:
"Lord, help Leontis Kloubas"; the second: "A dedicatory inscription that
remembers for good Kyrios Leontis Kloubas, who contributed (the mosaic)
for his own salvation and that of the members of his family". A third
inscription mentions another donor, Nonos of Cyzikos. These three
inscriptions make explicit that this is a public building. The adjective
Kaloubas will be subject to further examination below, as will the fivcbranched menora incorporated in the mosaic.
The ornamentation

The h o w of Leontis and its ornamentation differ somewhat from what is

usually encountered in synagogues. The discussion should begin with the
general nature of the mosaic pavement. Pagan motifs appear in many
mosaic pavements in synagogues and in Jewish burials, but the mosaic
pavement from the house of Leontis is exceptional in the intensity of its
paganism. Most of the 'pagan' synagogue mosaics relate to the Zodiac, and
their most 'daring'clement is the sun-god riding on his chariot, that is
harnessed to four fiery steeds. These pagan elements have attracted much
interest by scholars. some of whom have seen this as evidence of
assimilation and the infiltration of pagan culture and the undermining of
the authority of the rabbis among the public.
We will not join scholarly debate concerning these motifs, and will
merely state that the mosaic pavement in the house of 1,eontis contains
pagan figures and scenes, along with nude depictions, that have no
parallels in the rabbinic literature and Jewish archaeology. These motifs
therefore represent an additional and more advanced phase in the inclusion
of pagan motifs. The lower panel that depicts the Nile has parallels in the
but there is no
church at Haditha4 and in the patrician house at Sepph~ris,~
Jewish parallel for these symbols. The drawing of Nile vistas does not
attest to the Egyptian origin of the owner of the house, since such motifs
are common in classical art. The god Nile was a relatively moderate pagan
motif. The other scenes are more idolatrous, and are intimately related to
known pagan literature and motifs. Although it is patently difficult to
M. AVI-YONAH, 'The Haditha Mosaic Pavement', Eretz-Israel 11 (1973) 45-47
(Heb.).
Z. WEISSand E. N ~ E R'New
, Evidence for late Roman and Byzantine Sepphoris',
in The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Recent Archaeological Research, (Jour. of Kom.
Arch. SupSer 14) Ann Arbor 1994, 162-1 76.

The house ofleonris

247

quantify paganism, a nude Siren is seemingly more flagrant than the Nike
symbol that appears on an ossuary in Beth Shearim or analogous symbols.
The prominent place occupied by doves in the central panel is unprecedented in synagogue mosaics, as in church mosaics. The dove obviously is
present in mosaics; for the first time, however, it is not an incidental omamentation, but rather a central motif.
The five-branched menora (fig. 3, p. 266) was rare, but not exceptional.
Candelabra of similar form appear in various sites, and such a depiction
should seemingly be attributed to carelessness. The halakha forbids the
crafiing of a menora similar to that in the Temple, and recommended the
fashioning of menorot with five, six, or eight branches.6 In practice,
however, most representations of the menora have seven branches, as is
also the case for the marble menorot found in various synagogues. It
transpires that the halakha related only to actual menorot, and not their
depictions, and the marble menorot that were constructed might possibly
have differed in some details from the Temple standard. If so, this law, that
is mentioned only in the Babylonian Talmud, had no practical effect upon
Palestinian art. At any rate, five-branched menorot appear at numerous
sites.'
The menoru indicates the Jewish origin of the building. Additional
evidence of the Jewish connection is Iova0uv. Leontis' brother, whose
name is clearly Jewish.8

Thc nature of the house

The house of Leontis was a private residence, a room in which was set
aside by its owner for public use. There are no parallels in the Land of
Israel of such an allocation regarding either synagogues or churches,
except one new unpublished synagogue in Rakit (Camel). The Mishna
mentions the house of an individual that is likely to become a synagogue,"
and also mentions the reverse possibility, that a synagogue of the many
might become one of an individual.10 Interestingly, in the Amoraic period
this latter Mishna is explained as referring to a synagogue that was donated
by an individual, and not a prayer house of a quasi-private nature." In any
event, a structure of both a private and a public nature is not known in the
archaeological reality.
bRH 24a; bMen 28b.
For a partial but representative list, see: S. DAR, 'Three Cadelabra from Samaria',
E R Itec Vilnay S Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem 1984,267f.
in E. W ~ ~ I L L(ed.),
1 would like to thank Dr. M. Ba~wmta,
for this comment.
mNed 9.2; yNed 9 (41c); mMeg 3.1-2; yMeg 3 (73d).
l o mMeg 3.1.
y Meg 3 (73d).
7

The beauty of the mosaic pavement stands in contrast with the prayer
room, that is quite small (8.5-9.5 x 7.0-7.7 metres) and has a trapezoidal
shape. The mosaic was not laid parallel to the walls of the room, and was
clearly added after the two rooms were designated for prayer. Nonetheless,
the mosaic does not face Jerusalem, but rather has an eastern and slightly
southern orientation.
Kaloubas
The key to an understanding of the house of Leontis lies, in our estimation,
in the adjective Kaloubas that appears in two inscriptions. Zori, followed
by Roth-Gerson, interpreted this as a maker of cages (keluvim), an
understanding that obviously is possible, but it seems that an additional
proposal could be suggested.
Epiphanius mentions Kleobios or Kleoboulosl2 as a leader of one of the
sects, together with some other less familiar names, some leaders of groups
of Judaeo-Christians such as Merinthos or Claudius. Anyone reading
Epiphanius' descriptions sees that for him all the Judaeo-Christian groups
are intermingled with one another. The writer of the Apostolic
Constitutions includes the man as a leader of a sect along with Samaritan
leader Dositheus, and mentions some connection to Simon Magus and
some of his disciples, and to additional leaders.13 From these references it
is hard to know about this Kleobios. I would suggest that he is identical
with the Kloubas in the inscription. The literary sources testify that the
group operated in the Christian context. On the other hand, the findings at
the site testify to its Jewish origin. Therefore, it is reasonable that we have
here a Judaeo-Christian group. For the sake of brevity, I will use the term
Ebionites, assuming that all the Christian and Jewish groups (sects) were
intermingled with one another, and did not retain their unique features.
Epiphanius himself is not sure of the correct spelling of the name of the
leader of the Judaeo-Christians, and offers two possibilities: Khs6Bou2.0~
or Khs6$toq (the latter spelling also appearing in other Christian
compositions against heretics). In both references he appears as a leader of
the Ebionites, the Judaeo-Christian sect.
The spelling in our inscription differs slightly, but when taking into
account the time that had passed, and the fact that Epiphanius already was
undecided as to the correct spelling, this possibility is more than probable.

l2
l3

Epiphanius, Pan. 5 1.6.6

Constit. Apost. 6.81.

The house ofLeoniis

The Judaeo-Christians
The Judaeo-Christians have figured prominently in Land of Israel studies.
They are mentioned in the Christian sources, and perhaps in the Jewish
sources as well, and archaeologists naturally searched for evidence of their
activity. Bagatti even wrote an entire book in which he assembled the large
quantities of archaeological materials." It appears, however, that none of
the archaeological testimonies is clearly connected to the JudaeoChristians. The finds attest to the fierce desire to uncover testimonies
concerning the heretical sects, but not of substantial discoveries. Many
leading scholars engaged in the refutation of these testimonies, with this
activity being collected by Taylor.15
Among the Christian communities, a number of Judaeo-Christian
authors can be distinguished that were active from the late first to the third
or fourth centuries. At this point, a methodological question must be raised
about the definition of certain writings as Judaeo-Christian. Their authors
do not define themselves as Judaeo-Christians, but scholars interpret them
as such. Now the determination that many elements in Christian theology
(or theologies) have a Jewish foundation is not new; these elements are the
subject of intense study, and our knowledge of them is constantly expanding. Also, the Old Testament constituted the main religious source and
common foundation for both Jews and Christians. Consequently, the
presence of such Jewish or scriptural elements is not sufficient to define a
work or its author as being 'Judaeo-Christian'. Furthermore, it is likely
that in the first two centuries the socio-religious situation was diffuse, with
the existence of individuals and local groups that fashioned their worldview from a mixture of Christian elements and tradition elements that we
would now term 'Jewish'. Many groups and writers could have been active
between the mainline Jewish pole and the Christian one, and the
suggestion of a neat division between Jews, Christians, and Judaeo-Christians would be misleading.
Moreover, the theological differences had not yet assumed the social
significance that the Christian anti-sectarian polemical literature ascribes
to them. It should be recalled that Christianity was formulated when
various groups were active within the context of Jewish society, some of
which would become separatist sects while others would remain within the
community. The Yavne generation (70-132) was one of the formulations

l 4 E.g. B. B A G A ~The
,
Church from the Circumcision, Jerusalem 1971; J.G.
BRIAND,The Judaeo-Christian Church of Nazareth, (Cahien o f the 'Holy Land')
Jerusalem 1982.
l 5 See J.E. TAYLOR,
Chrisiians and the Holy Places, Oxford 1993, I--47.

of Judaism, in which the minority groups were pushed aside.l6 A similar

process occurred in Christianity, but apparently one or two generations
later. Therefore, only from in the second half of the second century
onwards is it possible to speak of Judaeo-Christian sects in the social sense
of the word. The heretics of whom the Talmudical literature speaks,
primarily in the Yavne and Usha generations, are Christians or JudaeoChristians, the distinction between which at this stage is blurred. The
theological elements had probably already been established in the early
second century, and possibly even in the first century, but the definition as
a 'sect' from the sociological viewpoint is still not suitable.
We could discern four stages in this process: (1) a diffuse phase, in
which the theological elements are crystallizing into a social system; (2)
sectarian formulation, matched by the parallel phase of the anti-sectarian
struggle that is expressed in the Christian literature; (3) the thrusting of the
Judaeo-Christians to the fringes; (4) the elimination of the withdrawing
sect.
Accordingly, we could be correct in our interpretation that the structure
in Scythopolis constitutes important archaeological testimony for the
Judaeo-Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries, pertaining to somewhere between stages (2) and (3) in the above list.
The primary archaeological problem is that we lack a key, a Rosetta
Stone, that would enable us to identify the archaeological remains of the
Judaeo-Christians. The current essay aspires to make a contribution in that
direction.

The Judaeo-Christian hypothesis

The hypothesis that the house of Leontis is a Judaeo-Christian prayer
structure explains several of the above unresolved elements. Since the
Judaeo-Christians were persecuted by the Christian authorities, it is not
surprising that they refrained from building a large public house of prayer.
It is also possible that the Judaeo-Christian community was small, and had
no need of a large prayer hall. The owner of the house was a wealthy
person who designated one or two rooms in his house as a house of prayer
of a private, albeit splendid, nature. The multiplicity of pagan motifs
ensues from the nature of the Judaeo-Christian community, that was close
to the accepted Roman culture. The members of the community did not
face Jerusalem in their prayers, they rather directed their worship to the
east, as in all the other churches. This deviation from Jewish tradition is of
l6 A marginal group, for the purposes of this discussion, is the group that lost the
battle for the mind and heart of the public.

The house of Leontis

25 1

especial interest, and might possibly indicate that the Judaeo-Christian

community no longer maintained a special connection to Jerusalem.
On the other hand, according to most of the Jewish sources one has to
pray in the direction of Jerusalem. Most of the synagogues in Israel faced
Jerusalem, but there are also some exceptions.17 At the same time, in the
rabbinic literature there is also a minority opinion that prayer should not be
directed toward the Temple in Jerusalem, but toward the heavenly Temple,
i.e., in no defined direction:l"'As we have learned, 'Let a person direct his
heart toward the Holy of Holies' - R. Hiya and R. Shimon ben Halafta: R.
Hiya Rabba said: toward the heavenly Holy of Holies, and R. Shimon ben
Hal& said: toward the earthly Holy of Holies. Said R. Pinhas, I retain the
words of both of you: (he must direct it) toward the heavenly Holy of
Holies, which is directed toward the earthly Holy of Holies...""g
That
being the case, there is no obligation to pray specifically to the direction of
Jerusalem. There is no reason to draw far-reaching conclusions regarding
the theology of the group that prayed in Leontis30use.
The attitude of Christianity to the Temple and Jerusalem was complex
and problematic, and it underwent many historical changes.20 We naturally
know even less regarding the stance of the Judaeo-Christians. It is related
l7 L.I. LEVINE, The Ancient Synagogue - The first Thousand Years, New Haven &
London 1999,302-306.
I S These sources have not merited sufficient attention from archeological researchers.
U. EIiKI.IC1i, The Non- Verbal Language of Jewish Prayer, Jerusalem 1999, 84-96 (Heb.).
l 9 ShirR 4.6; yBer 4 (8c). It is clear that the editors of the two texts believed that this
was a legitimate interpretation of the Tosefta and perhaps of the Mishna as well. We
believe that this interpretation is somewhat creative and too free, but it of course reflects
the opinion of its writers. The Midiash fits in with sayings regarding a heavenly Temple
hidden above. Sayings of this kind are scattered in the Rabbinical literature as well as in
non-Jewish literature. However, only in our Midrash can they be understood as referring
to reservations about prayer in the physical direction of Jerusalem.
20 W.D. DAVIES,
The Gospel and the Land, Berkeley 1974, 222-376; R.H.
LIGtiWW, Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels, New York 1937; D. FLUSSER,
'Jerusalem in the Literature of the Second Temple', in A. EBEN-SHUSHAN
et al. (eds.),
Ve'im Bigvuroth - Fourscore Years: A Tribute to Rubin and Ifannah Muss on Their
Eightieth Birthdays, Jerusalem 1974, 263-94 (Heb.); P. W. L. WAI-KER,Holy City, lfoly
Places? Oxford 1990; F. CARDW, 'The Rhetoric of the Holy Places', Studiu Pafrisficu
18 (1982) 18-25; J. PMWER,'Jerusalem in the Jewish and Christian Perspective of the
Early Middle Ages', Settimane di Studio del S. Centro Italiano di srudi sull' alto
mcdieoeva, Spoleto 1980, 253-94, 739-95 (= idem, 'Christian Attitudes toward Jerusand H. BEN-SHAMMAI,
The History of
alem in the Early Middle Ages', in J. PRAWZR
Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period, 638-1099, Jerusalem 1996, 31 1-48); idem,
'Christianity between Heavenly and Earthly Jerusalem', in J. AVIRAM(ed.), Jerusalem
through the Ages: The ILuenty-Fi/th Archaeological Convention, October 1967,
Jerusalem 1968, 170-92 (Heb.); A. LOWER,
'Discussion: Jerusalem between Judaism and
Christianity in the Byzantine Period', Cathedra 1 1 (1979) 1 10-40 (Heb.).

of James the brother of Jesus, who is considered to be one of the founders

and teachers of the sect, that he visited the Temple daily.2i All this,
however, belongs to the first days of Christianity, before the formulation of
the approaches that negated the sanctity and prerogatives of the earthly
Jerusalem.
The Ebionites, like other Christian communities, undoubtedly rejected
the Temple, possibly even more forcefully.22 Notwithstanding this, the
Judaeo-Christians continued praying to Jerusalem, which they regarded as
a holy place. lrenaeus states this in unambiguous fashion: "Hierosolymam
adorent ufi dornus sit Dei [They venerate (or worship] Jerusalem as if it
were the domicile of God].'"23 Even more explicit is the Judaeo-Christian
polemic preserved in the book by the Islamic author Abd al-Jabbar.
According to this polemical work, the Nazaraeans split from the Christian
majority and establishment, inter alia, because the latter decided to pray to
the east, instead of Jerusalem, a change that was perceived as drawing near
to the pagan religions.24 The Elxai sect that was close to the Ebionites and
might even have joined it, also adopted this view15 and mandated prayer in
the direction of Jerusalem.26 Notwithstanding all this, the mosaic in the
house of Leontis does not face Jerusalem. The congregation could possibly
have prayed perpendicularly to the direction of the mosaic, but such an
explanation is difficult. Also plausible is that a change slowly occurred in
the position of the Ebionites or that of the 'Kaloubas' faction, and they
adopted the accepted Christian view of denying Jerusalem.
One of the elements in the mosaic is the dove motif. The dove is
mentioned many times in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments.
The dove was the harbinger of the end of the Flood,27 and thus brought
light to the world.28 The dove is also compared in the midrashim to
Knesset Israel (the Israelite nation).29
2' Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.7-23.

Our scant knowledge of the Ebionites has yielded an extremely rich scholarly
literature. See H.J. SCNOEPS, nteologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentum. Tllbingen
1949; G. STRECKER,
Das Judenchristetum in den PseudoRlementinen, (TU 70) Berlin
'The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly
1958. J.E. TAYLOR,
Invention', VigChr 44 (1990) 313-34; R.A. PRi%L, Nmarene Jewish Christianity,
Jerusalem 1992. For the main sources, see A.F.J. KLUFI - G.J. REININK, Patristic
Evidencefor Jewish-Christian Sects, Leiden 1973.
Irenaeus*Adv. haer. 1.26.2.
24 S. PRJES,'The Jewish Christians of the First Centuries of Christianity according to
a New Source', PIASH 2 ( 1968), 25 1.
2S E.g. Epiphanius, Pan. 19.5.4.
26 Epiphanius, Pan. 19.3.5.
27 Gen 8:11.
28 ShirR 1.65 and parallels.
29 bBer 53b; bShab 130b; ShirR 1.63 and many Palestinian parallels.

The house of Leontis

253

In the New Testament, the dove appears following the baptism of Jesus,

as a symbol of the spirit of God.30 Hippolytus relates, perhaps in the name

of Theodotus of Byzantium, that the Ebionites expounded the verse as if
the dove symbolizes salvation and the special power that descended upon
Jesus. Hippolytus reiterates this claim a number of
and this
'Ebionite' explanation is repeated by additional writers, such as Irenaeus32
and Epiphanius.33 The imagery of the dove is probably understood in
different ways by established Christianity and by the Judaeo-Christians.
Third century Christianity regards Jesus to be the son of God, from the
moment of his birth. Baptism and the dove did not change Jesus' nature,
but rather informed the entire world of this. The dove is therefore the
symbol of the revelation of the son of God and the dissemination of his
tidings.
The Ebionites did not believe Jesus to be the son of God, but rather a
prophet or Messiah. Baptism is the ceremony in which Jesus is given his
role; this is the time when the prophet comes into being and receives the
Holy Spirit. Immersion therefore represents his selection or revelation as
prophet, and perhaps also as Messiah, but as flesh and blood, too. The
motif of the dove therefore exemplifies the central controversy and the
cause for the split between the Ebionites and the Christians, namely, the
dispute concerning the essential nature of Jesus.
The number 26 is certainly not coincidental. In the Jewish literature this
is the numerical value of the Tetragrammaton, but this numerical value is
not explicitly mentioned in the rabbinic literature. This number has an
additional meaning. There were 26 generations between the Creation and
the Giving of the Tora. This fact is emphasized a number of times in the
Jewish literature, and is expounded in two manners: one explains that the
Tora, that was created in primordial time, was given to the Jewish people
in the twenty-sixth generation,34 and therefore "derekh eretz [the proper
way of behavior] preceded the Tora by twenty-six generati0ns."3~ The
other expositions stress the fact that Israel received the Tora in the twentysixth generation. The number 26 therefore symbolizes the uniqueness of
the people of Israel: "After 26 generations Israel will receive the T0ra,"~6
and with a slightly different emphasis, that Israel will go forth from Egypt

30
31
32
33
34
35

Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32.

Hippolytus, Refut. 7.33.2; 7.35.2; 10.23.2; 11.21.3.
Irenaeaus, Adv. baer. 1 26.2.
Pan. 30.13.7.
GenR 1.10 (p9).
E.g. LevR 9.3 (p179); SbirR 5.8; Tanh, naso 19; MidrTeh I36 (p260); PesR 5

(PI 5).
36

E.g. GenR 21.9 (p204); ShirR 2.6.

in the twenty-sixth generation.37

Thus, the number 26 represents the special nature of the people of
Israel, the Tora, and especially, the union of the two. The dispute between
the Ebionites and the Christians centered around the question of whether
the believers are obligated to observe the commandments. Like the Jews,
the Ebionites, according to all the extant sources, advocated the
observance of the commandments and regarded the waiving of this
requirement as heresy. The uniqueness of the people of Israel also is
related to this same controversy and rift. The Ebionites considered
themselves to be part of the people of Israel, in the genetic sense of the
term, while later Christianity understood this concept in a spiritual sense:
the true people of Israel is the spiritual Israel. The two disputes, regarding
the observance of the commandments and nationalism versus universality,
are obviously intertwined. The Ebionites 'naturally' demanded the
observance of the commandments by every believer, and maintained that
the gospel was meant for Israel alone.38
We therefore see that the number 26 is likely to symbolize the second
central element in the dispute with the Christians, the principle of the
observance of the commandments and the uniqueness and superiority of
the people of Israel. The central panel accordingly represents the JudaeoChristian polemic with the Christians. It emphasises the two fbndamental
principles: the different perceptions of the essential nature of Jesus, and the
question of the observance of the commandments, with the intimately
related issue of the gospel to the Gentiles. The number 26 is of dual
significance, and the dove also bears a twofold meaning: the nature of
Jesus' prophecy and the uniqueness of Israel, that is compared to the dove.
The symbol of the dove and, obviously, the number 26 can also be
explained on an internal Jewish background (the people of Israel is the
dove, 26 is the Tetragrammaton or the Tora). If, however, this is a JudaeoChristian mosaic, the mosaic pavement has an additional, much more
profound significance that expresses an intense polemic.
An exposition based on numbers is liable to appear somewhat
imaginary. The emphasis on the 26 generations appears in explicit fashion
in the rnidrashim. Furthermore, the members of the Elxai sect were
especially known for their attribution of significance to numbers and

E.g. MidrTeh 113.2 @235).

The observance of the commandments recurs in all the passages by the Church
Fathers that discuss the Ebionites; the latter's negative attitude to the idea o f Israel of the
spirit is mentioned explicitly by Origen, De princ. 4; Praef. 4.3.8, and more. Needless to
say, this conception necessarily follows from the general worldview of the JewishChristians.
37

38

The house of Leonfis

255

measures.39 We have already noted the proximity between the Elxai sect or
the Elkesaites and the Ebionites, and the discussions on these two sects in
the patristic literature are intermingled. Epiphanius, for instance, unites his
discussion of all these groups, although he devotes an individual chapter to
each one.
The upper and lower panels include water scenes that were common in
the pagan world. The Church Fathers mention that the Elxai sect equated
water with
In Christian art the mast appears as a symbol for
crucifixion, but, again, this symbol could also be understood on the
background of general pagan culture. These panels as well may possibly
possess religious significance that was either exclusively Judaeo-Christian,
or that was commonly accepted in Christian art as a whole.
If our hypothesis that this house of Leontis was a place of worship for a
group of Judaeo-Christians is correct, then it is the first archaeological
testimony regarding the practices of this sect. The earlier evidence
surveyed by Bagatti is much more doubtful.

Judaeo-Christian centres in the 4th-5th Century

Epiphanius attests that by his time, the second half of the fourth century,
Ebionites dwelled, inter alia, in Pella and in Decapolis, incidental to a
description of the flight of Christians from Jerusalem to this region on the
eve of the War of De~truction.~1Although Pella is very close to
Scythopolis, we cannot be certain that this sentence by Epiphanius is
reflective of his time, and it might have been quoted from an earlier work,
and was no longer relevant to his time. This method of citing an early text,
as if it related to the time of the author, is common in classical literature,
and even more so in that of the Church Fathers. The narrative of the flight
to Pella is part of the mythology of nascent Christianity, and its historical
reliability has yet to be resolved. Epiphanius tell us also about a Joseph, a
Judaeo-Christian leader who was banished to the same Scythopolis.
Jerome relates that in his time there were Ebionites in the East, and the
Jews called them heretics.42 This testimony, indeed, refers to Jerome's
period, but the term 'East' is not sufficiently specific. Augustine states that
the Ebionites "exist until the present day or, at least, until recently"" in
Wippolytus, Refut. 9.14.2; 10.29.3.
See Epiphanius, Anaceph. 30.3; 59.1 .7. Additionally, water was regarded to be one
of the seven ruling powers.
4 ' Epiph., Pan. 29.7.7; 30.2.7. Some scholars have rejected the reality of the story,
see for example STRECKER
(above n22) 229-23 1 . Bur even so it reflects some historical
reality, maybe from the fourth century.
42 See: Hier., Epist. 1 12-13.
39

40

small numbers,43 thus attesting that in Africa, where Augustine was active,
a real community of Judaeo-Christians was no longer known. Theodoret
attests that no traces of the Ebionites or the Elkesaites remained in his
time.# In this case as well, it is unclear if he is familiar with the entire
East, or if this reflects the conditions of the area in which he dwelled, in
eastern Syria.
John Damascene mentions them as a living group, but the formulation
of his statement patently teaches that he is quoting Epiphanius, including
mention of the names of leaders, as if they were still active in his time,
some one hundred years after the time of Epiphanius.45 The unknown Abd
al-Jabbar source46 is the latest testimony to Jewish Christian groups.
Accordingly, the testimonies regarding the Ebionites in the fifth century
are nebulous, but we cannot negate the argument that this group continued
to be active in a semi-clandestine manner.
The Jewish testimonies slightly clarify the picture.47 The rabbinic
sources mention the minim, an appellation that occupied scholars, who
interpreted the term in different ways. In my opinion, this is an extremely
general appellation that includes Christians, Judaeo-Christians, and
additional groups. Therefore, the simple mention of minim is not indicative
of Judaeo-Christian groups, unless the Talmudic description contains
additional information. Thus, for example, 'Yaakov of Kefar Sakhnayya"
or 'Kfar Sama', is a Christian of Jewish origin who, at least according to
the narrative in Tosefta Hullin, is knowledgeable of Jewish culture. He
also could have been a regular Christian, and not a J~daeo-Christian.~8
Moreover, the social distinctions between Christians and Judaeo-Christians
had not been formulated in the Yavne generation, and it therefore is
impossible to define this Yaakov as a Christian or as a Judaeo-Christian,
nor is there any reason to do so (sources 1-2, see appendix below).
Most of the reports concerning the minim in the rabbinic literature are
not Tannaiti~.~g
The paucity of their mention in the Amoraic literature
attests that the Christians were ostracized by the Jewish society. But we
should not conclude from this that the Judaeo-Christians vanished from the
Augustin, Contra Faustum 19.17 (trans. A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink).
Theodoret of Cyms, Haer. fab. 2.1 1.
John Damascene, De Haer. 53.
45 Pines ibid (n24).
47 For the Jewish sources see R. TRAVERS
HERFORD, Christianity in Talmud and
Midrash, London 1903; W . B~ckm,'Le mot "Minim" dans le Talmud', R W 38 (1899)
38-45; R. KALMIN, 'Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity',
HTR 87 (1994) 155-169.
For narratives regarding Jacob the Christian, see the Appendix.
49 Some are from the end of the Tannaitic period, such as source no. 6, that
apparently is concerned with Christians of Gentile origin.
43
64
45

The house of Leontis

257

public landscape, but rather were swept to the fringes of the public arena,
were defined in the public consciousness as 'others' (heretics), and
disappeared from the consciousness of the rabbis. Nonetheless, the
Amoraic literature mentions a few minim and heresy. At times it is difficult
to define these minim, in other instances the reference is to Gnostic circles
(sources 6-8, below), while in a few cases these are most likely JudaeoChristians. Such was (R.) Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya (sources 3-4, below),
who was a rabbi, demanding circumcision of Gentiles as well, and who
was suspected of being a min. It is not stated that he was a Christian, and
he may have professed a different heresy, or possibly did not belong at all
to defined social groups.50 R. Berekhya (fourth century; source 9) speaks
of circumcised minim, who might possibly have been Judaeo-Christians.
Of importance here are the midrashim in Ecclesiastes Rabbah that spotlight
all the struggles with the minim (sources 4-5). R. Hananya the son of R.
Yoshua's brother struggles with the Christians in Capernawn in the Yavne
generation; these probably are Judaeo-Christians. R. Yuda ben Nakosa (the
pupil of R. Yuda ha-Nasi - third quarter of the second century) battled
with similar minim, but these are not defined. The third Amora in this
series is R. Yonatan, who struggled with minim who are occupied with
charity and live a communal life: "we shall all have a common purse."
These apparently were Christians, but not Judaeo-Christians. In any event,
the literary combination possibly attests to the proximity of all three
groups of minim. The listing of minim in source 4, on the other hand, is
most likely a literary combination of all the narratives concerning minim
and heresy in the rabbinic sources.
Interesting testimony is provided by a narrative in Babylonian Talmud
Shabbat (source 10) in which a non-Jewish judge accepts a bribe and
changes his opinion, in accordance with the highest bidder. The narrative
presumably speaks of the Yavne generation (Rabban Gamliel and the wife
of R. Eliezer), but it could hardly be assumed that the Yavne generation
was concerned with a battle against a Christian judge. More plausibly, this
narrative dates to the fourth century, and is a Palestinian narrative that is
preserved only in the Babylonian Talmud, and that is given a
pseudepigraphic form, as if it tells of early sages.5' Thus, in the fourth
century we have a Christian judge with a profound connection to Jewish
tradition, who emphasizes his loyalty to this tradition. Although the
quotation he puts forth is from the Gospels, his emphasis is more suitable
For Jacob of Kefar Neburaya, see 0. IHSHAI, 'Ya'akov of Kefar Niburaia - A Sage
Turned Apostate', Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2,2 (1982/3) 153-68 (Heb.).
5' This interpretation is related to the argument that narratives concerning Tannaim
preserved only in the Talmud at times do not reflect early traditions. A complete
examination of this argument would exceed the scope of the current work.

258

Safrai

to a Judaeo-Christian. This narrative is of importance because it quotes

two verses from the Gospel, that was possibly known in its Aramaic
version.52 One verse is: "I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor to
add to the Law of Moses."'This verse is a direct quote from the New
Testament.53 The second verse, of unknown origin, is "A son and a
daughter inherit equally." An examination of the narrative would lead us
far beyond the purview of the current discussion.
Generally speaking, the Arnoraic literature contains a few allusions that
attest to the rabbis'continued knowledge of Judaeo-Christian groups in the
fourth century. The most reliable source, that, too, is no more than
conjecture, is the statement by R. Berekhya (source 9), and possibly also
the narrative concerning R. Yonatan (source 5b). These are augmented by
additional, doubtful, sources: R. Yaakov of Kfar Neburaya, R. Yuda ben
Nakosa, and the narrative in Babylonian Talmud Shabbat (source 10).
It would seem that we possess few Jewish allusions to the continued
activity of Judaeo-Christian groups until the end of the Talmudic period.
These join the testimony by Epiphanius concerning the further activity of
the Ebionites or the Nwmaeans until the late fourth century.

