SUNDAY AND ANTI-JUDAISM
A STUDY
ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
An Excerpt of the Doctoral Dissertation
Presented to the Department of Church History
of the Pontifical Gregorian University
by
the late Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
First published by The Pontifical Gregorian
University Press, Rome 1975
ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY
Two processes seem to have conditioned the relations between
Jews and Christians in the, first centuries. On the one hand, as
demonstrated in the preceding chapter, Christians assimilated and
adapted Jewish cultic traditions according to the exigencies of
their New Faith. They still felt sufficiently united to Judaism
to retain many of its oharacteristics. On the other hand,
Chris-tians considered themselves to be distinct and separated
from the Old Faith, having accepted the message of Jesus Christ.
This Christian awareness of distinction from Judaism became the
primary cause of. the hostility of Jews toward Christians and in
time it contributed to the separation and differentiation of
Christians from Jews. Unfortunately, these two processes of
assimilation and differentiation, continuity and discontinuity,
have not always been in balance or harmony. This has often given
rise to conflicts, either in Christianity itself or in its
relationship with Judaism. J. B. Lightfoot saw in the attitudes
of the Fathers toward Judaism the explanation of their different
contrasting tendencies:
Though the writers era all apparently within. the pale of
the Church, yet there is a tendency to a one-sided
exaggeration, either in the direction of Judaism or of the
opposite, which stands on the verge of heresy. In the
Epistle of Barnabas and in the Letter to Diognetus the
repulsion to Judaism is so violent that one step further
would have carried the writer, into Gnostic or Marcionite
dualism. On the other hand, in the Teaching of the
Apostles, in the Shepherd of Hernias and possibly in the
Expositions of Papias ... the sympathy with the Old
Dispensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive features
of the Gospel are somewhat obscured by the shadow of the law
thus projected upon them. In Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp
both extremes alike are avoided.1
.........
1 J. B. Lightfoot - The Apostolic Fathers 2 pts. in 5vls.
(London and New York: Macmillan and. Company 1899) vol. 1 part I
pp. 8-9.
In this chapter we will consider those factors which, in the
process of the separation and differentiation of Christianity
from Judaism, may have contributed to the renunciation of the
Sabbath and to the adoption of Sunday on the part of the
majority. The limitations and objectives o£ our research do not
allow us to examine all those theological, political and social
factors which made necessary the separation between Judaism and
Christianity. Therefore, we will consider only those aspects of
the Judeo-Christian controversy that may throw some light on the
causes of the origin of Sunday observance. Particular attention
will be given to the presence of anti-Judaism in Rome and to its
possible implications for the rise of Sunday keeping.
The New Testament is not anti-Semitic, since it describes
the fratricidal struggle of two branches of the same Jewish
people.
In the Acts of the Apostles this schism within the Jewish
people is attributed to the proclamation of the "Good News" by a
group of Jews who had become disciples of Christ. In fact, they
were announcing boldly to the people that the Christ whom the
chiefs of the people had sentenced to death was the Messiah, that
"God raised him from the dead" (Acts 3:16), and that it was in
His Name that they were performing miracles and announcing
salvation. Some Jews responded to the preaching of the
apostles and believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. The
majority, however, not only resisted their words, but employed
all the means at their disposal to hinder the spreading of the
new religion.
Paul saw in the hostility of the Jews toward Christians the
prolongation of an historic attitude which they had already shown
anciently toward the prophets and more recently toward Christ. In
I Thessalonians 2:14-16, he wrote:
You suffered the same things from your own countrymen as
they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and
the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose
all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that
they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of
their sins.
Undoubtedly Christians were feeding such a hostility with
their uncompromising attitude, motivated by the consciousness
that they had a superior religion. Believing that " there is no
other name under heaven given among men by which we must
be saved" (Acts 4:12), they looked down at "the works of the
law" (Galatians 2:16) which non-Christian Jews were performing.
It may seem paradoxical, but the hostility of the dews
toward Judeo-Christians-fellow-countrymen of similar religious
traditione - was more profound and bitter than toward the pagans
who were strangers to their race and religion. Peter Richardson
aptly observes that "confrontation between similar yet different
groups poses the greatest problems and creates the most violent
upheavals." 2
He presents such examples as the Russian and Chinese
Communists, the Anglicans and the Methodists, among whom
because of minor areas of disagreement, tension, animosity,
hostility and splitting arose.
The hostility o£ the Jews toward Christians assumed both
doctrinal and socially concrete aspects. Christianity was an
error to extirpate, while Christians, especially those of Jewish
stock, were apostates, enemies of the law (Paul especially was
considered a deserter from the law) who had to be inexorably
suppressed. D. Judant focuses on some. of the theological
motivations for the hostility of the Jewish religious leaders
toward Christians
While the Judeo-Christians; considered themselves to be the
lawful heirs of the tradition of Israel, the Jewish religious
leaders could not concede faith in the divinity of the Messiah,
which to them appeared as a threat to monotheism, or the
suppression of the Mosaic observances, considered disobedience to
the divine law, or the proclamation of the equality of all men
before God. since this would have meant the abolition of the
privileges of Israel. 3
This hostility that was directed initially toward the
Christians of Jewish birth and that later was extended to all
Christians, induced the Fathers to assume an attitude of
condemnation and separation from those traditions that were
typically Jewish. We will see that the origin of Sunday emerged
in this process of the differentiation of Christians from the
Jews, as an attempt of the majority of the Christians to
distinguish themselves from the Jews in the eyes of the Romans
and to affirm. and safeguard at the same time their identity and
rights.
......
2 Peter Richardson "Israel in the Apostolic Church" (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Prose 1999),. p.3. (Hereafter cited as
Richardson, "Israel.")
3 D. Judant, "Judaisme et christianisme dossier patristique"
(Paris: Editions du Cadre, 1968), p.93.
......
We shall proceed now to examine some historical situations
of the Jewish hostility which have contributed to the affirmation
of a distinct Christian conscience and in time, as we shall see,
to the rise of the observance of Sunday.
H. I. Marrow poses the question: "What has been the
responsibilty of the Jews in the persecutions of the first
centuries?" 4
He observes that historians have either " exaggerated or
denied" the role of the Jews in the persecution of the
Christians. 5
During the first years, however, the Christians have known
persecution principally and directly by the Jews. 6
The experience of Paul supplies an evidence that we will
examine as an example.
The Jews followed Paul in his evangelistic itinerary as a
shadow, endeavoring to hinder and neutralize big work. In Antioch
of Prisidia "the Jews incited the devout women of high standing
and the leading men of the city" (Acts 13:50) to expel Paul and
Barnabas from their borders. As a result Paul decided to turn to
the Gentiles (v.46). At Iconium they attempted to stone the
apostle (14:5). At Lystra a delegation of Jews arrived from
Antioch and Iconium, and "having persuaded the people, they
stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he
was dead" (14:19). At Thessalonica the Jews "set the city in an
uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them
out to the people" (17:5). At Beroea the same instigators of
Thessalonica intervened to accomplish the same results (17:13).
At Corinth the opposition of the Jews was so violent that Paul
decided: "From now on I will go to the Gentiles" (18:6).
It is worth observing that at Corinth, Paul was forced to
leave the synagogue and made use of the house adjoining the
Synagogue, belonging to Titius Justus, gathering with the
believers in that place for 18 months (18:9-11). Later the Jews
brought Paul before the proconsul Gallic, accusing him: "This man
is persuading men to worship God contrary to the law" (18:13).
Similar opposition arose at Ephesus, so that Paul "withdrew
from them,
......
4 Henry Imnee Marron, ad. and trans." A Diognete, Sources
Chretiennes" (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1965); p.133; Marcel
Simon, "Verve Israel: etudes sur les relations entre chretiens et
juifs lone l'empire romain" (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964; reprint
of 1948 edition), pp.144-154, holds that the Christians have
unjustly accused the Jew, as persecutors. (Hereafter cited as
Simon, "Verus Israel")
5 Loc. sit.
6 For a brief discussion on the Jewish role in the persecution of
Christians, see P. B. Bagatti, "L'Eglise de la circumcision"
(Jerusalem: Imprimerie des PP. Franciscains," 1965), p.3.
(Hereafter cited as Bagatti, "L'Eglise.")
......
taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of
Tyrannus" (19:9). In Greece Jews plotted against Paul (20:3)
and at Tyre, Paul was entreated by his disciples not to go to
Jerusalem (21:4). The arrest and the imprisonment of Paul at
Jerusalem was the work of "the Jews from Asia" (21:27). The
chief priests and elders of Jerusalem conspired to kill Paul
(23:12) and on two occasions undertook a trip from Jerusalem to
Caesarea to accuse the apostle of sedition and profanation of the
temple (24:1-9; 23:1-12). The accusation and arrest of Paul on
the part of the chief priests and elders accelerated the process
of separation between Jews and Christians.
The Christians, fearful of the snares of the Jews, seem to
gather from now on, not so much in the synagogues as in separated
places, thus developing a distinctly Christian organization and
worship. 7
JEWISH HOSTILITY TOWARDS THE CHRISTIANS IN ROME
Toward the year 49 Jewish opposition against Christians was
felt even in Rome. Suetonius, a Roman historian (ca. A.D.
70-122), informs us that the Emperor Claudius "expelled the Jews
from Rome, since they rioted constantly at the instigation of
'Chrestus.'" 8
Since "Chrestus" is here an erroneous transcription of
"Christ," as is demonstrated by the fact that even the Christians
were vulgarly called "chrestiani," 9
it would seem then that the proclamation of Christ as Messiah
caused a controversy between Jews and Christians. Even though the
historian was writing about 70 years later, and did not seem well
informed about
......
7 See 1 These.5:27; 2 These.3:14; Acts 15:30; Col.4:16;
1 Cor.12:1-11; Eph.4:11-13.
8 Suetonius, Claudius 25,4; H. J. Leon, "The JewS of Ancient
Rome" (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America,
1900), pp. 23f, discusses the expulsion of Jews, advocating an
earlier date (closer to A.D.41); some scholars however think that
"Chrestus" is simply the name of an agitator and it has therefore
no relation to the Christian propaganda, see Marta Scrdi, "11
Cristianensimo e Roma" (Bologna: L. Cappelli, 1985), pp.64f.;
S. Benko, "The Edict of Claudius of A.D.49 and the Instigator
Chrestus," Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1989): 408-418.
9 Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44, in his report of the Neronian
persecution, spells the name in such a manner. On the evolution
of the name, see A. Labriolle, "Christianus," Bulletin du Cange,
5 (1929-1930): 89-88; A. Ferrua, "Chustianus sum," La Civiltd
Cattolica 2 (1933): 552-550; and 3 (1933): 13-26; Tertullian in
his "Apology" 3 chided the pagans, saying "[The name] Christian
... is wrongly pronounced by you 'Chrestianus' (for you do not
even say accurately the name you despise)."
......
the causes, he did know that the dispute was about Christ. It is
not difficult to imagine the controversy that must have flared up
between Jews and Christians on whether or not Christ was the
Messiah. The violent character of these conflicts is underlined
by the fact that the public authority was obliged to step in and
to decree the expulsion of the Jews. Dio Cassius, another
historian of the second century, does not mention Claudius'
expulsion, but refers to an edict which prohibited the Jews from
gathering so cording to their customs. 10
The fact that Christians like Aquila and Priscilla were
forced to abandon Rome, and for this reason were present at
Corinth when Paul passed there about the year 50 or 54 (Acts 18:
2), is proof that at least a certain number of Jews were
expelled.
It is important to observe that in the Imperial city at
about the year 50, the Romans did not distinguish the Christians
from the Jews. Batiffol makes a significant comment in this
regard:
If then, as is generally held, the Roman Jewries were deeply
disturbed by the introduction of Christianity, impulsore
Chresto, the fact that Claudius re-established order, by
banishing the Jews from Rome - and with them the Christians,
like Aquila and Priscilla - prove, that the Roman police had
not as yet some to distinguish the Christians from the Jews
or was not willing to take cognizance of what distinguished
them. 11
This hypothesis seems the most probable. It can be
substantiated, for instance, by the attitude of the proconsul of
Achaia, Anneus Novatus Gallic, brother of Seneca, who when he
heard the ruler of the synagogue accusing Paul of being a
renegade of the law, said:
"since it is a matter of questions about words and names and
your own law, see to it yourselves " (Acts 18:15).12
At any rate disciplinary measures were taken by the Roman
authorities so that both Jews and Christians had to suffer. It is
conceivable that Christians, on their part, felt the necessity of
a radical
......
10 Dio Cassius, "Historia" 60, 6.
11 Pierre Batiffol, "Primitive Catholicism," trans. Henry L.
Briancean (London and New York: Longmans Green and Co., 1911),
p.19. (Hereafter cited as Batiffol, "Primitive Catholicism.")
12 Cf. Acts 13:29; 24:5; H. Idris Bell, "Jews and Christians
in Egypt" (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), p.23,
published a letter of Emperor Claudius to the city of Alexandria,
where the Emperor strongly deplores the anti-Jewish disorders
which had broken out in the city. Some would perceive in this the
effect of Christian propaganda, see "Revue doe etudes grecques"
(1925): 380-388.
......
separation from the Jews so as not to incur in the future any of
the disciplinary measures which the imperial authorities were
taking to silence the frequent Jewish agitations and
insurrections. Fourteen years later (A.D.64) Tacitus, in his
report on the conduct of Nero after the fire, identified the
Christians as a separate entity, well distinquished from the
Jews:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the
guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class
hated for their abominations, called Christian, by the
populace. Christus, from whom the name had the origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at
the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a
most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,
again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the
evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and
shameful from every part of the world find their center and
become popular. 13
Peter Richardson draws the following conclusion from these
facts:
In the imperial city Christians are distinguished from Jews
by A.D.64, but not as early as A.D.49. The State's
recognition of their separate status occurred somewhere
between these two dates according to the Roman sources. 14
This recognition on the part of the Romans of Christianity
as a religious sect distinct from Judaism, seems to be the
natural consequence of attempts made on both sides to
differentiate themselves in the eyes of the Roman authorities. 15
If initially Christians identified themselves with Jews to
benefit from the protection which the Roman law accorded to the
Jewish faith and customs, toward the sixties, as F.F. Bruce
observes, "it was no longer possible to regard Christianity
(outside Palestine) as simply a variety of Judaism." 16
......