Conclusion
Leontis identified himself as 'Kaloubas', that is, as one of the followers of
Kleobios, an Ebionite leader. The house of Leontis was a private dwelling,
of which its owner allocated two rooms as a house of prayer for the
members of the sect. This was a private and semi-clandestine house of
prayer, small but elegant. Nonnus, an immigrant from Cyzicus who
patently was a member of the sect, also contributed to the house of prayer.
The prayers were directed to the east, but another possibility is that the
worshipers prayed in a direction perpendicular to the mosaic pavement,
which would orient them towards Jerusalem. According to the literary
sources, the Ebionites sanctified this direction of prayer as they faced
Jerusalem while praying. The mosaic pavement indicates profound
acculturation in the pagan culture, although it incorporates symbols that
are Jewish (the menora) or Christian (the mast and the ship). The 26 doves
in the central panel symbolize the polemic with the Christians concerning
the nature of Jesus, the observance of the commandments, and the
uniqueness of the people of Israel (the negation of the gospel to the
S2 The narrative quotes the verse from the Tora as well in Aramaic, and thus it is
quite probable that the Gospel also was written in Hebrew or in Greek, and was
translated by the narrator.
53 Matt 5: 17.

The house of Leontis

259

Gentiles). The multiplicity of water scenes in the mosaic might possibly

derive fiom the attitude of the Ebionites toward water as divinity. The
house of prayer was dedicated in the fifth century and was destroyed in the
sixth, most likely upon the decline and elimination of the Ebionite sect,
and especially upon the eclipse of the group that was active in Scythopolis.
The proposal that this structure is a Judaeo-Christian house of prayer
corresponds with all the testimonies in the structure itself, but still remains
within the realm of conjecture.
If this suggestion is accepted we may come to some Further conclusions:
- there was a small community of Judaeo-Christians in fifth-cent. Scythopolis;
- this community was wealthy;
- it did not use the cross as a symbol;
- it used Greek in its prayer house;
- at least some of its members were outside Palestine (in Syzicus).

Appendix: Rabbinic sources about minim from the Amoraic

Period
Note: nos. 1 and 2 reflect the second century, but are the background to no.
4.
t f i l l f 2.2 [cf. yShab 14.4 (14d); yAZ 2.2 (40d); bAZ 27b]
13~iw7
niwn l n l ~ ~Kin D
5 193 W ~ K
3 ~ KX
~ w
7n ~
13w1w nn7 p ~ T Y '13
~ KT W Y ~
R 7 K l 15 K73K*IK15 1 n K .X37 p 'KWl ;IRK *K 15 1 n K . ~ K Y D W'1
~ l f l ~ l ; l KlU19
~~1
.nnw -TY n * ~~7235
i
p79un K ~ ~ II K D ~ Y U

1.

It once happened that a serpent bit R. Eleazar ben Damma, and Yaakov of Kefar Sama
(Sekhania) came to heal him in the name of Yeshua ben Pantira. R. Yishmael would not
allow him [to do sol. He [R. Yishmael] said to him, Ben Damma, you are not permitted.
I-Ie replied, I will bring you a proof that they heal me. But he did not succeed in bringing
such a proof before he died.

2. tNul 2.24 (bAZ 16b)

:Vnm inlK 15 i n K .1i+ mrt5 I ~ I Ki5ym ,n11vn '13-15~ DDUIW 1 ~ ~ '1511 n7 w~ ~ n
,15 K ~ 1Kn K K ~ VnlR
W
ln1K lUD3 . 3 Y r-7 TDKI :15 1 n K ?155?1D'l373 i71DYr lnlD3
,minx 13 7 1 q~
~ ,175~
?lnlnKm5 1 ~ :i5
1 ~
i n K . D ~ W ~IQK
W 711 K ~ yi3n1
K
~5.r
am man p ~ U D I W.i1u9
~ nnK 7in .Din77 ~1557
u * i 3 ' ~D3~ Y I Ui55n ' I ~ ~ D ; T ~WW D K
:117 inKi KS?Y '1w131.53p ~ 5inn117
i
1~n17n
I W ~.nirn
I
T ~ I 5~ wonlw i y w n
1wnn In mK Knw n5 inx .iinK :i5 i n K ?ixm nnK 1 7 Knw
~
,127 171951 n - 1'7
~
nlrn 5w 12-115 i n K
KrVlnDva 1't;Tn rnm nnK DYEI ,71ni3r;r.n?nrtr;r:inK ? 1 ~ 1 m
r i v t l l ~p YIW* mwn ni17n 5w i3-r in81 ~-I>IJl a > W ~ K
D~?Y*
rnmn , V ~ ' I D 5w
~Y
aipn 5~1131-1
v5yn i ~ 1 7 ; 1:;mn
~ 7127 5y rni3yw ,num 712-15~ Inosnli ,~IKI;-T~
~
:iniK i t ~ " '1
7 ~2 7 7 ~-1
.11 75793 ~755r-1~721
73 ,71773n n 5~
~
nil3 DTK K X 051~5
.i1y735 nn17;1In1 1 1 ~ 7 x In
1

It once happened that R. Eliezer was arrested for heresy, and he was brought to the
tribune to be tried. The governor asked him, How can an elder like you occupy himself in
such things? He replied, I acknowledge the Judge as right. That governor thought that he
referred to him, while his intent was rather to his father in Heaven. He [the governor]
said to him, Because you have acknowledged me as right, I will act in similar manner: I
said, It is possible that these gray hairs should err regarding those matters? Dismissed you are acquitted. When he lee the tribunal, he was saddened at having been
apprehended for heresy. His disciples came in to console him, but he would not accept
this. R. Akiva entered and said to him: My master, may I say something to you so that
you will not be distressed? He replied, Speak. He said to him, Perhaps one of the mrninr
told you some heresy that pleased you. He said to him, By Heaven! You have reminded
me that one time I was walking abaut in the highway [Bavli version: the upper market] of
Sepphoris when i came across Yaakov of Kefar Sakhnayya. He told me a heretical
teaching in the name of Yeshua ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. So I was arrested for
heresy, for I transgressed the words of the Tora: Keep yourself far away from her; do not
come near the doorway of her house, for she has caused many to fall slain. For R. Eliezer
taught, One should always flee from what is disreputable and from whatever appears to
be disreputable.

3. GenR 7.2 (p50j) [cf. yYev 2.6 (4a); yKid 3.12 (64d); PesdRK 4.3 (p63); PesR

.*

14.61; TanhB, hukat 15.15 (p112t); Tanh, hukat 6.6; EcclR 7.31
(a)
Kn :R+ R ~ W
,,In '1 yaw .nmw 1711~~
n7a-t : T Y ;111;1
~
7~1131
193 W ~ K3 ~ ~ 7

26 1

The house ofLeontis

tnvr :inK... ?Kn*rnKt~ * ;pr n :;r+ i n K ?*?5Knv*iinIn ~ n 5 inn K t w r K 13 :VK

I
qirn lu3n
. ~ 1 9 5 iK
~ 5~ KU ~ - ,lorn

Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya taught in Tyre, Fish requirc ritual slaughtering. When R.
Haggai heard this, he said to him, Come and be whipped. He replied, Should a person
who states a Tora law be whipped? He asked, How is this from the Tora? [...I He said,
Hammer away your hammering [is., beat me], for you have taught well.

w ,*m'1ynw . n m 3 n*i3115w213 +in5 inin : ~ 311;1*~1131193

3
W*K 3 7 ~ 3
?*i7L) Kn"71K7 Knk3 lnK? W3 13 :lnK
K n :;1*5
:;I+ 1 n K ?Kn*qlK'TK T I In1 :CI"K
;tvii?;IYK
UK mswn ,mown n*ii? 3~ nnown - n n i x n735 unmown5 5y i+n7i
.15 ytin K J K ~y ~:n*5
i i n K 175 ytin n K 1*1ni: n 5 Ynn ,nim nriin ~5 : 5 " .mmn
~
inK .*;~wY*
niin3in:Inn 2rn3;li :n+ i n K ?*1?5n;InK n 5 3 p tni,*ln:n3 7nK [...I
~ 5 1:7nni*
"
p liynw 731 uw3 lmi**lni n ~mnn
t p :;r+ i n K m i n ;Il*Kn:;t+
733 1 * ~,113
i *lipn + ~ i w nK ~ 713
Z .-riinnn 733 nK TV* 73- ?nn 739n ":111 lnnnn
79x7 q i n i ,~37ipa
K ~ ~V7 7 lu3n
7
rn3n :n+ inK .in rn? o*33i3n t ~ i v n
~ 3 3
.~3951K
~33
UK n t

(b) h

.*+

Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya taught in Tyre, It is permitted to circumcise the son of a

Gentile woman on the Sabbath. When R. Haggai heard this, he said to him, Come and be
whipped. He replied, Should a person who states a Tora law be whipped? He asked, How
is this from the Tora? He replied, "They declared their pedigrees aAer their families, by
their fathers' houses" [Num 1: 181 - the family of the father is considered to be the family,
while the family of the mother is not considered to be the family. He answered, You have
not ruled well. He retorted, How can you prove this to me? He responded, Lie down and I
will prove it to you. [...] He objected, Will you whip me on the basis of a tradition? He
replied, This very text continues, "Let it be done according to the Tora" ((Ezra 10:3]. He
asked. But according to which [verse in the] Tora? He answered, According to the one
that R. Yonatan quoted in the name of R. Shimon bar Yohai: "You shall not intermarry
[...I" [Deut 7:3]. Why this [prohibition]?"For they will turn your children way from Me"
[Deut 7:4] your son who comes from an lsraelite woman is considered to be your son,
while your son from a Gentile woman is not considered to be your son. He said, Hammer
away your hammering [i.e., beat me], for there is benefit in receiving it, for you have
taught well.

4. EcclR 7.3
.K71121133 W*K 3?Y*; I T "KUlM" , ~ T Y
'1~
31K
"3lU" :n13%3 3**1plU9 l*lU*i7t7U7K '1
13 K731n;lT "31U",K"t .KDKD 193 VK 3?Y9 31 "KUlm" ,Knf 12 11+K 31 "31W ,K"l
~UU11" ,YWl;l*'1TlK
11)~
"KUlnl",KUlP3 ;If l3*31 "31W ,KUt.DW3 193 133 1 5 "K
. Y ~ P * ~7ll
K "KtnM", ~ T Y +'1
K; I T "3lV ,K"t .D*37D;T
R. Issi of Caesarea explained the verse [He who is good before God escapes her, but the

sinner is taken by her, Eccl 7:26] referring to heretical teaching: "Goodn is R. Eleazar;
"but the sinner" is Yaakov of Kefar Neburaya. Another interpretation: "Cood is R.
Eleazar ben Damma; "but the sinner", this is Yaakov of Kefar Sama. Another tnterpretation: "Cood" is Hanina the son of R. Yoshua's brother; "but the sinner", these are the
people of Capernaum. Another interpretation: "Good" is Yuda ben Nakosa; "but the
sinner", these are the minrm. Another interpretation: "Goodn is R. Natan; "but the sinner"
is his pupil. Another interpretation: "Good" are R. Eleazar and R. Yoshua; "but the
sinner" is Elisha.

5. Ecc~R1.4 [note: section (a) reflects the second century]

(a) 2 r 3 n*n*
~
p 5 ~ ,n5n
i
*~3m
n75 pmyi ,urn3 7x1nttn5 ~ T ywin*
K
'1VK 13K I * I ~
73 lYn*K'I11735K .*nU*Kln W I j *l5YIl*;t*,X*3*lmYw;t* 37315 ~ T .Kn3PII
K
Klnn

Inn 7nn 5335 p n p n*5m . 5 ~ i v -Kr

Y ~ *iw
K ~5733 nK

n*5, K Y * W ~~1nn-r
Kinn
.;r*n5w>

kianina the son of R. Yoshua's brother came to Capernaum. The minim placed a spell on
him, and had him riding an ass on the Sabbath. He went to his uncle Yoshua who
anointed him with oil, and he recovered. [R. Yoshua] said to him, Since the ass of that
wicked person [= Jesus] has roused itself against you, you may not reside in the Land of
Israel. He therefore went down from there to Babylon, where he died in peace.
(b) n

* m~ * l m
prhw .niwwK 1 3 nm3w~i
~
%K,p;r*x5*i-r*nhp m

Inn* '1

mrr mni *.ihi35nm*m n U*D ,1173in3 5rrn 1 5 i i :3*n3

~ 13K%:m5 pnK 73

U'i7lWY lKYa115n .Knh K7n5 K l W 5lnl KVlK 7 3 1 :;1* VnK .Xr\n3 1mlD E,l*Kl
15111- :;nina a*m13~ 5 :n+
1 rim
* ~ n n *p7n r t n ~13 :p5 inK .nnK ;rm3
.~;POKII n m n n 5 ~ ~ 3TY
- nqn3
r
Imrr p r ~nirr
i n v i a.yuiu*:, i l ~ i n 357sn
,p n53nu*~i
n3rr;r 157~7,pn53nu*~
~ 5mrrn
i ~ 5 i 7n ~ 1152
5 5 q ,~p l * :rinK
.pna mi9 nrln ,71173pmrr 1~in-1
nn p ini*

One of R. Yonatan's pupils deserted to them [i.e. the minim]. He came and found him
rich.54 The minim sent the following message after him: Is it not written: "Throw in your
1: 14]? He fled and they pursued
lot with us; we shall all have a common purse'"Prov
him. They said to him, Our master, do an act of kindness to a certain bride. He went and
found them violating a girl. He said to them, Is this the way for Jews to behave? They
replied to him, But is it not written in the Tora, "Throw in your lot with us; we shall all
have a common pursen? He fled and they pursued him until he came to the door and shut
it in their faces. They said, R. Yonatan, go tell your mother that you have not turned and
looked upon us; for if you had turned and looked upon us, more than we pursue you, you
would have pursued us!
~ ' L I KJ ~ K ~ mi
W
iniK n*5~iw
1-3 ,inY r?uunn a*rn;r i7;r ;r.oip 13 n t m &i
,nrlm nYn WJ 'U 537 ,11*1*3
7 7 3 ~ IinK
3
qyrla 1inK l.ra 5~ :li5 inK . w n i
*>I .1*yvrr
pnSnn*~t7~ pn'nin yxoi ,p5 nu) ~ i n.u3ni?3
i
3 7 7 3 nmin
~
75trrn7i '135.pn S Y ~:1i5 in^ . m l i umwn ~nliy**u*3i:rl-r*n+nn* l r \ n ~, ~ n ~ - r
' I W ~ SIK
Y ,ni*5nnini3iu ~ 7 1 n3 ~~5 m*nw
n
n n m mi^ 5m m n iniK 5~

(c)

YYD KV

r~v9

.pnnrr n ~ 5 n

The minim used to have dealings with R. Yuda ben Nakosa. They would constantly ask
him questions that he would answer. He said to them: You bring your arguments in vain?
Let us agree among ourselves that whoever bests his opponent [in debate] shall split his
head open with a mallet. He bested them, and rained blows on their heads until they were
filled with wounds. When he returned, his pupils said to him, Our master, You were
aided from Heaven and you were victorious! He replied to them, In vain?! Go and pray
for that person, and for that sack that was full of precious stones and pearls, but is now
filled with ashes.

6. GenR 8.8 (p61)

m51m nn i ~ i n3i n 5 ~m3 :?~5nw

3 3 1 nK n*1mnI ~ K W
The minim asked R. Samlai: How many divinities created the world?

"

According to S. LIEBERMAN,
Studies in Palestinian Talmudrc Literature, Jerusalem
1999, 63f (Heb.). The midrash in LevR 12.1 (p244) also explains this verse as dealing
with sexual maneo. The accusation is that Christians not only speak share property, but
sin by sharing women as well. This is a typical accusation against communal groups, and
the Israeli public can remember similar claims against kibbutzim or communist groups.

263

The house of Leontis

7. GenR ibid.
53 nwyn > n u n v m n n mi3 nwln nmw nyw3 :ln117 nw2 p m 135 ~ i n w'i
nnK m ,o5iyL7w 11im :inK , *iai D ~ nwyi
K
:D*;I~K inK*i:piu~5
Y * ~ W
p*>.017101*
.;~Yw
n i y h frnuiin ,ainr, :if inK ?n'~1'135n9 Imno Inu
R. Samuel ben Nachman said in R. Yonatan's name: When Moses was occupied in
writing the Tora, he wrote the work of each day. When he came to the verse, And God
said, Let us make man... [Gen. 1 :26], he said, Master of the Universe! Why do you give a
pretext to the minim? He said to him, Write, whoever wishes to err, let him err.

8. GenR 25.1 Cp239)55

...i11r-b ;In% nwmn IM I*K :15 iinK , i n a ~i nK D*i*n3i 5 ~ w

The minim asked R. Abbahu, saying: We do not find that Enoch died.

9. ExodR 19.4
11K '(*K 1*5imUK15*Kl;t:U*lnlK~ K Y W *~ y W l D*I?XllTT*
1
K ~ -3
W

:>*313'11 b K
.mn725 urn17

R. Berekhya said, So that the minim and the wicked ones of Israel would not say, Since
we are circumcised, we will not go down to Gehennom.

10. hShab 116a-b

~~)iui5*3
inn ; 1 i n . * ~ i ; 1 5 ~pit
3 n ~n*nnKiry.15~*>itinn727 ~ i 5 wK D ~ K
K ~ ;IS)
W K ~ * * Y K.n*27 3 1 ~ 1
~ 5~ .Kmiw
2
53pn ~ 5Knw
t 57pw nint n*ni211w3
in^ .12153 :in5 i n x .*WI -33 m313+ 7r155171tK I * Y ~:;I*+ ninK .n*np55 n ~, i~ a ; r t t
-I
Knir p :n+ inK .nii*n~5 ~ n i ~31 5n) i p 2 3*n3:;l+
n+mn*x I ~ Y ~ K fin*5n
itn
-.lini*Km, nn,=i n u - :a72 2*n=ig 3 2 lily nm*n*Ki. n w t nnviK
n*t)*Dw:in5 inK .nai5 inn i ; l * 3
~6 5 " ~
~5 KIK :n*aan31 p + ~l ~ i mn*~*u5
:n*33in3i .minx nwnt KnwiiK 5~ * D D I K ~[ K ~ *n*nK
I ] nwn7 KnniiK p nna*n5
: 5 ~ + nlln
l n+ inK -.nnw3 i*iin1i i n r :m5 ninK .nii*n ~5 ~ n i K3 Y oipna
~
. ~ nm
h i inn KnK

mk

:11)

lmma (mother) Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamliel's sister. A certain philosopher
who lived in his vicinity had the reputation of not accepting bribes. They wished to make
sport of him, so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him: I
desire that a share in my father's estate be given to me. He ruled, Divide it. He [R.
Gamliel] said to him: It is written for us, Where there is a son, the daughter does not
inherit. He replied: Since the day that you were exiled from your land, the Tora of Moses
has been superseded, and another book given, in which it is written: "A son and a
daughter inherit equally." The next day, he [R. Gamliel] brought him a Lybian ass. He
said to them: Go down to the end of the book, in which it is written, '"I have come not to
abolish from the Law of Moses, [nor] to add to the Law of Moses." And it is written in it:
"A daughter does not inherit when there is a son." She said to him: Let your light shine
forth like a lamp. R. Gamliel said to him: An ass came and knocked over the lamp!

S".T.

L~ors,'Rabbi Abahu and the Minim', JQR 60 (1969-70) 197-212.

Copyrighted material

Copyrighted material

fig 3: the (damaged) fivebranch menora

(courtesy Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem)

Copyrighted ma@rial

Magical means for handling minim

in rabbinic literature
Gideon Bohak
The study of the ancient Judaeo-Christians is beset by many problems, the
gravest of which is the paucity and problematic nature of the available
sources. Very few texts and artefacts may securely be ascribed to JudaeoChristian circles, and most of the evidence we have about them comes
fiom groups and individuals who viewed them from the outside, and with
great hostility. Rabbinic literature is no exception. It does contain quite a
few references to minim, but these are mostly hostile, and - what is
perhaps even worse fiom our perspective - the term min itself is wide and
slippery. In some cases, it can be shown that the min or minim referred to
are likely to have been Judaeo-Christians; in others, they seem to have
been Gentile Christians; in some cases they may have been Gnostics of one
type or another, and in other cases they seem to be none of the above.'
Thus, if we tried to define whom the rabbis included under the category
minim, we are likely to conclude that most minim were people who were
quite like the rabbis in some ways (and especially their commitment to
Scripture), and quite unlike them in many others (and especially their
interpretation of Scripture, and their ensuing halakhic position^).^ In light
of this situation, it would be quite futile to try and isolate from all the
rabbinic references to minim only those that seem to relate to groups that
we would call 'Judaeo-Christians'. Instead, one is better served by adopting the rabbinic term minim and examining what the rabbis relate of such
persons.
Of the many different aspects of the rabbinic dealings with minim, only
one will be discussed in the present paper, namely, the use of ritualistic
and magical procedures in rabbinic conflicts with them. This is not a new
topic, but recent scholarship, taking its cue from Evans-Pritchard's anthropological studies of witchcrafl accusations and their social contexts, and
P

For earlier attempts to disentangle this knotty term, see BACHER1899; HERFORD
1903, esp. 121-123, 361-397; BOCHLER1956; ALON1980: 288-307; SIMON1986: 17920 1 ; KIMELMAN198 1, esp. 228-232.
See bflLlER 1993; KALMRJ
1994; K.ALMlN 1998: 68-74 and 138-140; GOODMAN
1996; CARETONPAGET1999, esp. 771-774. And cf SAFRAI'S
and TOMSON'S
papers in the

present volume.

Bohak

from Peter Brown's application of such insights for the study of late
antique magic, seems to have focused mainly on the use of 'magic'and
'magicians'as accusations hurled at each other by Jews, Christians,
'Pagans', and Gnostics in the first few centuries of the Christian era.3
While this certainly is a fruithl perspective from which to examine
rabbinic attitudes to early Christianity - witness the 'Jesus the Magician"
stories of the Babylonian Talmud and of the Toledot Yeshu traditions4 - it
should not prevent us from noting that magic practices actually played a
part in the inter-communal struggles of late antiquity, so that sometimes
the rabbis admitted that they too employed magical tactics upon their
minim opponents. Moreover, whereas recent scholarship has paid much
attention to Birkat ha-Minim and its historical significance, the present
study seeks to demonstrate the rabbis' use of other, less formal and more
individualistic means of cursing and harming minim. It is to a group of
rabbinic stories concerning the use of magic against minim, and to the
broader implications of such stories, that the present study is devoted.

Stereotyped stories
One of the most common types of rabbinic references to minim are the
stereotyped stories of how 'some minim'or 'a certain min' (often
unnamed; sometimes receiving the stereotypical name 'Jacob') 'met rdbbi
so-and-so' and asked him a provocative or embarrassing question. In most
cases, these heretical challenges involve the interpretation of a problematic
biblical verse, or the elucidation of a thorny theological issue. In virtually
all these cases, the Jewish rabbi has the upper hand, proving himself more
ingenious, honest, and consistent, especially (but not exclusively) in the
.~
the encounter turns violent, and the min
interpretation of S c r i p t ~ r eOften,
is physically harmed.
In one case, for example (bBer %a), we learn that the Babylonian Rav
Sheshet, who was blind, was pestered by a certain min, and the story ends
by asking "And what happened to that min?," and responding, "Some say
that his fkiends blinded him, and some say that Rav Sheshet put his eyes
upon him, and he was turned into a heap of bones." "e first option sees
BROWN 1970; for the subsequent trend, see, e.g., AUNE 1980; SEGAL, 198 1;
PHILLIPS
1986.
For which see SMITH 1978: 46-50; cf SEGAL
1987: 102: "The early charge of magic
against Jesus is not so much clear proof that Jesus was a magician as a clear example of
the social manipulation of the charge of magic."
See, for example, the list of incidents in KALMIN
1994: 163, n3 1 and 164-165, n37.
For other stories where the minim end up badly, see bHag 5b (the min is executed
by the Roman authorities); bSan 39a (the min is devoured by wild beasts). EcclR 1.8 (p87
HIRSHMAN)(the minim have their brains blown out); and cf the following note.

'

Mogicol meonsfor hondling minim

269

the min punished measure for measure, for mocking a blind rabbi; the
second has Rav Sheshet's magical powers come into action and annihilate
the impertinent min. Such powers, however, of turning living creatures into
heaps of dead bones with just one angry glance, are commonly attributed
in rabbinic literature to many different sages, and are part of their image as
holy men, possessing the divine power brought about by the mastery of
Torah.'
Rav Sheshet, we may note, used no special procedure to h a m the
offensive min, only his innate powers. This, however, was not always the
case, as can be seen from the foliowing story:
"A certain min said to Rabbi [i.e., R. Yehudah ha-Nasi], He who made the mountains did

not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not make the mountains, for it is
written 'For here is/are8 the maker of mountains and the creator of winds*(Amos 4: 13).
He said to him, You fool, go down to the end of the verse, 'the Lord of Hosts islare his9
name' (ibid.). He said, Give me three days' time and I shall bring you back an answer.
Rabbi sat for three days in fasting; when he wanted to bless (over food), he was told,
There is a min at the door. He said, 'They gave me gall for food, [and vinegar for my
thirst]' (Ps 69:22). He (the min) said to him, Rabbi, I bring good tidings - your enemy
could find no answer and fell from the roof and died.'"'

In this story it is interesting to note that the narrator's faith in Rabbi's

ability to defeat his opponent in the interpretation of Scripture is far from
complete. In addition to coming up with a clever solution to a supposedly
problematic verse, the famous sage is depicted as fasting for three days,
the length of time which the min has asked for to provide a winning
argument. Moreover, Rabbi is depicted as fearful of the min's return,
whence his anguished cry upon hearing that a min is standing at his door
three days later." Unlike Rav Sheshet, who defeated his opponent by
unleashing his innate powers, and unlike all those sages who defeated their
minim opponents solely by way of offering winning arguments, Rabbi
seems to have felt it necessary to undertake a specific ritual action which
would enhance his chances of defeating his opponent. There is, of course,
nothing magical about the praxis involved - fasting being a common
For the recurrent expression "He set his eyes upon him and turned him into a heap
of bones," see, e.g., bShab 34a (R. Shimon bar Yohai); bRB 75a = bSan lOOa (R.
Yohanan); in Pesikta de-Ruv Kohano 18 (p298), R. Yohanan's victim is labelled as "a
min".
The Hebrew could be understood both in the singular and in the plural, whence the
min's claim that the reference is to two different powers.
In singular, hence the reference is to God and God alone.
bHu11 87a.
Was Rabbi aware of the Gospels' use of Ps 69:22? (Mt 27:34; and cf KRAUSS
1902: 44, 77, where the Toledot Yeshu texts make use of this theme). If he was, his use
of that verse in this context was no doubt highly ironic!

''

"

Bohak

rabbinic technique for increasing the chances of divine help for one's
endeavours - but the need for even this praxis already is quite telling.
For an excellent example of a rabbi who did use his magical expertise to
defeat his rnin opponent we may turn to the famous story of Rabbi Yoshua
and the min of Tiberias. It is found in the Palestinian Talmud, and runs as
follows:
"A story: R. Eliezer and R. Yoshua and R. Akiva went up to bathe in the public bath-

house in Tiberias. They saw a certain min. He said what he said, and the vaulti2 caught
them. R. Eliezer said to R. Yoshua, Yoshua ben Hanmia, look and see what you can do.
When this min came out, R. Yoshua said what he said, and the door caught him, and
whoever went in would bang him with the door-knocker, and whoever went out would
bang him by forcing the door open. He said to them, Annul what you have done. They
said to him, You annul (what you have done), and we will annul (what we have done).
Both sides annulled (what they had done). When they came out, R. Yoshua said to that
rnin, Is this how wise you are? He said, Let us go down to the sea. When they went down
to the sea, the min said what he said, and the sea was split asunder. He said to them, Did
not Moses your master do just that to the sea? They said to him, But do you not admit
that Moses our master (also) walked in it? He said to them, Yes; they said to him, So
walk in it. He walked in it. R. Yoshua commanded the Minister of the Sea, and he
swallowed him up."13

This amusing account has received quite a lot of attention recently, and
Our own analysis may therefore be
From several different perspe~tives.'~
brief. First, we must note that it is embedded within a sugiya (talmudic
discussion unit) that explicitly deals with magic, or, to be precise, with the
mishnaic injunction concerning the treatment of magicians: "The
magician: he who performs a deed is liable [to death by stoning], but not
he who creates an optical illusion" (mSan 7.1 1). As both the min and R.
Yoshua ben Hanania are not merely creating some clever optical illusions,
but performing real magical deeds, it is clear that the narrator of these tales
has no qualms about depicting a famous rabbi as a powerful magician - in
fact, he seems to relish that description.
Unlike Rav Sheshet, whose looks alone can kill, R. Yoshua uses some
common magical techniques. In the first story, we learn that "he said what
he said" (amar madeamar), which is a common manner in rabbinic
literature to refer to the use of magical incantations without actually
quoting them.15 In the second story, we find a more technical term, when

''

73-3 = W;ioS? (an equation apparent, but in a different context, in SCIWRSHAKED 11, p146, where W 3 = +in). For gluing things to the WXq of the bath-house,

XXXV1.74. For bath-house magic in general, see BOWER 1932;

see PREISENDANZ
DUNBABIN1989: 32-46. See also S~H&ER-SWD 111, 69 lbl8-13, with the editors'
notes (p I5 1).
l 3 ySan 7.19,25d.
l4 See VELTRI
1997: 3 1-33; JACOBS1998: 298-303.
l 5 See, for example, the story of Shimon ben Shatah (below, 1118). where the witch

Magical meansfor handling minim

27 1

R. Yoshua 'ordered' (gazar 'a0 the Minister(ing angel) of the Sea to

drown the hapless min. This very root is often found, precisely in that
usage, in late-antique Jewish mystical and magical texts.16
To the narrator of these stories, the use of magic certainly was
legitimate, at least when it fell under the rubric of giving a pernicious
magician his just deserts, as the Hebrew Bible says one must do (Exod
22:17, a verse quoted earlier in the sugiya). To execute a magician, one
occasionally had to resort to magical practices, and in this context we
should mention not only the famous story of how R. Yoshua caught and
punished a witch in the city of Rome, but also R. Yohanan's famous
dictum that the members of the Sanhedrin must themselves be experts in
magic (ba 'alei kshapm), presumably for similar reasons.17
In commenting on the R. Yoshua story, we may also stress that in terms
of its literary genre, this is a typical folkloristic story of the competition
between two powerful magicians, not unlike the biblical story of Moses
and Pharaoh's wizards (Exod 7ff).18In fact, Moses' own parting of the Red
Sea is explicitly referred to here, and in this connection too it is important
to stress that the Parting of the Sea was a favourite theme in late-antique
Jewish mystical and magical texts.19 It is also quite likely, however, that a
min trying to cross the Sea of Galilee without drowning was following not
only Moses, but also Jesus, who had walked over the very same waters
(Mk 6:48-51, etc.). If this is true, then we have here at least some
indication that the rnin whom our three rabbis encountered was a follower
of Jesus of one type or another. Other than that, the story provides no clues
to the min's identity, as the encounter between the two sides is physical,
not intellectual, and the min is not depicted as promoting some nonrabbinic message or some non-rabbinic interpretation of S ~ r i p t u r eBut
. ~ ~a
"said what she said." Note also the parallel expression, "He did what he did," which
refers to a magical praxis without specifying what it was (e.g., bBM 107b, Rav in the
cemetery).
l6 See, e.g., SCHAFER-SHAKED
11, p70. In ySan 7.19 (25d), right after the story under
discussion, there is another story where R. Yoshua 5~ 711 the Minister(ing angel) of the
Sea - in this case, he commands it to produce the magical implements thrown into the sea
by a ernicious witch.
l P R. Yoshw: See previous note. R. Yohanan: bSan 17a.
l8 See YASSIF1994: 178. For other rabbinic examples of this genre see the famous
story of Shimeon ben Shatab and the eighty witches of Ashkelon, in ySan 6.9 (23c)
(=yHag 2.2 [77d]), or the stmy of Yannai and the innkeeper (bSan 67b).
l9 See, e.g., SCHAFER1981, 340; NAVEH-SHAKED
1985: 222, 224, 237; cf Fodor
1978. For walking on water without drowning, see also the recipe in Harbade-Moshe p45
HARARI. For a late-antique Cretan Jew who tried to cross the sea, see Socrates Scholasticus, HE 7:38.
20 Most scholars (e.g., VELTRI 1997: 31) take the min's reference to "Moses your
master" (p21 nwn) as demonstrating his non-Jewish origins, but that can hardly be

272

Bohak

min is always the rabbi" opponent, and the rabbi will beat him in his own
game, be it the interpretation of shared sacred texts or the manipulation of
angels and demons. R. Yoshua ben Hanania, we may add, seems to have
had quite a reputation as a min-buster.21

Unusual stories
While the adventures of R. Yoshua ben Hanania in the bath-house of Tiberias had been the subject of many different studies, two other stories,
which I find much more intriguing, seem to have gone almost entirely
unnoticed. The first of these is found in two different locations, with some
significant textual differences. Let us begin with the version of Midrash
Tehillim:22
'"Sinners shall cease from the earth, and the wicked are no more, my soul bless the Lord,
Hallelujah' (Ps 104:35)... R. Meir had a certain min in his neighbourhood, who used to
annoy him with biblical verses. He (R. Meir) asked mercy upon him [i.e., cursed him]
that he should die. But Bruriah his wife said to him, Are you thinking of 'Sinners shall
cease'? But does it say 'Sinners': it says
Let the sins cease, and immediately 'and the wicked are no more'! He asked mercy upon them [sic] that they would repent.
At that hour, 'my soul bless the Lord, etc.""