12 P. Cornelius Tacitus, "Annales" 16, 44, trans. by Alfred J.
Church and William Jackson Brodribb, "The Annales and the
Histories by P. Cornelius Tacitus," Great Book, of the Western
World, vol.15 (Chicago, London, Toronto: William Benton
Publisher, 1952), p.168.
14 Richardson, "Israel," p.42.
15 Leonard Goppelt, "Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times", trans.
by Robert A. Guelich (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1970), p.
106 observes: "Initially the developing Christian churches were
considered by the public to be an appendage to the Diaspora
synagogues, but the Jews tried to remove themselves as far as
possible from the Christians and to cast suspicion on
Christianity as a '...new superstition dangerous to the public
good.'" The author is quoting Suetonius, "Nero" 16.
......
The Jews themselves may have taken the initiative to
dissociate from the Christians, whose majority in the Empire was
now composed of uncircumcised. In Rome, particularly, the
circumstances seem to have been favorable to force such a
distinction. From the year 62, in fact, Jewish influence was
present in the imperial court in the person of the Empress Poppea
Sabina, a Jewish proselyte and friend of the Jews,
whom Nero had married that year. 17
Harnack thinks in fact that Nero in order to exculpate
himself from the people's accusation of having provoked the fire,
put the blame on the Christians at the instigation of the Jews.
18
J. Zeiller, who entertains this possibility, asks himself:
Did the proteges of Poppea admitted into the circle
immediately surrounding the emperor, think that they would
serve Nero as well as themselves "by pointing act as the
authors of the crime the Christians" who took pleasure, it
was said ... "in the ideas of heavenly vengeance, a
universal conflagration, and the destruction of the
world?" 19
"Even though they suffered least from the fire," Batiffol
comments, "the Jews were not suspected for an instant of
havingstarted it; but the accusation fell on the Christians:
they were, then, notoriously and personally distinct from
the Jews." 20
......
16 F. F. Bruce, "The Spreading Fla: the Rise and Progress of
Christianity from its First Beginnings to the Conversion of the
English" (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company,1958), p.140. (Hereafter cited as Bruce, "Spreading
Flame.")
17 Flavius Joseph, "Visa" 3, relates that in A.D.83 while
visiting Rome he was introduced to the Empress, who showed a
liking for him. In Antiquitates Judaicae 22; 8,11, he mentions
that she was a Jewish proselyte. Cf. Tacitus, "Historia" 1, 22.
18 A. von Harnack, "The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in
the First Three Centuries" (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908),
pp.51,400.
19 Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, "The History of the
Primitive Church," 2 vols. (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1949), 1:372. (Hereafter cited as Lebreton-Zeiller, "Primitive
Church"); the author is citing Ernest Renan, "The Antichrist"
(Noe York: Peter Eckler Publisher, 1892), p.109. (Hereafter cited
as Renan, "Antichrist"); and Victor Duruy, "Histoire des Romains,
depuise les temps les plus recules jusgu'd l'invasion des
barboaes, 7 volas. (Paris: Hachette, 1882), IV:507.
20 Banffol, "Primotive Catholicism," p.20; Ernest Reman, "The
Antichrist", p.112 similarly observes: "The Romans usually
confounded the Jews and the Christians. Why was the distinction
so clearly made on this occasion ? Why were the Jew, against
whom the Romans had the same moral antipathy and the same
religious grievance, as against the Christians, not meddled with
at this time ?" He suggests that the "Jews had a secret
interview with Nero and Poppea at the moment when the Emperor
conceived such a hateful thought against the disciples of
Christ." (Loc.cit,)
......
The attitude of the Jews did not pass unobserved and the
Fathers will not hesitate to attribute to them the responsibility
of having incited Nero to persecute the Christians. 21
J. Zeiller pointedly observes:
In any case, from that day the Christians began to be
distinguished by the Roman authorities from the Jews, who
not, named in possession of their privileges, while,
Christians were arrested, judged and condemned. 22
Richardson, in his evaluation of the effects of the Roman
and Jewish persecutions against the Christians, underlines the
fact that while the Romans took notice of Christianity after its
separa tion from Judaism, it was actually the Jewish persecution,
being "an intra muross controversy," which had the more creative
role, obliging the Christians to become a separate entity and to
cause themselves to be recognized as such by the Roman
authorities. 23
The fact that the Christians in Rome separated themselves
from the Jews even earlier than in other centers such as
Jerusalem, is a significant datum for our research on the
origin of Sunday observance, a datum that will receive due
consideration in the evaluation that will be made of the
hypothesis of a Roman origin of Sunday keeping.
Before considering the implications from this process of
separation, as far as it concerns the abandonment of the Sabbath
and the adoption of Sunday, it is worth looking into other
historical situations which might substantiate even more clearly
the accessity which arose for the Christians to differentiate
themselves from the Jews in their liturgical calendar.
......
21 See Tertullian, "Apologeticus" 21, PL 1,403; Commodian,
"Carmen Apologeticum", PL 5, 865; Justin Martyr, "Dialogue with
Trypho" 17, 3 ed. and trans. by Thomas B. Fall., "Writing of
Saint Justin Martyr," The Father. of the Church, (New York:
Christian Heritage, Inc., 1948), 5:173. (Hereafter cited as
Falls, "Justin's Writing,"); a text from Clement, "First
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians" 5, 2 where he speaks of the
martyrdom of Peter and Paul, could preserve the rememberance of
the hostile Jewish intervention: "Because of jealousy and envy
the greatest and most upright pillars of the church were
persecuted and condemned unto death" trans. and ed. by Edgar J.
Goodspeed, "The Apostolic Father, An American Translation" (Now
York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p.51. (Hereafter cited as
Goodspeed, "Apostolic Fathers.")
22 Lebreton-Zeiller, "Primitive Church" I:373.
23 Richardson, "Israel," p.47.
.....................
TO BE CONTINUED
Sunday and Anti-Judaism - Part twoPalestine and Rome begin to separate An Excerpt of Doctoral Dissertation
Presented to the Pontifical Gregorian University
Part two
by
the late Samuele Bacciocchi PhD
MARTYRDOM OF JAMES AND THE
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
Returning from Rome to Jerusalem, two significant facts
about the Jewish hostility stand out during the sixties: the
martyrdom of James (ca. A.D.62) and the destruction of Jerusalem
with the related flight of the Christians (ca. A.D.68-70).
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus informs us that the
High Priest Hanan, who succeeded his father at his death:
was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also
of the sect of the Sadducees, who were very rigid in judging
offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have
already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this
disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity (to
exercise his authority). Fetus was now dead, and Albinos was
but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of the
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who
was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others and
when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of
the law, he delivered them to be stoned. 24
The execution of James, of whom Eusebius 25
reports the accounts of Clement of Alexandria, Hegesippus and
Josephus, inflicted another wound on the Christian community
(along with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome), a wound
which further contributed to alienate the Christians from the
Jews. The martyrdom of James struck not only the Christians, but
all the people of Jerusalem who admired the ascetic and
devotional life of this Saint. Josephus adds that the moderate
spirits denounced the High Priest to Albinus, and this resulted
in his deposition and substitution with Jesus, son of Damea. 26
Hegesippus, on closing his report of the martyrdom of James,
adds: "Soon afterwards Vespasian besieged them." 27
This historical inaccuracy - since the siege of Vespasian
took place toward the end of the sixties (summer of A.D.68) -
could possibly be explained not only by the tendency of
Hegesippus to embellish his narrative 28
but also
........
14 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae 20, 9, 1, trans. by
William Whist, "Josephus Complete Works" (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1974),. p.423.
25 See Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 2, 23, 10.
26 Flavius Josephus, "Antiquitates judaicae" 20, 9. 1.
27 The text of Hegesippus is quoted by Eusebius, in "Hist. Eccl."
2, 23, 18.
28 Hegesippus relates, for instance, that James remained kneeling
in prayer for such prolonged periods of time that the skin of his
knees became as hard as that of a camel (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.
2, 23, 6).
.......
by the fact that for the Christians the most significant
following event after the martyrdom of James was their flight
from the city (about A.D.68, possibly after the withdrawal of
Costius Gallus), followed by the siege first by Vespasian and
afterwards by Titus.
After the martyrdom of James, the city was controlled by the
extremist party who was anti-Roman and anti-Christian, and who
made life extremely difficult for the latter. The Judeo-
Christians, warned by a prophecy according to Eusebius, 29
abandoned the city and withdrew to Pella, a city in the region of
Perea. This exodus of the Judeo-Christians from Jerusalem marks
an historical break in the relationship with the Jews.
J. Lebreton conveniently summarizes the historical significance
of the event:
This exodus had decisive consequences for the Church of
Jerusalem: the last link was broken which bound the faithful
to Judaism and to the Temple; down to the end they had loved
its magnificent construction, its ceremonies, and its
memories; now there remained of it not a atone upon a atone;
God had weaned them from it. And this exodus finally
alienated Jewish opinion from them; they had abandoned
Jerusalem at the hour of its great tribulation; their faith
was, then, not that of their nation, and they were seeking
their salvation elsewhere. 30
Richardson notes that the sudden separation from Judaism
took place in the year 70 and not later, since the rabbinic
Judaism which was reconstituted at Jamnia was not radical nor
revolutionary. 31
In fact the new religious leaders did not adhere to
revolutionary movements and their hostility toward the Christians
- for example, the cursing of the minim - assumes now a polemic
character, but not coercive as before.
The question might be raised as to the consequences the
abandoning of the city might have brought in the orientation of
the Judeo-Christian community toward Jewish institutions such
the law and particularly the Sabbath. Regan poses this question
and suggests that the year 70 might mark the decisive break
between Sabbath and Sunday:
.......
29 Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 3, 3, 3 ; ef. Matt. 24: 15-22.
30 Lebreton-Zeiller, "Primitive Church" 1: 306.
31 Richard, "Israel," p.35, writes: "There is little to
distinguish R. Yohannan from the Jerusalem church so far as
attitude to the revolt is concerned."
.......
Can one point to any one event in particular, in which the
decisive break occurred between the Sabbath and that day we
now call Sunday? A most likely date would probably be the
year 70 A.D., with the destruction of the Temple of
Jerusalem. For although the more articulate agents of that
group which clung to the observance of the law while still
professing the Christian faith were far from silenced by the
martyrdom of their leader James, in 61 or 62 A.D.,
nevertheless their influence and prestige must have been
considerably weakened. And just before the destruction of
the city the Christians, fled to Pella and established their
residence there." 32
To trace the introduction of Sunday worship in the Judeo-
Christian continuum of Palestine back to the year 70, or even
earlier as Rordorf does 33
would seem to want to anticipate its origin, in the light of the
following considerations:
(1) Even though the Judeo-Christians (after their exodus from
Jerusalem) abandoned the nationalistic aspirations of their
fellow-countrymen, both the orthodox current (such as the
nazarenes) as well as the extremist one (such as the Ebionites),
34
retained their attachment to the law of which the Sabbath
constituted the benchmark. Eusebius informs us that not only the
radical wing of the Ebionites but even the liberal one "share in
the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were
equally zealous to insist on he literal observance of the Law. 35
(2) If it is true, on the one hand, as Eusebius informs us, that
the liberal wing of the Ebionites adopted the observance of
Sunday besides that of the Sabbath, 36
we must remember, on the other hand, that our informer writes
almost two and a half centuries after the destruction of
Jerusalem, without specifying the time of the adoption of the new
practice.
.......
32 Regan, "Dies Dominica," p.18.
33 Rordorf, "Sunday," pp.215-237. The author maintains that
Sunday originated in the primitive community of Jerusalem. His
construction is very ingenious but not too convincing. With
tortuous argumentation he associates the "breaking of bread" of
Acts (2:46; 20:7) and the "Lord's Supper" of I Cor.11:20 with the
meals which the disciples took with the resurrected Christ on
Sunday (not always) and he reaches the conclusion that "the
breaking of bread for which no definite date is mentioned in Acts
2:42-46, took place weekly on Sunday evening" (ibid., p.237.)
34 See, "Encyclopedia delle Religioni," ed. 1970, s.v. "Ebioniti"
by Atlfonso di Note.
35 Eusebius, "Historia Ecclesiastica" 3, 27, 3, trans. by Kirsopp
Lake, Eusebius, "The Ecclesiastical History," 2 vols (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University frees, 1949), 1: 263. (Hereafter cited
as Lake, "Eusebius Hist.")
36 Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 3, 27, 5.
.......
On the contrary, Irenaeus, 37
nearer in time, as Rordorf himself observes, "in his report about
the Ebionites (which is, in fact, almost identical with that of
Eusebius) makes no mention of a Sunday observance. 38
The more probable explanation, as we shall see shortly, is
that after the disappearance of the Bishops of the circumcision
(ca. A.D.135), a group of into the majority, adopted the
observance of Sunday in addition to the Sabbath.
(3) The Bishops who administered the Church of Jerusalem after
the year 70, continued to be of the circumcision. Eusebius, after
having listed their names until the time of the seige of Hadrian,
adds: "Such were the bishops in the city of Jerusalem, from the
Apostles down to the time mentioned and they were all Jews. 39
Not only the Bishops were from the circumcision, but,
according to the same historian, "the whole church at that time
consisted of Hebrews who had continued Christians from the
Apostles down to the time when the Jews again rebelled from the
Romans and were beaten in a great war." 40
The fact that the Jerusalem Church up to 135 was adminis-
ered by and composed of Judeo-Christians who as Eusebius writes
"were zealous to insist on the literal observance of the Law" 41
would make it unreasonable to suppose that they would have taken
the initiative to abandon Sabbath keeping and introduce Sunday
observance.
(4) Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis and a native of Palestine
(ca. A.D.315-403), reports at length the Easter controversy in
his treatise "Adversua Haereses" 42
and he clearly states that:
.......