This story also appears in the Babylonian Talmud (bRer IOa), whose
version is identical to the one of Midrash Tehillim, except that R. Meir's
opponent is identified not as 'a certain min' (hahu mina), but rather as
'some thugs' (hanhu biryonei), which might explain the shift from the
singular to the plural in the version quoted above. But regardless of the
exact label affixed to R. Meir's opponent(s), the reference to the citation of
biblical verses should make it clear what kind of disputes R. Meir had with
the person(s) here mentioned.24
Before analyzing R. Meir's action, however, and the overall tone of this
story, let us look at a similar, but much more elaborate, story. It is found in
three different places in the Babylonian Talmud (AZ 4a-b; Ber 7a; San
considered a sound proof, just as minim who say "It is written in your Torah..." (e.g.,
need not be non-Jews. Such phrases tell us more
bAZ 17a = EcclR 1,8 [p79 HIRSHMAN])
about the ways these minim were seen by the rabbinic narrators than about their views of
themselves.
21 See, e.g., bHag 5b, and esp. the story (EcclR 1,8 [p83--84 HIRSHMAN,
with his
commentary ad loc.]) of R. Hanina, the nephew of R. Yoshua, who was bewitched and
beguiled by minim; R. Yoshua healed him with an ointment, but then sent him out to
Babylonia.
22 MidrTeh 104.27 (p448).
23 The word play is based on the fact that the Hebrew word, differently punctuated,
means both 'sinners' and 'sins'.
24 For minim as 'Bible-reading heretics', see KALMIN 1998: 68-74.

Magical means for handling minim

273

105b), always embedded in a longer unit, whose exact contents vary

slightly from one text to the next. I cite here the version of AZ 4a-b, while
noting in the footnotes all the significant divergences in the other versions:
"Our Sages taught: 'And God rages every day' (Ps 7:12) and how long is his rage? A
moment. And how long is a moment? One of 56,888 of one hour?' that is one moment.
And no creature can aim for that time except for the wicked Balaam, of whom it is
written, 'and he knows the mind of the Most High' (Num 24:16) ...And when is he (God)
angry? Abaye said, In the first three hours (of the day), when the comb of the cock is
white. But it is white in every other hour too!26 In every hour there are red veins in if but
at that hour it has none. R. Yoshua ben Levi had this min in his neighbourhood, and he
(the min) would annoy him with biblical verses.27 He took a cock, and went and tied it to
the feet of his bed,28 and examined it; he thought, When that hour comes, I will curse
him. When that hour came, he fell asleep. He said, Learn from this that it is not a proper
thing to do. It is written 'Even for the righteous it is not good to punish' (Prov 17:26).~~
It was taught in the name of R Meir: At the hour when all the kings of the nations of the
world lay their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, immediately he (God) is
angry."

Let us begin our analysis of this passage by stressing the unique nature of
the story of R. Yoshua ben Levi and his neighbour, which deserves far
more attention than granted it by previous scholars.30First, unlike all the
other rabbinic stories of encounters between a rabbi and a min, only in the
above-quoted story about R. Meir and in this one the rabbi does not get the
upper hand.31 In the first part of the story, we learn that the mzn used to
25 bBer 7a has "One of 58,888 of one hour"; bSan 105b provides no number; see also
yBer 1.1 (2d), where Samuel says that there are 56,848 moments in an hour. And cf
SCHAEER-SHAKED
1, 17 1d30-32 and ibid. 11, 49 ld17-19, both of which assume 88,888
moments in an hour.
26 bSan 105b is identical, but bBer 7a has "when the comb of the cock is white and it
stands on one leg. But every hour it stands like that!"
27 This is the reading in the Spanish ms of A2 published by ABRAMSON1957: 7, and
cf Dikdukei Sophrim, a d koc.; bBer 7a has "would annoy him greatly with biblical
verses"; bSan lOSb has "would annoy him".
28 bBer 7a has "and stood it between the feet of bis bed"; bSan 105b has "and tied it
by its feet".
29 bBer 7a has, "It is written 'And his mercy is upon all his doings' {Ps 145:9), and it
is written 'Even for the righteous it is not good to punish' (Prov 17:26)." This last verse
really means "It is not good to punish the righteous," but is interpreted here as, "Even for
the righteous it is not good to punish."
30 See the brief discussions in BACHER1896: vol. 1, 147-148; HERFORD 1903: 332;
URBACH 1975: 102; MAIER 1978: 71-72; ROSENFELD 1982: 449-452; ROSENFELD
1997:
180-182.
3' Cf such stories as bAZ 4a, where (the Babylonian) Rav Safra gets the iower hand
in his debate with the minim, but R. Abbahu saves the day, or GenR 82.10 (p988 THEODOR-ALBECK,in the apparatus) where R. Yannai cannot respond to the min, but R.
Yonathan saves the day. In such stories, one rabbi may fail, but another rabbi must then
succeed.

annoy R. Yoshua ben Levi with scriptural verses, and it is implicitly

admitted that the rabbi - one of the most famous rabbis of the first
generation of Palestinian amoraim (early 3rd cent CE) - could not beat the
min in the interpretation of Scripture, and therefore resorted to other
means. Such an admittance is virtually unparalleled in rabbinic literature.32
In the second part of the story, we are told that even the magical
practices used by this sage did not prove successful, although here we are
at least told why: not because the min was an expert magician himself, and
made sure our hero would fall asleep at the right moment, but because God
does not approve of the use of such methods. "Even for the righteous it is
not good to punish'' his opponents - this, at least, is the lesson we are
explicitly told to derive from the unfortunate incident, just as the story
about R. Meir teaches that it is sins, and not sinners, which should be
annihilated. Given that in other rabbinic stories sages curse their opponents
without any qualms being expressed by the narrators, it would seem as if
R. Yoshua ben Levi was considered to have gone a bit too far.33
A second point that is unique about this story is that unlike the stories
about R. Yoshua ben Hanania, which depict a competition between two
powerful magicians, in this story it is the Jewish rabbi, and the rabbi alone,
who resorts to magical procedures, and he performs them in the secrecy of
his own home, unbeknownst to his opponent. It could even be argued that
from reading the sugiya as a whole, R. Yoshua ben Levi might emerge as a
distant follower of (of all people!) Balaam the wicked, which would be
quite an inversion of standard Talmudic p r a ~ t i c e . Unlike
~
Balaam,
however, who knew offhand the precise moment of God's daily bouts of
numinous rage (itself an interesting theological concept, but one which
will not detain us here), R. Yoshua ben Levi needs quite an elaborate
praxis to detect it. I must admit that I am still baffled by the ritual
described here, for while the uses of white cocks for magical purposes,
including curses, are well-attested,35 it seems that here the cock was not
destined to be ritually slaughtered for the Sun-god or some other deity.36
32 The closest parallel might be EcclR 1.8 (p87 HIKSHMAN),
Where R. Yehuda bar
Nakosa defeats his min opponent but apparently sees it as a Pyrrhic victory.
33 For rabbis cursing and harming people, see, e.g., bBer 56a (Rava curses a dreaminterpreter); bMeg 5b (Rav cursed a man who sowed on Purim); bBB 22a (Rav Yosef
admits that he had cursed R. Adda). And cf the recurrent phrase, "The curse of a sage,
even when unmerited, is fulfilled" (bBer 56a; bSan 90b; bMak 1 la).
34 For B a l m ' s image in rabbinic literature, see BASKIN1983:75-93. For its possible
use in the rabbis' anti-Christian polemics, see HERFORD1903: 63-78; URBACH 1956.
35 See, e.g., P R E I S ~ A11.73;
N Z 111.693-701; IV.35-58 etc. And cf mAZ 1.5 with
MARGALIOTH
1966: 12, 34, 75. For a white cock used in a cursing ritual, see also the
1999.
intri uing bowl published by LEVENE
3' And note that the cock's solar connections were not lost on whoever added R.

Magical meansfor handling minim

275

Rather, it seems as if the cock was used by Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi solely
as an indicator of the precise moment of God's wrath. And while the use of
cocks for divination also is well-attested:7 I know of no close parallel to
the kind of praxis suggested here, and am not even convinced that the
praxis itself makes sense (is a cock's comb ever entirely white?). It must
be noted, however, that this intriguing talmudic story - which flies in the
face of the rabbis' own prohibitions of various techniques of birddivination as 'Ways of the A m o r i t e ~' ~clearly
~
exercised the imagination
of later Jewish magicians and pietists.39 This issue, however, exceeds the
scope of the present paper.
As for the identity of the min whom R.Yoshua ben Levi tried to annihilate, nothing is known about his religious or social proclivities, although
he is described as someone who used to "annoy [Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi]
with biblical verses.'*O Elsewhere in rabbinic literature, we hear of several
unfriendly encounters between R. Yoshua ben Levi and minim whose allegiance to Jesus is explicitly mentioned, but this does not tell us much about
our specific case.41 Nor are we aided by the fact that Lydda, where R.
Yoshua ben Levi is elsewhere in rabbinic literature said to have lived, is
shown both by the literary and by the archeological evidence to have been
a mostly-Jewish city at the time, but with a strong Christian and 'pagan'
presence?= Our min's identity remains quite elusive.
Both the story of R. Meir and that of R. Yoshua ben Levi depict famous
rabbis who, apparently unable to refute all the arguments adduced by
certain Bible-quoting heretics, and unable, in the mixed cities of Roman
Palestine, to avoid meeting such heretics, were tempted to resort to other
m e a n ~ . ~ ~ S cases
u c h may have been quite common in late-antique Palestine,
Meir's note right after the Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi story.
37 For different types of alectryomancy, see BOUC&-LECLERCQ
1879: 144-145;
STEMPLINGER
1922: 56; HONEMORDER1998. 1 have not had access to LORENTZ
1904.
See also SCHAFER1981: 7 13.
38 For the rabbinic prohibitions of ornithomantic practices, see, e.g., tShab 6.5 @23
LIEBERMAN),
with LIEBERMAN'S
commentary ad loc. 085).
39 For possible echoes of this rabbinic tradition in the Cairo Genizah magical texts,
see S~HAFER-SHAKED
TI, 37 lb/l-4. For its reverberations in Ashkenazi pietist circles,
see the sources adduced, and misinterpreted, by TRACHTENBERG
1939: 21 1-212 and 306,
n6.
40 But cf above 1127.
See yAZ 2.2 (40d) = yShab 14.4 (14d), where a min (presumably Jewish by origin,
and hence acceptable to Jewish patients?), heals R. Yoshua ben Levi's grandson in the
name of Jesus, a fact which the rabbi finds exceptionally infuriating.
42 See SIMON1986: 185, 197-198; SCHWARTZ 1991: 87, 106; ROSENFELD 1997:
174-183.
43 The close connection between the too stories was not lost on the editor of Midrash
ha-Gadol, who combined both in his exegesis of Num 23:8 (pp. 3 14-3 15 U B ~ O W I T Z ) .

Bohak

and the cursing of minim probably was not limited to Birkat ha-Minim and
similar synagogue rituals, which were too general and too public to aid in
the fight against one specific min. And yet, the narrators of both stories
take great pains to discourage members of the rabbinic class from taking
the road of individual curses and elaborate cursing rituals against their min
opponents. In fact, it might even be claimed that it was precisely in order
to stem the rise of anti-min magical initiatives that such stories were told
and retold.

Conclusion
To end my paper, let me briefly summarize what we have seen. First, we
saw several rabbinic stories about encounters between rabbis and minim
during which one side or both had recourse to magical praxis in order to
harm the other side. Such stories clearly reflect the inter-communal
tensions of late-antique Palestine, at a time when rabbinic Jews and minim
often lived side by side but the kingdom itself had not yet 'turned into
minut,'so that the Jewish sages were not yet playing in a field that was
inherently biased against them. Second, we saw that in spite of the
triumphant tone of most rabbinic stories about the challenges posed to the
rabbis by the minim, rabbinic narrators sometimes admit, albeit implicitly,
that in the intellectual encounter between rabbis and their opponents the
rabbis did not always get the upper hand. In light of these difficulties, it is
quite understandable that some rabbis would want to resort to nonintellectual means, including the employment of aggressive magical
techniques, to defeat a stubborn opponent. Presumably, such events were
not that rare in late-antique Palestine, and the religious disputes between
and within the Jewish, Christian and Jewish-Christian communities
resulted not only in magic accusations hurled by each group at its rivals,
but also in the actual use of magical techniques to get an edge over
persistent opponents. And yet, the story about R. Meir, and especially the
story about R. Yoshua ben Levi, convey the message that the use of
magical means is no solution, and that "Even a righteous man may not
punish."Punishing a magician of the type encountered by R. Yoshua ben
Hanania was acceptable and even desirable, but cursing every min in town
just because his exegetical acuity was too annoying to face certainly was
not an option.

Magical meansfor handling minim

Bibliography
Abramson, Sh., Tractate 'Abodah Zorah of the Uabylonian Talmud: Ms. Jewish
TheologicalSeminary of America, JTS, New York 1957 (Hebr.)
Alon, G., The Jews in their L a d in the Talmudic Age (75-640 C.E.), (1952) tr. and ed.
by G. Levi, 2 vols., Magnes, Jerusalem 1980-1984 (repr. Harvard UP, Cambridge
Mass., 1989)
Aune, D.E., 'Magic in Early Christianity', ANRW 11.23.2 (1980), 1507-1 557
Bacher, W., Die Agada der paldlrtinensischen Amorder, 3 vols., Strasburg 1892-1 899,
repr. O h s , Hildesheim 1965
- 'Le mot "Minim" dans le Talmud', REJ 38 (1899), 38- 45
Baskin, J.R., Pharaoh's Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic
liadition, (Brown Judaic Studies 47) Scholars Press, Chico CA 1983
Bonner, C., 'Demons of the Bath', in Studies Presented to F. LI. Gripth, Egypt
Exploration Society, London 1932,203-208
Bouchd-Leclercq, A., Histoire de la divination dans I'Antiquitd, vol. I, Paris 1879, repr.
Culture et Civilisation, Brussels 1963

Brown, P., 'Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity From Late Antiquity into the
Middle Ages', in M. Douglas (ed.), Witchcraji Confessions and Accusations,
Tavistock Publications, London 1970, 17--45,repr. in P. Brown, Religion and Society
in the Age ofsaint Augustine, London 1972, 1 19- 146
Bllchler, A. 'The Minim of Sepphoris and Tiberias in the Second and Third Centuries', in
I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz (eds.), Studies in Jewish History: The Adolf Uilchler
Memorial Volume,Oxford UP, London 1956,245-274
Carleton Paget, J., 'Jewish Christianity', in W. Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy
(eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 3 (The Early Roman Period), UP,
Cambridge 1999,731-775
Dunbabin, K.M.D. 'Baiarum grata voluptas: Pleasures and Dangers of the Baths', Papers
of the British School at Rome 57 (1989), 6-46
Fodor, A., 'The Rod of Moses in Arabic Magic', Acta Orientalia Acodemioe Scientarum
Hungaricae 32 (1978), 1-2 1
Goodman, M., 'The Function of Minim in Early Rabbinic Judaism', in H. Cancik, &I.
Lichtenberger and P.Schtlfer (eds.), Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion: Festschrifi
fiir Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, 3 vols., Mohr Siebeck, Tllbingen 1996, vol. 1,
501-510
Herford, R.T., Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, Williams and Norgate, London 1903
HllnemZlrder, Ch., 'Huhn (Hahn)", in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.), Der Neue Pauly,
vol. 5, Metzler, Stuttgart 1998,749-75 1
Jacobs, M., 'RUmische Thermenkultur im Spiegel des Talmud Yerushalmi', in P. SchBfer
(ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1, (TSAJ 71) Mohr
Seibeck, TUbingen 1998,2 19-3 11

278

Bohak

Kalmin, R., 'Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature of Late Antiquity', HTR 87
(1994),155-169
- The Sage in Jewish Society o f l a t e Antiquity, Routledge, 1,ondon 1998
Kimelman, R., 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish
Prayer in Late Antiquity', in E.P. Sanders, A.1. Baumgarten and A. Mendelson (eds.),
Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2 (Aspects of Judaism in the CiraecoRoman Period), Fortress, Philadelphia 1981,226-244,39 1-403
Krauss, S., Das Leben Jesu nachjudischen Quellen, S. Calvary, Berlin 1 902
Levene, D., '"...and by the name of Jesus...": An Unpublished Magic Bowl in Jewish
Aramaic', JSQ 6 (1999) 283-308
Lorentz, B., Kulturgeschichtliche Beitruge zur Tierkunde cles Alterturns. Die Ndhner
Y e e l , (Jb. Kgl. Gymn. Wurzen), 1904
,
Buchges.,
Maier, J., Jesus von Naareth in der talmudischen t i b e r l i e f e r ~ n ~Wiss.
Darmstadt 1978

Margalioth, M., Sepher Ha-Razim: A Newly Recovered Book of Magic from the Talmudic
Period, Yediot Achronot, Tel Aviv 1966 (Hebr.)
Miller, S.S., 'The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered', HTR 86 (1993), 377-402
Naveh, J., and Shaked, S., Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incuntution.~ofLute Antiquity, Magnes, Jerusalem 1985
Phillips, C.R., 'The Sociology of Religious Knowledge in the Roman Empire to A.D.
284', A N R W 11.16.3 (1986), 2677-2773

Preisendanz, K., Papyri Graecae Magicue. 2 vols.. Teubner, Leipzig 1928-3 1, rev. ed.
by A. Heinrichs, Teubner, Stungart 1973--74
Rosenfeld, B.-Z., Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: His L$e and Iiis Public /fctivib, unpubl. Ph.D.
diss. Bar-[Ian U, Ramat-Gan 1982 (Hebr.)
Lad and Its Sages in the Period of the Mshnah and the Talmud, Ben-Zvi, Jerusatcm
1997 (Hebr.)

Schtifer, P., Synopse zur Hekhalof-Lireratur, (TSAJ 2 ) , Mohr Siebeck, TUbingen 198 1
Schtifer, P., and Shaked, S., Magische Texre aus der Kairoer Geniza, (TSAJ 42, 64, 72)
vol. 1-3, Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen 1994, 1997, 1999
Schwartz, J., Lod (Lyddu), Israel: From Its Origins through the Byzantine Perlad. BAR,
Oxford 1991
Segal, A.F., 'Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definitions', in R. van den Broek &
M.J. Vermaseren (eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, [EPRO 9 I],
Leiden, Brill, 1981, 349-375 (repr. in Segal, A.F., The Other Judaisms of /,ate
Antiquity, [Brown Judaic Studies 1271 Scholars Press, Atlanta 1987, 79- 108)
Simon, M., Verus Israel: A Study of the Relations Behveen Christians und Jews in rhr
Roman Empire (135 -425), (Piiris 1964) ET by H. McKeating, UP, Oxford 1986
Smith, M., Jesus the Magician, Harper 62 Row, New York 1978
Stemplinger, E., Anriker Aberglaube in modernen Auvstrahlungen, Leipzig, Dieterich,
1922

Magical means for handling minim

279

Trachtenberg, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Stu@ in Folk Religion, Behrman's
Jewish Book House, New York 1939 (repr. Atheneum, New York 1977)
Urbach, E.E., The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, (tr. by Israel Abraham), Magnes,
Jerusalem 1969,2nd. ed. 1975
- 'Homilies of the Rabbis on the Prophets of the Nations and the Balaam Stories in
Light of the Jewish-Christian Debate', Tarbiz 25 (1956) 272-289 (Hebr.)
Veltri, G., Magie und Halakha, (TSAJ 62) Mohr Siebeck, Ttibingen 1997

Yassif, E., The Hebrew Folktale, Bialik, Jerusalem 1994 (Hebr.)

The depiction of Judaeo-Christians in the Toledot Yeshu

William Norbury

Toledot Yeshu
The Toledot Yeshu circulated from early in the mediaeval period in Aramaic
and other Jewish vernaculars, and in Hebrew. The relatively elaborate title
Sefer Toledor Yeshu hints at Gen 5:1, D7K n1751n 19D, "'the book of the
generations of Adam"", and at the first words of Mt 1 :1, which were quoted by
I
title is found
mediaeval Jews in the Hebrew rendering IWV nit[.nn 1 ~ w . 'This
in mediaeval and later copies in Hebrew, and also in Yiddish copies.* It
became the standard description of the work, for the text was mentioned
under this name by the fathers of Christian Hebrew study in Germany, notably
Johann Reuchlin and Sebastian Milnster, and the first copy to be edited in
Hebrew with a Latin translation (by J.C. Wagenseil, in 1681) bore this title.3
In the manuscript tradition, however, an at least equally widespread title,
found especially in oriental and Italian copies, is the simpler IWV ;IwYn,
"Story of Jesus".
These texts give a connected account of the rise of Christianity in a
legendary style and in widely varying forms. They resemble the apocryphal
gospels and acts of the apostles handed down in Christian tradition, but their
standpoint is of course that of non-Christian Judaism. They are distinct from
the scattered passages on Christ and Christianity in the Talmud and midmsh,
although sometimes these have influenced the textual tradition of the 'Toledot
Yeshu.
%he rise of Christianity is presented in the Toledot Yeshu as a movement

' For a twelfthcentury instance see Judah ROSEN r11.41, (d.),

Jacob ben Rtuhen, Mtlha-

mot ha-Shem, Jerusalem 1 %3,14 1 .

A dated Hebrew example is found in the Bodleian MS. Opp. 749, copied in Prague,
1630 from an exemplar of 1615; see M. BEIT-ARIE, ed. R.A. M A Y , Catuko,que r,f Hebrew
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Supplement of Addenda and Corrtgendu lo 1'01 I (A
Neubauerk Catalogue), Oxford 1994, p406 no. 2172; for other copies with this title, inclu-

ding the Bodleian Yiddish text Rawlinson Or. 37, see E. BISCII-IOFE in S. KRAUSS, Das
Leben J m nachjudischen Quellen, Berlin 1902, repr. Hildesheim 1977, 27 30.
J. REUCHI.M, Augempregel, TLlbingen 15 1 1, 'Ratschlag', ,la: Tolduth [sic] Jeschu hu
notri; on Mllnster, J. BUXTORF senior, and WAGENSEl1,'s text see KRAIJSS, Dar Leben
Jesu, 8, 16; BISC11OFF in KRAUSS, ihrd., 27f.

Judaed'hristians in the Toledot Yeshu

28 1

within the Jewish community, and sometimes it has been suggested, perhaps
most notably by H.J. Schonfield, that these texts may reflect or rebut traditions current among Judaeo-Christians.4 In what follows the presentation of
the first Christian Jews in the Toledot Yeshu is considered as a non-Christian
depiction to be set beside that attested in Talmudic material, and with reference to its possible links with Christian tradition. In this connection the suggestion of a link with tradition which was current among Judaeo-Christians in
particular is kept in view. Such Christians are understood here as those who
followed Jewish customs which were not widely observed by Christians;
Judaeo-Christians would then include, but would not be restricted to, the
Ebionites mentioned by Irenaeus and others."

Images of the followers of Jesus

Among the earliest extant copies of the Toledot Yeshu are fragmentary Cairo
Geniza Aramaic manuscripts of about the eleventh century. The form of the
narrative in these Aramaic texts can be compared with the extended indirect
attestation of the Toledot Yeshu in the Latin writings of A g o b d and Amulo,
who were successive archbishops of Lyons in the early ninth century; treatises
of the years 826-7 (Agobard) and 846 (Amulo), respectively, witness to
names and scenes also attested in Aramaic Geniza copies.6 In fourteenthcentury Spain the converso Alphonws of Valladolid, known as Abner of
Burgos before his baptism, gave the title and summary of one version of the
story current in Aramaic, corresponding to that found in surviving Aramaic
texts, and another in Hebrew, corresponding to that found in many extant
Hebrew texts.7 The earliest clear attestations of the latter form are From the
thirteenth century, but internal evidence suggests that it is considerably older.
In the Hebrew texts as they are now known, additions following the main
narrative include substantial reference to the legend of the Invention of the
Cross and to the heresy of Nestorius, but do not mention the capture of the
cross by the Persians in 614, or the rise of Islam. The city of Tiberias is
important in both Aramaic and Hebrew Toledot Yeshu.8 These indications
H.J. SCHONFIELU, Accordimg to the Hebrews, London 1937.

A broad working definition on these lines is suggested by J. CARLtTON PAGET,

'Jewish Christianity', in W. HOKBUKY, W.D. DAVIES & J. STUKDY (eds.), The Cambridge
History of Judaism, vol. 3, Cambridge 1999,73 1-75 (739-42).
The texts are summarized and discussed by R. BUJMENKRANZ, Les auteurs chrktiem
latins du moyen dge sur lesju* el iejudabme, Paris 1963, 163--7,195-200.
For the relevant passage, as quoted by Shem Tob ibn Shapmt in an answer to Alphonsus's Christian apologetic, see KRAUSS, D m Leben Jesu, 146-9.
A link with the long-standing association with Galilee of traditions concerning Joshua
son of Nun as well as Jesus of Nazareth, rather than the late-Roman and Byzantine impor-

suggest that forms of the work approximating to the best-known mediaeval

Aramaic and Hebrew texts had probably taken shape in Ryzmtine Palestine
and Syria, between the fourth and the seventh centuries. At a still earlier
period, the account characteristic of the Toledot Yeshu ha5 substantial antecedents in the narrative of Christian origins attributed to a Jew by the late
second-century pagan Celsus, in his Greek attack on Christianity which
survives through quotations by Origen.
The presentation of the Christians in the Toledot Yeshu naturally varies
somewhat in the different text-forms, but in general it is hostile. The assumption is that Christianity arises in the Jewish community, and that Christ and
his followers are inimical to the main body of Jews. In the Toledot Yeshu it is
the Wise (D'nX) who take the l a d , with their colleague Judas (who feigns
allegiance to Christ) as their loyal agent, in the condemnation and execution
of Christ and his main associates; the same Jewish authorities, again acting
through a loyal agent who feigns Christianity, bring about the subsequent
separation of Christ's followers from the Jewish community - a separation
which is hailed as a happy deliverance for the Jews. 'Ihe primacy of the
Jewish community in the Toledot Yeshu recalls the fizlgmentary Talmudic
narratives of Christ and his teachers and disciples, wherein the teaching and
execution of Christ are comparably treated in a Jewish context.
The presentation of the followers of Christ in the 'roledot Yeshu may be
exemplified first from a Cieniza Aramaic text, which deals with events from
the time of the work of Yeshu down to the display of his body in confutation
of the claims of his followers that he had risen. This scene is important in all
types of Toledot Yeshu, but many texts continue the story after this point to
describe the separation of the Christians from the Jews. In the relatively short
Aramaic text under review, mainly published by Louis Gimkrg, the disciples
of Jesus are "his disciples whom he had deceived"' - but despite this possible
mitigation, they are shown in a bad light.9 I h e leading tive among them,
together with Jesus and John the Baptist, "caused the whole world to err''. In
this version of the Toledot these five are identified with the five disciples
whose execution is described in the Babylonian Talmud. 'fhe relevant passage
tance of Tiberias as a Jewish city. is suggested by E. REWER, 'From Joshua to Jesus: the
Transformation of a Biblical Story to a Local Myth. A Chapter in the Religious Life of the
Galilean Jew', in A. KOFSKY & G.G. STROLIMSA (eds.), Shuring the Sacred: Religiom
Contacts and Conflicts in the tfo'oly Land, Jerusalem 1998, 223-7 1 (256). The associations
indicated by Reiner can perhaps best be understood as influencing the Taledot Yeshu in
conjunction with the historical impartance of Tiberias as a centre of Jewish population.
Cambridge University Library, MS. T . 4 . Misc. 35.87 (formerly T.-S. Laan 87), edited
with introduction, commentary and a shorter parallel text by L. GINZHERG, 'Ma'aseh Yeshu',
in L. GMZBERO, Gime Schechter, vol. I, New York 1928, 324-38; for additional text and
some revised readings see the present writer, 'The Trial of Jesus in Jewish 'Tradition', in E.
BAh4MEL (4.
The
).
Triul of Jesus, London 1970, 103-12 1 (1 1 6 - 1 2 1).