37 Irenaeus, "Adversus haereses," 1, 26, 2, PG 7, 687, write:
"Those who ere called Ebionites... practice circumcision and
persevere in those customs according to the law and Jewish way of
life and they pray toward Jerusalem, as if it were the house of
God."
38 Rordorf, "Sunday," p.217.
39 Lake, "Eusebius History" 4, 5, 11, p.311; Eusebius clearly
distinguishes between the Bishops of the circumcision who
governed the Church before the destruction of the city (A.D.135)
from the Gentile Bishop, who succeeded after the destruction of
the city by Hadrian.
40 Lake, "Eusebius History," 4, 5, 2, pp.309-311.
41 Lake, "Eusebius History," 3, 27, 3, p.263.
42 In chapter, 50 and 70 of "Adversus Haeresm" Epiphanius deals
specifically with the quartodeciman controversy, quoting
significant documents like the Apostolic Constitutions (a
document which apparently was used by the Judeo-Christian bishops
of Jerusalem to justify the observance of the quartodeciman
Passover, but which seemingly are lost (PG, 42, 355-358).
.......
"the controversy arose after the exodus of the bishops of the
circumcision (ca. A.D.135) - and it has continued until our
time." 43
The bishop makes specific reference to the fifteen bishops
of the circumcision who administered the church at Jerusalem up
to 135 and who followed the quartodeciman Passover basing
themselves on the documents known as the "Apostolic Constitutions
- apparently lost, where the following rule is given: "You (i.e.
Gentile Christians) ought to celebrate Easter at the same time as
your brethren who from the circumcision have entered the Church."
44
This loyal adherence to Jewish festivals, such as the
quartodeciman Passover, would seem to preclude the possibility
that the Jerusalem Church prior to 135 attempted any liturgical
calendar changes. If however, the Easter-Sunday custom was
introduced in Jerusalem after 135 when the new Gentile leaders
and members colonized the city, it then seems feasible that the
weekly-Sunday-observance was introduced contemporaneously since
[1] as we have seen, 45
both days (weekly-Sunday and Easter Sunday)were considered as one
feast commemorating at different times the same event of the
resurrection, and since [2] as we shall see shortly, the Emperor
Hadrian at that time forbade expressly the observance of the
sabbath 46
The indications that follow seem to show, however that such
liturgical calendar changes occurred gradually and not without
opposition and resistance on the part of some.
(5)Bagatti, a specialist of the history of the Judeo-Christians,
maintains that the Easter controversy became acute in Palestine
about 60 years after Hadrian's War, under Narcissus and
Alexander, bishops of Jerusalem. He writes:
About sixty years after Hadrian's War, a strife arose
between the hellenistic hierarchy and the Judeo-Christian
believers, specifically under bishop Narcissus and his
successor Alexander. The origin of the controversy seems to
be found in the divergent opinions regarding the customs of
observance.....
.......
43 Epiphanius, "Adversus Haereses" 70, 9, PG, 42, 355-356.
44 Ibid., 70, 10, PG 42, 356-357.
45 The relationship between the yearly Easter-Sunday and the
weekly-Sunday is discussed in the preceding chapter in connection
with the Jubilee Calendar. Sew also below pp. 84-86.
46 For a discussion of Hadrian's edict against Sabbath
observance., see: below pp.39-41.
.......
Narcissus had taken part in A.D.196 at the Council of
Caesarea which fixed the celebration of Easter on Sunday
instead of the 14th of Nisan, and it is likely that the
bishop met opposition when he promulgated the conciliar
decree. The Judeo-Christians were in fact convinced of the
immutability of the traditional day of the 14th of Nisan.
Epiphanius confirms this hypothesis when he states that the
controversy arose after the disappearance of the "bishops of
the circumcision" (PG 42, 355-356). Facing opposition at the
beginning of his episcopate, bishop Alexander thought to ask
for help. to his teacher Clement of Alexandria, who
endeavored in his writings to justify the new usage (PG 9,
1490). 47
Eusebius, in his account of the Easter controversy, where
"the number and intensity of the conflicts are reduced to a
minimum," as Jean Juster rightly observes, is guilty of "wilful
obscurity." 48
It is difficult in fact to accept as accurate Eusebius'
claim that with the exception of "the dioceses of Asia, ... the
churches throughout the rest of the world " 49
celebrated Easter on Sunday; when we consider the following
facts:
.......
47 Bagatti, "L' Rghae," p.9. The author discusses again the
Easter controversy and particularly the Council of Caesarea on
pp.65 and 66 of the same work. See also Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl."
5, 23, 3 and 5, 24, 1.
48 Jean Juster, "Lea Juifa dens l'empire romain" (Now York: Burt
Franklin, 1965), p.309, footnote 3. The author provides a
valuable analysis of the influence of the Jewish liturgy on the
Church; see especially pp.304-326.
49 Lake, "Eusebius History" 5, 23, 1, p.503. That Eusebius
attempts to minimize and to limit the observance of the
quartodeciman Passover only to "the dioceses of Asia," is
evidenced by the very letter of Iranaeus, which Eusebius quotes
and where it says: "The presbyters before you [i.e., Victor]. who
did not observe it [i.e., the quartodeciman Passover] sent the
Eucharist to those from other dioceses who did." (Lake, "Eusebius
History" 5, 24, p.511). The Eucharist (a small piece of
consecrated bread called "Fermentum"), was in fact sent by the
Pope, as a symbol of union, to the main churches - titoli -
inside and outside the city, and not too far away bishops. (For a
discussion of the problem, see Mosna, "La Domenica", p.333 ; V.
Monachino, "La Cam pastorale a Milano, Cartalons e Roma ml sec."
IV, Analecta Gregoriana 41 (Rome: Pontificia Universita
Gregoriana, 1947). p.281; L. Hurtling, "Communio" (Rome:
Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1961), p.13; of., also
Hippolytus, "Traditio Apostolica" 22). This would seem to
indicate that there were quartodeciman Christians living in Rome
or in the outlying districts, with whom the predecessors of Pope
Victor maintained the "communio" (i.e., the Christian
fellowship). C. J. Hotel, suggests an interesting explanation for
the aversion of Pope Victor against the quartodeciman Passover.
He explains, it as a possible reaction of the Pope against a
certain Blastus, who according to Tertullian (de Prescriptione
53) "wanted to introduce Judaism secretly in Rome." (A History of
the Christian Councils [Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1883] 1:
312.313.)
.......
when we consider the following facts:
(1) Pope Victor (ca. A.D.189-199) demanded the convocation of
councils in various provinces 50
codify the Roman Easter 51
(Easter-Sunday) obviously because a divergent custom existed.
(2) The bishops of Palestine who assembled together to discuss
the matter, according to Eusebius, "treated at length the
tradition concerning the Passover" and then they formulated a
conciliar letter which was sent "to every diocese that we [i.e.
the bishops] may not be guilty toward those who easily deceive
their own souls." 52
The lengthy discussion and the formulation of a conciliar
letter aimed at persuading and preventing the resistance of the
dissidents (possibly Judeo-Christians who as Bagatti notes had
not been invited to the Council) again indicates that in
Palestine by the end of the second century there still existed a
strong Judeo-Christian current which urged loyalty to certain
traditional Jewish institutions, like the quartodeciman
Passover.
(3) The various testimonies of the Fathers 54
.......
50 That Pope Victor had requested the convocation of councils to
codify the Roman Easter-Sunday custom, is evidenced by the reply
of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to the Pope, where he state:
"I could mention the bishops who are present whom you required me
to summon, and I did so." (Lake, "Eusebius History" 5, 24, 8, p.
507; italics mine.)
51 The expression "Roman Easter" as a designation of
Easter-Sunday, has been borrowed from Mosna, who uses it
frequently in his dissertation undoubtedly because it reflects
the role of Rome in the establishment of the custom. (See Mosna,
"La Domenica," pp. 117, 119, 333.)
52 Lake, "Eusebius History" 5, 25, 1, p.513.
53 Bagatti, "L'Eglise," p.85.
54 The most important sources for a quartodeciman Passover,
besides Eusebius "Hist. Eccl." 5. 23-25, are: "Epistola
Apostolorum" 15; two fragments from two works of Hippolytus (one
of them was on the "Holy Easter") preserved in the "Chronicon
Paschale" (PG 92,79) where he state: "Consider therefore in what
the controversy consists...." This would imply that the
controversy was still alive in his time and felt possibly in
Rome; Athanasius of Alexandria, who mentions the "Syrians,
Cilicians, and Mesopotamians" as observant of the quartodeciman
Passover (see his "de Synodis" 1, 5 and "ad Alms Epistola
Synodica" 2); Jerome, who paraphrases a statement from Irenaeus'
work, "On the Pascal Controversy," where the latter warns Pope
Victor not to break the unity with "the many bishops of Asia and
the East, who with the Jews celebrated the Passover, on the
fourteenth day of the new moon" (see "de Viris illustribus" 35,
NPNF, Second Series, 3:370); a fragment of Apollinarius, bishop
of Hierapolis (ca. A.D.170) from his work on "Easter," preserved
in the "Chronicon Paschale" 6 (PG 92, 80-81), where it says:
"The 14th Nisan is the true Passover of our Lord, the great
Sacrifice; instead of the lamb, we have the Lamb of God;"
Severian, bishop of Gabala (fl. ca. A.D.400), who strongly
attacks those Christian, who still maintained the Jewish Passover
ritual (sea his "homilia 5 de Pascha," ed. J. B. Anchor (Venice:
1827), p.180; Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (ca. A.D. 315-403)
deals extensively with the quartodeciman controversy in his "Ad
versus Haereses" 50 and 70. The bishop suggests in various
instances that the quartodeciman custom, which he labels
"heresy," was widespread. He writes, for instance: "And another
heresy, namely the quartodeciman, (arose - rose up again) in the
world" ("Adversus Haereses" 50, 1, PC 41, 883).
55 Begetti, "L'Eglise," pp.8, 9.
56 See below p.34.
57 James Parkes, "The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue"
(London: The Soncino Press, 1934), p.78. (Hereafter cited as
Parkes, "The Conflict.")
.......
The various testimonies of the Fathers who, though in some
cases condemned the quartodeciman Passover as practiced
especially in many Eastern areas, provide corroborating evidences
that there were Christians especially in many Eastern communities
who still observed Passover at the same time of the Jews.
(6) The survival of the "Jewish imprint" in the Church of
Jerusalem as well as in the neighboring communities, is
confirmed, as Bagatti rightly points out by additional historical
testimonies. In fact Bagatti provides the following indications:
On the "Jewish" character preserved at this time by the
church of Jerusalem and by many other Churches, we have,
among the witnesses, the one of Bardesane (180-223) who said
of his disciples (PS 2, 605) that they sanctified Sunday and
not Saturday, and that they did not practice the
circumcision "as the Christians of Judea." A letter of the
"Clementine Books" (PQ 2, 31-56), written under the name of
Clement, carries the heading: "To James, Lord and Bishop of
Bishops, who directs the holy Church of the Jews of
Jerusalem." 55
The survival, in Jerusalem as well as other parts of Asia, of
such strong influence of the Judeo-Christians (well over a
century after the first destruction of Jerusalem) who remained
loyal to the Jewish liturgical calendar, as in the reckoning of
the Passover, would seem to discredit any attempt to make the
year 70 the historical breaking point between the Sabbath and
Sunday.
(7) The Rabbinical authorities reconstituted at Jamaia (as
will be discussed in the next section), 56
introduced at this time (ca. A.D.80-90) a test to detect the
presence of Christians in the synagogue service. The test
consisted in a curse that was incorporated in the daily prayer -
Shemoneh Esreh - and was to be pronounced against the Christians
by any participant in the synagogue service. The introduction of
such a test indicates, as J. Parkes observes, that
"Judeo-Christians still frequented the synagogue." 57
If this were the case, it is hard to imagine that the
Christian Church of Palestine, composed primarily at that time of
Judeo-Christians still attending the synagogue, had already
broken away radically from Judaism by introducing the observance
of Sunday.
In the light of these considerations it would seem
reasonable to conclude that the possibility suggested by Regan
of a break with the Sabbath and of the adoption of Sunday already
in the year 70, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, is
hardly conceivable. As we have seen, for 60 more years the
hierarchy and the majority of the members of the Jerusalem
Church, were even after the year 135, these fought to safeguard
such Mosaic traditions as the quartodeciman Passover. The
destruction of Jerusalem undoubtedly marked a break in the
relationships between Jews and Christians and accelerated that
process of separation at in time brought the abandonment, on the
part of the majority of the Christians, of both the Sabbath and
the quartodeciman Passover, as well as other typical Jewish
practices. This process, however, was gradual and, especially in
Palestine, did not seem to have made a significant start before
the disappearance of the "bishops of the circumcision."
TO BE CONTINUED
...................
Sunday and Anti-Judaism - Part threeThe curse on Christians by Rabbis A STUDY INTO HISTORIAL WRITINGS
Part three
by
the late Samuele Bacciocchi PhD
THE MALEDICTION OF THE CHRISTIANS
With the destruction of Jerusalem and the reconstitution of
the Sanhedrin at Jamnia under the presidency of Rabbis instead of
priests, there begins a new phase of hostility toward the Chris-
tians. From open and coercive persecution, we pass now to more
subtle and sophisticated opposition. Richardson observes that "it
is not until the renewed Zealot government of 132-135 that one
hears directly of Jewish persecution of Christians again." 59
Though on the one hand, in this period of about 60 years from the
destruction of Jerusalem to the revolt of Barkokeba, the new
authorities constituted at Jamnia, do not undertake an active
persecution against the Christians (due both to the strict
surveillance of the Romans and possibly to a new more liberal
orientation 60 - since
.......
58 See above pp. 25-26.
59 Richardson, "Israel," p.44, footnote 5.
60 J. Neusner, "A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai," ca.
A.D. 1-80 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), pp.112-125, 147, presents
concisely the attitude of the new religious leaders of Jamnia as
well as their relationship with both the Christians and the
Roman.