Judueo-Chrisriuns in the Toledot Yeshu

283

tiom Sanhedrin 43a is incorporated into the Toledot Yeshu narrative (without
any express reference to the Talmud), and it then appears that these five principal followers are put to death before Jesus and his teacher John the Baptist,
both of whom are charged with sorcery. This form of the text has been influenced, perhaps towards the end of the seventh century or later, by the
haggadah incorporated in the Babylonian Talmud; but it touches old themes
in its representation of the disciples (as well as Yeshu) as deceivers (Mt
27:64; Jn 7: 12,47) and its assumption that the Baptist and Christ were executed together (Celsus in Origen, Cels. 1.4 1).
In the longer Hebrew forms of the text the presentation of the followers as
deceivers tainted by sorcery is amplified by invective implying more general
evildoing and violence.'"eshu
himself boldly steals the secret Name of God
from the temple, and works his seeming miracles by its power. Particularly
influential is the regular designation of his disciples as DVY779, "violent ones"
or "robbers", from the prophecy of Dan 1 1:14 "the children of robbers from
thy people (7nY 7~7797111)shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but
they shall fall". This text was applied to Christians by Jewish authors from
Saadia in the tenth century onwards. In the elaborate Hebrew Toledot Yeshu
edited by J.J. Huldreich in 1705 Yeshu kills his faiher, Israel withdraw from
association with him, and he is joined by men of naught and men of violence
(DVY?9), including finally a bandit chief.
Here again there is development of an old theme. In the synoptic tradition
Christ called sinners (Mk 2:17 and parallels). In the Epistle of Bamabas the
disciples are "lawless beyond all sin" (5.9), and within the Christian tradition
this text impressed Origen as a possible source of Celsus's denigration of the
disciples (Origen, Cels. 1.62-63), and was used by Jerome against Pelagius
(Jerome, Adv. Pelag. 3.2). The theme was taken up again in elaborations of
the penitent thief, Demas, as a successful bandit. In the apocryphal Greek
Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea, which is intended to encourage Jews to
believe in the miracles of Christ and forms a reply to the Toledot Yeshu, the
misdeeds of Demas (including theft of the mystic deposit of Solomon from
the holy place) are said to have been maliciously debited to Christ."
In ancient anti-Christian polemic the most striking treatment of this theme
is the allegation recorded by Lactantius (Div. inst. 5.3.4) that '"Christ, ...driven
out by the Jews, gathered a band of nine hundred men and committed acts of
lo

Examples of these longer Hebrew forms are printed and translated by KRAUSS, Dm

k b c m Jesu.

C. von TISCNENDORF, Evangeliu Apoctypha, 2nd ed Leipzig 1876, 460-1 (Demas's

misdeeds, and the plot to charge Christ with them), 470 (Joseph writes so that all may believe
in the crucified, no longer serving the law but believing in Christ's signs and wonders). The
importance of this text for the Toledot Yeshu was brought out by Schonfield, According to
the Hebrews, 95-7.

brigandage" (Chrisfurn...a ludaeis jkgatum collecra nongenforzm haminum

munu latrocinia ficisse). This probably, like broadly comparable passages in
Celsus on the disciples as beggars, reflects an early Jewish narrative which
formed an a n t d e n t of the Toledot Yeshu.12
Lastly, of special note in the present connection is the famous Toledot
Yeshu narrative of events after the display of Yeshu's body.13 The followers
of Yeshu cause disturbance and bloodshed in the Jewish community. In order
to bring this to an end, the Wise ( D v n x ) depute one of their number to pose
as an apostle of Yeshu and to separate his followers fiom the Jews. In one
widespread form he is called EIijah and is from the Beth Din of Tiberias. In
the guise of an apostle he lays down ordinances for separate Christian
festivals, prayers and customs, and for peace with the Jews. The Christians in
the simplicity of their hearts obey his commands and revere him under the
name of Paul, but in fact he remains a pious non-Christian Jew. Other
versions of the story vary it or add to it so as to include the names of Peter and
John.
Illis narrative exemplifies a widespread class of legend, found far beyond
the sphere of the Toledot Yeshu, which displays (to quote Wellhausen on the
story of Jacob) "undissembled joy in all the successful artifices and tricks" of
a folk hero.14 With aims closer to the explanatory enterprise of the Toledot
Yeshu, similar and possibly connected legends are told about the foundation
of Samaritanism and Islam by faithful Jews in disguise.
The Toledot Yeshu m t i v e of Christian origins is evidently also related,
however, to Christian narratives. The disturbance and bloodshed c a d by
the followers of Christ recalls early Christian presentation of Jewish charges
against the Christians, in which Paul is a pestilent faction-leader (Acts 24:s)
and the disciples are evil-doen who want to set the temple on fire (Gospel of
Peter 7:26). The ordinances of the supposed apostle recall the Christian tradition of apostolic ordinances prescribing avoidance of Jewish customs, a tradition represented for example in the sixth book of the Apostolic Constitutions
and in a number of the Apostolic Canons. The fact that it is a false apostle
who gives these new ordinances in the Toledot Yeshu has especially
suggested some link with the particular viewpoint of Judaeo-Christians, such
l 2 See the present writer, 'Christ as B r i p d in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic', in in.
BAMMEI. - C.F.D. MOULE (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of lfis Day,Cambridge 1982, 183-

95.
I 3 On this narrative see S.M.STERN, 'Abd Al-Jabbar's Account of how Christ's Religion
was Falsified by the Adoption of Roman Customs', JTS ns 19 ( 1 %8) 12-5 (1 76-43); R. Di
SEGNI, If Vffngelodel Ghetto, Rome 1985, 203- 15, with hvther literatwe discussed by H.I.
NEWMAN, 'The Death of Jesus in the Toledo1 Yeshu Literature', SIS ns 50 (1 999) 59- 79 (60
n7).
l 4 J. WELLWUSEN, Prolegonterm z
w Geschichte Israels, 6th ed Berlin 1905, 318; ET
Edinburgh 1885,32 1.

Judaea-Christiam in the Toledot Yeshu

285

as the Ebionites who called Paul an apostate from the law, according to
Irenaeus (Waer. 1.26.2) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.27.4). Yet just here there is
also a link with more widespread Christian development of the legendary
theme just noted.
The daring deception practised by the Jewish teacher for the sake of his
people in the Toledot Yeshu recalls legendary Christian tradition of bold
pious b u d in the apostolic preaching. A famous example from the Clementine romance, in a portion of the text which can reasonably be held to reflect
Judaeo-Christianity at the beginning of the third century, is the depiction in
Rec. 1.27-71 (65-8) of Garnaliel as deliberately concealing his Christianity
for the benefit of the Christians.ls Especially notable, however, in comparison
with the Elijah legend of the Toledot Yeshu, are two Antioch-centred
accounts of Peter and Paul. In another part of the Clementine romance Peter
causes Clement" father Faustus or Faustinianus, whom Simon Magus has
turned into his own likeness, to impersonate Simon, now in the Christian
interest; here a narrative current by the fourth century is incorporated into the
story of Peter's apostolic journey from Caesarea Stratonis to Antioch.16
Again, in a narrative current in Syria at the end of the fifth century, Paul
collaborates with Peter in Antioch by playing the part of a pagan who
performs miracles - ostensibly as a pagan, secretly by the name of Jesus - but
is eventually converted when Peter outdoes him.'? The famous opinion that
Paul's rebuke of Peter at Antioch as described in Galatians was feigned and
prearranged, a view presented in the fourth century by Chrysostom in Antioch
and advocated by Jerome, who cites earlier sponsors of it, fits well into the
tendency of thought seen in apocryphal narrative.18
The account of the separation of Christians from Jews in the Toiedot
Yeshu can then be connected with widespread Christian legend which was
current and still developing in the fourth century. The Toledot Yeshu may
indeed have some contact with narratives known to Judaeo-Christians, but
this contact seems likely to have been mediated through versions which, like
the Clementine romance in its surviving forms, circulated in the church more
generally .

I5

For a sketch of debate on this section see CARLETON PAGET, 'Jewish Christianity',

762f.

Horn. 20.1 1-23, Rec. 10.52-72; on these passages as not sharing the anti-Pauline
polemic discerned in Rec. 1.27 71 and elsewhere in the Clementine romance see H.-J.
SCHOEPS, Theoiogie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tubingen 1949, 13 1 f, n3.
Jacob of Sent& discussed by W. BAUER, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Eculi~stChris~ianiry, 2nd ed w. supplements by G. SWCKER (Tubingen 1964), ET Idndon 1972,37.
l a Chrysostom, Homily on In faciem ei restiti [Gal. 2:11] 16-20; Jerome, Epist. 112.4,
discussed with other sources by J.B. LIGHTFOOT, The Episrle to the Galatians, London
1896, 128-32.

Reflections of Jewish-Christian relations

The presentation of the Christians has been considered, as envisaged at the
beginning, with reference to links between the Toledot Yeshu and Christian
tradition, including the possibility of links with Judaeo-Christian tradition in
particular. There is indeed ample indication that, as Krauss, Schonfield and
others have shown, the Toledot Yeshu are intertwined with Christian tradition, sometimes inspired by it, and sometimes reflected in it. There is also
much to suggest that the Toledot Yeshu preserve early Jewish polemical
tradition on Christianity, often post-Constantinian but developing material
already known in connected forms in the second century. Sometimes, as with
regard to the portrait of Gamaliel in the Ciementine Recognitions, there arc
touches recalling narratives which were probably current both among JudaeoChristians and more widely; but it seems less clear that there is a special link
with narratives peculiar to Judaoo-Christians. More obvious is the deposit of
continuing contact and exchange between Jews and Christians in general,
probably above all in Palestine and Syria.
This presentation of the first Christians has emerged as stylized by hostility. They are the dregs of the Jewish community, well symboli7ad by the
Dmielic phrase "the children of robbers among thy people". There is some
contrast here with material on Christianity preserved in the rabbinic tradition,
which can offer on occasion a less stylized description, for instance in the
account of a Christian whose words, in a conversation in Sepphoris, are said
to have been esteemed by Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (ttiul2.24). The presentation in
the Toledot Yeshu has far less immediacy than this passage, but it reflects a
viewpoint a l d y met in Celsus's source in the second century, and it has
considerable significance for any reconstruction of the varying attitudes taken
in the course of Jewish-Christian relations in the Roman empire.

Modern Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

Modern Missions to the Jews

Although there were numerous Jewish converts to Christianity through the
centuries, few attempts were made to spread the Gospel among the Jewish
people. In 1809, however, the London Society for Promoting Christianity
Amongst the Jews (LSPCJ) was established, and a number of Christians
were actively involved in missionary activity. In 1813 the Children of
Abraham was created under the auspices of the LSPCJ. Simultaneously, in
the second decade of the nineteenth century the first translation of the New
Testament was made in Hebrew.
In the quest to bring Jewish believers to Christ, England played a pivotal role. On 9 September 1813 a group of 4 1 Jewish Christians established
the Beni Abraham association at Jews Chapel. These Jewish Christians met
in prayer every Sunday morning and Friday evening. In addition, they
daily visited any sick member to pray and read the Bible to him. In 1835
this group became known as the Episcopal Jews'Chapel Abrahamic Society; its aim was to visit Jewish converts and inquirers. The Hebrew Christian Prayer Union, founded in 1882 by Dr. H.A. Stern, also sought to unite
Jewish Christians in spiritual fellowship. Every Sunday prayer was offered
privately by each member, and there were general worship meetings as
well. From 1883 to 1890 its membership increased from 143 to 600. In
addition, branches were established in Germany, Norway, Romania, Russia, Palestine and the United States.
In 1865 an attempt was made by Dr. C. Schwartz, minister of Trinity
Chapel, Edgware Road, London to unite all Jewish Christians with the
creation of the Hebrew-Christian Alliance. In the following year he launched the first Jewish Christian journal, The Scattered Nation. Later in the
year, a circular letter was sent to all Jewish Christians, announcing that a
meeting of all Jewish Christians was scheduled for May. Eighty Jewish
Christians met together at the Conference, convinced that this was the first
gathering of converted Jews to be held since the days of the early Church.
The next year a public meeting was held at Willis' Rooms, King Street, St
James, under the presidency of Dr. Schwartz. At this gathering it was

288

Cohn-Sherbok

resolved that although the members of the Alliance belonged to different

Churches, they were united in Christ.
Alongside the developments that were taking place in Great Britain,
Christian missionaries were also active in Europe. In 1882 the first Jewish
Christian mission was established by Joseph Rabinowitz. Returning to
Kishinev after a visit to the Holy Idand, he gathered together numerous
adherents of his doctrines. This new group, calling itself 'Israelites of the
New Covenant', was set forth in twelve articles modelled on Maimonides'
Principles of the Jewish Faith. Rabinowitzk endorsement of a Jewish lifestyle combined with an acceptance of Jesus'messiahship was shared by
another Jewish Christian, I. Lichtenstein, a Hungarian rabbi.
In opposition to Rabinowitz and Lichtenstein, some Gentile Christians
maintained that these Jewish followers of Christ had distorted Jesusmessage. Anxious that these believers might form their own Hebrew Christian
organization, they sought to persuade Jewish Christians to remain within
the Church. At meetings this potential schism was frequently discussed.
Such figures as Mark John Levy pressed for the Church to allow its members to embrace Jewish customs. Arguing along similar lines, Philip Cohen
in South Africa, Theodore Lucky in Galicia, and Paulus Grun in Hamburg
argued that there should be a separate alliance of Jews who had accepted
Christ.

Hebrew Christianity
Anxious to ensure that the Jewish Christians in the United States acknowledge the importance of Jewish customs, Mark Levy convened a group of
believers in Boston on 22 May 1901. This gathering - the Boston Conference of the Messianic Council - agreed that a national conference take
place to organize the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America. Under the
leadership of Arthur Kuldell and Louis Meyer, a circular was sent out in
November 1902 to all Messianic Jews living in the llnited States; after
receiving 437 replies, the committee began to formulate plans for such a
gathering to take place at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland.
It was not until 1913 that further steps were taken to create this body of
Jewish Christians. One of those who attended the Mountain Lake Conference in 1903 was Maurice Ruben; in 1913 he convened a conference of
Hebrew Christians in Pittsburgh to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary
of the New Covenant Mission. Those who attended this gathering agreed
that the Hebrew Christian Alliance should be formally established. From 6
to 9 April 1915 delegates met at the Assembly Hall of the United Charities
Building in New York to ratify a constitution for the Hebrew Christian
Alliance of America.

Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism

289

The creation of the Hebrew Christian Alliance provided a framework

for Jewish believers to unite together. Yet, despite such an enthusiastic
beginning, the HCAA was subject to repeated attack from Jewish leaders
as well as from the established Church. The creation of an organization of
Jewish believers conflicted with the beliefs of those Christians who
maintained that the Christian community was the true Israel. In their view,
no distinction should be made between Jew and Gentile in the body of
Christ. According to these critics, the efforts of Jewish believers to establish their own body, undermined the foundations of Christian belief in
Christ. It was the Church, not the synagogue, which had received God's
blessings. In response to such criticisms, the HCAA stressed the need for
Jewish believers to unite together in service to Yeshua. In a statement
published in the Organ of the New York Evangelization Society in 1920 a
committee of the Alliance asserted that the HCAA is nether a church nor a
denomination. There was no intention of the part of Jewish believers to
rebel against the Church. Rather, the aim of the Alliance was to evangelize
the Jewish nation.
While the Hebrew Christian Alliance underwent considerable growth in
the United States, the mission to the Jews continued apace. By 1927 there
were over 10 missionaries, and missionary bodies were established in England, Scotland and Ireland with sizeable Jewish populations. These British
societies, however, did not confine their efforts to the United Kingdom; on
the continent there were missionary groups in France, Germany, Poland,
Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary; similar missions were also established in the Middle East and Asia. However, following the Holocaust,
missions to the Jewish people ceased to function in those cities where the
Jewish population had been largely eliminated.
Alongside the developments that were taking place within the HCAA,
Hebrew Christian congregations were actively engaged in evangelistic
activities. By 1955 there were Hebrew Christian churches in seven North
American cities as well as London. These congregations engaged in outreach programmes and also served as centres for Jewish believers who
wished to express their Jewish identity. In some cases, they provided
second and third generation Jewish believers with a sense of continuity.
Within these Hebrew Christian churches, the background of Jewish believers was accepted. Yet there was little attempt to encourage loyalty to the
Jewish tradition. Many of these Jewish Christians married Gentile Christians, and their children generally lost any connection with Judaism.
Among those who married other Jewish believers, their children frequently
retained some connection with their Jewish background, but such sensitivities gradually faded with the next generation.

290

Cohn-Sherbok

Even though those who belonged to Hebrew Christian churches were

largely accepted by the Christian community, Jewish believers faced extraordinary hostility From Jewry. Regarded as apostates, these individuals
were perceived as traitors to the faith. In general it was felt that these
converts to Christianity had forfeited any connection with Judaism and had
ceased to be Jews even though rabbinic Judaism declares that a person is
Jewish regardless of any act of apostasy. Pressure was also applied from
the Christian community on these converts to the faith to desist from
retaining a Jewish identity. In the view of many Christians, once one had
accepted Christ that person was no longer a Jew.
From the early 1970s a considerable number of members of the Iiebrew
Christian Alliance were committed to a church-based conception of ffebrew Christianity. The YHCA (Young Hebrew Christian Alliance), however, was forging a new conception of the movement rooted in the counterculture of the early 1970s. In particular, the Jesus People movement provided momentum for a revision of previously held notions about the lifestyle
of Jewish believers. At the 1973 Conference of the HCAA Martin Chernoff
was re-nominated President of the Hebrew Christian Alliance; with the
support of a number of moderates, he was elected despite the opposition of
traditionalist members of the movement.

Messianic Judaism
At this time a constitutional amendment was proposed to change the name
of the HCAA to the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America. Such a change
was more than semantic; the majority of delegates were aware that such an
alteration would initiate fundamental changes in the movement. When the
amendment failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority, its supporters
did not despair. The following year the YHCA held their awn conference
at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. This conference stressed the importance of a Jewish lifestyle and featured musicians and music groups which
played Messianic music with a Jewish flavour.
Unlike many of the older members of the movement, these young
people were determined to identify with their Jewish roots. In their view,
the acceptance of Yeshua should be coupled with a commitment to the
cultural and religious features of the Jewish faith. Among the leaders of the
youth was Manny Brotman who served as President and first Executive
Director of the YHCA. Through his influence the earliest Messianic
literature was produced which stressed the Jewishness of faith in Yeshua.
Another important figure was Joseph Finkelstein, formerly President of the
YHCA and Executive Director from 1972 to 1975. Through his influence
many young Jews were brought into the movement; in addition, Finkel-

Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism

29 1

stein organized a singing group which wrote their own music and also
introduced choreographed dance worship as well as testimonies from the
singers. Other leaders, such as Arnold Fruchtenbaum and Barry Leventhal,
encouraged the study of the Bible.
The 1975 HCkA Conference, chaired by Manny Brotman, was the
largest held for years and combined a week of teaching with music and
dance. At the business meeting, the issue of changing the name of the
movement was debated and carried. Previously the Alliance had been
composed of Jewish believers from various Christian denominations some were from a Presbyterian background; others from a Baptist or an
Anglican milieu. Most were unprepared for the revivalist emphasis championed by young believers. At this conference, charismatic forms of
worship were introduced including raising of hands, clapping to the Lord,
and singing in the Spirit. Even though the biblical background of these
practices was acknowledged, a number of older members of the Alliance
were dismayed.
Another issue which divided the movement was the question whether
Jewish believers should live a Jewish lifestyle. Some members believed
that it was desirable to follow Jewish traditions as long as they were in
accord with Scripture, such as wearing a kippa (skullcap), a tallit (prayer
shawl), tallit katan (undergarment with fringes), and tefillin (Phylacteries).
In addition, these members stressed the importance of davening (chanting
daily prayers from the traditional prayer book), lighting candles on the
Sabbath, and reciting the traditional kiddush prayer on the Sabbath and at
festivals. Some followed kosher food laws and rested on the Sabbath day.
In general those who were drawn to the tradition were not from Jewish
homes, yet wished to identify with Jewish practice. To many older members of the movement, such a return to Jewish observance had overshadowed faith in Yeshua.
Another topic which divided Jewish believers was the ideology of
Messianic Judaism. By 1974 Messianic congregations existed in Philadelphia, Washington, Cincinnati, Chicago and Los Angeles. The earliest congregation, Beth Messiah, was founded by Martin and Yohanna Chernoff in
Cincinnati in 1970. The young people in his congregation including his
sons Joel and David encouraged him to adopt a variety of Jewish practices
such as lighting Sabbath candles, reciting kiddush and wearing kippot
during services. Eventually the congregation celebrated the Jewish holidays, and Joel Chernoff wrote contemporary music which was sung by the
congregation. Beth Messiah also sponsored an outreach programme attracting both Jewish and Gentile students.
As time passed similar congregations were established elsewhere which
reflected the ideological changes that were taking place within the

292

Cohn-Sherbok

movement. As a result, a clear division emerged between those who

wished to forge a new lifestyle and those who sought to persuade older
members of the need to embrace Jewish values - they remained unconvinced and left the Alliance. Within the Christian community, there was similar opposition to the Messianic movement. In the view of a number of
Protestant evangelicals, the change of name from Hebrew Christian Alliance to Messianic Jewish Alliance indicated a rejection of Christianity and a
return to the Jewish faith.

Critical reactions
The change of name of the movement to Messianic Judaism signalled a
fundamental change of direction. Any return to Hebrew Christianity was
ruled out, and a significant number of older members leA the Alliance. As
a result, the average age of members was significantly reduced.
Increasingly worship services became Jewish in orientation even though
they included dance, music and extemporaneous prayer. From outside the
movement hostile criticism of Messianic Judaism was voiced by such
bodies as the Fellowship of Christian Testimonies to the Jews. At their
annual conference Erom 16 to 19 October 1975 a resolution was passed
condemning the movement:
"Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism strives to be a denomination within Judaism
alongside of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism, thus confusing law and grace,
we of the FCTJ afirm that Christian faith is consistent with, but not a continuation of
Biblical Judaism, and is distinct from rabbinic Judaism.
"Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism encourages Gentile Christians to undergo a
conversion to Judaism, we of the FCTJ affirm that this violates the tenor of the New
Testament in general and the Books of Galatians and Hebrews in particular for it
involves converting to a religion that clearly denies the messiahship of Jesus.
"Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism adopts the practices of rabbinic Judaism,
e.g. kosher laws, wearing skullcaps and prayer-shawls, et al., we of the FCTJ affirm that
any practice of culture, Jewish or non-Jewish, must be brought into conformity with New
Testament theology.
"Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism isolates itself from the local church
rebuilding the 'middle wall of partition', thus establishing a pseudo-cultural pride, we of
the FCTJ affirm the necessity of the Hebrew Christian expressing his culture and his
spiritual gifts in the context of the local church thus edifLing the Body of Christ as a
whole, and not an isolated pseudo-culture.
"Whereas a segment of Messianic Judaism opposes the usage of terms such as 'Jesus',
'Christ', 'Christian', 'cross', et al., and insists on using the I..tebrew term exclusively, we
of the FCTJ afirm that although we endorse tactfulness in witness, we rejcct a
presentation of the Gospel which is a subtle attempt to veil and camouflage the Person
and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"Whereas segments of Messianic Judaism, by portraying themselves to be synagogues
with rabbis for the purpose of attracting unsuspecting Jews, employ methods which are

Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism

293

unethical, we of the FCTJ affirm that Jewish missions must be honest and Biblical in
their message and approach, and reject the concept that 'the end justifies the means'.."'

Despite such criticism, Messianic Judaism continued to grow, thereby

evoking considerable consternation within both the Jewish and Christian
communities. In some cases direct action was taken against the Messianic
community by Jewish activists. In Febraury 1980, for example, two members of the Jewish Defense League stole the Torah cross from a Messianic
congregation, Ahavat Zion Synagogue in Los Angeles. The next month a
group from the Jewish Defense League picketed the synagogue and hurled
rocks through a window. According to Rabbi Kenneth Cohen of Young
Isrctel congregation who accompanied this protest, Messianic Jews mislead
Jews and engage in idol worship. In his view, the synagogue should be
called a church.
In Philadelphia similar events took place and numerous articles were
written opposing the local Messianic congregation. Attempts were made to
prevent Messianic Jews from buying a congregational building in a Jewish
neighbaurhood. In addition, an advertisement was taken out by opponents
of the Messianic Jews in the classified section of a local newspaper designed to foment contempt for the movement. Giving the names of several
women belonging to the congregation as well as the address of the congregation's ministries, the advertisement read:
"THREE RAVISHING WOMEN-- blonde, brunette and redhead. Blonde (Susan) for
straight sex. Brunette (Linda) submissive to masterful men. Fiery Redhead (Debbie) for
all S/M fantasies. All replies answered. A religious experience."'

While deploring such tactics, officials within the Jewish community generally regarded Messianic Judaism as a pernicious influence. In the view of
many, it is simply impossible for Jews who believe in Jesus to remain
members of the faith. As Rabbi Marc H. Tannenbaum, national inter-religious affairs director of the American Jewish Community stated:
"Jewish tradition allows that Gentiles can believe in theTrinitarian concept, termed in
Hebrew as shi~tuf(parternship).Belief in shittuf, Judaism affirms, does not constitute
idolatry for non-Jews, but does so for Jews. Jews, born of a Jewish mother, who become
so-called Messianic Jews, are bound by the Covenant of Sinai, which explicitly excludes
the possibility of any belief that God shares his being in any partnership with any other
being (Exodus 20:2 -6; Deuteronomy 4:15-21). While humanely one might empathize
with Messianic Jews who wish nostalgically to retain some cultural linkages with the
Jewish people - whether for guilt or other emotional reasons - in point of fact, re-enacting Jewish rituals of the Sabbath, the Passover, the bar mitzvah, without commitment to

'

R. WWER,The Calling: The History of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America,

1915-1990, Wynnewood PA 1990,53.
David RAUSCH, Messianic Judaism: Its History, Theology and P o l i ~ ,Lewiston,
New York, 1982,230.

294

Cahn-Sherbok

the convictions they symbolize soon make a mockery of their sacred meanings."'

According to Tannenbaum, when such Jewish observances are used to persuade Jews of the authenticity of Messianic Judaism, this is nothing less
than deliberate deceit.
Leading figures within the American Jewish Committee have also
emphasized the inherent dangers of Messianic Judaism. In an article by
Rabbi A. James Rudin and his wife Marcia entitled "Onward (Hebrew)
Christian Soldiers: they're Out to Grab Your Kids", they explained that
Hebrew Christianity or Messianic Judaism is not new; rather Hebrew
Christian missions to the Jews operated in the nineteenth century. Initially
these evangelical bodies attracted few Jewish converts, yet in recent years
the movement has undergone a major transformation. According to the
Rudins, "The (Hebrew Christian, Messianic Jews) attempt to lull the Jew
into belief that he is not actually changing his religion, when in fact the
ultimate goal is to convert him to Christianity and have him join an established Christian c h u r ~ h . ' ~
In another article in the New York Times the Rudins explained what
should be done to counter the cults. Among various suggestions, they
recommended that laws regulating proselytization should be tightened; in
addition, they proposed that laws barring conversion of minors should be
passed and that cults could be prosecuted for interfering with family
relati~nshi~s.~
Discussions between leaders of the Jewish community and Messianic
Jews have also led to considerable misunderstanding and friction. After
meeting with Dan Juster, Rabbi Arthur C. Blecher of Beth l'ivah
congregation in Rockville, Maryland stated:
"As I have emphasized to you in person and on the phone, I object to your allowing
individuals to believe that you are a rabbi. I object to your deceptive use of language to
mask the Christian nature of your congregation. I have only with great difficulty
succeeded in beginning a healing process with two of my own families that were tom
apart by your proselytizing efforts. You could have told me on several occasions that you
intend to convince Jews to accept the New Testament and to be baptized. You have
admitted to me that you are aware that the Jewish community considers Jews who have
accepted the New Testament and been baptized to be Christians. I am dismayed that you
make it a policy to withold these facts from the individuals you counsel.'*

'

Marc TANNENBAUM,
'NO, They Have Forsaken the Faith', Christianity Today, 26
(24 April 1981) 25.
A. James RUDIN and Marcia R. RUDRJ, 'Onward (Hebrew) Christian Soldiers,
Present Tense', The Magazine of World Jewish Affbirs 4 (Summer 1977) 18.
STERN,Messianic Jewish Manifesto, Clarkesville, Maryland, 1997,61.
"avid
RAUSCH, op. cit., 236-7.

Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism

295

In reply Juster stated that Blecher's letter "to me exhibits a type of dogmatism and an unwillingness to put oneself in the position of the other". ?-Ie
continued
"Please allow me to respond to a few of your gross misconceptions reflected in your
letter despite repeated attempts to correct misconceptions as well as to prove the sincerity
of our stance. In defence, Juster stated that he neither sought nor encouraged his congregants to refer to him as a rabbi; in addition, he pointed out that Jewish believers do not
accept the traditional boundaries between Judaism and Christianity. ...If a Jewish person
reads the New Testament and comes to conviction of the truth of its teaching, it can
cause disruption."'

Continuing this exchange, Rabbi Blecher questioned why Juster could

not understand the severity of the issues he raised. He then cited the case
of a severely disturbed patient at a mental hospital whose illness included
guilt about the death of a parent. This person accidentally called Beth Messiah, believing it was a traditional synagogue. Beth Messiah sent a car to
bring her to the congregation, and the person suffered an extreme setback
when she found herself in a Christian setting. Juster, however, professed
total ignorance of this event.*
'I'his was followed by an exchange between Rabbi Matthew 11. Simon of
congregation B'nai Israel. In correspondence with Juster, he wrote:
"What prompts this letter is a second case of deceit which I encountered this past weekend. An Iranian Jewish student in need of support, both legal and person, has a friend
who is amember of your congregation ...The young man is not familiar with Christian
missionary techniques and your evangelical outreach to Jews. He was brought to Beth
Messiah a couple of times and explained that this was a 'form of American Jewish
practice.' At no time was he told that he was participating in a Christian church, with
Christian believers, where the ultimate goal was to bring him to Christianity. 1 am
familiar with the many sophistries used in explained that Beth Messiah is different, but it
surely is not ~ewish.*'~

Within the Christian community, Messianic Judaism has evoked similar

hostility. Many evangelical Christians are opposed to Messianic Jews
because they are regarded as too Jewish: they are viewed as rebuilding a
wall of partition. A considerable number of mainstream Protestant movements are also opposed to the Jewishness of Messianic Jews, but are even
more contemptuous of Hebrew Christian 'Jews for Jesus'evangelism. In
1980, for example, the Long Island Council of Churches condemned
certain groups, including Messianic Judaism, declaring "that certain groups
are engaging in subterfuge and dishonesty in representing the claims of
their faith groups".'0 As Revd Lawrence McCoombe, chairman of the

' lbid., 237 238.

' Ibid., 239.
Ibid
' Ibid., 244.

296

Cohn-Sherbok

Episcopal Church's Diocese of the Long Islam Commission on ChristianJewish Relations stated with regard to Hebrew Christian - including
Messianic Judaism - missionizing:
"It is upsetting to Jews because it impugns the integrity of Jewish belief. It is alarming to
Christians because it misrepresents Christianity. It is disturbing to both Jews and Christians because it undermines the basis of mutual respect which it has taken so long for us
to establish.""

Responding to criticism
Responding to such criticism, Messianic Jews insist that Messianic
Judaism is the legitimate heir of biblical Judaism. The New Testament,
they argue, is the only divine revelation after the Torah; hence it is only
through the New Testament that the Tanakh can be understood. As Walter
Riggans explained in Messianic Judaism and Jewish Christian-Relations:
"It is the New Testament which actually determines what is true faith in God. Therefore
the idea that the faith centred on Jesus is somehow a child of Judaism, in the sense of
being essentially derivative, is rejected summarily."'*

As B.Z. Sobel explained in his sociological study of Messianic Jews,

this belief was shared by Hebrew Christian societies throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries:
"The basic contention put forward by the Hebrew Christian movement was that the only
legitimate expression of Jewishness was infact Christianity, in that it constituted the
fblfilment of the promise vouchsafed in the Old Testament faith of Israel ... The assertion
is in fact made by Hebrew Christianity that the true tradition has been destroyed or
obscured by a fsaudulent development, and that modern Judaism is, as it were, a living
lie.w13

Such a contrast has continued within the modem Messianic movement:

Messianic Jews similarly contend that by accepting Yeshua as their Messiah they have found true biblical Judaism. In Everything You Need to
Know to Grow a Messianic Yeshiva, Philip Goble stressed that biblical
institutions and observances have been transformed through Yeshua's
sacrificial death. Messianic Judaism, he stated, maintains that in the death
of Yeshua the Torah's demand for blood sacrifice has been fulfilled. In
addition, Messianic Judaism also preserves the true significance of such
Jewish institutions as the high priesthood, the sage, and the prophet and

Ibid., 245.
WaIter R[GGANS, Messianic Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations, unpublished
PhD thesis.
l3 Ibid., 245-256.
l2

Hebrew Christianip and Messianic Judaism

297

such doctrines as concerning the Messianic King, the Holy spirit and
sa~vation.'~
Messianic Jews thus see themselves as completed Jews, in contrast to
the other groups within the Jewish community which are rooted in rabbinic
Judaism. Nonetheless, in recent times Messianic leaders have drawn attention to the abiding significance of traditional Jewish customs. Unlike the
early Hebrew Christians, Messianic Jews have rediscovered the spiritual
insights of traditional Judaism. As David Stem explained in Messianic
Jewish Man festo:
"Jewish history is important... because Judaism has preserved better application of biblical truth to many specific ethical decision-making situations than the usual Christian
arrangements, which tend to be more ad hoc and therefore less well designed for preserving wisdom. Moreover, phenomena such as the sanctification of time in festivals and
Shabbat, and the introduction of holiness into daily life through repeated activities such
as laying tejillin, reciting prayers in a synagogue, and even seeing the mezuzah on the
door, express in practical ways the imminence of God. Thus modem Jewish history and
the Judaism it has produced helps us Messianic Jews to understand our faith.'""

Despite such a recognition of the spiritual significance of traditional

Jewish observance, Messianic Jews are faced with the perplexity of determining the extent to which they should observe the Torah. In Messianic
Jewish A.lan$esto, Stern pointed out that individual Messianic Jews, as
well as Messianic Jewish congregations, currently work out their own
ways of relating to the teachings and legal rulings produced over more than
three millennia by the Jewish people. According to Stern, there are five
major approaches to this issue within the movement:
"I. Orthodox Jewish law should be observed in its entirety. Such a stand is arguably
supported by New Testament teaching. Thus in Matthew 5:17-20 Yeshua declares that he
did not come to abolish the Torah, and that anyone who disobeys its least commands and
teaches other to do so will be counted least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Further, when
castigating the religious establishment, Yeshua did not denigrate any part of the Torah.
Again, in Matthew 23:2-3, Yeshua states that the Torah teachers and the Pharisees sit in
the seat of Moses, implying that they have authority to determine how the law should be
applied. Finally, Paul in Romans 7:12 refers to the Torah as holy, just and good. Yet,
even those Messianic Jews who insist on the observance of traditional Jewish law are
convinced that salvation is based on God's grace and mighty acts rather than strict observance of the Torah.
"2. It is desirable, though not essential, that Messianic Jews observe traditional
Jewish law. Biblical law, they argue, was given by God to the Jewish people and never
abrogated; therefore it is obligatory. Further, those who are knowledgeable about Jewish
history are aware of the importance of the legal tradition. It has been God's will that the
Jewish people be preserved: the law has served as a vital means of ensuring Jewish

'"

Philip E. Goot:,i., Everything You Need to Know to Grow a Messianic Yeshiva,

Pasadena CA 1981,2 1.
l5 STERN,
op. cit., 6 1 .

298

Cohn-Sherbok

survival. Added to these arguments is the conviction that by keeping the law, Messianic
Jews will be able to identify with fellow Jews.
"3. Keeping Jewish law is a totally subjective issue. Whether Messianic Jews obey the
law is a matter of individual conscience. The New Testament, the Church and
Christianity have nothing to say on this subject. Those who hold to this view insist that
obedience to Jewish law is in no way essential for salvation. Rather, salvation is based
alone on faith, repentance from sin, and turning to God through Messiah Yeshua.
"4. It is actually undesirable for Messianic Jews to observe traditional Jewish law.
While it is not prohibited, Messianic Jews should recognize that they are liberated from
the law and instead alive in the Spirit.
"5. Messianic Jews should not observe Jewish law at all. The fear is that they will
regard the Torah, rather than trust in Yeshua, as the means of ~alvation."'~

Messianic Jews thus approach the Jewish tradition in a variety of ways.

Yet while accepting that such individual decision-making is essential to
the life of a Messianic Jew, a number of leaders in the movement have
been anxious that Messianic Judaism embarks on the task of constructing a
legal framework for Messianic living. Discussing the resources for such a n
endeavour, David Stern wrote:
"What might Messianic Jewish halakhists wish to consult as they prepare for the~rtask'?
...the New Testament is one such source, and it should go without saying that the Tanakh
is another. In addition to the Bible, Messianic Jewish halakhists must know how to deal
with the vast amount of halakhic material that has arisen within Judaism. This includes
not only the Mishnah (220 CE) and the two tiamurus each of which the Mrshnah equals a
Talmud - the Jerusalem Talmud (4th century) and the Babylonian Talmud (5th century)
but also the Tosefia (composed of 2nd-3rd century codifications similar to the Mrshrrah),
the halakhic midrushim (Mekhilra on Exodus, Sfra on L*eviticus,Srfrer on Numbers and
Deuteronomy, all complied in the fourth or fifth centuries) and the opinions of the Suvoraim (6th-7th centuries), Gaonim (7th-10th centuries), Poskrm (I lth- 14th centuries),
Rishonim (14th-17th centuries) and Acharonlm (18th-20th centuries) continued in codes,
responsa (case law) and other writings...other Jewish materials touch on hulakhoh from
without rather than from within. For example, there is Jewish philosophy, Jewish ethics
(musar), and an interesting literature on raamev ha-mitmor, 'the reasons for the commandments." We should research the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist writings on halafiah since these movements have had to explain to their own constituencies
why they adopt a view different from that of the Orthodox, and have therefore pioneered
some paths we should explore.""

Hence, Messianic Jews see themselves as firmly rooted within the Jewish
tradition. Dedicated to living in accordance with Scriptural teaching, they
are open to the insights of the Jewish heritage despite criticisms made by
both Jewish and Christian opponents. Determined to distance themselves
from the Gentile Church, they insist they are faithful Jews, holding firm to
the principles of the faith as manifest in the life and teaching of Messiah
Yeshua.
l6

l7

Ihid., 14&143.
Ihid., 162-163.

Christians and Jews after the Shoa

and the Mission to the Jews
Simon Schoon
The organisers of the colloquium have asked me to reflect on a theme that
involves two hotly debated questions. While no one will deny that we live
after the Shoa, this insight does not have the same meaning for Jews and
Christians. For most Jews, everything has changed; the whole world has
changed. Christians reactions to the Shoa are more diverse. For some,
nothing has changed in relations with the Jews; the same issues are on the
table after the Shoa as before it, first of all the question of the Messiahship
of Jesus. For others, everything has changed, and after the Shoa nothing in
church and theology has remained the same.
Correspondingly, there are diverse Christian positions on the mission to
the Jews. Many are convinced that it is something of the past, something
we have left behind and regard as a totally inadequate response to the delicate relations between Jews and Christians. Other Christians will, however, maintain that the mission to the Jews is and remains the most important or even the only legitimate Christian approach to the Jews, a holy and
God-given task.
Therefore the theme that I was given plunges us into the debate: How
do we live as Christians and Jews after the Shoa? And what is our position
on the mission to the Jews, after the Shoa?

Christians after the Shoa

It is still too little realized in church and university that the context of
Christian life in general and of theological study in particular - at least in
Europe and North America - is marked by the indication 'after the Shoa'.
Many Christians live and believe as if nothing has happened and nothing
has changed. It is also too little acknowledged that the historical and theological dimensions of the people of Israel are linked and can not be separated. If there is still a trace left in Christian thinking of the biblical conviction that God is the God of history, then it must be clear that the historical
and theological aspects, even if they must be distinguished, are
inseparable.

3 00

Schoon

Many Christians have not yet grasped that the attempt of Hitler's murder-machine to destroy the whole Jewish nation was - in theological language - also aimed at breaking God's faithfulness to his covenant people,
Israel. Furthermore, the Christian community which seeks to rely on that
same unfailing faithfulness of the God of Israel has scarcely begun to realize that herewith also the foundation of their own existence was under
threat. The painful questions which are raised by the Shoa about the power
and faithfulness of God are not just questions for the world-wide Jewish
community but are equally burning questions for the church and for
Christian theology. So, if we hope to continue Christian theology a@er
Auschwitz, this must be conducted in a spirit of repentance and humility,
and in a readiness to listen to 'the other'. Because it is undeniable that
Christian theology was at least co-responsible for thoughts and attitudes
that led to the horror of the Shoa.
It is impossible to come to a new theological paradigm and a renewal of
the relationship between Jews and Christians as long as Christian theology
sees the event in the 20th century that carries the name of 'Auschwitz' as
something of no relevance for its thinking. A number of Christians hold
the view that a new vision of the Jewish people and Judaism must be
drawn purely and simply fiom the New Testament as the foundation text
of Christianity, thereby dismissing nearly 2000 years of church history.
Even when this intention is rooted in the Reformation principle of sola
Scriprura, the project is fated not only to fail but to offend the Jewish
victims and other victims of Christian history. In order to come to a
renewal of the Jewish-Christian relationship, the Wirkungsgeschichte of
New Testament texts in a long and often dreadful history must be
scrutinized in critical research. In fierce resistance to this type of research,
the sincere at.tempts to read New Testament texts differently and to
interpret them in the terrible light cast by Auschwitz are condemned as
'hermeneutical intimidation', and the murder of 6,000,000 Jews is
dismissively compared in cold statistical terms along with other attempts
at genocide in the dreary catalogue of human crime.' Perhaps there are few
who propound such a view, but many have shrugged off the tough
questions posed by Auschwitz and happily continue to repeat traditional
Christian answers as though nothing has happened. Many theological
essays pass over the fundamental shock which the Shoa brings to all
Christian thinking.

G . KILN, '"Christiicher Antijudaismus". Bemerkungen zu einem semantischen

Einschnchte~ngsversuch',ZTK 79 ( 1 982) 4 1 1-450.

30 1

Christians and Jews afier the Shoa

Few have called for a theological re-thinking as dee ly and intensely as

the German theologian Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt. He went so far as
to question the whole endeavour of theological reflection. Is it not, after
all, better to keep silent about God than to continue with verbal
theological violence in the face of the victims? If we yet have to speak out
theologically, it is because of the fact that keeping silent means a betrayal
of the victims. According to Marquardt, the effort of theology can only be
endeavoured in the awareness of the crisis caused by the Shoa and in the
readiness for a total Urndenken. This renewed attempt at a theological
vision is born out of the search for practical ways to give structure and
content to the relationship with the Jewish people and is not intended to
refine a theoretical definition of 'others'. In Christian thought, Jews
should no longer, as in the past, be treated as strangers but should be
considered and encountered only from a standpoint of shared experience
and solidarity. Christians have to learn "to let the other live in his
otherness, and to loosen the stranglehold of the craving for religious and
theological definiti~n".~

A new paradigm?
In recent decades - it must be recognized - more has changed for the better in Jewish-Christian relations than in nearly 2000 years. As proof of
this statement, one can point to a stream of official church statements and
a library of theological studies. Even so, Christian readiness to change is
not primarily based on theological considerations. New studies yielding
biblical insights about the Jewish people have not been the most important
instrument in shaping the fundamental Christian review of its conception
of Jews and Judaism. Historical factors, far more than theological ones,
have powered the church's far-reaching reconstruction of its ideas in this
vital matter. The shock-waves caused by the Shoa and the great impression
made by the establishment of the State of Israel are the prime causes that
set in motion the change in Christian views on Jews and Judaism.
I-Iowever, one must honestly ask: Has so much really changed in the
teaching and life of the Church that Jews could risk the possibility of an
open dialogue with Christians? Or must we recognize that the amended
conception of Jews and Judaism has still barely touched more than a small
part of Christendom? Do not these ideas provoke strong resistance, proving that the new concept is yet to strike root in our churches and theoloF.- W. MARQIJARDT,
Yon Elend und Heimsuchung der Theologie. Prologomena t u r
Dogmatik, Chr. Kaiser, Milnchen 1988, 53-148.
F.-W. MARQ~IARDT,
'Terug in Amsterdam', Ophef(bijlage "Afdwalen" 1997), 7 .

302

Schoon

gical faculties? Do Christians and churches really live after the Shoa, and
beyond the mission to the Jews? Can we already speak of a new
theological paradigm in the views of churches and Christians on Jews and
Judaism? Is Judaism really recognized theologically as a living tradition
and is the ongoing theological significance of the Jewish people in the
post-biblical period accepted in Christian thinking? Have the consequences been drawn from these convictions for the basic tenets of our faith and
doctrine? These questions cannot quickly be answered and must be left
open for the moment.

Church documents
In the past half century, a lot of work has been done to amend the theory
and doctrine of the Church on Jews and Judaism. Various attempts have
been made on the side of many churches in official documents to break
away from supersessionism and substitution theology and to develop a different perspective on the relationship of Church-Israel. More important
than the groundbreaking studies of individual theologians are these official
church documents, although theological studies have prepared the ground
for the official church statements. In this respect, the declaration Nostra
aetate (no. 4 ) of the Second Vatican Council in 1965 must be seen as a
milestone. Looking back from the 21st century, it is scarcely imaginable
how that first careful statement forshadowed a tectonic shift in the theological thought of the Roman Catholic Church towards to Jews. The declaration begins thus:4
"As this sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the church, it recalls the spiritual
bond linking the people of the new covenant with Abraham's stock (...)
The church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy deigned to establish
the ancient covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that
good olive tree onto which have been graAed the wild olive branches of the Gentiles."

Nostra aetate was developed further in important statements in 1975 and

1985."
In contrast, apart from a brief reference at its establishment in 1948 in
Amsterdam, the World Council of Churches has never dared to come out
with such a fundamental statement, at the highest level, about the theolo-

"

In: E. J . FfSIiER, L. KIkXiCU, In Our Time. The Flowering of Jewish-Christian

Dialogue, Paulist Press, New York - Mahwah 1990, 27.
Ibid. 29-50.

'

Christians and .Jews uper the Shoa

303

gical significance of the Jewish people.6 In the introduction to the 1948

Declaration on The Christian Approach to the Jews it was indeed recalled
that the delegates were meeting in a country from which 1 10,000 Jews had
been deported and murdered in the so-recent war, but it continued with a
blunt call to the Church to resume its missionary task amongst the Jews.
Remarkably, the text includes a comment on the State of Israel, established that same year, which the WCC could not bring itself to repeat in all its
years since:'
"We appeal to the nations to deal with the problem [i.e. of the State of Israel] not as one
of expediency - political, strategic or economic - but as a moral and spiritual question
that touches a nerve centre of the world's religious life.'"

Coming now to the 'eighties, we see a virtual flood of declarations,

statements and pastoral letters appear, issued by bishops, synods and other
church assemblies. These pronouncements, of varying significance and
quality, signalled a remarkable shift in Christian views on the Jewish
Until 1980 the Dutch Reformed Church was practically the only
Protestant church in the world that addressed the subject of the Jews and
the relationship of Church-Israel as a serious matter of faith. This church
also repeatedly placed the theme on the agenda of international ecumenical
meetings. In 1949, it instituted an annual 'Israel Sunday' on the first Sunday of October, in the season of the Jewish High Holydays. And in 1959,
its Synod published the study Israel en de kerk ('Israel and the Church'),
whereby Israel's enduring election and involvement in the Covenant was
affirmed. Furthermore, the State of Israel was identified as a sign of Gods
faithfulness towards his people, as a sign that - in spite of all human
betrayal and unbelief - the Jewish people had been given a new chance to
give expression to its election in history.
After the Council of the Evangelical (Evangelische) Church in Gerrnany published its wide-ranging study Christen und Juden ('Christians and
Jews') in 1975, it was the 1980 decision of the Synod of the Evangelical
Church of bineland that sparked intense discussion. After that, more
publications and declarations were published in Germany and elsewhere.
The confessional statements of 1980, a few of which I shall quote, got to
-A. BROCKWAY,
P. VAN BUREN, R. RENDTORFI:,
S. SCI~OQN,
The Theology of the
O1hurches und the Jewish People. Statements by the World Council of Churches and its
member churches, Geneva, WCC Publications 1988, 5-46, 123-140, 181- 186.
Ibid. 8
Collected in: R. RENDTORFF, H. H~WRIX
(Hg.), Die Kirchen und dus Judentum.
Dokumente von 1945 bis 1980, Bonifatius I Chr. Kaiser, Paderborn I Mnnchen 1988;
H.H. HIINRIX,W. KRAUS (Hg.), Die Kirchen und d m Judentum. Dokumente van I 9 8 6 2000, CD-ROM / Band 11, Bonifatius / Chr.Kaiser, Paderborn I Mnnchen 2001.

'

3 04

Schoon

the roots of the issue and betokened an important theological change in the
German c h ~ c h e s : ~
"1. We confess with dismay the co-responsibility and guilt of German Christendom for
the Holocaust. (...)
"3. We confess Jesus Christ, the Jew, who as the Messiah of Israel is the Saviour of the
world and binds the peoples of the world to the people of God.
"4. We believe in the permanent election of the Jewish People as the people of God and
realize that through Jesus Christ the church is taken up into the covenant of God with his
people. (...)
"6. We believe that in their respective calling Jews and Christians are witnesses of God
before the world and before each other. Therefore we are convinced that the church may
not express its witness towards the Jewish People as it does its mission to the peoples of
the world."

A remarkable document was also issued by the Presbyterian Church in

the United States. In 1987, it completed six years of study with a declaration at Synod level, entitled A Theological Understanding of the Relationship between Christians and Jews, of which the main professions of faith
are as follow^:'^
"1. We affirm that the living God whom Christians worship is the same God who is
worshipped and served by Jews. We bear witness that the God revealed in Jesus, a Jew,
to be the Triune Imd of all, is the same One disclosed in the life and worship of Israel.
2. We affirm that the church, elected in Jesus Christ, has been engrafted into the people
of God established by the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore,
Christians have not replaced Jews.
3. We affirm that both the church and the Jewish people are elected by God for witness
to the world, and that the relationship of the church to contemporary Jews is based on
that gracious and irrevocable election of both.
4. We aftirm that the reign of God is attested both by the continuing existence of the
Jewish people and by the church's proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence,
when speaking with Jews about matters of faith, we must always acknowledge that Jews
are already in a covenantal relationship with God."

A worldwide change
'The many official declarations in the last decades of the 20th century,
often the result of years of debate in committees and councils, strongly
reflect the change in the attitude of the churches to Judaism and in the
relationship between Jews and Christians. For a long time, the issue of
Jewish-Christian dialogue had been almost exclusively a transatlantic
concern of Europeans and Americans. Christians From other parts of the
A. BKOCKWAY,el al., o.c., 93. In German: Zur Erneuerung des Verhdlrnisses von
Christen und Juden, Handreichung nr. 39, MUhlheim 1980, 10.
'O A. BROCKWAY
el al., o.c., 105-1 20.

Christians and Jews after the Shoa

305

world had little connection with what they saw as a mainly 'western
hobby'. They understood that this special European and American fascination sprang from the western Christians' guilt feelings about the centurieslong persecution of European Jewry and from their recognition of Christian co-responsibility for this history.
From various places, in recent years, a change has come about. An
institutional dialogue has been set in motion by representatives of Judaism
and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. After the Iron Curtain came down,
many East Europeans have rediscovered the rich Jewish heritage in their
countries. New Councils of Christians and Jews have been established
here, which encouraged churches to catch up with the times and to fight
anti-Judaism in theology and in religious practice. Also churches in the
Middle East, especially through the discussions in the Middle East
Council of Churches, have become interested in the Jewish-Christian
dialogue, on account of its obvious implications for the political tensions
between Israelis and ~alestinians." In an extraordinary development,
many theologians from third world countries have made trips to Israel or
have actually studied there for longer periods, thereby discovering that
encountering living Judaism can be immensely rewarding.
Thus to some extent the Jewish-Christian dialogue slowly spreads into
various contexts of the world. It is no longer limited to the North-Atlantic
region, where the memory of the Shoa plays a vital role. Nor is western
theology the only instrument to mediate Jewish-Christian dialogue in
other ecumenical contexts. It is found to be more fruitful to create separate, bi-lateral dialogues between Jewish partners on one hand and Christians in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa or Asia on the other.
Sometimes these discussions have become trialogues with Muslims as
third party,12and many times the Jewish-Christian encounters have been
widened to become a multi-religious dialogue with members from various
religions.
Apart from this, the internal debate between Christians from different
confessional backgrounds on the impact of Jewish-Christian dialogue on
church and theology is of great importance, a discussion that, though difficult and exhausting, must not be broken off. Jewish questions directed towards the heart of Christian identity always give Christians reasons for
reflection. Perhaps this could be seen as 'the Jewish mission' to the
Church and the Christians. For example, the theological implications of
" See a publication %omthe time of the first intqada: N. A ' t ~ E l i , M.H.ELLIS,R.R.
RUETHER(eds.), Faith and the Intifada. Palestinian Christian Voices, Orbis Books,
Maryknoll 1992.
Cf. S. SCHOON,'Op weg naar een christelijke theologie van de triaioog', Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdrchrzj? 101 (2001), 7 1-76.

''

306

Schoon

the Jewishness of Jesus and of the continuing election and existence of the
Jewish people will always be an impetus and a challenge for intraChristian reflection.13
We may register real progress in Jewish-Christian encounters in the
last quarter of a century. Perhaps we also can agree that the greatest achievement of this dialogue is the fact that Jews and Christians fiom many and
various backgrounds are ready to join hands in the struggle against all
forms of anti-Semitism and racism around the world. It is of fundamental
significance that Jews and Christians are now more likely to see each other
as allies than as opponents or even enemies, This was clearly expressed in
A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity signed in September
2000 by more than 150 rabbis and Jewish scholars in the United States,
England, Canada and Israel:14
"Jews and Christians, each in their own way, recognize the unredeemed state of the
world as reflected in the persistence of persecution, poverty, and human degradation and
misery. Although justice and peace are finally God's, our joint efforts, together with
those of other faith communities, will help bring the kingdom of God for which we hope
and long. Separately and together, we must work to bring justice and peace to our world.
In this enterprise we are guided by the visions of the prophets of Israel."

Forms of dissent
Change calls forth dissent. Many Christians feel threatened in their
identity by the altered views on Jews and Judaism. In reaction, old theological standpoints can be fiercely defended. Even the old supersessionist
theology can be refurbished and given a fresh look. One should not, of
course, dismiss all dissent out of hand. In different circumstances, dissent
can take different forms.
It is too easy, coming from a western background, to accuse Palestinian
Christian theology of anti-Judaism, without giving attention to the specific
conditions to which this theoiogy forms a reaction.'' In an intra-Christian
theological debate with Palestinian Christians, Westerners may indeed
j3 A few examples: P.M. VAN B W N , A Theology of the Jewish-Christian Reality.
Part 3. Christ in Context, Harper & Row, San Francisco 1988; F.-W. MARQUARDT,Das
christliche Bekenntnis zu Jesus, dem Juden. Eine Christologie, Bd. 1-2, C h . Kaiser,
Mtinchen 1990-9 1.
l4 T. FRYMER-KENSKYet al. (eds.), Christianity in Jewish Terms, Westview Press,
Colorado - Oxford 2000, xx.
l5 E.g. N.S. ATEEK, Justice, and only Justice. A Palestinian Theology of Liberation,
Orbis Books, New York 1989; cf. also S. SCHOON,'Vergeving tussen Joden en Palestijnen', in C. HOUTMAN,A. JELSMA,H.C. VAN DER SAR(red.), Ruimte voor vergeving, Kok,
Kampen 1998, 115-132.

Christians and Jews a)er the Shoo

307

explain what after centuries of anti-Judaism they have learned at last about
Jews and Judaism. Rut they must also be expected to remain acutely aware
of the exceptional circumstances in which Palestinian Christians experience Israelis and which have shaped their theology. Living 'after'the Shoa
should not mean that Christians in dialogue with Jews are silenced as soon
as they express their anxiety and criticism regarding Israeli policies toward
the Palestinian people, so as not to endanger the carefully built-up
dialogue.
The context of Latin American liberation theologians is again completely different. In their position, the anti-Judaism of western Christendom is
often uncritically adopted and an image is formed of Jesus as a Liberator
in sharp contrast with the 'legalistic Pharisees' of his time. These serve as
prototypes of the exploiters and oppressors of Latin America past and present, in the church as well as in the ruling c ~ a s s . ' ~
A great ability and willingness to change such insights has been shown
by feminist theology. In its initial phase it pictured Jesus as 'a feminist
avant la Iettre' in sharp contrast with the patriarchal Judaism of his time,
thus making Judaism the scapegoat for all the later discrimination against
women in Christendom. Moreover, biblical Israel was held responsible for
the suppression of the cult of the Earth-goddess and thereby accountable
for the patriarchal structure of the later Church. There was a lot of traditional anti-Judaism in the early years of Feminist Theology, because new
movements often unconsciously accepted lots of old ideas without careful
study. Thus also, Jesus was supposed in his words and deeds to have broken with the established pattern of Jewish tradition and to have left the
patriarchal Judaism of his time far behind.
Through careful questioning of the Jewish partners, many feminist
theologians have come to realize that such conclusions can only result
from an uncritical and actually fundamentalist reading of the New Testament.'' A historical-critical reading, coupled with a profound study of
Jewish writings from the time of the Second Temple, allows other aspects
to come to light. In this research, a common error is to compare, or
contrast, different periods of history. Jesus' teachings and sayings cannot
be simply set beside rabbinic sayings from the 'Talmudic period. Objective
research would compare the sayings of the Church Fathers about women
with those of Talmudic sages of the same era. In recent years a concrete
solidarity came into being between representatives of Jewish and Christian
feminist movements, which led to mutual recognition and assistance in the
l6 See for example: L. KI.ENICKI,L. BoF)', 0.MAUURO,M.H. EL.uS, et al., 'Jews,
Christians and Liberation Theology: A Symposium', CJR 21 (1988) 3-60.
l7 See K. Vm KEWBACH, 'Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Feminism and Religion',
CJR 1912 (1986) 33-40.

opposition to patriarchal structures which exist both in Judaism and in

Christianity.

Beyond the Mission to the Jews?

We have seen that great changes have taken place in Church and theology
after the Shoa. But the question remains whether encountering the living
Jewish people will cause a paradigm shift to break through in the whole
realm of Church and theology. Many Christians profess the end of
substitution theology with their lips, but in their thoughts and actions
show that this theory is still very much alive. So far there has not been
much reflection on what could replace the substitution theory in Church
and theology. It is still uncertain whether repentance caused by the shock
of the Shoa will bring about lasting change in theological thinking,
certainly so when in the 2 1 st century the memory of this honor will slowly
fade away.
Anyhow, anti-Judaism and the mission to the Jews cannot yet be called
phenomena of the past. There is nothing for Jews that casts so much doubt
on the officially expressed Christian readiness to listen to living Judaism
as the activities of the missions to the Jews. Ongoing attempts by
Christians and Christian organizations to convert Jews to the Christian
faith are regarded as the very expression of Christian triumphalism. In the
worldwide evangelical movement, frequent declarations are issued in
which Christians are called upon to promote the mission to the Jews and
even to give it priority. More than once the reproach is made from the
evangelical side that churches, being stimulated by pressures from Jewish
organizations, wrongly deviate from their biblical task to call all people to
Jesus Christ, including and even especially Jews. According to these
Christians the memories of complicity and passivity of Christianity in the
times of persecutions of Jews may never lead to the consequence of giving
up the great commandment to proselytize the whole world. because that
would mean abandoning 'Christian truth'.I8
Often the mission mandate to the Jews is linked with the expectation
that Jewish Christians will realize the special task of bridge-building between Judaism and Christianity. Since the Second World War, Jewish
Christians, especially in Protestant and Evangelical circles, have shown a
clear preference for names like 'Messiah Confessing Jews' or 'Messianic

'90
A.F.
( 1992) 36-49.

GLASSER,'Evangelical Objections to Jewish Evangelism', hlishkan 16

Christians and Jews after the Shoa

309

~ e w s ' . 'These
~
Jewish believers in Jesus are regarded - by themselves and
by other Christians - as bridge-builders par excellence, because by their
very existence the special link between the Christian community and the
Jewish people has taken concrete shape. But this possible function of
Jewish Christians is fiercely rejected by the great majority of the Jewish
people. It is the result of many centuries of church history that precisely
this group, that by its descent and background would seem to be most
qualified for bridge-building, cannot realize this calling. Conceivably, in
the first centuries of the common era this could still have been possible,
but there is no historical continuity between 'the Church from the
Circumcision' of the first centwries and the present Jewish Christians or
the movement of Messianic Judaism. Jewish Christianity - or 'JudaeoChristianity' - as a community with its own character, liturgy and
doctrine, has disappeared from the stage of history in the 4th-5th century.
Most modern Jewish Christians are marked and shaped by church history
and by centuries of Gentile-Christian theology, just like the Gentile Christians. It is an anachronism to try to copy the situation of the first century
into the 2 1st century.20

The 'Parting of the Ways'

In this context I will be brief on the 'Judaeo-Christians' in the first centuries and the process of the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians. Other contributions of this book will approach this theme from various angles, and I can restrict myself to a few remark^.^'
It would be better to speak of several different processes than of a
single 'process of the parting of the ways7,because in the first centuries a
variety of processes were simultaneously active and were inter-acting with
each other. Nor is it possible in these centuries to speak of 'the Church'
and even less of 'The Synagogue' as a proper term. Neither 'Judaism' nor
'Christianity' in this period designated a fixed and exact entity. The
manner in which the separation between Jews and Christians was brought
l9 The latter name could raise misunderstandings and annoyance, since many other
Jews believe in a (coming) Messiah and could call themselves therefore 'MessiahConfessing-Jews'. More correct would be the name 'Jesus-as-Messiah-Confessing-Jews'.
See a very mild and moderate approach from the Jewish side: D. COHN-SHERBOK,
Messianic Judaism, Cassell, London - New York 2000. An earlier study is sharper and
more apologetic: B.Z. SOBEL,Hebrew Christianity The Thirteenth Tribe, John Wiley 62
Sons, New York etc. 1974.
20
Cf. S. SCHOON,
Christelijkepresentie in de Joodse Stoat, (dissertation) Kok, Kampen 1983, 13-20,6066,84-102,232-234.
See especially the contribution of Peter TOMSON.

about is difficult to reconstruct with historical precision, because many

original sources have been lost and developments have been coloured by
comments of later rabbis and church fathers. In mutual processes of
accusations and denunciations, charges of heresy were not made between
'Judaism' and 'Christianity' in general, but more specifically between
'Judaeo-Christianshnd 'Gentile Christians' and between 'Judaeo-Christians'and representatives of early rabbinical Judaism. Therefore, at the
end of the first century there is still not a definite schism between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity', but there are many varied developments under
way, each in its particular context. This means that a multitude of 'separation processes between Jews and Christians' is a more adequate description of this complex event.**
The most important separation processes took place on two levels: on
the one hand, between the mainly Gentile 'orthodoxhtapostolic' church
and the Judaeo-Christian churches and, on the other, between JudaeoChristians and Early Rabbinic Judaism. The phenomenon of 'JudaeoChristianity'is not simple to describe and its borders are far from clear. In
the majority of the literature on the subject, different names are used and
conceptions are not u n a m b i g ~ o u s As
. ~ ~we are obliged, in the interest of
understanding, to use certain names and definitions, it is most important to
bear in mind that nobody in the first century called himlherself a 'Jewish
Christian' or a 'Christian Jew' or a 'Judaeo-Christian'.
There is not yet a consensus on a historical reconstruction of the
'Judaeo-Christian movements". There is, however, a growing consensus
that it was not mainly theological factors that were decisive in the 'parting
of the ways', but much more the political upheavals of the Jewish Revolt
and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 Cf;.
Before and after 70 there were various 'Christian' or 'Jesuanic' Jewish
groups that understood themselves as part of the Jewish people, but which

*'

See in particular: B. WANDIIR,

Trennungsprozesse zwischen Friihem ('hristentum
und Judenrum im I . Jahrhundert n. Ckr. Datierbare Abfilgen zwischerr der tfinrich~ung
Jesu und der Zwstlirung des Jerusulemer Tempels, Francke Verlag, 'IXbingen - Basel
1994, 4-53; also J.D.G. DUNN, The Parting c l f the Wuys Befween ('ltristiunity und
Judaism and their S i g n ~ ~ c a nfor
c e the Chmacter o/C'hristianity. SCM i Trinity, London
I Philadelphia 1991, 230- 259; also D. BOYARIN,
Dying /or God. hlurtyrdom und the
Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford 1999.
23 A few examples: R.A. KWT, 'In Search of "Jewish Christianity" and its "Theology". Problems of Definition and Methodology', in Judbo-Christianisme. Recherches
his~oriqueser thkologiques ofer1e.s en hommuge au Cardinul Jtiurr DaniPlou, Paris
1972, 37-54; R. %FWACKF:NBIJRC~, 'Das Urchristentum', in J . MAIIIR.
J . WI~REINIIR
(tig.),
Li~eraturund Religion des Fruhjudentums. Eine Einfuhrung, WUriburg, Echter Verlag,
1973, 284-309; P.J. ' T O W N , 'If this be from Heoven... '; Jesus und the New 7'estament
Authors in their reln~ionshipto Judaism, AcPr, Shefield 2001, chapter 8.

Christians and Jews afrer the Shaa

31 1

held highly divergent conceptions about the person and significance of

Jesus and about his distinctive role for Jews and Gentiles. On such important 'Judaeo-Christian' movements as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites we
have almost nothing but the reports of the Church Fathers Eusebius and
Epiphanius, who saw them as dangerous heretics and who could therefore
not be expected to paint more or less 'objective'pictures of what inspired
these groups.
Ultimately, the 'ChristianYews were caught right between a rock and a
hard place. In these early ages both large movements, rabbinic Judaism
and the 'orthodox'or 'apostolic' - mainly Gentile - Christian Church,
wanted to strengthen their identity and could not tolerate dissidents. As
compared with the Gentile Christian church, the 'Judaeo-Christianbovements held fast to a more or less strict observation of the Torah, and in
that way showed their loyalty to Jewish tradition. But their Jewish
compatriots marked them down as heretics and ultimately no longer saw
them as part of the Jewish people. It is tragic that in their 'orthopraxy"
they undoubtedly stood close to the Jew Jesus of Nazareth yet were as
unwelcome in the Church as within the Jewish people, being condemned
by both sides as 'heretics'.

Jewish Christians today

In our times, Jewish Christian groups often refer to and regard themselves
as the historical continuation of the 'Judaeo-Christians'of the first centuries. 'They look at themselves also as the 'eschatological sign'that the
final phase of history has started and the 'end of times'is near. Remarkably in some circles, mainly of evangelical Christians, 'Messiah-JesusConfessing-Jews'are held up as a sign of the great harvest that will swiftly come. They are treated as 'twice elected', because they are both Jews
and believers in Jesus as Messiah. Their presence in the Christian community encourages eschatological hopes for great numbers of Jews to accept
the Christian faith and ultimately to fulfil a great missionary endeavour
over the whole
In some ecclesiologies, 'Jewish Christians-lay a vital and important
role, particularly when it is expressed that in any age the Church is only
the real community of Christ when it consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
The logical result of this view would be that we must zealously strive to
win Jews for the church, otherwise the true essence of the church is in

24

see for example: K . KJER-WANSEN

salem, Caspari Center, 1996.

(ed.), Jewish Identity dl Faith in Jesus, Jeru-

312

Schoon

danger.2s In my opinion, it is not theologically necessary to project the

conditions in which the church began in the first century into an absolute
nola ecclesiae for all time.
The modern phenomenon of mutual conversion between Judaism and
Christianity should be judged soberly and objectively. In countries where
many points of contact exist between Jews and Christians, there will always be individual conversions. It is not fair to endow the phenomenon of
conversion of Jews to the Christian faith with high eschatological expectations, and it is repellent to be looking forward to a spiritual Endlosung of
Judaism. In the modern State of Israel, more Christians go over to Judaism
than vice-versa. It would not be advantageous for the Jewish-Christian
rapprochement if Jews were to react to this phenomenon with triumphalist
conceptions and with the idea of the eventual disappearance of Christianity. The specific context of a particular time and place will always play a
role in mutual conversions between different religions that coexist.
In the present day, a revived Judaism exercises a strong attractian to
Christians who struggle with their identity and have difficulty with the
many different institutional churches. The pioneers of the 18th century
mission to the Jews were forerunners in their love for the Jewish people,
taking up the struggle against the ever-present Christian anti-Semitism in
church and theology.26 On the borderline of the 20th and the 21st century,
however, the defenders of the mission to the Jews are fighting a rearguard
action in the mainline churches, as against the majority opinion that
regards Judaism as a living religion and therefore wishes to abolish all
forms of mission to the Jews. But in large parts of the growing evangelical
movement inside and outside the churches, the mission to the Jews is still
seen as a high priority. So it was said, on the one hand. in a declaration of
the evangelical Lausanne Movement: 'We deplore the discrimination and
suffering that has been done to the Jews in the name of Jesus Christ.But
at the same time it was emphasized:
"If the bygone history is used to make the church keep silent in its witness to the Jewish
People, we must protest; it would be an act o f grave discrimination to withhold the
Gospel from the Jewish ~eople."'"'

25 See for example: R. MAOZ, 'Jewish Christianity: Whither and Why?'. in '1.. E~.(~vIN
(ed.), /srael and Yeshua, Caspari Center, Jerusalem 1993, 119-127. Also recently: E.
VAN DER POLL, De messiaanse beweging en haar betekenrs voor chrrstenen, Shalom
Books, Putten 200 1.
26
See W. PHILIP,'SpZitbarock und Frtihe Aufiltlrung. Das Zeitalter des Philosemitismus', in: K.H. RENGSTOW, S. von KORT;~.FLEISC~#
(Hg.), Kirche und .Tynagogge, Band 2 ,
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, MLlnchen 1988, 23-86.
27 'Lausanne Letter on Jewish Evangelism', Current Dialogue Dec. 1986, 33 -35.

Chris~iamand Jews ufier the Shoa

3 13

Both supporters and opponents of the mission to the Jews accuse each
other mutually of anti-Semitism. Its supporters reproach the opponents
that they actually commit anti-Semitism if they do not want to show Jews
the way to salvation. Opponents reproach them in return that the mission
to the Jews feeds on the old Christian ambivalence, whereby an antiJudaic view of Judaism is coupled with a philosemitic approach to the
Jewish people. Why, they ask, should the mission to the Jews strive to
draw individual Jews out of their people, and estrange them from the
specific Covenant of God with Israel, to make them members of 'a
Gentile-Christian enterprisehuch as the church? It was and is not easy for
Christian theology to accept the challenge that is so strikingly put by the
Jewish feminist Susannah ~ e s c h e l : * ~
"Now it is clear, obvious, to all of us that we have to abandon Christian mission to the
Jews because that would mean the end of Judaism, but maybe it is not so clear to
everyone that an end of Judaism might also be an end to Christianity. Where would
Christians be if there is no more God of Israel? But how can there be a God of Israel if
there is no more Judaism, if there are no more Jews to affirm the God of Israel?"

The position of Jewish Christians or Messiah-Jesus-Confessing-Jews is

often brought into the theological discussion over the theme of the mission
to the Jews. Whoever rejects the mission to the Jews, it is maintained,
simultaneously denies this Christian group its right to exist. Sometimes it
is suggested that churches have all too readily given up their task to reach
out to all mankind, but in the first place to the Jews, this being done in
order to meet the demands of Jews and in order not to obstruct the JewishChristian dialogue. In light of this suggestion I think it is insufficient for a
Church to decide against the mission to the Jews on purely historical and
psychological grounds 'after the Shoa'. In the long term, only a firm
theological basis could be strong enough to support such a decision.
In taking up this challenge we must make a distinction between, on the
one hand, the refusal on theological grounds for Gentile Christian
churches to conduct missions towards Jews, and on the other, the recognition that Jewish believers in Jesus have the perfect right to express their
specific identity. This may sound as a paradox. But theoiogically, a
distinction must be drawn, as Heinz Kremers already did in 1979, between
an internal Jewish debate about messianism - a frequent phenomenon in
Jewish history! - and the continuing attempts of Gentile Christians to

Z8 S. ~~F-.:,FcHI:I, 'Original Shame and Naive Optimism: The Politics of JewishChristian Relations', Ecumenical Trenk 2513 (1996) 41.

isolate Jews from their own people and to make them members of a
Gentile church by means of the mission to the ~ e w s . ~

"9 So H. KREMERS,
'Der I m e g der christlichen Judenmission', in idem, Liebe und
Gerechtighit, G e m e l t e Beitrtige (Hg. A. Weyer), Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-

Vluyn 1990,73-83.

Index of sources
The index also shows single occurrences of a work's title by way of an
index of ancient works, but listing only (partially) preserved works.
In order for the index to make sense, passages treated extensively over a
number of pages are listed as single entries in bold print.

Hebrew Bible
Genesis
5: 1
8:11
12:3
18:18
22
Exodus
3:14
7f
16:3 1
16:34
19:6
20-23
20:2-6
22: 17
27:21
28:39
33:13f
Leviticus
6:3
19:2
19:6
23:29
Numbers
1:18
6:3
6:5
6: 1-7
11%
23:8
24: 16
Deuteronomy
4:15-21
7:3
7:4
18:15f
18:19

280
253
93
93
99
234
27 1
190
196
93
169
293
271
196
149
234

27
27:26
30:20
Judges
13:4
13:7
13:14
13:18
I Kings
10:6
18
18:3-16
18:4245
2Kings
17:30
2 1:4
Isaiah
1-5
1:ll-16
3:10

8:23
149
93
93
173
261
150
150
65
190
276
273
293
26 1
26 1
173
173

29:3
53:ll
54:llf
56:7
57: 1
Jeremiah
4:4
7: 12
37(30):20
Ezekiel
44
44115-17
44:17f
Amos
4: 13
Obadiah I
Psalms
1
1:5f

95
95
24
150
150
150
239
190
157
157
65
232
232
176
176
155

77
202
155
152, 156f
149
155
83
232
196
149
149
64
269
157
189
155

Index of sources
2:7
2:9
7: 12
37:9
37: 11
37:22
37:29
37:34
69:22
104:35
I18
118:19
118:20
118:21
141:2
145:9
Proverbs
1:14
17:26
Job 15:34
38:11
Song of Songs
6:8f
Ecclesiastes
7:26
Daniel
6:11
11:14
Ezra
10:3

Septuagint
Ezra 8:9
]Kings 18:3
1Chronicles
3:21
7:3
4Maccabees
Tobit 12:s
Wisdom 7:27
Siracides
50: 1-6
24:7
Daniel

OT Pseudepigrapha
Apoc. of Abraham
I0:9
Aristeas, letter of
Ascensio lsaiae
1:7
4:2-3
2Baruch
1Enoch
69: 14f
4Ezra
Odes of Solomon
39:7
Sibylline Oracles
Test. 12. Patr.

225
233
234
238
141
225
233
225
232
234
112

Qumran Texts
1QS
3: 13-4:24
9:4f
1 QM
14:7
4Q171[Psa]
2~9-12
2:lO
3:lO
4Q174 [Flor] l.l:3f
1.1:6f
4Q400-407
44400 fi 2:7
4Q403 fi 1 2:26
4Q503
4QMMT 92

112
114
11
179
179
179
179
1I
11

11
11
11
11
15

Greek Jewish Authors

Artapanus
fr. 3

233

Ezekiel the Tragedian 234

Philo
De conf. linguarum
146
De migr. Abrahami
86-126

236
235
94

Index of sources

Quis ref. div. heres

170
De mut. nominum
11
Vita Mosis
1.75
De specialibus legibus
1.186
2.163f
2.193-195
Quod omnis probus
41-50
Quaest. in Genesim

234
234
234
54
94
66
35
94

Josephus
Bellum
1.152
2.250-270
2.463
7.218
Antiquitatesjudaicae
7.4 1
7.44-53
7.54-62
7.100-104
7.108
8.329
12.43
12.157
18.36
20.173
20.197-203
20.200f
Contra Apionem
2.173f
2.223
Vita 19&196
309

New Testament
Matthew
1-2
1:1
1:4a
1:5
1:16
2:3

43
192
282
190
192
174
190

Index of sources

Mark
1:4f
1:9
1:lO
I:ll
1: 1 6 2 0
1:16
1:36
2:I3f
2:17
2: 18-22
3:13-19
3:I6-I9
3:16
3:17
3:3 1-35
6:s
6: 13
6:48-5 I
7:24-30
8:s-13
9:s
10:17f

Luke
1-2
1:5
2:9
3:2f
3:11
3:22 (1 D)
3:23
3:24
4:9-12
4:3 1
4:38
5:1
5:s
6:13
6:15
6:22
6:42
7: 1
712-10
7:9
8:I9-21
8:24
8:28
9:33
9:49
11:2
1 1:7-9
12:2-4
1256
13:6-9
13:15
16:17
17:13
19:38
19:46
20:17
22: 1

Index of sources

John
1:1-1 8
1:19
1:21
1~32-34
1:32
1:38
1 :47
1:49
2: 1-1 1
2:l-12
2:23-25
3:2
3:25
3:26
3:36
4:9
4:22
4:3 1
4:43-45
5:8f
5: 10
5:15-18
6: 1
6:23
6:25
6:70
7
7:l-13
7:2-13
7: 13
7:15
7: 19
7:32
7:35

Index of sources
Acts
1:2
1:13
1:2 1f
2:6
2:13
2:32
3: 1
3:14
3:15
3:22f
3:25
4:6f
4:32
5:17f
5:32
5:33f
5:34
6:lf
6:14
7
8:l-3
8:lO
9: l f
9:3
1Of
10:s
10:18
10:32
10:39
10:41
11:2
11:13
11:22
11:26
12
12:l-18
12:2
12:17
13:1-4
13:15f
13:3 1
13:38f
13:44
15
15:6-2 1
15:20
15:24
15:29
16:3

Romans
3:lf
3:25
4
4:lO-12
4: 15
7: 12
8:3
9:4
9:30-33
11113-24
13:s
14:l-15:6
14
14: 1-5
14:5f
14: 15
14:20

Index of sources

1 Corinthians
1 :22f
2:6
3:11
7: 17-20
7:19
8:7-13
8:8
8:13
9: 1
9:5f
9:20
10:29
115
11:lO
12:7
12:28
14:34
15:3-7
155
15:7

Ephesians
1:22-2:22
2:20
Philippians
2:6
2:9-10
3:5
3 :6
3:20

Galatians
1:l
1 :6-9
1:llf

Colossians
1:15f
2:16f
4:14

Index of sources

1Thessalonians
2:14-16
5:2 1

1John
2: 1
2:2

1Timothy 4:3

Titus
1:lO
1:14
Hebrews
5:7
6: 1
6:5f

7
9:2
9:3
13:15
13:22
James
1:l
1:18
1:21
1:25
2:2
2:12
2: 14-26
2:18
2:20-26
3:lf
5:6
5:14
5:16-18
1Peter
2:5
2:9
3:18
4:3
4:16

Jude

37f

Revelation
1:s
2:9
2:lO
2:14
2:20
2:25
3:9
3:14
4-5
5:s
7:4-10

NT Apocrypha
Gos. of the Ebionites 43f
fr 1
164
fk 2
167
fr 3
164
fi-4
164
fr 7
167
Gos. of the Hebrews 44
Gos. of the Nazoraeans 42f
Gos. of Thomas
46
12
154, 158
Acts of Thomas
11
46
27
239
Apocal. of Peter
2:5f
173

Nag Hammadi Texts

Apocr. (Epistle) of James
NHC I, 2
44,48

Index of sources

2.7
48
Gospel of Truth
239
NHC I, 3
38.639.6 (41.3) 240
Tripartite Tractate
NHC I, 5
fol. 65f
240
Gospel of Thomas
NHC I17Z
46
Gospel of Philip
NHC 11, 3
54.5-14
24 1
56.3-4
24 1
Bk. of Thomas the Contender
NHC 11, 7
46f
Dialogue of the Saviour
NHC 111, 5
47
Eugnostos (Epistle of)
NHC 111, 4; V, 3 47
Sophia of Jesus Christ
47
NHC 111, 4
1st Apocal. of James
NHC V, 3
49
32.3
154
36.16-18
159
2nd Apocal. of James
NHC V, 4
49, 155
44.14
154
60.20-23
159

Patristic Literature (alphabetically)

Aristides
Apologia
14.4
Augustin
Contra Faustum
19.17
De haeresibus
32

66

256

Basil
Ep. 258
Canones Apostolorum
(= Constit. Apost. 8.47)

can. 70

67

Carmina Nisibensu
42.lf

45

Clement of Rome
1Clement
1.1
4.8
5.4
31.4
41.2
55.2
55.4
55.6
59.2

20
20
141
20
21
21
21
21
237

(Ps. -)Clementina
2Clement
7
Epistula Petri
2.3
Homiliae
2.52.3
7.8.1
11.28ff
20.1 1-23
Recognitiones
1.27-71

216

183

1.6548
1.33-71
1.43.3
1.68
1.70.7
1.73.4
10.52-72

Index of sources
Clement of Alexandria
Stromateis
1.1 1.13
2.9.45
5.14.96
7.17
Excerpta ex Theodoto
22.4
26.1
31.1

9
9
115
115f
237
115
107
115
115
115
113
115
I1 lf, 115-118,
121
115
115
9, 115
108
121
111
111
107

37
48
44
44
131
24 1
24 1
24 1

Constit. Apostolorum
2.61
137
6.3.14
137
6.16.1
131
6.25
137
6.81
248
109f
7.19-23
8.47.8
137
Cyril of Jerusalem
Procatechesis 6.14

133

De centesima
132-135

109

Didache
1-7
1-6
1-5
1.1-6.1
1.1-3.1
I .1
1.2-6
1.2
1.3-6
1.3
4.13
6.1-7.4
6.1-8.1
6.1
6.1-3
6.2-3
6.3
7-15
7-10
7
7.1
7.2-3
8

227
121
107f, 111
108
11 l f
111
3
107
118
118
118
107
115
109f
107
106
3,104-121
34, 112
107
108
l l l f , 118
108,115
115
8

Didascalia Apostolorum
26 ( S Y ~ )
168
Didymus of Alexandria
Comm.in Pss. 34
44
Diognetus
1.1
3.1
4.1
5.17

24
66
66
2

(Ps.)Dionysius Areopagita
De divinis nominibus
1.6
239
Doctrina Addai

45

Doctrina Apostolorum
6.1
6.1-16
6.4f
6.5
6.6

111
109
114
111
114

Index of sources
Epiphanius
Panarion
(Adv. haereses)
1.26.2
19
19.3.5
19.3.6
19.5.4
21
26.17.4-9
28-3 0
28.1.5
28.2f
29
29.4
29.4.3
29.7.2-6
29.7.3
29.7.5
29.7.6
29.7.7f
30
30.2.7
30.3.1-6
30.3.2
30.3.5
30.4
30.1 1.9-10
30.13.7
30.15
30.16.6f
30.16.8f
30.17.2
30.17.4-8
30.17.5
30.18.1
37-3 9
40.1.6
42.1 1f
47.1
5 1.6.6
52.1.6
53
61.1
74.2-10
78
78.13f
78.14
Ancoratus

12.7-13.8
65.1-73.9
De mens. et pond.
15
De gemmis
Anacephalaeosis (sp.)
15.5
30.3
59.1.7

182
183
182
185
182
2 13,22 1
215
255
255

Ethiopic Church Order

52
109
Eusebius
Historia ecclesiastics
1.7-10
1.7.13
1.7.14
1.8
1.13.4
1.13.1 1
2.1.3-5
2.1.3
2.1.6
2.13.3
2.23
2-23.4-18
2.23.4-7
2.23.5f
2.23.7-23
2.23.19
2.23.20
3.4.6
3.5.3
3.1 1
3.11.19f
3.1 1.23
3.12
3.19f
3.19.1-3.20.7
3.22
3.25
3.27.2
3.27.3
3.27.4
3.32.4
3.32.6
3.35
3.36
3.36.2

326
3.36.1 1
4.4.1-4.6.4
4.5
4.5.2
4.6.4
4.8.4
4.22.1
4.22.2f
4.22.4f
4.22.5f
4.22.8
5.1.26
5.5.8
5.8.3
5.20.6
6.6
6.12.3-6
6.30
6.38
Praepar. evang.
9.27.1-37
Demonstr. evang.
Evagrius
Kephalaia Gnostica
Fides 318 Patrum
Hermas, Pastor of
Sim 9.14.5
Hegesippus
Hypomnemata
Hippolytus
Refutatio (Elenchos)
omn. haeresium
5.2
7.33.2
7.35.2
9.1.31
9.13.1-9.17.2
9.14.2
10.21.3
10.23.2
10.29.1-3
10.29.3
11.21.3

Index of sources
Zgnatius
Ephesians
3.1
12.2
Magnesians
8.1
8.2
9.1
10.2
Trallians
3.3
5.2
7.4
Romans
3.1
4.3-5.1
4.3
Philadelphians
6.1
Smyrnsteans
1.2
3.1-3
3.3
3.2
11.1-3
to Polycarp
7.lf
to Mary
4.1
5
Tarseans
3.3
lrenaeus
Adversus haereses
1.14.1-9
1.21.3
1.23.4
1.24.2
1.26
1.26.1
1.26.2

Index of sources

3.21.2
4.14.3
4.15.lf
5.1.3
Ep. ad Florinus

43
169
169
43, 163
127, 132

Jerome
Adv. Pelagium 3.2
43, 147,283
De viris inlustr. (illustr.)
2
148,154
3
42
16
137, 139
In Matthaeum 12.13 42
In Philemon 23
88
In Zachar. 3.14.9
74
Epist. 107.12
129
Epist. 1 12-1 13
156
Epist. 112.4
285
Epist. 112.13
186
John Chrysostom
Adversus Judaeos
1.5
4.7
Hom. in Gal.
2:11, 16-20
Hom. in St. Ign.
4
5

137
137
285
137
137

12
Dialogue
7f
12
13
16.2
18
22.1
27.2
40.4f
43.1
44.1
45.3
45.6
46f
47.1-4
47.4
51.2
67.8
88.3
100.4
101.3
102.5
103.6
103.8
104.1
105.1
106.1
106.2
106.3
106.4
107.1
120.6
137.2

John Damascene
De haeresibus
53

256

John Malalas
Chronografia
10.246
10.252

137
137

Lactantius
Divinae institutiones
5.34

Julius Africanus
Ep. ad Aristidem

173

Martyrium S. Ignalii
5

114

Murtyrium Polycarpi
19.2

114

Justin
1Apology
26
26.2
31.6
33.5
67.5
2Apology

25
133
133
22
134
134

Nurses (Narsi) of Edessa

Homilies 22
232

Index of sources
TertulEian
Adversus Iudaeos
14.9f
Adversus Marcionem
3.7.7
De came Christi
14
De praescript. haer.
33.1 1

Origen
Contra Celsum
1.6
1.2 1
1.25
1.41
1.47
1.62f
1.67
2.13
5.61
6.40
7.37
De principiis
1, praef. 8
praef. 4.3.8
4
4.3.8
In 1Cor. fiag.
18
In Jerem. Horn.
12.13
In Joh. Comm.
2.12
In Levit. Hom.
10.2.1
10.2.3
In Matt. Comm.
10.17
16.8
79
In Lucam Hom.
6c
In Rom. Comm.
7.3
In Psalmos fiag.
118[119].152
138

67
67
163
163

Theodorefof C p s
Haer. fabularum cornp.
2.7
216
256
2.1 I

Rabbinic Literature

Petrus Diaconus
De loc. sanctis 5.2

125

Polycarp
1Philippians

137

Socrates
Historia eccl. 6.8

137

Tatian
Diatessaron

130

Index of sources

Tosefta
tBerakhot
3.1
3.8
3.25
4.16
6.2 1
tShabbat
6.5
tSota
15.8
tTaanit
2.4
2.5
2.8
tYomTov
2.12
tMoedKatan
2.16
tHu1lin
2.2
2.24

Palestinian Talmud
yBerakhot
1.1 (2d)
4 (8a)
4(8~)
5(9~)
yShabbat
1.4 (3c-d)
14.4 (14d)
yTaanit
2 (65c)

4 (68d)
yMegilla
3 (73d)
yMagiga
2.2 (77d)
yYevamot
2.6 (4a)
yNedarim
9 (41c)
ySota
end
yKiddushin
3.12 (64d)
ySanhedrin
6.9 (23c)
7.19 (25d)
yAvoda Zara
2.2 (40d)
Babylonian TaImud
baerakhot
7a
10a
27b
28a
28b
29b
53b
56a
5 8a
61b
bShabbat
13b-17b
34a
1 16a-b
130b
bSota
49a
49b
bRoshHashana
24a
bYoma
53b
bTaanit
24b
bMegilla
5b
bWagiga
5b

330

Index of sources

bKiddushin
71b
bBavaKama
83a
bBavaMetsia
10%
bBavaBatra
22a
75a
bsanhedrin
17a
38b
39a
43a
67b
90a
97a
1OOa
105b
bMakkot
1l a
bMenahot
28b
bHullin
87a
bAvodaZara
4a-b
16b17a
17a
27b

Avot de-R. Natan (ed. Schechter)

a14 (29b)
13
b28 (29b)
13
Targum Neojiti

237

Mekhilta

298

Genesis Rabba
(ed. Theodor-Albeck)
1.10 (p9)
7.2 (p50f)
8.8 (p61)
2 1$9(p204)
25.1 (p239)

254
260
262
253
263

Exodus Rabba
19.4

263

Leviticus Rabba
(ed. Margulies)
9.3 (p179)
12.1 (p244)
22.8 (p517f)

253
262
176

Shir (Song)Rabba
1.63
1.65
2.6
4.6
5.8

2 52
252
253
25 1
2 53

Ekha (Lam.) Rabba

2.4

23

Kohelet (Eccl.) Rabba

1.4
1.8
7.3

257
262
2 1,268,272,274
260f

Tanhuma ed Buber
hukat 15.15

260

Tanhuma
naso 19
hukat 6.6

2 53
260

Pesikta Rabbati
5
14.61

253
260

Pesikta de-Rav Kahana

(ed. Braude)
4.3 (p63)
260
18 (p298)
269
Midrash Tehillim (Ps.)
104.27 (p448)
272
113.2 (p235)
253
136 (p260)
253
Seder Olam Rabba
3 (9a)

15f

Index of sources
Derekh Erets Rabba

1 12

Massekhet Gerirn
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.5
3.3

118
119
119
119
119
119

Shiur Qorna

243

Merkava shelema
39b

243

Toledot Yeshu

269

Dio Cassius

Fihrzst al- Ulum

Other, & ancient mss.

Ibn Ishaq, Sira

Abd al-Jabbar
Tathbit

70f

Lydus
De mansibus 4.53

Bodleian
Opp. 749
Rawlinson Or. 37

280
280

Memar Marqa
1.4
Papyrus Bodmer V

Cambridge
.
T-S Misc. 35.87

282

Cologne Manickaean Codex

48.16
222

50.8

222

Suetonius
Vita Claudii 25.4
Vita Domitiani 12

Vita Mani

Index of modern authors

Not included are those merely mentioned as translators or editors of ancient sources, nor, for the modern period, those cited as actors not authors.
Abramowski, L.
Adamson, J.B.
Albeck, Ch.
Alexander, P.
Allison, D.C.
Alon, G.
Amersfort, J. van
Archambault, G.
Asmussen, J.P.
Assmann, J.
Ateek, W.S.
Audet, J.-P.
Aune, D.E.
Aviram, J.
Avi-Yonah, M.
Bacher, W.
Bagatti, B.
Baltzer, K.
Bammel, C.P.
Bammel, E.
Barclay, J.M.G.
Bardy, G.
Bareilte, G.
Barnard, L. W.
Bamikol, E.
Barrett, C.K.
Bartlet, J.V.
Baskin, J.R.
Bauckham. R.

Bauer, W.

Baum, A.D.

135,140, 143
36
8
3,27,55
9f
3f, 7, 13, 23f, 27,
1 11,267,277
22 1
135, 143
2 10
239
305f
11lf, 116f, 122
268,277
252
245f
256,267,274,
277
26f, 55,249
157
136, 143,282f
84, 103, 108, 122,
60f
210
210,216
134f, 143
116, 122
61, 136f, 143
116, 122
275,277
8,20-22,27, 36,
38,40,43, 139,
141,143, 149f,
152,154-1 56,
159f, 173f, 180,
185
7,21,27, 42, 130,
143, 156, 161,
285
129, 143

Baur, F.C.
Becker, J.
Bell, C.
Bellinzoni, A.j.
Ben Ezra, D.
Benoit, A.
Ben-Shammai, H.
Bernheim, P.-A.
Bertrand, D.A.

Betz, H.-D.
Beyschlag, K.
Bickerman, E.
Biderman, S.
Bietenhard, H.
Black, C.C.
Black, M.
BlanchetiGre, F.
Bludau, A.
Blurnenkranz, B.
Bockmuehl, M.N.A.
Boer, M.C. de
Boff, L.
Boismard, M.-E.
Bonner, C.
Bottrich, C .
Bouch6-Leclerq, A.
Boulluc, A. le
Bousset, W.
Bovon, F.
Boyarin, D.
Brakke, D.
Briindle, R.
Brandon, S.G.F.
Brandt, W.
Bregman, J.
Brian4 J.G.
Brockway, A.

Index of modern authors

Brooke, George J.
Brown, P.
Brown, R.E.
Brox, N.
Bruce, F.F.
Buchanan, G.W.
BBchler, A.
Bultmam, R.
Buren, P. van
Byrskog, S.
Campenhausen, H.
Cardman, F.
Carleton Paget, J.

Carter, W.
Casurella, A.
Cerfaux, L.
Chadwick, H.
Cirillo, L.
Cohen, S.J.D.
Cohn-Sherbok, D.
Comolly, R.H.
Conzelmann, H.
Cox, S.L.
C o g R. le
Crone, P.
Cullmann, 0.
Danielou, J.
Dar, S.
Davies, W.D.
Dechow, J.F.
Denker, J.
Dibelius, M.
Dodd, C.H.
Dorival, G.
Dormeyer, D.
Dronseiff, F.
Dorva-Haddad, J.
Draper, J.A.
Drijvers, H.
Duff, J.N.
Durnmer, J.
Dunbabin, K.M.D.

Dunn, James D.G.

Eben-Shushan, A.
Eckey, W.
Edwards. M.J.
Ehrlich, U.
Ehrman, B.D.
Eisenman, R.
5

Eisler, R.
Elbogen, I.
Elgvin, T.
Ellis, M.H.
Epstein, J.N.
Eshel, E.
Evans, C.A.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E.
Fairchild, M.
Fenton, P.B.
Fischer, E.
Fischer, J.A.
Fitzmyer, J.A.
Fleischer, E.
Fluegel, G.
Flusser, D.

Fodor, A.
Fornberg, T.
Fijfster, N.
Fossum, J.
Fraenkei, P.
FrankemGlle, H.
Frymer-Kensky, T.
Gager, J.
Gaster, M.
Genequand, C.
Geoltrain, P.
Gero, S.
Giet, S.
Ginzberg, L.
Glasser, A.F.
Gobel, P.E.
Goethe, J.W.
Goetschel, R.
Goldberg, Abr.
Goodman, M.
Grant, R.M.

333

334
Grappe, C.
Green, J.B.
Greeven, H.
GrGzinger, K.E.
Gruenwald, I.
Guijarro, S.
GUting, E.
Haenchen, E.
Haeuser, P.
Halton, T.
Hanson, RP.C.
Harkins, P.W.
Harnack, A. [von]

Harvey, G.
Hayward, C.T.R.
Heckel, T.K.
Heimgiirtner, M.
Heinemann, J.
Hellholm, D.
Hengel, M.

Heme, P.
Henrix, H.
Herford, R. Travers
Herr, M.D.
Heschel, S.
Hilgenfeld, A.
Holl, K.
Hoimes, M.W.
Horbury, W.
Horsf P.W.van der
Houtman, C.
Howard, G.
Huldreich, J.J.
Hlinembrder, Ch.
Htibner, R.M.
Hyldaht, N.
Hyman, A.
Irshai, 0.
Isaac, I.

Index of modern authors

Jacobs, M.
James, M.R.
Jaubert, A.
Jefford, C.
~ e ~ h e r - ~ u c hV.
er,
lelsma, A.
Jervell, J.
Joly, R.
Jones, F.St.

Juel, D.H.
Jullien, C.
Jullien, F.
Junod, E.
Kaestli, J.-D.
Kahin, R.
Kaplan, Ch.
Keck, L.E.
Keel, 0.
Kelhoffer, J.A.
Kimehan, R.
Kittel, G.
Kjaer-Hansen, K.
Klauck, H.-J.
Klausner, J.
Kfein, G.
Klein, 6.
Klenicki, L.
Klijn, A.F.J.

Klinghardt, M.
Klostennann, E.
Knopf, R.
Koch, G.A.
Koester (KGster), H.
Kofsky, A.
Kbhler,
Kortzfleisch, S. von
Kraabel, A.T.
Krauss, S.
Kraft, R.A.

Index of modern authors

Kraus, W.
Kremers, H.
Kriegel, S.
Krieger, K.-S.
Kuhn, T.S.
Kilchler, M.
Kllmrnel, W.G.
Lachs, S.T.
Lagrange, M.-J.
Lambers-Petry, D.
Lamont, M.
Lampe, P.
Lange, N.R.M. De
Lawlor, H.J.
Layton, B.
Leclercq, H.
Ldgasse, S.
Levene, D.
Levi, M.A.
Levine, I.L.
Liebeman, S.
Lieu, J.
Lightfoot, J.B.
Limburg, A.
Lindemann, A.
Linder, A.
Logan, A.H.B.
Lohse, E.
Lorentz, B.
Lfidemann, G.
Lilhrmann, D.
Lull, D.J.
Luttikhuizen, G.P.
Luz, U.
Mach, R.
Maduro, 0.
Maier, J.
Manns, F.
Maoz, B.
Marcovich, M.
Marguerat, D.
Marquardt, F.-W.
Marshall, J.W.
Martyn, J.L.

Mason, S.
Massaux.
Mattila, S.L.
McCant, J.W.
McKay, H.A.
Meade, D.G.
Meeks, W.A.
Meier, J.P.
Mdnard, J.E.
Merkelbach, R.
Metzger, B.M.
Metzger, M.
Meyer, A.
Meyer, M.W.
Miller, S.S.
Mimouni, S.C.

Momigliano, A.
Monnot, G.
Moo, D.J.
Mortley, R.
Moule, C.F.D.
Moutsoulas, E.D.
Moxnes, H.
Muilenburg, J.
MUller, H.-P.
Mailer, K.
Munck, J.
Munier, C.
Mmster, S.
Nautin, H.
Naveh, J.
Neirynck, F.
Netzer, E.
Neusner, J.
Newman, H.I.
Newsom, C.A.
Nicklas, T.
Niederwimmer, K.
Nodet, E.
Norelli, E.
O'Connor, J.M.
Olson, D.T.

Index of modern authors

Osborn, E.F.
Oppenheimer, A.
Ozen, A.
Painter, J.
Paulsen, H.
Pedersen, S.
Perczel, I.
Perrone, L.
Pesch, R
Petersen, W.L.
Peterson, E.
Philip, W.
Phillips, C.R.
Pietri, L.
Pilhofer, P.
Pines, S.
Poll, E. van der
Polster, G.
Pourkier, A.
Pradels, W.
Pratscher, W.

Prawer, J.
Pritz, R.A.
Prostmeier, F.R.
Quispel, G.
Rappaport, U.
Rausch, D.
Rebell, W.
Reif, S.
Reiner, E.
Reinink, G.J.

Roloff, J.
Roncaglia, (M.)P.
Rordorf, W.
Roselli, A.
Rosenfeld, B.-Z.
Rosenstiehl, J.-M.
Rosenthal, J.
Roth-Gerson, L.
Rtiwekamp, G.
Rudin, A.J.
Rudin, M.
Rudolph, K.
Ruether, R.R.
Safiai, S.
Saffai, 2.
Sagnard, F.
Salo, K.
Sanders, E.P.
Sandt, H. van de
Sar, H.C. van der
Schiifer, P.
Scharfstein, B.-A.
Schenke, H.-M.
Schiffman, L.H.
Schiller, E.
Schlarb, E.
Schlatter, A.
Schmithals, W.
Schnackenburg,R.
Schneemelcher,W.
Schnelle, D.
Schoedel, W.R.
Schoeps, H.-J,

Renan, E.
Rendtorff, R.
Rengstorf, K.H.
Rese, M.
Reuchlin, J.
Richardson, P.
Riesner, R.
Riggans, W.
Ritter, A.M.
Rius-Camps, J.
Roberts, C.H.
Robinson, J.A.

Scholem, G.
Schtillgen, G.
Schonfield, H.J.
Schoon, S.
Schrage, W.
Schramm, T.
Schreiner, J.
Schilrer, E.
Schwartz, E.
Schwartz, J.
Schweitzer, A.

Index of modern authors

Schwemer, A.M.
Seeberg, A.
Segal, A.F.
Segni, R,Di
Seirn, R.K.
Seland, T.
Shaked, Sh.
Sherwin-White, A.N.
Shiffman, L.
Siegert, F.
Sim, D.C.
Simon, M.

Taylor, J.E.
Taylor, M.
Telfer, W.
Thoma, C.
Thomas, J.
Thomassen, E.
Thornton, C.-J.
Thornton, T.C.G.
Tischendorf, C. von
Tomson, P .J.

Skarsaune, 0.
Smallwood, E.M.
Smit Sibinga, J.
Smith, J.D.D.
Smith, M.
Smith, R.
Sobel, B.Z.
Stanton, G.N.
Stauffer, E.
Stemplinger, E.
Stern, D.
Stern, I.
Stern, S.M.
Stokl, D.
Strecker, G.

Streeter, B.H.
Stroumsa. G.G.

Tongerloo, A. van
Torrey, C.
Totti, M.
Trachtenberg, J.
Trever, J.C.
Trevett, C.
Trobisch, D.
Tsuji, T.
Tuilier, A.
Turner, C.H.
Turner, J.H.
Tyson, J.
Yoshiko-Reed, A.
Uehlinger, Ch.
Ulfgard, H.
Uthman, A.A.
Urbach, E.E.
Vaganay, L.
Vanderkam, J.C.
Veltri, G.
Verheyden, J.

Stuhlmacher, P.
Stuiber, A.
Sturdy, J.
Suck-Scbroder, A.
Sundermeier, T.
Swaine, S.
Tannenbaum, M.
Tardieu, M.

Vermes, G.
Vielhauer, P.
Vigne, D.
Vinzent, M.
Vogel, M.
Vogt, H.J.
Vokes, F.E.
Voltaire
Vbbbus, A.
Voorst, R.E. Van

Taylor, C.
Taylor, J.

Wagenseil, J.C.
Waitz, H.

lndex of modern authors

Walker, P.W.L.
Wallis, R.T.
Walter, N.
Wander, B.
Ward, R.B.
Weijenborg, R.
Weiss, J.
Weiss, 2.
Wellhausen, J.
Wengst, K.
Wiles, M.F.
Wilken, R.L.
Wilkinson, J.
Williams, F.

Winer, R.
Witulski, T.
Wrede, W.
Yamold, E.J.
Yassif, E.
Young, F.M.
Zahn, T.
Zeitlin, S.
Zrnijewski, J.
Zori, N.
Zuckschwerdt, E.

List of contributors
Richard BAUCKHAM,
FBA, FRSE, is Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop
Wardlaw Professor at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. His most recent books are;
The Fate of the Dead (1998); God Crucified. Monotheism and Christology in the N e w
Testament (1998); James. Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (1999); God and
the Crisis of Freedom. Biblical and ContemporaryPerspectives (2002); and Gospel
Women. Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (2002).
Markus B O C W H L is a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College and Reader in New Testament
Studies at the University of Cambridge. Recent books include a commentary on Philippians (1998), Jewish Law in Gentile Churches (2000) as well as The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (ed., 2001). His book on Simon Peter in Lhing Memory is due to appear in
2004.
Gideon BOW is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Jewish Philosophy and the
Program in Religious Studies at Tel Aviv University. His most recent book is Joseph and
Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (1996). He is currently writing a book on
Ancient Jewish Magic.

is Professor of Judaism at the University of Wales and is the author

Dan COHN-SHERBOK
and editor of over 60 books including Messianic Judaism (Continuum, 2000), Yoices of
Messianic Judaism (Lederer, 2001), Interfaith Theology. A Reader (New York UP, 2001),
and Anti-Semitism (Sutton, 2002).
Jonathan A. DRAPERis Professor of New Testament at the School of Theology, University of Natal, South Africa. Recent books include The Didache in Modern Research (ed.;
1996) and, with Richard A. Horsley, Whoever Hears You Hews Me: Prophets, P e e mance, and Traditions in Q (1999).
is Professor of Jewish and Early Christian Studies in the University of
William HORBURY
Cambridge, a Fellow of the British Academy, and a Fellow of Corpus Cbristi College,
Cambridge. Recent books include: Jewish Messianism and the Cult ofChrist (1998),
Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy(1998), and The Cambridge History of
Judaism, vol. 3 (volume editor, 1999). Work in preparation includes a book on the
Toledot Yeshu.

ist Lehrbeauftragte flk Geschichte und Literatur des Zweiten

Doris LAMB-Y
Ternpels und Patristik sowie Assistentin im Fach Neues Testament an der FUTP/ UFPG
in B W e l . Sie bereitet eine Dissertation vor iiber die Verwmdten Jesu und ihre
Bedeutung in der fiUhen Kirche. Ver6ffentlichungenUber Josephus (Josephus-Projekt
Mfinster).
Simon C. WOW
est directeur d'btudes i la Section des sciences religieuses de 1'~cole
pratique es Hautes etudes et directeur de la Revue des btudesjuives. Ouvrages rkents :
La dormition et l'assomption de Marie; Histoire des traditions anciennes (1995); Le
judbo-christianisme ancien; Essays historiques (1998); Le judio-christianisme duns tous
ses ktats; Actes du colloque de Jirusalem 6-10juillet 1998 (2001 - avec F.S. Stanley
Jones); La formation des communautis religieuses duns le monde grkco-romain (2003).
Wilhelm PRATSCHER.
Professur am Institut fir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Evangelisch-theologische FakultZLt, Universiat Wien. Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (1987). Mitherausgeber von, u.a.: Die Kirche als historische und escha-

340

List of contributors

tologische Grope. FS K. Niedenvimmer (1994); Quaestiones Theologicae. Gesammelte

Aufiatze K. Niederwimmer (1998); Wiener Juhrbuchfur Theologie (2000,2002).
Zeev SAFRAI
is full Professor in the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan
University, Israel, and Vice-Rector of this university. He specialized in the history and
archaeology of Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Among his books are: The
Economy of Roman Palestine, The Jewish Community in the Talmudic Period (in Heb.),
and The Missing Century.
Simon SCHOON
is minister of the Reformed Church at Gouda and Professor of JewishChristian Relations at the Theological University at Kampen, Netherlands. He has been a
minister in the Christian village of Nes Ammim, Israel, presided the Dutch Council of
Christians and Jews, and been a member of the Executive Committee of the International
Council of Christians and Jews. He recently published Onopge&aar verbonden; Op weg
nuur vernieuwing in de verhouding tussen de kerk en het volk Israel (1998).
Folker SIEGERT
ist Professor flir Judaistik und Neues Testament an der Universittit Manster und Direktor des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum. Buchver6ffentlichungen u.a.:
Drei hellenistisch-judischePredigten, Ubersetzungaus dem Armenischen und Kommentar (2 Bde., 1980, 1992); Argumentation bei Paulus, gezeigt an Rom 9-11 (1985); Zwischen Hebraischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einfuhrung in die Septuuginta, 2
Bde. (2001,2002).
Daniel S T WBENEZRAis currently Golda Meir-Fellow in Jewish History and Comparative Religion at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. From 2003 he will be Mandel-Scholar
at the Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University. His dissertation The Impact of
Yom Kippur on Early Christianity is going to be published in WUNT.
is Martin Buber Professor of Comparative Religion at the Hebrew
Guy G. STROUMSA
University of Jerusalem, and Director of the Center for the Study of Christianity there.
Among his recent works, Barbarian Philosophy: the Religious Revolution of Early Christianity (1999); with David Shulman, he is the editor of SelfandSeljlTransformation in
the History of Religions (2002).
Peter J. TOMSON is Professor of New Testament and Patristics at the UFPG, Brussels and
General Editor of Compendia Rerum ludaicarum ad Movum Testamentum. Recent publications: 'Ifthis befiom Heaven...'; Jesus and the NT Authors in their Relationsh@to
Judaism (2001; FT 2003: Jdsus et les auteurs du NT duns leur relation au judabme); De
zaak-Jezzis en de Joden (200 1;ET forthcoming: The Jesus Cause and the Jews; FT 2003:
L'afaire J6sus et les Juifs).
Joseph V E R H Eis ~hofessor of New Testament at the Catholic University of Leuven,
Belgium. Recent include The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed., 1999), 'Silent Witnesses. Mary
Magdalene and the Women at the Tomb in the Gospel of Peter' (in FS J. Lambrecht
2002), 'The Conclusion of Q. Eschatology in Q 22,28-30' (in A. Lindemann, ed., The
Historical Jesus and the Sayings Source Q, 2001), and 'Assessing Gospel Quotations in
Justin Martyr' (in FS J. Delobel2002).

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

AIphaheticul Inde,~of the first cmd SwonJ Seri~~s

4clncr Jorrern Jcsu Stellung nim lcmpol

2000 I crlrmrt~11)I I Y
~
(Fd ) 171c
4dtw ./o\ri>rn and K ~ u l b t w/fun\

Mtsston of the Farly Church to J c ~ \ d n d

Cienttlcs 2OOO Volunre 127
Alhirr .\rt,/uw Wunder und Wtrklt~hketttn clen
Isneten de\ Ap\tels Paulus 2001
CirIunrtn134
.Inde*rson, I'utrlN

rhc Chnstolog) of the

l ourth Gospcl 1996 Ci1111mcl l V #
, l p p ~ / dwurk / rhc (>ncnc% Motif rn the
Fourth Ciorpcl 1976 b'olumc / I / /
trnolcl ('lrnron f. The Colox\rnn Syncretr\n~
1995 l4iliirnr IN77
/I\c orrglr Hit hurd J Paul's Macedonran
Axsoctatton\ 2003 C.irlumc.I I / I 6 I
.f sri~il~r-l'c~yrii/r.
Murrrn Johanntne Sabbath
C onfltcts A\ Jundrcal( ontrovcny 2001

Rcirrrrr It mrn l>utrrc,l Pseudepigraphte unci

Itterartwhe f dlwhung rm fruhen Cfin\tentutri 2 0 I Cohmrt. / / / I 3 8
11u1c,t /kin\ I rrtdrrc h Jews' Prcdtcttons of

Vtndrcattoti and Ro\urr~rtton 1986

I.irlunrc, 11 20
1jc.c kc,r Mrc Ituc.1 U under und Wundertater
1111truh-rdbhtnt\chen Jucicntutii

2002

lolurnt, / / / I 4 4
Ilc,ll Hrt /rur(Ill Proboked to Jc.rlou\y 1094
V ~ I L I I I II
I ~ ,n3
No One Seek\ for (rod 1998 Volrrme, 106
Nt~rtrrmrr~u
Cbrtrc~lrc I he Power of Savrng
\-C rdom '(HI2 I olrmnre 11 14X
Nt*tynrcrn Jcrtt \ec h'rc.ffi.r, Ncrrr
Mrt~t?it~rrr
Holunil Uas G c x b im Romerbrrcf

untl aridere Studren nmm Netren Te\tanicnt

2000 l o l t t m ~121
Nrr: Orro Je\us, der Mc\sra\ I\r,lel\ 1987

Iirlrtnrc~11,1.1?
A~~c~rtroric~
Errc~drrc/I rlie Taufcrililungcti cler
I olurrrc~42
Apirstelge.;chichte 9002 Ci,ltrmc~I3Y
Jc\ur. dcr ficrr der Kirchc I990 C'olrirrrc*52
Alr rnoncp 1 rrc.drrch and Ile~rmcmttI rc lrrc,nE~t*~~i~r HIXIe l hlug Kcirlnrunn Stn~oriMagu\ und die
(Fd ) Aufentehung R~?isurc?ron2001
chn\tlrcheGriost 1974 li)Irmtc~16
~ ~ i l r rI.?m5 ~ ~
Hirrt~rv Uol/gungJ Jew Lctchen in1 JohannesI~c.murrc. Lrrt'drrch and f ~ m u n n
e\ angelturn I 087 I.t)Ii,lumc*11/26
I rc hrclnbqp~t(Fd ) Bund und lord 1996
BIC~IA~IIOIII
(it11J Tduta rgetiet~ 1987
I blumc. 92
I blrmtc~I 0
Nuc Irmcinn, MI<hut./ Sunder uder Ilhcrtreter
Nluc Ahurrr Ucir 1-3 I (,cr I hero\ Ancr and the
1092 Iohntc. 5V
Markan Mtrdclc I rddttion\ IOUI
I ~ A.I C
I runc rs Vowandlung durch Olknbarung
liilunrc~11 40
bet Paulu\ 2002 I./irlrite llil.53
l
ant1 f rdltatton tn
Not A I l t i r r ~ ~ l l I3lasphemy
B u k r rVillronr R Personal Spch-Fthtcs tn the
Judarrm and the ftndl Fxaniinatron of Jc\u\
Ept\tle of James 1995 I'trlume 11/68
I908 l olrtmi~11 I06
UuhAt*. Odtl iMugne 'Concord and Peace'
Not hmue/r/, A4urhuc N A Re\elatron and
200 I Vi,lrinre, 111I43
Mystcry rn Ancrcnt Judaism and I'auline
Uirllu I'e/c,r Challenges to New Icstament
Chrrrtrantty 1990 &rlume 11/36
Theolog> 1997 I.blrtmr 11/95
Noc, S\xvw Ciog and Magoy 200 1
Tltc. C'hild-/'anant Hclutromhrp In the New
Iohtmr 111135
1i.c rirme*nr ond rrr krrvrn>nmcwr 2003
IJohlrg, AC~undt,r Cino\rs und Synkrctlsnit~\
Ci~lrtnrc~
155
Tell 1 1989 birlumr 47 re112 1989
Nirmntc~l,Erncr Judarca Volume l l 986
Ciilrirnr 48
C'c)ltrmc~
37
Nohm, hturrtnu San~arlcriund dre Sat~iarttllbet
Volunic 11 1097 Ci)lunir YI
l uka\ 1999 It)lirmc, 11 I l l
Bo\li ftrrhtin+ Ariihassador\ for CIin\t 1997
Rorrtit /I (%rrctfrir.tl WeItwei\hert MenschI'olrtmt. 11/92
he~t\ethtk- llrkult I902 bblrtmc 11/50
Uuut~rn/eirril,Orre) Kommentar untl Studien rur
/iohdr Junoc Jew rischgemetn\chafien 1997
Apstelge\ch~chte 1980 C"oltmtn~~-7-7
Ci~lrrmcII"J6

Rotmun, Philip ('onsctence In Phrlo and Paul

2003 Cblumc 1/1166
Hroc ke. C'hrrrfoyh vom fheswlon~ki Stadt

des Kassander und Ciemelndc des Pauluc

200 1 K)liimr~111125
Arun\on, A n ~ l w h Pmlm l I8 i r i the (io\pc.l of
John 2003 l i~lumeIN158
Rut hli Jcirg Dcr Pormandre4 ein paganivertes Evangeltu~n 1987 l + ~ l u m11
t ~27
Rrthner../an A Der Gesdndte und \ern Wcg rrvi
4 t\angelrum 1977 I.i)lume l l i 2
Riin hurd, ('hri.irorph llntcnuchungen zu
Joseph und Ascnetli 1965 Lolume 8
Stud~cnm r Thcolog~c,Sprache und Umvcelt
dec Neucn lestamcnts Ed von D Siinger
1998 l+~liime107
Hurnt,rr Rir hurd Karl Bartha\ Theolog~cal
Exegcsts 2001 l'oliimc 1/1145
Rvron. John Slavery Metaphorn rn Early
Judarsm and Paul~neC'hnst~an~ty.
2003
Krliime I / / / 62
B m k o g . Sumitel Story as History History as
Story 2000 Cblrimr 123
Chnrik, H r i h c ~
(Ed ) Markus-Phrlologre I984
l4/oltinre 33
(bprrr, lluvidb' Old Testament Yaweh Text\ In
Paul'$ Chnstology 1092 lirlunir 11/47
('umgoiini\ C'hn*, C' I he Son of Man 1986
Chlurne 38
- see 1~ridrichst.n.Anrorr.
( h r l e ~ o nI'uger. J u m t x The Epistle of Barnabas.
1994. l/i>lumr 11/64,
(ilrson, D.A..O'Brien, Peter 7: and Murk

.Sefid(Ed.): Justification and Variegatetl

Notnism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul anit
Second Tcrnplc Judaism. Volume 1 : The
Complexrtres ofSecond 1emplc Juda~zni
Chlume I / / / 40
C'icimpu. ROYI:' I he Prc\encc 'tnd tunctron of

Scripture in Cialat~ans1 and 2 1998

C'cllume I / / /02
( Iur\c,n, Cilrl./ouc him KIictorrcal( ritrc\rn 01
the New Testanlent 2000 bi.i,lrim~128
C'olpr Cizrrren lranier Ararnaer tlebAer
tiellenen 2003. Cblume 154
('ramp (krrrd Jesuc the Intercc\\or 1992
Ci)lume11/4V
I h h l , Nils AI\triil) Sti~drec111 Ephe\ians 2000
1irlrime 13 I
Ilc*me\ Rolund Jiidrcche Ste~ngefakund phans a ~ r h F6mm1gkeit.
e
1993 Colrinir 11/52
Drc PllansBer 1997 Cbhimc*101
I)c*ttwtier, A n d m u and Jeun Lurntr1,iti (1,d /

Kreuzesthcolog~erm Neuen Rstament.

2003. lblumr 151

n i t k\on. John I' Mrssion-< omrnltment in

Anc~cntJuda15mand rri the Paulrnc

Communit~e\2003 C'oltmrr 11 159
l>iecft~lhrngo.C 'lrr 1\triJn Ilcr Abxliled des
Kommenden I997 ICrlurn<,Y 5
1k)hhc~lerArc1 con Cilautx d l \ Tcilliatx 1987
I.irlurnc~11/22
I k n id .\ I helo\ Anthropm I907
Iblumct 11 'I1
Ilrinn , ./trmt~\I ) ( r ( t d ) Jet\ s , ~ n d( hnstran\
1 992 &/oliimr 66
P'iul and the Mowic Law I996 l olrmit~XY
Iliinn, ./ume\ 1) C; , /Ion\ K l t ~ i nOlric /I I ti: and
bhsilr~Mthoc(Ed ) Au4egungdcr Brbel In
I)u

rot1

orthodoucr und we\tl~chert'cnpcktr\e 2(XN

lolume 130
L h r e ,4iii hurl IV [la\ ('ti,ir~rmacles (~ehreuLrgten IOX7 I%lrinrt~4 5
kc Ltrrin Ilrrrr\-Joc~clirnr I k r Beyr~ff\ynciiIe\~r
h . 1 Paulus 1983 Iblttnir I! 10
VcrhcrUung und C i e ~ . t iI90h i4tlirttr~~
86
/:,go. Ncv~~e
Im ttimrncl vcle , ~ r lf rden 1980
Cirliimc, 11/34
,
uidi I'ilhor/i~tIJt.rc*r
t g o , Reu~t,aid I ~ i n g (Armin
d d l G m u & ttluw rcrnpel C omminity
vc ithout lcrnplc I W I'oltittil, 1IX
Liten I 'rt- h cee I'uulrzn l l ~ ~ n n r n p
I /It\ I lurlc, Prophecy and Ilcm~encutlctn
Farly Chrrst~aritty 1978 Col~intt~
IS

IIie Old Iestament in t-arl) ( hrrst~arlity

1 w 1 &)lllrnt~54
knrlrr L!u\uriohri C rcatlon and C hr~\tolog>
2002 I'ohimc, 149
knnultrr An~ln.c~\DIC'M~norAgrccrnent\'
1904 l'ohirnr 11/62
Ln\or l'isrc~rIY Jews and tlrr 'Work\' 1096
I'olrtnie 1/185
I,tkolu, Tinto iMc\\rah and the I lirone 200 I
l/olumc 11 142

l'heotl~cyand Prede\tlndtlon In Paulrne

Soterrology I008 Li>lurneI1 100
I urehi t f t ~ h d u d1he Sprr~t'\Rcl,tt~onto ttic
Riben L ord In Paul ZiHX) Ihlimrr 11 l.?X
1i~Iilmt.rc~r
Krrnliurtl Ihe Krislr tics Crottes\ohnes 1087 lolrirni~lli21
I)ie < Iin\ten ale I remde 1992 Colurnt*bJ
I.i~ldnirrc,r Rcrnhur 11antl ( It it 11t/t,i ht.1 ( I ci )
I l ~ tlc~den
c
1904 1.oliintc~iO
I Ic*rc htv-lotrir ( rr\pin 11 T I ukc-Act\
Angel\, C'hn\tology ilnd Soterrology 1997
I olunrc~11 YJ

I or\tc.t Nit lo\ Mnrct~\Mayu\ 1099

1 O/N~IIC'
114
/-or bt*\ ( htitro~~)hcr
Nriurr Prophec) ant1
In\p~rcdCpeecli In Larly C hrrst~anitj,tnd ~ t \
tiellcn~~trc
I-n\ lronmcnt 1995 loluwic~11 7 i

Ibrnherg Tod r ~ 1urrdrrt h\c.n, 4nton

f i ~ ~ t u nJurl
r . t I'he Name of God and the
Angel of the Lord 1985 lblttme 36
Eotol~)ulo\,John Food Offered to ldolr rn
Ronian Corrnth 2003 Cblumc l I / l 5 /
Eivnti hlow ski, hlurr-o Off enharung und
Fpiphame Volume 1 1095 lolumr>11/79Volume 2 I997 h h t m e 11/80
1'rt.e Jorx F u p n Drcwermann und die
blblrrhc Fxegcsc 1995 I'i,ltrnrnc~11/71

Dre johannersche Fschatologre Volume I

1997 b$)lrmmc. 96 Voltrmc l l I998
Ci~lume110

Voltm>eIll 2000 Volume 117

l - n ~ y n uJc~un Calrlec and Cospcl 2000
I&lunrc, 12 5
I rrdrrc hserr. Anton L xegetrcal Writing Ecirted
by C C Caragounis and T Fornberg 1994
li)lrtmt~76
Gurlrngtorr I>orr R ' rhc Obedrcncc of Farth'
1991 bolumc~I L 38
-

Faith. Obcd~ence,and Pcw\er;incc 1994

I'olunr~.79
(;arnet I'uul Sdl\dtron and Atonement rn the
Qumran Scrolls 1977 &)lrtmc, 1/13
( i c t r , i\.!rchurl Dar Vermachtnrr der Apostel\
1097 Colume ll/Y9
<~heo~~ln
Noclu
t u . 1he Role of the Septuagint
In Hebrews 2003 k ~ l u mll/llSO
t
Cirat>ts 1'~~trus
J The Power of Cod in Paul'\
1 cttcn 2000 li)lrtrnr IN123
(;ru/.kr: trrc h Ucr Alte Bund im Neuen 1985
li,lrtnre 15
1 orschungen zur Apostclgewhrchte 2001
b/r,lrrtr 1 17
(;rt'~rr .loc4 B I he Death of Jcrur 1988
Colrmnre 11/33
(;unilr, brrlf Judrth iM I'aul and Perseverance
1990 L;)lrtnrc* 11137
Ilu/i~munnS c otr .l Suffering and the Sprrit
198(1 Lolrtmc~/ / / I Y

- Paul, Morc3, and the f Irrtory ot Irrael 1995

Volrtme XI
I1~1hnJohatrnrt ( L J ) Lcntorungeil des
J e r u ~ k m e rempclr
r
2002 1 o/umtp147
Ilunnuh, D a r d I) Michael and C hnst 1999
Volume INIOY
IlcrmtJ-Khahanr .Sa~rd Relevation and Concealmcnt of Ctmrt 2 0 0 Ci)lurnc~
11~20
I-furtmun Lur \ re'eut-Centered New Testament

Studtor Ed \or1 l) Hellholm 1997

Colltlrl~.102
Ikrrtog I'irul Polycarp and the New Icskimcnt
200 1 Ci)lrmnrr I / /1-34
I f t kel.
~ 7hc.o k Der lnncrc Menrch I'?)?
I/ohtnrc, 11)7 3

- Vom Evangeliumdes Markus ntm vrerge'italtlgen Evanychurn 1999. bt)lume 120

I f e c k l , Ulrrch KrdA in Schwachheit 1993
N~lumellJS6

Der Segen rm Neuen Testament 2002

Cidurne 150

see l.eldmc.rer, Remharcl

- see llmgel. Murtrtr
ikthgenthrr/, Roman Werke als 7eichen 1983
Volunre 1/19
Hellholm. 11 see llurtmun. Lurv
Ilemrr, C'olrn J The Book of Acts rn the Setting
of Hellcnrst~cHrstory 1989 I.i,ltune 49
Hengc~l.Marfm Judenhun und Hcllenrcmus
1969, '1988 k l u m e 10
D Ijohannersche
~
Frage 1993 Vrdume 6 7

Judarw et Iiellenistrca.
KIernc Schnfien l 1996 h l u m r YO
- Juda~ca,Hcllcnratca ct Chrrstrana
Kleine Schrrfien ll 1999 C?)lumcIOY
PauluP und Jakobus
KIeine SchnRen 111 2002 khlttme I 4 1
I l ~ ~ n g rMurtm
I,
and Ulnc h llcr kt,/ (Ed ) Pairlus
und das ant~kcJudentum 1991 H>lumeSN
Ilc~ngrl.Murtm and Ilurmut Lohr (Ed )
Schr~Rauslcbpngim antrkcn Judentum und
rm llrchrr~tentum1994 Vr)lume 73
Ilengul, Murtrn and Anna Murru Sc huemer
Paulus nv~schenDamasku5 und Antrochrcn
1998 I.i,ltime I 0 8
Der messranische Anspruch Jesu und die
Anfange dcr Chnstologre 2001 fhltrme 138
l l c ~ r r g ~Murtrn
~l.
and Anna iMorru Schw~mt*r
(Ed ) Kiinrgshemchafi Gottcs tmd hmimlrscher Kult 1991 bblumc. 5S
Ilre Septuaginta 1994 C"crlume 72
Ilc~ngel,Murfm, Src*xfr~e~il
Mtttr~runnand Anwu
Maria St.hwemrr (Ed ) La Cite de Dreu i
D I Stadt
~ Goner 2000 C'cllumc~129
Ilern*nhruck, F r r a Jesus und die Z6llner 1990
&)lumr 11/41
Ilt*rzc.r. J m Paulus oder Petrur" I 998
k l u m e 103
Ilot~gen-Kohls.<'hr~.ttrnu Uer nachiisterliclie
Johannes 1996 Volrrme11/84
Ho/ius, Otfrred Katapausls 1970 hltrmt. 11

- Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Ciotte.r 1972

k)lume 14

- Dcr Cllrtstushymnu~Philrppcr 2,6-11 1970.

'I991 bblumz17
Paulusstudren 1989, ' 1994 Columc. 5 I
Ncutatamentliche Studren 2000 Itrlrimc* 112
Paulusstudren 11 2002 Volurne I43
II(,J;uc, O f i e d and 1lan.c-Clrrr r /run Kuntmlrr
Johannesstudien 1996 li)lr~mc88
Iloltz, 7ruugott Geulhrchte und 1 heologre des
Urchnstentumc I99 1 Vc)Irtnrr 5 7

1lc)mm~~l
I l r l ~ l ~ ~/$I
h ~Sr er ~ m t aVolunr I I983
&~umL.
.I1 Volume 2 1984 Colrrmc~32
l l r a l r ~ i kHt~tdur
.
m e Struggle for Scripture and
IM?
Covenant 1 9 % C.i~lunti~
.Iorikrt Strphun Paul as Benefactor 2000
Ciilttrnt, 11 124
.Iting/tutrt,r l l u r n ,,fibre Vatcr und Mutter.'
2002 ).itlt~mcp11/14/i
Kuhfur, C'hrrcroph Jew Gletchnr\se alr Poeitc
und rheraple 1995 Colrintr 78
Kuntluh, Wrhurif Die Forni dcr katalogirchcn
rm Ncwv Testament I WA Ci)lumr 7
Kuntmlrr. Ilunc-C'hrrsrrun <'hrr\tologte und
Eschatalogte 2000 1.blumc. 126
Kreur und Wahrhert 2003 h l u m c I TY
we llofiuc Ohjrrtvl
kclhoflrr, Jumzs A Mrracle and M ~ ~ i r o1999
n
lblttmc~11/112
Krc./ltr Kent. and .Jan Nrmynun (I.d 1 a Maan de
Dlcu Urc liand Gottc\ 1997 krhrmt, 94
Krnt Sc.,,r>on rhe Ongrn of I'aul'5 Crtt\pel
I 9%I, '1984 C.i>lumc9
1/14
1he 'Son of Man "' a\ the Son of Ciod
I983 bolttrnr 30
Kluuck. I l u n ~ - J o s ~Reltyron
~f
und Cieu.ll\chafl
rm fmhen Chnstenhtm 2003 C'olirme I f 2
K l f ~ ml,l u m .rce Ormn Jumr\ 1) (I
Klc*rnknr.t hi. k i r r l Th Der lerdcndc (rercchtfcrttgte 1984, '1 988 C.i)lunrc11/13
KlinghurJt, Mi~rthrus Gel~.tzund Volk Ciotte\
1988 Ci-,It~rnr11/32
Kohlec H t ~ l / - l ) t i ~
tt rht Re7eptlon dcr Matthau\-

'

"

evangel~um\rn dcr Le~tvor IrenBu\ 1087

Cbhtme Ili24
k o r n A!unfn,c/ Die Geichlchtc Jew In
veranderter Lert 1'903 Cblumt*N T I
k;,shrnnrr*mr. trkkr Apollonlos \on lyana In

der neutcstamentl~chentxcge\e IcN4

N11ume 11/61
Kruus Thomut J Sprache, Strl und hrstorlscher

Ort dcs zweltcn Petm\bnefe\ 2001

C;)hmreIN136
Krurr, CCitljXun~ [>as Volk (totter 1996
Cblume 8.5
scc U'ultt~zi V r k ~ i h ~ c
Kr(*plrn,M~rtthruc 1h\Selh\t\eritandn~\Jew
200 1 i+tlrrme 111141
Kuhn, Kurl (i' Achtz~hngehetund Vateru~iscr
und der R e ~ m1950 l+)lurnr I
Kr~ulk*m.Ilunr s e &/nu Josrrm
Luuntmu Jon I Will Glve You Rest I 997
Vi,ltime IIfi,X
/ u h ~ h n,tltc.hurl
.
Offenbarurrg rn Lc~chcnund
Wort 2000 &>lutni>11/117
Lum/wr\ -Ptw 1k)rtc \ce 7itmson lJc,rt,r J
I ~ ~ n g eArmtn
-,
we I-qo. Hc*utr

1unrpc. I'vrt*r lhc \tadtromr\chcn C tir~\tent r i

den cnten herden Jahrhundertcn 10x7.

1089 C'olrimr I / / /N
Itrtrtlnti~eccr.( ht rero/ Wahrhe~ta14 Ctn~niihcgnKne~~te\~mcntl~cher
Wt\\cnwliaR I'HO
Iolttmc. 113

Jiingrherufung und luwcndung ru (rcttt

2000 l'c)lt~me.1 ? 1
l i ~ r rAndrtw Manrtcst In I le\h 1006
Columc. 11/86
I ~ u w nc,t Loui\t~ An t thnography of thc
(io\pel of Matthew 2003 Inlumi, I1 165
1i.c~l'rk hut^ I he Ncu Jeru\alcm In the l3twk of
Relc\atron 2(W)0 Citlumc, 11 l2Y
I rr hrc~rth~~tyi~r
Ilc~rntcrnn we l~cwut rcx
1-r r i ~ ~ l/Ir ~ c
Ltc*ri .b~ntcit~l
"r M~dnlcIiae~\m
In the I atcr
Romari trnplre and Wedre\ al C hlna 1992
I i ~ l r i r63
i~
l o u r k r I.1'drum H ( I Jc\u\' Attttudc l o ~ a r d i
the 1 am 1997 lolumc 11 9 7
l o h r (rrtrhurd \.'crhcnl~churip(tofie\ durcli
I'hllo\ophre 1007 Ioltrme, Y 7
Loltr: Ilzr-nrut \ce llcngc~l l4urrin
lohr: Fbinric h .Il/trc.~lB,lr~lldc\und \ttnc
Schule 1995 bolttmc*X.3
I riomcmm. I'tw~f.ntcnng the Krngdom of
I fcd\cn I99X loluntc, 11 I111
I 14: 1 'Irrt 1 \CC 111itrtt Jirttrc>\ I ) (1
rlfuirr C~rrhurdMcn\ch und trcrcr Wrllc 107 1
I blutnr I 2

Dre Johdnneu>ffenbarungund d ~ Klrc

e hc
I O X I I/trlttrttc*2 5
Murk\( hrcjc. ( hrr\ro~ph Valerittnu\(ino\trcu\
I 992 I r ~ l u r c6, 5
hfur,htrll I'r.ter L rnnlty In ( orrnth 'iocl,~l
('on\ient~on\tn Paul'\ Rel'attons u ~ t htlre
('onnthrans 1987 C.i~lrimc~
11/23
&lurr~r.Inni,rnurii~ Sprache der t cnhc~tIm
tphewrhnef und In dcr dhuniene 2002

'

Cblunri, / I / / 5 0
hlc 1k)notrgh. .kun M Y I IW t l ,at I',itmos

Rev 1 4 tn ~ t ctlellcnl\trc arid I arly Jcm~\h

Settrng IIWY lolrimc~11 107
rC4~(iltnn. mobn nu DI\ tne Judgcmcnt and
I)t\lne Renetolenee In the Bcwh of Wr\don~
2001 1i)lrimc~11 I TY
4!t8odtpI)cl\ id ( r P\eudon)mtt) ant1 C,lnon
1 086 Colrinti, 3V
Cfe,uclr>r\. I.dwi~nll' Jcsu\ the Me\\l,intc
tlcraltl of Sdlcatron 1995 loltinrc~ll 72
ZIc~t~nc~t
Jr~.futt Dre Iferniholunp dc\ Ketlen
1 906 Volume, l l / 8 7
Wedl I lric h Dre ..,tndercn" Wlrircr Ic>')4
Colrtnrr 77
itfengrl Hrrrholtl Studlcn zutn I'h~l~pperhrtcf
I 982 C.olritni~11 X

hic*rkc.l, Ilelntrrr: Die Widerspriiche zwischen

den livangclicn. 197 1. Ci>lrimc~
13.
Merklc~in,Ilelmir~:Studien zu Jesus und Paulus.
Volume I 1'187. Cblrime 43. Volume 2
1918. tblumc, 105.
Mcrzl~~,:
Ktir?tl: I>ergriechische Begriffdes
Verreihens. 190 1 . I'olritne 11~34.
t%,krt:ntpr: Huinzr: Die Rczcption dcs Matthluscvangeliunis irn 1. Pctnlsbricf. 1995.
I~~lrime~
11/74,
Das Vcrstlndnis der Siititle in1 Johannesevarigeliuni. ZoW. Citlrirnc 122.
;\.liltcx*.Cir.\rle: see I~rirtn.Jumet I).(;..
itlinetlrigc~,Kivo.thi. Besitzverziclit und
Alnioscn hei 1,ukas. 2003. I'olunrc~ll/l63.
Mi~~mrnrrt,
Sit~~fric~tl:
see Ilc,ttgel, blurfin.
i\lirrmar~r~-Hic~I~c~r~,
Cllrikr: Magnifikat urid
Bencdiktus. / YY6. C.irhmntc.IL'YO.
Mtr/Jnc,r. I.rtrn:: Jcs~rsvon Na~arethim limf'eld
lsraels und der llrkirche. Ed. vori M.
Theohald. 1908. Cbluntr I l l .
Nic~hult,:K~irl-I.r'ilhc~lnr:
iicsetz und f3ardncsc.
I 987. C'olumr Il;2.!h.
l{eidcnapostel aus Israel. 1 092. Cblrimr 62.
Nicbrn. Antlers E.: "Until it is fullfillsd". 2000.
1 >J/li!Il<' ////.?6.
.Vrs\rn. Arrc11r.ti.~:iiott und der Nichste Im
antikcn Judentuln. 1074. Citlrir~tc~
15
Noiic~k.(%ri.ttrott: <iottcsbcwuDtsoin. 2000.
C:)Irinrt, /I/ 116.
~V(tormurrn.Rolf: Irenius als Paul~tstnterprct.
1 994. Ibirmrc*Il~tifi
O/rc8rmunn.Andrc.cr.s: Die christologischc
Erfuliunp tlcr Schrtti Im Johanncsevangeliurn. I LIOO. I+~lrrrrr~~
ll!X3.
(jlrlor: .tf(~rkus:Barnabas. 2003. Ihlrmtc 156.
Okurc,. 7i*11,.\c1:'1-he Johanntnc Approach to
b l ~ s s ~ o n1988.
.
Ii,lrtmc 11/11.
Oret~~i*:u.
N. .I.: I'aul and Apostasy. 2000.
I61time~11,t 115
0.stmc:l~i": Kurl-t11~inrIi~lt
'laufc und .I).pc>s.
2000. litlrirnc*Ili 118,
I'tiul.si~n. 1k~nnir1,q:Studicn rur I.iteratur und
C;csch~chtciles Kilten ('linsttntur~is.Ed. voti
lltc E. Eisen. 1997. Ci)l~tnrr99.
f'irct. 1 ) i t ~ ~I).::
i J Acts ant! the lsalanic New
tixndus. 2000. I i~lunrr11/1.1~1.
I'urk. l : ' u t ~(%rtn.
~
l'hc hliss~on1)iscounc in
Matthew's Interpretation. 1995.
Cbltinr~~
Il,SI
l'urk. Jorc,/~ltS . i'oncept~onsof Afterlife in
Jewish Insriptions. 2000. I'olutttr 11/121
I'u~r~,
(' ~blur-vrn:The Reverse of the ('ursc.
2000. l.i)lumc~11/1/4.
I'hilotrmko. Mt~t-c.
(Ed.): Le l'rtine tie diet^.
1 993. klrimc 69.

I'rlhtrfer; Peter Presbyteron Kre~tton1900

C+>krme11/39
Philippi. Volume 1 1995 li~lume8 7
Volume 2 2000 t+>lumt,l l Y
Die fruhcn Chnsten und ihre Welt 2002
fi.i,ltrmeI45
w e /.go. Beure
I'crhlmunn I++>l[qung I k r Verlorene Sohn und
das tlaus 1993 Ctdume 68
I'rthornv I'm and Jmef B .(K)u?c'h Btbclauslcgung als 1 heolog~c 1997 Iblttme 100
Pokot nv Perr and Jun Hotkot~c>c
[Fd )
Ph~losophicalHcnneneuttcs and ntbilcdl
Fxegcsts 2002 lirhtrne 153
I'orr~r Srunler l: The Paul of Acts I W )
Ci)lumr 115
I'rri~rir Alc,~unrk,r Ilte Verkundrgung dcr
Gotteshcrnchafl 1996 ~olunrell/hY
I'r-oh\l Ilc~rmunn Paulus ttnd dcr Brtcf 1901
Coltimr 11145
Kuitcinen IIerkb Paul and the Ldw 1083,
' I987 Ct~lume29
Ui4tAopf I rrcdric h Die lukan~scheSondcrquelIc 1959 Ci>l~ime
5
Kern, liurrhrut Die H e ~ l ~ mdc4
g Bl~ndgcbon.nen
(Joh 9 ) 1')OS Ittltit~re11/73
Hi~mnrurhLt Xurt Pxudo-Phtlo und I ukar
l i)")4 I.i~lnmc.74
K o t r r d4urru.c Syntax urid St11dcs Markuse\angcllums 1984 h l u m r 11 I /
Hit htirzlt I, Huntlolph The Sccretarq In the
1 ettcr\ of Paul I99 1 Cblrimr 11/42
Nrr\rrer Hurrter Jerus als 1-ehrer 108 I . ' I 988
I olumc*1/17
DIG I ruhrcit dcs Aposteh Paulus 1094
Colunte 71
Hr\tt l.kllhrc~\ Dte Theologte des t lebrderhr~et\
1 087 l itlume 41
Hot korrc Jiin see I'ohnrrtr /'err
Kolrcer (~tmter Metaphor~kuntl I'crsonttih~it~ori
der Sunde 1987 Volrime 11'2 5
Hotr ( hrtrtrurr Die Woike der 7cugcn 1994
14Jrtmt~11/60
/tuc~g,qc~
//un\-b'/rrt It Ver~tehen.wa\ Marhus
crzahlt 2002 Iblrtnre 11 155
Huger f lutit I't~rer [ h e Weishett.ischrtA dus der
Kdlrocr (ien17a 199 1 Cbhtnte 5 3
Sunqer 1 ) t ~ t t ~Antrhes,
r
Judcntum und dte
Mysterien I980 I'o/rinrtn1/15
Dte Vcrlundtgung dcs Gckrnuzigtcn und
l ~ r a e l1 YM l/i,l~intc~
75
x e Burr hord Chrrrrttph
Su1:nrunn .lo% Clhntrrun Lchren und
Ermahnen 1904 I.i,htme 11/59
Surrdne\, Karl Olut Paul - One of the
Prophets? 1991 Cblrinie 11/43

.%to, Mrguku Q und Prophette 1988

l41lumu 11/29
SLhupes J m r hrm Eschatology In the Greek
Psalter 1995 Volume 11/76
Sc Itrmunon tkr. <;ortfned Die h~mniltsche

I.ttwgre In der Apokalypw des Johannes

2002 Volume / I / / 54
- Wetshett und Messtas 1985 Iblrtmi, 11/17
S
.c hlrc hrtng, Ciunter It. tn jud~sche\Lchcn J e w
1982 Volume 24
.)r hnulwl, Ci k h u d J Law and W14on1from
Ben Stra to Paul 1985 lblumt. 11/16
Sc1ruttr.r. Milrum I, Hemeneuttc ant1
Compos~ttonm I Peter 1989 Cblume 111.30
Silrn~arr,-,LlanrelH Studtes in the Jew~sh
Background of Chnsttantty 1992
I blrmme 60
Srhuu~mecAnnu Munu see Ilcngel Murttn
Scot!, James M Adoptton as Sans of God
I992 bblume 11/48
- Paul and the Nattons 1995 Volume 84
Shunr. Sh~u-LunPaul'r 1Jse of Isatah tn
Rornans 2002 Cblume lNI.56
Siegt*rt. F o l k r Dret hellentstt\ch-jiid~whc
Predtgten Tell 1 1980 Ct)Irtme 20 Tell 11
1992 C.i,lrmo 61
- Nag-tfammadt-Rcg~ster 1982 bohinre 26
Argumentation bet Paulit\ 1985 Cbltinrt. 34
- Phtlon von Alexandnen I988 ).iilrrrnc,46
Srmon. Marc el Le chrtst~antsmeanttquc et wli
contexte reltgleux It'll 198 1 Cblume 23
Snodgrusr, Klvnr The Parable of the Wtcked
Tenants 1983 I.'i,lume 27
Sorl~ng,T h o m a ~Das Wort born Kreuz 1997
k l u m e 93

.we Thusrng, CC'ilhelm

Sommec Urc Dte Passtonsgerch~chteder
Markusevangeltunis 1993 Cblurne 11/58
SouL'ek,JorefR see l'okornt , I'etr
S1x~ngenhu~7,
Cti/ki*r Herrhchkclt de\ Ncuen
Bundes 1993 C'olume 11/33
Spunje, f E vun lnconststency ln Paul 19Y63

'

bblrmme l I / l I O
Spc.vcpr. W')r/gung Friihc\ Chn\tentum tm

ant~kenStrahlungsfeld Volume I 1989

R>lume50
- Volume ll 1999 &)hrmc 116
a Schr~figelehrS~udelmcmn,tk.Ige Ben S ~ r alr
ter 1980 &i/ume 1/16
Stem hke C'hrrstoph W Luke's Portratt of
Gent~lesPrtor to rhclr Comtng to Fatth
&)lrtme I l l 1 OX
Stettlec Chrrstrun Der Kolosserhymnus 2000
I.i)lume 11113 I
Stetrler: ffunnu Ule Chrlstologte der I'astirralbnefe 1998 Cblumt~IIIIOF

Srrcthc~l.Iugutr Ute Stundc dcr Wahrhe~t I980

l.i,lume -7 1
Srmumtu Gut <; Barhartan Phtlosophy 1090
I bluwre~I12
Sttic ki~trhr-rrik 1orutr T Arigcl Veneration ,inti
C hn\tology I995 lolume 11/70
.S!uhlnrut hc~t.1'ett.r (Ed ) Ua\ t\angeltun>unct
dle Evangelten I983 &>lrtrnc,28

Btblr4che rhcolog~eund t ~ a n g c l ~ u r2002

n
&)luntr~I46
Jung ('hong-ll,otr Vcrgobung dcr 'rundun
1993 I'olumc~11/57
7ujru l l u r n C
I The Trtal of St P,iul 1989
Colunrr 1113.5

The Martyrdom of St Paul 1994

lolume 11/67
Thr1/3m C;i*rd Studten zur \ortologte de\
Urchnstcnt~~rns1979, '1')89 tolumr lY
hael Studten Turn Konlcrhrtef
T/tro/wlJ iil~(
2rn~)i V ~ I U ~ I CI 16
.
T/rr~ohulilifrt hurl see 2.luJ11t.t I run:
Tlrornton. C lrrr\-Jttr~.tw I k r h u g e do\
Zeugen 109 1 Colume 56
Thu\rttg ICTlh~~lm
Studten lur neutc\tamentltchen fheologlc Ed von 1homds Sidtng
1995; Liilumc 82
7%urt*n 1 urrrr Uerhcthortlang Paul 2000
I ~ ) l t t m rI24
lomt on I't,rtv J and I)on\ I trmhiv r-1'c.m

(Ed ) The Image of the Judaco-C hmt1an.r In

Anclent Jewt\h and Chrt\ttan L tter'tture
2003 Columc* 158
Trc~kwt.(;c.ti@rc~c
H I tghtfmt the tltrtortan
1 998 &)luntr 11/1U.Z
Trtrlr M(~nuI?uCilauhe zwtschen Vollkon~menhe11und Verwcltltchung 1997 boluntc~lliY3
7 n e l / ! . ~ .<irirhum l l Jesw the kxorctst I993
Cblumr 11/54
Cfrhan, C'h'hnttmct Das Men~henbtldr ~ a dem
~h
Johannesc\angeltum 2 0 0 1 ll~/lll?ti'llil 3 7
C'itotzkr Burton 1 l athers of tho World 1995
C'olurnr XO
I bllen~terclrr..%mut,l florrzonte neutertanicntlacher Chr~\tologte2002 lolrmntc~I 4 4
lo\ Johan J Ilte Kunrt der Argunicntdt~otihct
Paulu\ 2002 Colrrme 149
Wugr*trrr I llrrhe Ute Ordnung deb ,,t{au\cr
Gottes" 1994 l olume 11/65
CVulker I l r , n c l l l l ) Paul'\ OtTcr of L enacticy
(2 C or 10 1 ) 2002 i'olrmtc,11/152
I V u l t ~Nib)luu\
~
Pracparatto E\ angcltca f.d

von Wolfgang Kraus und EIor~anWllk

1997 biilume YA'
ICundrv Ncptnd Gotterfirchtrgc und Sbmpathtranten 1998 lolutnr 104
r Mark
Wirttt Xrkkr Ialah'\ New L ~ w t u and
1997 I+)Iume 11/88

fist~t~vchujiliche
Cintersuchungengum Neuen Testament
Wedlrlrhurn. A J h4 Baptism and Resurrection.
1987 Vr)lume 44
Ifkgnt.r. Lin*e Der Hauphnann von Kafmaum.
1985 Volume 11/14
Fks~t~nrredec
Annet& Images of Illness tn the
C3ospel of Luke 2003 Volume 111164
Wt>kk,C'hnstran Erzahlte ,Le~chen' 1994
k)lume 11/69
Manla 7Imorhv Peter In the Goqpcls 2000
K)lumt~11/127
MIk, Florrun we Wultec Nrkoluu\
I).i//ram~,('ah in I / i am He 2000
Iblr~meI l / l l 3
Mlvon, Cft~lter7 Love wrthout Pretenx 1991
Ihlume 11/46

Wudom,J e f i : Blessing for the Nations and

the Curse of the Law. 2001. b l u m c IIJI33.
Wuchevfinnig, Amgar: Heraclcon Philologus.
2002. Volume 142.
Yang, Muureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002.
Volume 11/147.
Bmmrrmunn, Affmd E.: Die urchristlichen
Lehrer. 1984, 1988. Volume 11/12.
Zimmrrmunn, Johanne.~:Messianische Texte
aus Qumran. 1998. Volume 11/104.
Zimmermann, Ruben: Geschlechtemeaphorik
und Gottesverh5ltnis. 200 1 . H ~ I 11/122.
w
%urnstein,Jean: see I k r t w i l e ~,4ndreus

For u ronrplete cu~aloguep l e a ~ ewrite IO the publrshrr

Mohr S ~ e k ~PO
k Box 2030 D - 72010 TubingedGc~rmany
Upto-date mformatron on the internel ul nww.mr)h~rtc?

CopyrightedmateriJ

The essays collected here aim at drawing

the ancient Judaeo-Christians from the obscurity
to which they are confined in prevailing historical
approaches. For that purpose, the evidence from both
Jewish and Christian sources is interpreted by scholars
of Judaism, Theology, Archaeology and History.

ISBN 3- 16- 148094-5

Mohr Siebeck