.......
they did not support the cause of the revolutionary Zealots -),
it is worth noticing on the other hand that in this very period
they introduced a "test" designed to identify those who professed
Christian ideas, thus hastening the break with Christians. This
"test" which assume the form of a curse or excomunication, was
inserted in the famous prayer "Shemoneh Esreh" as the twelfth
benediction - "Birkath-ha-Minim" - and was to be recited with
loud voice by whomsoever was called to officiate in the
synagogue.
Harcel Simon reports the Palestinian text of the curse and
he suggests also the date of its introduction:
It is on the suggestion of R. Gamaliel II, a little after
the fall of Jerusalem and very likely in the neighbourhood
of the year A.D.80, that was inserted in the "Shemoneh
Esreh" the famous formula against the Minim: "May the
apostate have not any hope and may the empire of pride be
uprooted promptly in our days. May the Nazarenes and the
Minim perish in an instant, may they all be erased from the
book of life, that they may not be counted among the
righteous. Blessed be Thou, O God, who bringest down the
proud." 61
Although some question the identification of the Minim with
the Judea-Christians, 62
Dugmore convincingly points out that the evidence is overwhelm-
ing:
It is difficult to see how this view can be maintained, for
the statement of Jerome that it contained the express
condemnation of "Nazarenes " - a word which could only apply
to Jewish-Christians - has been proved up to the hilt by the
discovery of the original Palestinian text of the
malediction in a fragment from the Genizah at Fustat. 63
.......
61 Simon, "Verus Israel," p.235. The date A.D.80-90 for the
introduction of the malediction, is accepted by practically all
scholars. For an extensive bibliography see W. Salvage,
"Aposunagogos" in TDNT, 7:798; Parkes, "The Conflict,"
corroborates the A.D.80-90 date by the following argumentation:
"This declaration, the 'Birkath-ha-minim,' was composed by Samuel
the Small, who lived in the second half of the first century. His
exact date we do not know, but he was contemporary of Gamaliel
11, who prosided at Jabne from 80 to 110, and was also acquainted
with two rabbi, who ware killed in the capture of Jerusalem in
70. We may therefore conclude that he was, older than Gamaliel,
and date the malediction which he composed to be between 80 and
90" (pp.77-78).
62 Morris Goldstein, "Jesus in the Jewish Tradition" (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1950), pp.45ff., offers a concise summary of the
various interpretations attributed to the "Minim."
63 C. W. Dugmore, "The Influence of the Synagogue upon the Divine
Office" (London: The Faith Press, 1984), p.4. (Hereafter cited as
Dugmore, "Influence" Marcel Simon, Verus Israel Post-Scriptum
(Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964), p.500, defends in his Post-Scriptum
his application of the term "Minim" to the Christians and he
maintains that no objection to it has emerged in the literature
which has appeared since the publication of he work in 1948.
......
The Palestinian text to which Dugmore refers is the one
quoted above where it speaks specifically of the Nazarenes. But
even such Fathers as Justin, Epiphanies and Jerome speak
expressly of the malediction of the Christians under the name of
Nazarenes which was pronounced daily in the synagogues. 64
Jerome, for instance, writes explicitly: "ter per sigulos
dice in omnibus synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizent
vocabulum Christianorum - three times daily in all the synagogues
under the name of the Nazarenes you curse the name of the
Christians" 65
The purpose of the formula was not simply to cirse the
Christians but as Marcel Simon observes it constituted "a
truthful test" to discover them. He explains:
Since all the members of the community could be called upon
in turn, in the absence of the official priests, to
officiate in public worship, the method was certain: the
participant contaminated with heresy had necessarily to
hesitate to pronounce, with this benediction his own
condemnation. The Talmud stated very clearly: "Whenever
someone made a mistake in any benediction, be was allowed to
continue, but if it had to do with the benediction of the
Minim, he was to b called back to his place because
supposedly he was a Min." 66
J. Parkes notes that "the fact that the test was a statement
made m the synagogue service shows that at the time of making it
the Judeo-Christians still frequented the synagogue." 67
There would not have been any reason for prohibiting the
participation of the Judeo-Christians in the services of the
synagogue if these had not been present in the meetings. This ban
from the synagogue indicates, on one hand, that the rabbis of
Jamnia decided not to tolerate any longer the presence of
Judeo-Christians in their meetings, and on the other hand, that
Judeo-Christians, in spite of the disagreement about the Messiah,
still considered themselves essentially Jews. The fact that the
recitation of a set formula
.......
64 Justin Martyr, "Dialogue cum Tryphone" 16; Epiphanies,
"Adversus Haereses" 29, 9, PG 41, 404, 405; Jerome, "In Isaiam,"
PL 24, 87 and 484.
65 Jerome, "In Isaiam," 5, 18, PL, 24, 87.
66 Simon, "Verus Israel," p.236.
67 Park, "The Conflict," p.78.
.......
was introduced to identify them would seem to indicate that they
evidently behaved as ordinary members. But from now on the
separation became inevitable and subsequent events would
accelerate this process.
The hostility of the Jews towards the Judeo-Christians can
further be seen not only in the exclusion of the latter from the
synagogue but even in the various sayings attributed to rabbis,
in which the Christians are denounced and detested as more
dangerous than the pagans. 68
THE PERSECUTION OF BARKOKEBA
AND THE BREAK WITH JUDAISM
From a dilatory and exclusive attitude, the Jews of
Palestine passed again to a harsh and bloody attack against the
Judeo-Christians at the time of the ferocious revolt of Barkokeba
(A.D. 132-135), when for two or three years they were again the
masters of Judea. Justin, contemporary witness of the event,
reports:
In the recent Jewish war, Barkokeba, the leader of the
Jewish uprising, ordered that only the Christians should be
subjected to dreadful torments, unless they renounced and
blasphemed Jesus Christ. 69
The revolt, initiated about the year 132 by the provocatory
action of Hadrian which proscribed circumcision, 70 and ordered
the temple of Jerusalem rebuilt in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus
lasted for about three years, stirred up by a certain Simon,
nicknamed Barkokeba - which in Aramaic means "son of the star" -
who was supported as Messiah by the famous rabbi of the time,
Akiba. 71
.......
68 See Heinrich Graetz, "History of the Jews," 6 vols.
(Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940),
4:112. (Hereafter cited as Graetz, "History Jews.") Joseph
Klausner, "Jesus of Nazareth" (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1944), pp.321 and 35-36 reports various deplorable name - as
Balaam - employed in the Talmudic literature to indicate Christ.
69 Justin Martyr, I "Apologia," 31, 6, trans. by Falls, "Justin's
Writings," p.67.
70 Simon, "Verus Israel," p.126 observe: "It has been believed
mistakenly, sometimes, that the edict on the circumcision was
posterior to the war."
71 For a brief but valuable analysis of the events, see F. M.
Abel, "Histoire de to Palestine depuis is conquete d'Alexandre
jusqu'd I 'invasion arabe," 2 vols. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1952), 1:
pp.83f.; 1. Abrahams, "Campaigns in Palestine from Alexander the
Great," Schweich: Lectures for 1922 (London: Oxford University
Press, 1927), pp.37f.
.......
The Judeo-Christians already considered traitors for having
deserted Jerusalem in the war of the year 70, 72 and now
repudiators of the "Messiah" Barkokeba, suffered at this time a
massive and cruel persecution, the victims of an explosion of
nationalistic hatred. 73
The rebellion was crushed by Hadrian, with great losses on
both aides. Barkokeba, the fearless Akiba, and many instigators
were put to death. 74
The year 135 marks a decisive turning point in the
relationships between the Jews and Christians and in the internal
development of the Christian communities in Palestine. Marcel
Simon, in his penetrating study, is one of the few historians
that recognize the historical importance of the event. 75
As far as the present study is concerned, we shall limit
ourselves to a listing of some of the events connected with the
year 135 and to an evaluation of their possible implications for
the origin of Sunday:
(1) If it were possible, as has been suggested by K. W.
Clark, that after the year 70 the sacrifices still continued,
even though in a reduced form, 76
till the year 135, the latter year would then signify the total
cessation of sacrifices as well as the last hope of a
re-establishment of Israel as a station. With the disappearance
of Israel as a nation the Judeo-Christians who had remained
attached, even though secretly, to the nationalistic Jewish
ideals, had now to decide to which side they belonged. In this
historical moment it is possible to understand the origin of the
two currents of the Ebionites, one conservative and the other
liberal.
.......
72 Flavius Josephus, "Antiquitates judaicae" 20, 1, explains that
the Jews considered the Christians traitors on account of their
indifference to the welfare of Jerusalem and for having abandoned
the city, withdrawing to Pella.
73 Justin Martyr, "I Apologia" 31, 6.
74 Lake, "Eusebius History" 4, 6, 1-3, pp.311-313 reports:
"Rufus, the governor of Judaea, when military aid had been sent
him by the Emperor, moved out against them, treating their
madness without mercy. He destroyed in heaps thousands of men,
women and children, and, under the law of war, enslaved the
land.... The rebels were driven to final destruction by famine
and thirst and the instigator of their madness paid the penalty
be deserved"; see also the description of Din Cassius, "Roman
History," 59,14.
75 Simon, "Verve Israel," see chapter IV, "Rome, Judaisme et
Christianismo," pp.125f.
76 K. W. Clark, "Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D.70,"
NTS, VS (1959-1960): 209-230; see ale, J. R. Brown, "The Temple
and Sacrifice in Rabbinic Judaism" (Evanston: 1903, Winslow
Lectures for 1963).
.......
The adoption of Sunday, as reported by Eusebius, 77
on the part of the liberal wing of the Ebionites, could then
represent their attempt to reintegrate themselves in the Gentile
Church whose majority had at this time seemingly adopted the
observance of Sunday.
(2) The proclamation of Barkokeba as Messiah and his acceptance
by the majority of the Jews, 78
must have appeared to the Christians as the final and irrevocable
rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews. J. Parkes writes on this
point:
Until the Jews had not in large numbers decided for another
Messiah, they [Christians] might continue to hope that they
would accept Jesus. But when led by the famous Akiba the
bulk of the population followed Barkokeba, then the position
became hopeless. 79
The cruel and massive persecution that followed made the
separation inevitable. The false Messiahship and the ruthless
persecution of Barkokeba against the Judeo-Christians, added to
their theological conviction, a racial resentment and an
animosity toward the Jews. This is reflected, as we shall see, 80
in the writing of the Fathers, who in their turn will pour out
their reprobation and condemnation of such typical Jewish
institutions as - crcumcision and the Sabbath. Sunday will emerge
in this context as the symbol of the superseding of Judaism and
of the establishment of the new Christian era.
(3) The order of Hadrian to build on the ruins of Jerusalem
the new Roman city "Aelia Capitolina" 81 and his prohibition
.......
77 Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." 3, 27, 5.
78 For a discussion on the acceptance of the Messiahship of
Barkokeba, see S. W. Baron, "A Social and Religious History of
the Jews," 9 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962),
2:132. (Hereafter cited as Baron, "History.")
79 Parkes, "The Conflict," pp.93,78.
80 See the section below on "Anti-Judaism in the Fathers and the
Origin of Sunday."
81 Dio Cassius, "Roman History" 59, 12, 1, sees in this order of
Hadrian one of the causes of the Roman-Jewish war. He writes:
"At Jerusalem he founded a city in the place of the one which had
been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the
site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter.
This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief
duration ... Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should
be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted
there."
.......
"to continue in the Jewish observances, and in particular in the
circumcision and in respect of the Sabbath" 82
inflicted on the Jews another decisive blow. S. Krauss so
synthesizes the dramatic situation:
The Jews now passed through a time of bitter persecution;
Sabbaths, festivals, the study of the Torah and circumcision
were interdicted and it seemed as if Hadrian desired to
annihilate the Jewish people. 83
The Roman historian Elius Spartianus does refer to the
interdiction of the circumcision, but not of the observance of
the Sabbath or of the law in general. 84
Marcel Simon points out, however, that in Hadrian's
prohibition of the circumcision, any act of worship of the Jews
was implicitly forbidden, since this constituted, as baptism did
for the Christians, the preliminary act. 85
The rabbinic sources however speak abundantly of the
restrictions imposed by Hadrian. 86
In fact, Hadrian's reign is commonly referred to in the
Talmud as "the age of persecution - shemad -, " or "the age of
the edict -gezerah." 87
The following quotation is a sample of statements often
found in the Talmud regarding Hadrian's anti-Jewish policies:
The Government [of Rome] had issued a decree that they
should not study the Torah and that they should not
circumcise theirs sons and that they should profane the
Sabbath. What did Judah b, Shammu'a and his colleagues do ?
They went and consulted a certain matron whom all the Roman
notables
.......
82 "Enciclopedia delle Religioni," 1971 ad., s.v. "Giudaesimo" by
Ariel Toaff.
83 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1907 ed., s.v. "Hadrian," by S. Krauss.
84 Rhea Spartianus, "Historia Augusta, Hadrianus" 14.
85 Simon, "Verus Israel," p.126.
86 S. Krauss, "Barkokba," Jewish Encyclopedia, 1907 ed., 2:509,
writes: "The subsequent era was one of danger ("sha'at
hasekanah") for the Jaws of Palestine, during which the most
important ritualistic observances were forbidden; for which
reason the Talmud states (Geiger's "Jud. Zit." i. 199, ii, 126;
Wei, "Dar," ii, 131; "Rev. Et. Juives," xxxii. 41) that certain
regulation, were passed to meet the emergency. It was called the
age of the edict ("gezerah ") or of persecution ("shemad," Shab.
60a; Caut. R. ii, 5)" see ale, Graetz, "History Jews," 2:425; S.
Grayzel, "A History of the Jew" (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1947), p.184.
87 See "Sabbath" 60a.
.......
used to visit. She said to them: "Go and make proclamation
[of your sorrows] at night time." They went and proclaimed
at night, crying, "Alas, in heaven's name, are we not your
brothers, are we not the sons of one father and are we not
the sons of one mother? Why are we different from every
nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against
us?" 88
The question arises, How did the Christians react to these
imperial injunctions which prohibited the practice of Judaism and
in a particular way the observance of the Sabbath?
................
TO BE CONTINUED
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment