The Separation of Early Christianity from Judaism

by

Marianne Josephine Dacy NDS

(M. Phil, Grad Dip Lib-CNAA London, ALIA)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Semitic Studies June 2000 University of Sydney

Preface

I wish to thank those generations of scholars from whose work I have been able
to draw inspiration, as well as my teachers over the years in Jerusalem and
Australia. In particular I should like to thank Naomi Cohen from Haifa
University, Robert Kraft of Pennsylvania University, Dexter Hoyos and Frances
Muecke of Sydney University.

Thanks are due to Professor Alan Crown, my thesis director, whose erudition and
guidance have both challenged and stimulated me. The topic has always
fascinated me, and, as I believe it is important, aspects of it will continue to
occupy my research in future years.

Countless others have assisted me. Thanks are due to the Sisters of Sion, who
have fostered my work, Sr Marnie Kennedy RSCJ who has followed the fortunes
of the thesis, the librarians of the Fisher library, John Huff, the long suffering
Arts Faculty computer technician, Jennifer Alison, and Lucy Davey who proof
read my thesis, and the many friends who have encouraged me to pursue this
topic. My brother in law, Jim Scarano and sister, Frances provided assistance
with the maps. In addition, my mother, Margaret Dacy has encouraged me from
childhood in the pursuit of knowledge and has waited patiently for the day when
this thesis would be completed. That day has now arrived.

i
 Abbreviations

AUSS Andrew’s University Seminary Studies

BA Biblical Archaeologist
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DJDJ Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
BL Journal of Biblical Literature
JJ Jerusalem Jahrbuch
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JTS Jewish Theological Review
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NTS New Testament Studies
PG J. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca
PL J. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina
REJ Revue des Etudes Juives
RQ Revue de Qumran
VC Vigiliae Christianae

ii
iii
Abstract

The Separation of Early Christianity from Judaism

The moving apart of early Christianity from Judaism was a gradual process of de-
judaisation, with separation taking place on several levels. Chapter One looks at the
spread of Christianity and the physical moving apart of Jews and Christians by
observing the geographical locations of the bishops attending various councils.
Chapter Two examines the question of the Jewish-Christians who attempted to be
both Jewish and Christian at the same time. In Chapter Three, statements about Jews
in the early church councils which reveal judaising practices have been examined.
Chapter Four studies the process of juridical separation of Jews from Christians as
shown by an examination of the Theodosian Code. The fifth chapter examines the
Jewish roots of Christian liturgy and focuses on the element that radically
differentiated Christian from Jewish liturgy – its christological focus. Chapter Six
speaks of the separation of Sabbath observance from Sunday observance, outlining
the struggle to prevent Christians, who were accused of judaising, from celebrating
the Sabbath as well as Sunday. Chapter Seven concentrates on the separation of
Passover from Easter. While Chapter Eight investigates the development of a
distinctly Christian archaeology, the ninth area of separation concerns the subject of
Christianity in the rabbinic writings.

In the nine areas studied, two pervasive causes of separation have been identified. The
first concerns the non–practice of Jewish ritual law, when Christianity became
predominantly a religion of non-Jews. Christianity, in order to define itself closed its
ranks to Jewish practices. The second cause leading to separation was the messianic
movement centred on Jesus, and the growing emphasis on the divinity of Jesus. This
was reflected in the developing Christian liturgy, in the christianisation of Passover,
the Eucharist and the practice of Sunday over and above the Jewish Sabbath.

Marianne Dacy
June 2000
 Table of Contents

Preface i
Abbreviations ii

Introduction 1

The Problem. 1
Sources 4
1) Greek and Roman. 4
2) New Testament. 4
3) Early Christian Writings–Patrological Literature. 4
4) Early Church Council Documents. 5
5) Roman Legal Sources. 6
6) Jewish Sources. 6
7) Liturgical sources and Commentaries. 6
8) Archaeological and Geographical Material. 7

Secondary Literature. 7
The Challenge. 8

Chapter One
The Spread of Christianity. 15

Trade Routes and Geographical Influences. 16

The Book of Acts. 19

The Name ‘Christian’. 23
Impact of Persecution. 24
Christian Organisation Based on Synagogue. 26
From Jerusalem to Rome. 27
The Papacy and Centralisation of the Western Church. 28
Conclusion. 30

Maps
Map 1. The Spread of Christianity. 31
Map 2. Trade Routes. 32
Map 3. Jewish Towns and Bishoprics of those who Attended 33
Council of Arles (314) – (partial list).
Map 4. Jewish towns and Bishoprics of those who Attended 34
Council of Nicaea.
Chapter Two

The Jewish/Christian Schism. 35

The Jewish-Christians. 35
Role of James. 36
Blood and Ritual Purity. 39
Four Distinguishing Features of Judaism in Graeco-Roman Authors. 42
Christianity as a Philosophy in the Graeco-Roman World. 43
Fate of the Jewish-Christian Jerusalem Church. 45
Patristic Texts on Jewish-Christianity. 46
Justin Martyr and Jewish-Christians. 50
The Twelfth Benediction. 51
The Nazoraeans. 57
The Ebionites. 58
Conclusion. 60

Chapter Three

The Early Church Councils and the Separation of Christians 61

from Jews.

Church Councils. 63
Circumcision. 64
Circumcision, Immersion and Baptism. 67
Dietary Regulations. 68
Anti-Jewish Canons. 71
Intermarriage. 74
Eating with Jews. 79
Jewish Sources on the Question of Eating with Gentiles 82
Superstition and Magic. 83
Sabbaths and Feasts. 87
Jewish Feasts. 88
Ban on Attendance at Any Jewish Service. 89
Jewish Catechumens. 90
Jews as Witnesses. 91
Anathemas and Christology. 92
Use of Term ‘Levite’. 92
Role of Emperor in Church Councils 93
Conclusion. 95
Chapter Four

The Theodosian Code and Laws on Jews. 97

Significance of Code Favouring Church. 99

Laws on Jews. 100
1. Statutes Maintaining Privileges of Jews. 100
Julian (361–3). 102
Authority of Patriarchs Upheld in Religious Matters. 103
Juridical Powers of Jewish Authorities. 104
Exemptions from Liturgies. 105

2. Statutes Protective of Jews. 106

Protection of Synagogues. 106
Sabbath and Holy Days. 110

3. Statutes Prohibiting Anti-Christian Practices by Jews. 110

Roman Criminal Justice. 111

4. Statutes Restricting Jewish Cult and Activities. 112

Jews Forbidden to Possess Christian Slaves. 113
Proselytism and Circumcision Forbidden. 115
Intermarriage. 116

5. Measures Hostile to Jews. 117

Participation in Jewish Cults Forbidden. 117
Jews in Public Service. 118
Control of Jewish Authorities. 119

Justinian Code. 122

Conclusion. 123

Chapter Five

The Separation of Christian Liturgy from Jewish Liturgy. 125

Sources on Jewish Prayer. 128

Prayers in the Temple. 130
Daily Prayer. 132
New Testament View of Jesus. 134
Development of Christology–Divisions Over the Nature of Christ 137
Arianism. 137
Apollinarianism and Nestorianism. 138
The Question of the Shema for the Early Christians. 141
Shema’s Influence on Early Christological Controversies. 148
The Amidah in Early Christianity. 149
Apostolical Constitutions. 154
Christian Festival Liturgy. 156
The Eucharist. 157
Baptism. 160
Question of the Catechumenate. 161
Conclusion. 164

Chapter Six

The Separation of Sunday from Sabbath 166

First Century. 166

Jesus and the Sabbath in the Synoptics. 169
The Epistle to Clement. 171
The Epistle to Barnabas. 174
New Covenant. 175
Ignatius of Antioch. 178
The Didache. 180
Justin Martyr. 182
Graeco-Roman Sources in the Second Century. 184
Graeco-Roman sources in the Third Century. 186
Graeco-Roman sources in the Fourth Century. 186
Council of Laodicea. 191
Imperial Legislation. 193
Conclusion. 195

Chapter Seven

The Separation of Easter from Passover. 197

Is the Lord’s Supper a Passover Meal? 198

Jesus as the Passover Lamb. 202
Christian Attacks on Judaism for Lack of a Passover Offering. 204
The Separation of the Date of Easter from Passover. 205
The Jewish Calculations of the Date of Passover (2nd–4th Century). 210
Conclusion. 214

Chapter Eight

The Separation of Early Christianity from Judaism. 216

Evidence from Archaeology.

Domus Ecclesiae. 216

Syracuse, Sicily. 219
Rome. 220
Catacombs. 221
Most Common Images. 222
Peter’s Tomb. 224
Dura Europos. 224
Conclusion re Dura Europos. 227
Flight to Pella. 227
Earliest Archaeological Traces of Christianity in Israel. 231
Jewish Christians on Mount Zion? 233
Dominus Flevit. 234
The Letter Tav and the Cross. 236
Capernaum. 239
Conclusion. 240

Chapter Nine

Christianity in Rabbinical Literature. 241

Minim. 242
Tannaim. 243
Joshua ben Hananiah. 244
Eleazar of Modein. 244
Rabbi Tarphon. 245
Amoraim. 246
Jesus Stories. 247
Kutim and Christians. 249
Various Statements of Conflict. 250
Conclusion. 251

Conclusions 253

Select Bibliography 260

Appendix

Table 1. Early Church Statements about Jews. 286

Table 2. List of Bishops who Attended Nicaea (325 CE). 289

Table 3. List of Bishops who Attended Council of Arles (314 CE). 298
Introduction

Samuel Sandmel once wrote:

Objectivity is an ideal. No one truly attains it. One strives toward it,
buoyed by extravagent hopes and discouraged by a recognition of
personal shortcomings. But religiously committed Jews and Christians
are no less capable of dealing objectively with historical material than
are secular scholars.1

The separation of early Christianity from Judaism is a difficult and complex subject.
There is no simple solution to understanding it in all its nuances. However, the subject
is of fundamental importance in the studying of the relationship between the two
religions. One needs to look at origins and attempt to understand the steps that led to
separation, if they are ever to be discerned after two millennia, in order to clarify the
reasons a relationship went so badly wrong. The identification of problems is an
essential condition towards the building up of good relationships between the two
faiths.

The Problem

Christianity began its existence as a variety of Judaism in the first century CE, a period
when Judaism was pluralistic and a ferment of latitudinarian religious views, as the
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other material has confirmed. Why then did
Christianity not remain as a sectarian movement that operated within Judaism, or
develop into another variety of Judaism, rather than separate from Judaism? Did
Christianity, as Flusser claims, become a religion of the gentiles, as most Jews could
not accept the claim that Christianity, having ‘come into existence though the special
grace of Christ as the heir of Judaism was its true expression’. 2 This question is one
part of the problem. Another part of the problem concerns the nature of the sources.

The difficulty of the topic of the separation of Christianity from Judaism is

exacerbated by the paucity of historically reliable source material for the early stages
of the separation. Old certainties have been shaken by the discovery of new evidence

1
See Samuel Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (Oxford University Press, 1978), vii.
2
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, Immanuel, 17 (Winter 1983–4), 32.
without a new paradigm emerging. Jewish-Christianity, the middle ground between
rabbinic Judaism and so called Pauline Christianity, is receiving greater attention, but
the problem of Christian origins is by no means solved.3

By the time the New Testament was written, the separation had already advanced.
Thus, in the gospels, the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion appears to shift progressively
from Pilate and the Romans in the Synoptics to the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, and
the Jews in the later Gospel of John.4 In addition, non-canonical writings, such as the
Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Peter, reveal growing hostility. In subsequent
centuries, and as early as the second century patristic writings, before Christianity had
been established as a licit religion and while it was still in the process of separating
from Judaism, the blame for Jesus’ death was progressively shifted to the Jews. The
part of the Romans, who were the occupying power at the time and needed to be
placated, was passed over.5

By the time of the writing of the Gospel of John at the end of the first century CE,
there are indications that Christians were being excluded from synagogues, at least in
some areas.6 Jewish communities in the Diaspora were religiously self-confident and
well integrated into the sociopolitical structure of late ancient society.7 Christianity, on
the other hand, was claiming the place of Judaism and seeking to establish its validity
as the new Israel, the only authentic version of Judaism, and so formulated a number
of anti-Judaic premises.

The main thrust of these anti-Judaic premises could be summarised thus:8

3
See Wolfram Kinzig ‘“Non-Separation,” Closeness and Co-Operation between Jews and Christians
in the Fourth Century’, VC, 45 (1991), 27.
4
See James H. Charlesworth, ‘Christians and Jews in the First Six Centuries’ in Hershel Shanks
(ed.), Christianity and Judaism: A Parallel History of their Origins and Early Development
(London, SPCK, 1993), 312.
5
See Gospel of Peter 1:1.

6
See John 9, which describes incident of Jesus’ cure of the man born blind.
7
See Steven Fine, Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New
York, Oxford University Press, 1996), 93.
8
See G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity (Oxford University Press, 1983), 158.

2
 1) The church is the New Israel, being the expression of the New
Covenant in Christ.
2) The Jews killed Christ.9
3) For this reason and because the Jews did not recognise Jesus as the
messiah, they are rejected by God. The fall of the Temple is a sign they
are no longer the Chosen People.
4) Typology negatively contrasts Christian virtues with Judaism.10
a) The exposition of the christological meaning of the scriptures shows
Christ to be the Messiah long promised by the prophets.
b) The Law of Moses, in particular the ritual law, is said to be abrogated in
favour of a spiritual law.11
c) Salvation history as revealed in the Holy Writings was interpreted in
terms of a dialectic of judgement and promise, which reinterprets the
past, present and future in terms of the response to Christ, and describes
the election of the gentile church in supersessionist terms of God’s
rejection of the Jews.

‘Christ’ (χristÒj) the Greek translation of the Hebrew (jhan) appears in the New
Testament as a title for Jesus before the end of the first century (Mark 8:27–33; Col
12:18). Outside the New Testament, references to Jesus Christ are few. Tacitus (Ann
15.44) said that the Christians were named after a ‘Christus’ who had been condemned
to death by Pontius Pilate, whilst Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1) speaks of the martyrdom of
James ‘a brother of Jesus who is called Christ’.

9
The accusation that the Jews ‘murdered God’ goes back to Melito of Sardis, Peri Pascha, 96.
Second century Christian literature tends to stress the role of the Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus
and excuse Pilate. See Evangelium Petri, 11:45–48.
10
See works by Jean Daniélou such as The Bible and the Liturgy, (University of Notre Dame Press,
1966), 208–261, or Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture 2: A History of Early Christian
Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, tr. John Austin Baker (3 vols, London, Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1973).
11
See Epistle to the Hebrews.

3
Sources

As pointed out, the topic under examination, the tracing of relations between Judaism
and Christianity from the first century until the sixth and their moving apart is fraught
with difficulty, the problem being compounded by the nature of the sources which are
mostly not historical in aim or are religiously apologetic.

1) Greek and Roman

The sources include Greek and Latin authors who wrote on Jews and Judaism.
Examples include words documented by Menahem Stern, which show some prejudice
and antisemitism, but also admiration for Judaism, and provide evidence for the rise of
Christianity as a separate religion.12 The witness of these external observers provides a
balance to that of Jewish writings which have little to say about Christianity, and
Christian writings which have a great deal to say about Judaism and generally are
polemical and sharp in tone.

2) New Testament

The New Testament provides information on the beginning of the separation of early
Christianity from Judaism, as do the New Testament apocrypha and Nag Hammadi
material such as the Gospel of Thomas. However, the limitations of this material as to
historical data will be taken into account.

3) Early Christian Writings–Patrological Literature

Migne’s Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina are essential, as well as more
recent textual updates and corrections and early Christian literature in translation in
several collections.13 Some of this literature includes The Epistle of Barnabas, The

12
See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols, Jerusalem, The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976–1982).
13
See for example the series Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation,
Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe, (eds), 1946–1989; The Ante-Nicene Fathers:
Translations of the Fathers down to AD 325, revised A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Eerdmans, 1956) and The Apostolic Fathers, tr. Kirsopp Lake (2 vols, London, Heinemann, 1912–
13).

4
Didache, The Didascalia Apostolorum and The Apostolical Constitutions. Other
essential references are Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine,
Rufinus (continuation of Eusebius’ history), Socrates and Epiphanius.

4) Early Church Council Documents

An essential reference work containing the original Latin and Greek Council
documents, is G. D. Mansi’s Acta Conciliorum (Libellus Synodicus).14 These decrees
of local synods and councils are documented in Hefele’s translation and commentary
made in the late nineteenth century.15 Data is given on councils in the late second
century, scattered references to which are to be found in various early patristic
writings including Eusebius, Jerome, Irenaeus, and Athanasius. The decrees of the
ecumenical councils which began in the fourth century are collected in the two volume
edition edited by Norman P. Tanner.16

The difficulty in consulting the early councils (and synodical data) lies in the fact that
a great deal of information is missing. Thus, for example, the official acts of the
Council of Constantinople (381) are no longer extant. The series edited by Pius
Bonifacius Gans, lists the sees and the succession of bishops. 17 Other relevant material
includes lists of bishops who attended these early Councils such as the extant list of
bishops who were at Nicaea.18 Fedalto provides the background in a comprehensive
listing reconstructed from primary materials.19

14
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (54 vols,
Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1).

15
See Karl Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents, tr.
William R. Clark, reprint (5 vols, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1972).
16
See Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, original published by G.
Alberigo et al. (2 vols, London, Sheed & Ward, 1990).
17
See Pius Bonifacius Gans, Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Regensburg, 1873–86).
18
See Henricus Gelzer, Henricus Hilgenfeld, and Otto Cuntz (eds), Patrum Nicaenorum: Nomina
Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace (Stuttgart and Leipzig, Teubner, 1898).
19
See Giorgio Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis (2 vols, Padova Edizioni Messaggero,
1988).

5
5) Roman Legal Sources

The Theodosian Code provides essential reference material and information about the
deteriorating relationship between Jews and Christians, and the development of
Christianity into the favoured religion of the empire.20

6) Jewish Sources

Jewish sources include, in addition to the corpus of Dead Sea Scroll material, which is
daily being expanded, Jewish apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, the writings of Philo and
Josephus, rabbinic material from the Mishnah, Tosepha, Jerusalem and Babylonian
Talmuds, as well as the aggadic and halachic midrashim. These will be used to help
illuminate the background and meaning of early Christian writings.21

7) Liturgical Sources and Commentaries

The raw material for Jewish and Christian liturgy is to be found in the Jewish rabbinic
sources and in early Christian writings. Pioneering work in the Jewish roots of
Christian liturgy was done by Eric Werner in The Sacred Bridge while the work of
Josef Jungmann and Gregory Dix in Christian liturgy should be acknowledged.22
Useful works which show the relationship of Christian liturgy to Jewish liturgy
include W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1925), A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and its Development (New

20
See Codex Theodosiani. Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Novellae ad
Theodosianum Pertinentes, Th. Mommsen et Paulus M. Meyer (eds), 2nd edn (Berlin, Weidmanns,
1954) and The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A translation with
commentary, glossary, and bibliography by Clyde Pharr (New Jersey, Princeton University Press,
1952.
21
See The Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series, which has been published from 1955 by the
Clarendon Press, Oxford with Prof. Emanuel Tov as Editor-in-Chief since the early 1990’s. See
also R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English with
introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, reprint (2 vols, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1976) and J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols, New
York, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–5) as well as the original versions of rabbinic material and
their translations.
22
See Eric Werner, The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence of Liturgy and Music in Synagogue and
Church during the First Millennium (2 vols, London, Dobson, New York, Columbia University,
1959–1984), Josef A. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy: To the Time of Gregory the Great, tr. Francis
A. Brunner (University of Notre Dame Press, 1959). See also Gregory Dix, The Shape of the
Liturgy, 2nd edn (London, Dacre Press, 1975).

6
York Schocken Books, 1967), Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, SCM
Press, 1967) and Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (New
York, Walter De Gruyter, 1977).23

8) Archaeological and Geographical Material

Such material is covered in Erwin Goodenough’s Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-

Roman Period, Dura Europos excavation reports, reports on the Pella excavations, the
Roman catacombs, and relevant archaeological reports from Israel.24 A number of
atlases have been consulted and maps closely studied that show Christian and Jewish
populations, new maps being constructed on available evidence to illustrate the
geographical relationships between Christians and Jews.

Secondary Literature

In comparison with the sparse amount of primary historical material on the early
stages of the separation, the sheer volume of secondary literature by both Jews and
Christians on the question of the moving apart of early Christianity from Judaism
makes only a selective survey possible.

Notable early twentieth century commentators include Herman Strack and and Paul
Billerbeck, whose Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch

23
The original version was in Hebrew.
24
Erwin Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Bollingen Series (13 vols,
Princeton University Press, 1953–1968); The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale
University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Final Report VIII, Part I, ed. A. R.
Bellinger, F. E. Brown, A. Perkins and C. B. Welles, augmented edn (New Haven, KTAV); Carl K.
Kraeling et al., The Synagogue (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1956); Robert Houston Smith
et al., ‘The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella’ in Pella of the Decapolis
(London, College of Wooster, 1973), vol. 1, and Gottlieb Schumacher, ‘Pella’ in Abila Pella and
Northern 'Ajlun (London, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1885–90); J. B. Frey, (ed.), Corpus
Inscriptionum Iudaicarum: Recueil des Inscriptions Juives qui vont du IIe Siècle avant Jésus-Christ
au VIIe Siècle de notre Ere (2 vols, Rome, Pontificio Istituto de Archeologia Cristiana, 1936–
1952); Michael Avi-Jonah, The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to
A.D. 640): A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1966); Hillel Geva,
‘Searching for Roman Jerusalem’, in BARev, 23:6 (1997), 34–45; 72–3; and ‘The Camp of the
Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration’, IEJ, 34 (1984), 239–54 and other
archaeological updates from Israel.

7
(Munich, Beck, 1924–1928), made extensive use of Jewish sources to illuminate the
New Testament. The work of Joseph Klausner, Professor of modern Hebrew language
and literature at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem could be seen as marking a new
departure in Jewish-Christian cooperative scholarship. His work, Jesus of Nazareth,
written originally in Hebrew, was translated by Herbert Danby, then Canon of St
George’s Cathedral Church, Jerusalem, appearing in English in 1925, and was
followed by a second Hebrew original, From Jesus to Paul, which appeared in English
in 1944. Also notable were the work of George Foot Moore, a Christian talmudist, and
of Claude G. Montefiore, a Jewish interpreter of the New Testament.

However, in 1927, Travers Hereford commented that the Christian historian, in

seeking to give ‘an account of the process by which Christian religion claimed and
acquired a separate existence from the Jewish confined (his) attention almost
exclusively to the Christian factor, with but little interest in or knowledge of the
Jewish factor and of its subsequent condition.’25 He was speaking about the almost
exclusive use of the New Testament by most Christian historians to document the
separation. Over seventy years later, Christian scholarship has taken more account of
Jewish sources in seeking to address this question, but a balanced picture is not being
presented.

The Challenge

The challenge in seeking to write an historical account of the separation of early

Christianity from Judaism lies in achieving a balance and a certain degree of
objectivity in the treatment of such a sensitive subject. One has to take a focussed view
of the Jewish, Christian and Graeco-Roman sources, which leave many questions
unanswered, and attempt to extract the essential from the vast array of commentaries
and interpretations from the secondary material available. In 1934, The Conflict of the
Church and the Synagogue, a seminal and comprehensive study, was published by
James Parkes on the subject of Christian-Jewish relations from the standpoint of the
history of antisemitism. His study grew out of a concern for the contemporary

25
See R. Travers Hereford, ‘The Separation of Christianity from Judaism’ in Jacob Neusner (ed.),
Judaism and Christianity in the First Century: Origins of Judaism (New York, Garland 1990), vol.
1, part 3, 359.

8
situation, which was witnessing the rise of Nazism and an accompanying sharp
increase in antisemitism. Parkes traces the conflict to Visogothic Spain, and treats the
earlier period, being convinced that the roots of current antisemitism lie in the
continuing conflict of the church with the synagogue.26 He states that the real conflict
at the outset was the question of the law.27 The careful documentation and
argumentation make this an enduring work, despite the passage of time, advances in
the study of New Testament and source criticism, and the discovery of new
documentary material such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi documents not
known in the thirties. Parkes’ work had been preceded by that of several others in the
late nineteenth century such as Bernard Lazare’s L'antisemitisme, son Histoire et ses
Causes (Paris, Challey, 1894), a pioneering work, which many today would find
flawed, but nevertheless ahead of its time. In 1967 it was issued in English translation
as Antisemitism, Its History and Causes (New York, International Library).

Since the time of James Parkes there have been further studies devoted to this topic,
but few match his comprehensiveness. Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel, first published in
French in 1964, has been influential. The latter was to state:

The struggle from the outset is a struggle between two distinct

religions, and the close ties that existed between them only made their
mutual hostility the more implacable.28

In making this statement he refers to commentaries on the books of the New

Testament, especially Acts.29 Again, whether one could call the Christian movement a
distinct religion from the outset is open to question. In addition, like many
commentators, including the Catholic historian Fr Edward Flannery, he was to make
appeal to the so-called Birkhat ha-Minim as being a factor in the separation of early

26
See James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (London, Soncino Press, 1934), vi.
27
See Parkes, The Conflict, 61.
28
See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135–425), tr. H. McKeating (Oxford University Press, 1986), 135.
29
Simon, Verus Israel, 135, and 458, n. 1,

9
Christianity from Judaism at the end of the first century.30 Edward Flannery adds the
comment that

Christian antisemitism was rooted, finally, in the survival of a

vibrant and often defiant Judaism.31

E. P. Sander’s three volumes of the collected essays he edited on the topic of Jewish
and Christian self-definition constitute a valuable contribution to the debate.32 The first
volume which focuses on the shaping of Christianity in the second and third centuries
includes Robert Wilken’s article ‘The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw
Them’, and Gerd Lüdemann’s critical evaluation of the Pella Tradition, the latter still
being a debatable issue. The second volume discusses aspects of Judaism in the
Graeco-Roman period, and includes the comprehensive discussion by Reuven
Kimelman, ‘Birkhat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish
Prayer in Late Antiquity’. Lawrence Schiffman, on the other hand, argues that the
Birkhat ha-Minim was ‘certainly the most important step taken by the Tannaim to
combat Jewish Christianity’, and supports the very issues against which Steven Katz
argues.33 Katz examines the traditional views espoused by authors on the topic and
identifies as the primary evidence for their conclusions: official anti-Christian letters,
the Birkhat ha-Minim and the ban against the Jewish-Christians, and the prohibition by
Jews against heretical books.34 Katz concludes that there was no official anti-Christian
policy at Yavneh or elsewhere before Bar Kochba, and no total separation between
Jews and Christians before this date.35

30
Simon, Verus Israel, 198–9.
31
See Edward H. Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism. A
Stimulus Book, revised and updated (New York, Paulist Press, 1985), 65.
32
See E. P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (3 vols, London, SCM, 1980–1981).
33
See Lawrence Schiffman, ‘Tannaitic Prespectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism’, in Sanders,
Jewish and Christian, vol. 2, 153.
34
See Steven Katz, ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.: A
Reconsideration’, JBL, 103:1 (1984), 43–76.
35
See Katz, ‘Issues’, 76.

10
At the end of the second millennium, the Birkhat ha-Minim is still being used by many
writers as a mainstay of the argument for first century separation. Further studies that
have revised the theory popularised by Elbogen in the early 1900’s have failed to solve
the controversy.36 This question will be treated in the chapter on Jewish-Christianity.

In 1991 the Oxford scholar Miriam Taylor challenged on historical, hermeneutical and
theological grounds the conflict theory of Jewish-Christian relations adopted by
modern writers. She opposed the assumption underlying the consensus view that in the
early centuries of the Church’s existence, Christians and Jews were involved in a
rivalry for converts and political supremacy in the Roman empire, arguing that this
theory is based on Christianising preconceptions about ancient Judaism.37

Other studies include the reactions to the problem from the Second Durham-Tübingen
Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September,
1989).38 Philip Alexander speaks of the question from the perspective of rabbinic
Judaism, whereas the other studies in the volume relate to Christian literature. James
Dunn also wrote an overview, where he points out the value of the literary study of the
New Testament as a supplement to historical study rather than a form of isolated
examination as an alternative to historical study.39 Another work on the topic by
Hayim Goren Perelmuter states in the introduction:

In its development from the fourth pre-Christian century until

and beyond the year 70, when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem
and sowed the seeds of the beginning of the end of the Second
Jewish Commonwealth, this development of Rabbinic Judaism,
with its emphasis on change linked to continuity, with its strong
messianic sense and its deep belief in resurrection, was the

36
Ismar Elbogen, Geschichte des Achtzehngebet (Breslau, 1903), Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner
geschichltichen Entwicklung (Leipzig, Fock, 1913), 36–41.
37
See Miriam Taylor, The Jews in the Writings of the Church Fathers (150–312): Men of Straw or
Formidable Rivals (Ph.D. dissertation, Oxford University, 1991), vi.
38
James Dunn, Judaism and Christianity: The Parting of the Ways (Tübingen, Mohr–Paul Siebeck,
1992).
39
See James Dunn, The Partings of the Ways (London, SCM, 1991), 16.

11
 common background of both normative Judaism and
Christianity. 40

Hershel Shanks’ editorship of another collection41 was considered only partially

successful by the reviewer Martin Goodman.42 One of its strengths lies in the detailed
histories presented by such authors as Geza Vermes, James Charlesworth and Harold
Attridge. Four writers in the same volume, Louis Feldman, Lee Levine, Shaye Cohen
and Isaiah Gafni, treat the history of the Jews. That same year, Princeton University
Press published Feldman’s treatment of significant questions relevant to the separation
of Christianity from Judaism such as proselytism.43

An examination of the vast array of secondary literature available serves to underline

the sparseness of historical material to document the early stages of the conflict and to
illustrate the complexity of the problem. As the source material for the early stages of
the separation leaves many questions unanswered, it is possible for commentators to
come to opposite conclusions when using the same source material. One example has
been included in the chapter on Sabbath and Sunday.

John Painter has commented that in general, the literature fails to acknowledge that
though continuity can be seen in number of areas, a distinction needs to be made
between primary, essential elements which mark out Christianity as having separated
from Judaism, and secondary elements where Christianity has remained attached to
it.44 There is the need for another way of approaching the question of the separation of
early Christianity from Judaism.

40
Hayim Goren Perelmuter, Siblings: Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity at Their Beginnings
(New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1989), 2.
41
Hershel Shanks, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of their Origins and Early
Developments (London, Biblical Archaeology Society, 1993).
42
See JJS, 44:2 (1993), 313.
43
Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexandria
to Justinian (Princeton University Press, 1993).
44
See John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Colombia, University
of South Carolina, 1997), 228.

12
Again, a Judaism in transition is reflected in the literature and liturgical practices of
the early church and in literature found at Qumran. Similarities in belief and practices
outlined in Qumran literature and in those of the early Christians indicate that the
teachings of both groups sprang from a common source within Judaism, rather than
from direct contacts between the two ideologies.45

Much of the literature treating the subject appears to be based on two assumptions:
Firstly, Judaism was pluralistic although some treat it as monolithic.46 Insufficient
account is taken of the evidence to show that there was a variety of forms in both. This
point has been stressed by Jacob Neusner.

At the period between the first and sixth centuries, the manifestations of
the Jewish religion were varied and complex, far more varied, indeed,
than the extant Talmudic literature would have led us to believe.47

Secondly, either after the fall of the Temple, the rebellion of Bar Kochba Revolt or
when the Mishnah was completed, Judaism closed ranks. This is to assume that after
the fall of the Temple, Judaism was controlled by the rabbis. How far and from what
period did the rabbis’ authority extend to all the areas where Jews were settled? On the
Christian side, could there be a claim to a centralised Christianity before Constantine?

Much of the secondary literature that seeks to address the question of the separation of
early Christianity from Judaism goes over the same ground and repeats entrenched
errors despite the available scholarship on these very issues.

For this reason, in seeking to cast new light on the separation of early Christianity
from Judaism, a number of documented areas that are often treated separately by
authors will be examined in order to find evidence for this moving apart that is

45
The Manual of Discipline, which includes a treatise on the Two Ways (life and death) supplies the
background to the ethical part of the Didache. See J. Daniélou, A. H. Couratin and John Kent (eds),
Historical Theology (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969), 33. See also Lawrence H. Schiffman,
Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost
Library of Qumran (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 219–313.
46
Thus for example Morna D. Hooker, Continuity and Discontinuity: Early Christianity in its Jewish
Setting (London, Epworth, 1986) treats both early Christianity and first century Judaism as
homogenous entities.
47
See Neusner’s preface in the abridged Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, 1968, xiii.

13
concrete and can be tabulated, weighed and compared. The aim will be to find
common themes in the moving apart, and where possible, to show stages of separation
in these selected areas. The overall evidence will be assessed.

Chapter one will look at the geographical evidence for separation, early Christian
organization and the development of centralisation with the rise of the papacy. Maps
will be constructed to accompany chapter one, to show the relationships between
Christian and Jewish populations. The reasons for the failure of the Jewish-Christian
movement are studied in chapter two. Chapter three looks at statements about Jews in
the early church council documents and what they reveal about issues of separation.
The fourth chapter examines the Theodosian Code and the laws concerning Jews,
pointing out the gradual erosion of Jewish privileges with the rise of Christianity, and
the attempts to separate Christians from Jewish practices. Chapter five treats the
church’s efforts to separate the Sabbath from Sunday. The sixth chapter examines the
Jewish roots of Christian liturgy and notes the developing christological focus. The
seventh chapter provides a close study of the struggle to separate the date of Passover
from Easter, the latter replacing Passover as the most important feast in Christianity.
Chapter eight looks at what can be revealed from archaeology about separation whilst
chapter nine looks at the few remarks that appear to be about Christianity in the
rabbinic sources, and their significance. Conclusions about the separation of
Christianity from Judaism will be constructed on the basis of the evidence examined.

Tables will be constructed to correlate geographical data about the spread of

Christianity in relation to Jewish populations, and statements about Jews in early
church councils will be tabulated. These will be included in the appendix. The
discussion of each area of separation will focus on chronology where this is possible,
the aim being to present a step-by step picture in the various areas of the moving apart
of early Christianity from Judaism.

14
Chapter One

The Spread of Christianity

Christianity grew out of Judaism. The process of separation begun in the first century
of the Common Era would take several centuries. On the physical level, Christians
continued to live in close proximity to Jews for some time, especially in the eastern
part of the empire, and to show a certain dependence on Jews. Thus, the influence of
geography on the spread of Christianity should be considered.

The earliest evidence for the name ‘Christian’ is derived from the Book of Acts and is
found in early Greek and Roman authors. Acts will be examined for historicity and
date, and the effect of persecution on Jews and Christians will be assessed. The
evidence suggests that early Christian organisation was modelled on that of the
synagogue. It would take until the fifth century for the Bishop of Rome to assert his
influence and begin to centralise power over the western part of the church.

Though the exact number of Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the first
century of the Common Era, is not known, it has been estimated that they may have
numbered between four and five million, and numerically formed a significant portion
of the population.1 Jewish populations were to be found in all the principal cities of the
Graeco-Roman world, and along the main trade routes,2 being especially numerous in
the trade city of Alexandria, with strong communities in Rome and Antioch.3

1
See Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,
ed. and tr. by James Moffatt, (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1961), 8ff; Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans
l'Empire romain (New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 209–212. See also Sib. Or. 3. 271, which
states that Jews filled every country. Josephus, Ant.14.7.2:115; Philo, In Flacc. 7 (M.2. 524);
Josephus, J.W., 2.16.4: 398.
2
In the first century, the control of the Phoenician ports was under Roman rule, trade being
conducted coast wise, through Syrian territory, and the island of Cyprus to Egypt. See Victor
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, tr. S. Applebaum (New York: Athenaeum,
1982), 51.
3
See Robert Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman
World (London, Collins, 1971), 36. Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, its
population being between a quarter and a half million inhabitants, with an estimated twenty to forty
thousand being Jewish. See Patrick Hartin, ‘Jewish Christianity: Focus on Antioch in the First
Century’, Scriptura, 36 (1991), 40.

15
Until the catastrophic events of the last third of the first century CE, Jerusalem
remained the point from which Jews spread into the Diaspora, and the gathering place
during the great pilgrimage feasts.4 When Jerusalem fell to the Romans in 70 CE, with
Masada, the last stronghold, falling three years later, the beleaguered city became the
base of the X Legion Fretensis, with Judaea being appointed as a praetorian province
and administered by a praetorian legate.5

By the third century an estimated three million Jews had settled west of Mesopotamia.6
The greatest concentration of the Jewish population was in Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria
and Rome.7 Their numbers were particularly numerous in Syria, with a large Jewish
community in Antioch.8 Jews lived in most of the Roman provinces adjoining the
Mediterranean, as well as in Babylonia and the areas around the Black Sea and in
Mesopotamia.

Trade Routes and Geographical Influences

Christianity was initially an urban phenomenon, so that, in certain areas, Christian

settlement was located in the vicinity of Jewish populations until the third century at
least or beyond that time.9

Aptly, the Near East has been named the point of balance of the Old World. Its
strategic position made it a crossroads between trade routes, the unique features of the
region, such as resources, mountains and climate having a direct bearing on the
cultural mix of the region and the dissemination of ideas.

On the one hand, there is no land route between Europe and Africa or Africa and Asia

4
See Acts 2:1, 5–12.
5
Josephus, J.W., 7.12.3–17.
6
See Michael Grant, Ancient History Atlas, rev. edn (London, Weinfield and Nicolson, 1974 ), 81.
7
See Robert Wilken, Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's
Exegesis and Theology (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971), 9.
8
See Harnack, The Mission, 2ff.
9
See Maps 1–4, and explanatory notes, at the end of this chapter.

16
except across the narrow land-bridge bounded by the Mediterranean and Red Seas and
the Persian Gulf. Another constricting factor is the mid-world desert belt to the east of
the coastal lands that include Israel, Lebanon and Syria, which reaches towards the
great mountain ranges radiating from the Armenian knot.10

The area of the ancient Near East may be defined as being between Greece in the
northwest and the Iranian plateau in the north-east, with the Libyan plateau in the
south-west and the eastern littoral of the Arabian peninsula in the south east. The
western boundary was the Mediterranean Sea, which not only served as a major
shipping route but was also one of the constricting factors which forced greater
emphasis on the roads of the littoral.

Trade was facilitated by certain natural routes, which followed the lines of least
resistance alongside the mountain ranges. The Piedmont route, which came to be
called the ‘silk road’, crossed the Zagros mountains to Babylon and the Euphrates
valley and then to India. The incense route from south Arabia to the Mediterranean via
Petra connected with the coast road, the Via Maris, which ran southwards from
Aleppo across the Levant Bridge, through Damascus and the Palestine coastal region
to Egypt.11 This road linked the Nile Valley region with Mesopotamia and the north.

Another very important road was the King’s Highway which connected Damascus
with Petra and Arabia. Until its annexation by Rome in 106 CE, the Nabatean vassal
state made enormous revenues from taxing the international caravan routes, the cost of
incense from Dhofar, silk from China, pearls from the Persian Gulf, and spice and
cotton from India doubling during transit through Nabatean controlled territory.12
Trade in slaves took place along the so called Amber route passing through Germania
to Aquileia and to the north and east of the Black Sea.13 A slave trade with the more

10
See Alan Crown, Biblical Studies Today (Sydney Chevalier Press, 1975), 68. See also James B.
Pritchard, The Times Atlas of the Bible (Sydney, Bay Books, 1987), 160ff.
11
See Crown, Biblical Studies, 69.
12
See Pritchard, The Times Atlas, 160ff.
13
See John P. Balsdon, ‘The Historical Background’, in Arts: A Second Level Course: The Early
Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity (Milton Keynes, Open University, 1974), 106, 110.

17
densely populated east had existed well before imperial times, the population being
skilled in a wide variety of pursuits, more so than the German tribesmen.14

By 300 CE Jews were to be found virtually everywhere in the Mediterranean basin,

their expansion gradually extending into Western Europe. Christian populations lived
in areas of Jewish settlement. The largest Jewish settlement outside of the Roman
Empire was still in Babylonia,15 but along the main trading routes new communities
were rapidly being established.16 The caravan route passed through the Decapolis
towns from Israel to Syria, to Damascus, then through Abila, Baalbek, Emesa, Hamath
and Apameia to Antioch, and thence to Mesopotamia-from Damascus through the
Syrian towns to Hauran, Edessa and Nisibis or straight across the desert to the
Euphrates.17

The city of Edessa illustrates the importance of trade in the dissemination of

Christianity, the latter being established there between 116 and 216. Edessa, an
important link between Palestine and the Iranian empire, lay on the trade route which
passed between Syria and the Armenian mountains to the north.18 The movement of
Christianity may be traced through Antioch to Edessa and from there across the nearby
frontier into Adiabene, parts of Armenia, Khuzistan, to Fars, and to the Caucasus.

Neusner concludes on the basis of the evidence that Christianity moved out of
Palestine slowly and irregularly, being successful in some places and making no
headway in others.19 However, the reason for rejection or acceptance of Christianity
may have been influenced by the pre-Christian composition of the population. Thus

14
See Steven K. Drummond and Lynn H. Nelson, The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome (Armonk,
New York, M. E. Sharpe, 1994), 119.
15
Map 1 (at the end of the chapter) indicates that in Babylonia, where the talmudic academies were
prominent, the Christian settlement was minimal.
16
See Nicholas de Lange, Atlas of the Jewish World, reprint (New York, Facts on File, 1995), 29. See
Map 2 at end of this chapter for trade routes.
17
See Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 109.
18
See Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia. 1: The Parthian Period (Leiden, Brill
1965), 166.
19
See Neusner, A History, 168 and n. 1.

18
Neusner postulates that where tannaitic influence was strong among the local Jewish
community, as in Nisibis, where the Christian see was founded only in 300, and in
Nehardea, Christianity made little progress.20

Christianity also spread to areas of western Europe before the reign of Constantine. As
early as the late second or early third century, it appears that Christian communities in
the western part of the empire had attained some geographical independence from
Jewish populations.21 The evidence indicates that geographical separation of Jews and
Christians would take longer in the more densely populated east where there were
greater concentrations of Jews.22

The Book of Acts

The evidence from Acts shows the movement of evangelisation passing from Jewish
centres out into the Graeco-Roman populations, first from Jerusalem where the
Christian message was reported to have been announced by Peter and the apostles on
the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Acts mentions Jews who had assembled in Jerusalem on
the day of Pentecost as having come from Judaea, Galilee, Parthian, Mede, Edam,
Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts
of Libya belonging to Cyrene, with visitors from Rome, Crete and Arabia.23

Information gleaned from Acts can be variously interpreted. Authorship and date are
problematic. Since early times Luke has traditionally been accredited as the author, as
attested in the Muratovium Canon and in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius

20
See Neusner, A History, 169.
21
A list of those attending the Council of Arles names several areas of Gaul including Rheims and
Cologne and three places in Britain: Eboracum (York), Lindinonium (Lincoln) and London. See
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (54 vols,
Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), vol. 2, 476–7. As documentation is
tendentious, lack of material or literary evidence does not preclude the possibility that some Jews
were settled in these areas. Certainly in Britain there was no visible Jewish population. See Table 1
in appendix (after concluding chapter of thesis) and Map 3, at the end of this chapter.
22
See Map 2 at end this chapter.
23
Acts 2:7–11.

19
and Jerome.24 Dating the text of Acts is also difficult, and has generated a wide range
of opinion.25 Talbert sets the limits of the dating by postulating that the document
must have been composed later than the events of Acts 28 (the early 60s) and before
the time of Justin Martyr’s First Apology in the mid second century which he sees as
indicating that Justin was familiar with the plot of Acts as well as its connection to
Luke 24:25–27, 32.26

Afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them,
and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things
were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him
ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power
sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they
taught these things and were called apostles (First Apology 50).27

James Dunn has asserted that a date in the middle of the second generation of
Christianity (the 80s) best fits with the evidence which he summarises as: 1) it is a
work written some time after the Gospel of Luke, itself usually thought to be
dependent on Mark’s Gospel (usually dated to the late 60s or early 70s); 2) the author
had probably been a companion of Paul, and 3) his depiction of the earliest Christians
seems to reflect the concerns of the post-Pauline generation.28 Talbert concludes that
‘enough corroborating data has been assembled already by scholars to enable one to
conclude that Acts is not mere fiction and that its record is reasonably reliable in areas
where it can be checked’.29

24
See Irenaeus, Cont. Haer. 3.14.1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.12; Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3:4;
Jerome, Comm. in Is 3:6, Ep. 53.9.
25
Colin Hemer lists the range of scholarly opinion on dating which varies from the early sixties to
the year 135. See Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History,
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 49 (Tübingen, Mohr-Paul Siebeck,
1989), 363–410, especially 366–70.
26
See Charles Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on The Acts of the
Apostles (New York, Crossroad, 1997), 1.

27
Translation from the series: The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to AD 325,
revised A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 1, 179.
28
See James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, (Epworth Press, 1996), xi.
29
See Talbert, Reading Acts, 254.

20
When the Pauline mission began its outreach to the gentiles, the exegesis of Jewish
scriptures in the synagogues to highlight the role of Jesus often caused friction and
riots, thus capturing the attention of non-Jews.30 Feldman notes that the effect of the
assimilation of Greek language and culture was not defection from Judaism but rather
the creation of a common means of communication with non-Jews.31 It would appear
that successful Jewish propaganda which showed the superiority of Judaism as a moral
and monotheistic religion over paganism paved the way for the Christian mission.32

In the beginning, most local churches appear to have developed from an original
nucleus of Jewish believers. When the Pauline mission began, Acts 16 indicates that
Paul’s main focus of activity was in areas of Graeco-Roman population, where Jewish
communities were less prominent than in the east. Paul’s workers whose names are
recorded in Acts are Jews, and include women.33 An exception was Titus, a Greek,
whom Paul did not compel to be circumcised.34

By the end of the first century of the Common Era, the Christian movement had
already attained a wide geographical spread throughout the Roman Empire. Numbers,
however, do not seem to have been large. Acts, for example indicates that gentile
converts were quite few. The church at Troas, for example, could fit into one upper
room.35 Again, according to Acts, initially there appear to have been large numbers of
Jews converted to Christianity, but this changed with the activities of Paul among the
non-Jews. 36

30
See Acts 13:43–48; 14:1–4, 10–13; 18:5–8.
31
See L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton University Press, 1993), 83.
32
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish–Christian Schism’, Immanuel, 16 (1983), 39.
33
See for example Acts 18:1–2 (Aquila and Priscilla); Acts 13:1 (Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of
Cyrene, Manaen).
34
See Gal 2:3; 2 Cor 2:13; 7:6, 13.
35
See Acts 20:6–8. See also Acts 17:12, 34.
36
See Acts 2:41, 47 (more than 3000); Acts 4:4 (4000); Acts 6:1, 7 (the number of converts in
Jerusalem continued to grow and included some priests). Though perhaps the numbers have been
exaggerated, the evidence indicates that initially, there were more Jewish converts than gentile.

21
Paul’s first missionary journey was to the east, beginning in Antioch in Syria, passing
to Seleucia, Cyprus, Salamis, Paphos, Perga in Pamphylia, Antioch in Pisidia and
Iconium, Lystra and Derbe.37 During this time, whilst his visits were welcomed by
non-Jews, considerable tension was stirred up in various synagogues along the way.

In some communities, Christianity had preceded the Pauline mission.38 By the time of
the first Epistle of Peter in the late first century, there were Christian communities in
Asia, Galatia, Bithynia, Pontus and Cappadocia.39 The Book of Revelation speaks of
the seven churches of Asia – Smyrna, Magnesia, Tralles, Laodicea, Philadelphia,
Sardis, Thyatira and Pergamum.40 The letters of Ignatius (d. 107) were addressed to
Christians in Smyrna, Magnesia and Tralles, as well as Ephesus, Rome and
Philadelphia.41 All these cities had Jewish populations.42

On his second and third journeys, Paul had travelled west to the region of Macedonia
and Thrace, a region inhabited by non-Jews.43 Flusser affirms that this change in
direction from the east, where the Jewish population was most numerous, to the west,
which was settled by non-Jews, was pivotal to the success of the Christian mission,
and resulted in Christianity developing into a European religion. He argues that
liberalism, an intrinsic element of western culture, added to Christianity’s movement
away from ritual and ceremonial prescriptions concerning ‘food and drink and various
ablutions’ (Heb 9:10). In addition, he holds that had Christianity spread first to regions
of eastern Asia, it would have developed specific ceremonial and ritual practices based

37
Acts 13:1–14:28.
38
See Acts 11:19. ‘Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that took place over
Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and they spoke the word to no one
except Jews’.
39
See 1 Peter 1:1.
40
Rev 1:11.
41
See M. J. Rouet de Journal, Enchiridion Patristicum, 4th edn (Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder, 1937),
xi.
42
See Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain (New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 179–209.
43
Acts 15:36–18:22 (second journey): Acts 18:23-21:17 (third journey).

22
on Jewish law in order to have been accepted as a religion in that part of the world.44
Thus, he sees western liberalism as a contributing element in the non-Jewish world’s
acceptance of the Pauline ideological framework.45

New Testament texts indicate that the first Christians were made up of two groups,
one which accepted proselytes on the condition that they kept the Noahide laws (Acts
15:19), and the other which objected to the admission of proselytes who did not accept
Jewish halakhah. This group also accused Peter of socialising with the uncircumcised
(Gal 2:12; Acts 11:3).

The Name ‘Christian’

Antioch, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was the city in which the followers of a
new messianic movement were first called Christians.46 The first Christians belonged
to the local synagogues, but began to differentiate themselves at an early date from
other Jewish communities by nomenclature, rather than by structure.47 For a time the
community was known intramurally as the Way (hê hodos).48

At first Christians were not distinguished from Jews by the Romans.49 Thus Suetonius
(ca 69 CE to first half of the second century century CE), in describing the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome by decree of Claudius in 49 CE, does not at this point distinguish
between Jews and Christians.50 However, when narrating the steps taken by Nero

44
See David Flusser, Jesus, 2nd edn (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1997), 56ff.
45
Flusser, Jesus, 56.

46
Acts 2:7–11.
47
See further in chapter 2 on the Jewish-Christians, a term used for the original Christians. James
Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest
Christian Communities (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 279 and n.14.
48
Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22.
49
See Edwin Judge, ‘Judaism and the Rise of Christianity: A Roman Perspective’, Tyndale Bulletin,
45:2 (1994): 356. See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem,
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), vol. 2, 113.
50
Divus Claudius, 25:4. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 113.

23
against the Christians in 64 CE, he no longer confused Christians with Jews.51 Stern,
discussing the exaction of the Fiscus Iudaicus, adds that by the time of Nero, the
Roman Government was aware of the difference between Christians and Jews.52

The earliest textual evidence showing that Christians were differentiated from Jews is
supplied by Tacitus, who speaks of the time of Nero:

Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in
the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and
the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out
once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the
capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect
and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were
arrested; next, on their disclosures vast numbers were convicted, not so
much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And
derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’
skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and
when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had
offered his gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his
Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted
on his car.53

The second century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus (Chronica 2.30.6, 7), who may
carry a certain pro-Christian bias, but is probably dependent on Tacitus, writes that
Titus had urged the destruction of the Temple in order ‘to extirpate the religion of both
the Jews and Christians, which, though mutually hostile, sprang from the same source.
As the Christians derived from the Jews, the extermination of the root would easily
cause the offspring to perish’.54 However, this text does not prove Titus was aware of
a distinction between Jews and Christians in Jerusalem

Impact of Persecution

Philo details persecutions of the Jews in Alexandria under Flaccus, who was

51
Nero 16:2: ‘afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae’. See
Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 108.

52
Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 130.
53
Annales 15:44:2–5, Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 89.

54
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 64–6.

24
persuaded to declare that the Jews were aliens who had no citizenship rights, thus
stirring up a violent attack.55 Eventually Flaccus was arrested and sent to Rome, and
the new Emperor Claudius explicitly reaffirmed Jewish rights in the year 41 CE, but
hostilities still smouldered, the Jews staging a rebellion in the year 115 against the
Greeks, in the latter days of Trajan. This was completely suppressed by the Romans in
the year 119.56 The outcome of the rebellion exacted a terrible cost in Jewish lives as
talmudic references indicate.57 The community in Alexandria never regained its former
glory when, according to Philo, they numbered no fewer than a million in the first
century.58

At the same time, there is no satisfactory direct evidence for the existence of Christian
communities in Egypt during the first century, but as Alexandria was the greatest port
in the eastern Mediterranean, it is likely that Christianity had reached Alexandria by
the end of the century. Although sources give little information on the history of Jews
and Christians in the second century, it is known that Christianity existed in Egypt, for
the gnostic writers Valentinus and Basilides were active in Alexandria in the second
third of that century.59 The Edict of Decius against Christians in 250 indicates that
Christianity had spread to Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt.

Though Christianity suffered some persecution in the early years, this does not appear
to have curtailed its expansion.60 Where Jewish populations suffered oppression and
persecution in these early years, there appears to have been a diminuition in the initial
spread of Christianity in the affected areas, at least in the case of Alexandria and the

55
In Flaccum, 8.54.
56
See Molly Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco–Roman Views (Cambridge University Press,
1984) 11.
57
t. Peah 4: 6; t. Ket, 3:I.
58
In Flaccum, 6.43.
59
See H. Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco–Roman Egypt (Liverpool University Press, 1953) 79
–80.
60
According to tradition there were ten persecutions against Christians recorded before the reign of
Constantine: Nero (after fire of Rome in 64 CE), Domitian (96), four other less serious
persecutions, then Decius, Valerian (253–60), Aurelian (270–75) and the worst under Diocletian
(303). See F. A Wright, Fathers of the Church: A Selection from the Writings of the Latin Fathers
(London, Routledge, 1928), 6–7.

25
land of Israel, where the Jewish resistance to Roman rule was prolonged and religious
persecution of Jews exacted a terrible toll. This evidence shows exceptions to the
accepted historical tradition of Roman tolerance towards Judaism and other cults.61 It
appears that the Hadrianic persecution of Jews weakened the initial spread of
Christianity in Israel. The Jerusalem Church did not attain importance till after
Constantine, Caesarea having a greater rank.

Christian Organisation Based on Synagogue

The Book of Acts reflects a style of organisation consisting of presbyters and the
sharing of goods in common as well as a hierarchical structure reminiscent of that
revealed in the Damascus Document and other Dead Sea Scroll texts. However, unlike
the latter situation, priests are not functionaries in the early church. The early Christian
bishop emerged as the leader of the local Christian community based upon the town.

Steven Fine claims, in addition, that the Diaspora synagogue exerted a powerful
influence on both the liturgical practices and the organisational structure of early
Christian communities.62 Several functions of the ™κκλησ…α that appeared to have
been derived directly from the synagogue include the collection of offerings from the
gentile churches for the mother church of Jerusalem, a practice which resembles the
sending of envoys carrying the Temple tax from the Diaspora synagogues to Jerusalem
(1 Cor 16: 1–3; 2 Cor 8:9; Rom 15:25–27). In addition, there was the reading and
interpretation of scripture, common prayer and meals shared in common (1 Cor 11:
17–34, 14:26). Again, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians to settle their own legal
affairs within their assembly may also derive from synagogue practice (6:1-7).63
Burtchaell sees the office of the episkopos (Phil 1:1) as being parallel to that of the
archisynagogos, the Christian presbyteroi (Acts 20;17; 1 Pet 5:1; James 5:14,15) as

61
See Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.), translated and
edited by Gershon Levi (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1980), vol. 1, 70–1.
62
See Steven Fine, Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New
York, Oxford University Press, 1996), 93.
63
See Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New
Haven, Yale University Press, 1983), 80–81 and Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 284–88.
See also Donald D. Binder, Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second
Temple Period (Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, 1997), 395.

26
being analagous to the Jewish presbyteroi and the diakonos (Phil 1:1; Rom 16:1) as
being the counterpart of the hypērtēs.64 In the earliest period, however, there was no
great concern for community organisation, as charismatics were the spiritual
authorities, and Paul’s assistants were referred to by name and never by title.
Burtchaell points out that the way in which Christian communities designed their own
titles shows they were overlaying Jewish structures with their own.65 Grant sees the
Didache as marking a turning point in Church organisation, where the author instructs
his congregations to appoint bishops (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi).66

From the fourth century there also appears to have been the adoption of the names of
some temple functionaries. Thus the expressions levite, as well as readers, singers and
priests as church functionaries occur frequently in the church council canons.67
However, though initially the Christian group had no priests, the Epistle to the
Hebrews speaks of Christ as the high priest par excellence and Christians as a whole
are called a priestly people (1 Pet 2: 5; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

From Jerusalem to Rome

For the first three centuries, there existed in Israel only the sees of Jerusalem and
Caesarea, the latter being elevated to pre-eminence over Jerusalem in the time of
Hadrian. The elimination of the Jews in Jerusalem meant also the departure of the
Jewish-Christians. This is indicated by Eusebius, who lists the bishops of Jerusalem
till Hadrian as having been of Jewish origin, whereas after that time he says they were
of gentile origin. Again, his numbers differ in both the Ecclesiastical History 4–6 and

64
See Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 338–72.
65
Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 346–7.
66
See Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the
Roman World (London, Collins, 1971), 172. See Didache, 15: 1–2ff. The date is much disputed,
but may belong to the late second century. It is possibly a composite document.
67
These names occur in the wording of canons from synods held in Rome in 386 and Carthage in 393.
See Canon 9 of the latter. See Joseph von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church from the
Original Documents, reprint (New York, AMS, 1972), vol. 2, 387. See also Mansi, vol. 3, 670:
‘suademus quod sacerdotes & levitae cum uxoribus suis non coeant, quia in ministerio ministri
quotidianis necessitatibus occupantur’ and Mansi, vol. 3, 709–10. Canon 3: ‘episcopos, inquam,
presbyteros & diaconos, ita complacuit, ut condecet sacros antistites ac Dei sacerdotes, nec non &
levitas’.

27
Chronicle, his source appearing to have been local tradition.68 In both works he gives a
complete lists of bishops in the churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem
from the time of the apostles to his own day.

In 451 Jerusalem was raised to a patriarchate, thus being ecclesiastically superior to

Caesarea, while it remained subordinate to it in civil matters.69 By the fourth century,
the literature reveals that a rapid rise in the number of Christian communities had
taken place.70 From the time of Constantine’s defeat of Licinius in 324, when the
eastern provinces were added to his realm, the Empire and Church were closely
linked, with the ecclesiastical divisions now closely matching the civil. Each city had a
bishop, and an archbishop assumed his seat in the capital of each province.71 This was
to increase still more in the fifth century.

The Papacy and Centralisation of the Western Church

It is in the fifth century that evidence reveals that the Bishop of Rome had begun to
centralise his authority over the whole
western church. Little is known about the bishops of Rome in the first three or four
centuries of the church’s existence, but the Roman church is the only one in the west
which could claim the distinction of having been founded by the immediate followers
of Christ, Peter and Paul. The decree of Valentinian II in 445, during the time of Leo
the Great (440–461) was a significant step towards centralising the western church
under the leadership of the Pope.72

68
See C. H. Turner, ‘The Early Episcopal Lists’, JTS, 1 (1900), 181–200 & 530–1.
69
See Michael Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to
A.D. 640): A Historical Geography (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1966), 122.
70
Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, Eusebius, Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, etc.
71
See Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land, 122. See table in appendix of thesis for ecclesiastical divisions at
the time of the Council of Nicaea and, at the end of this chapter, the map of the bishoprics of those
attending Nicaea in relation to Jewish towns. The correlation varies in the provinces, being most
marked in the Province of Palestina. This demonstrates that in some areas Christian communities
had moved away from Jewish populations.
72
See James Harvey Robinson, Medieval and Modern Times: An Introduction to the History of
Western Europe from the Dissolution of the Roman Empire to the Opening of the Great War of
1914 (Boston, Ginn, 1916), 47–8.

28
 Since, then, the primacy of the Apostolic See is established by the merit
of St Peter (who is the chief among the bishops), by the majesty of the
city of Rome, and finally by the authority of a holy council,73 no one,
without inexcusable presumption, may attempt anything against the
authority of that see. Peace will be secured among the churches if every
one recognize his ruler. 74

Also suggesting the aspirations for the prominence of the see of Rome is the letter of
Pope Gelasius I written in 494 to Emperor Anastasius on the superiority of spiritual
over temporal power.

By two indeed, August Emperor, is this world chiefly ruled: the sacred
authority of pontiffs, and the kingly power. Of these, the burden of the
priests is heavier in that, under divine scrutiny, they are to render to
Lord an accounting for the very kings themselves.75

Gelasius is the first pope to have left written texts on the relationship between Jews
and official Christianity. His understanding of Judaism was based on his reading of
scripture, which reflected the theological antisemitism of his age,76 but he also counted
some Jews as personal friends,77 and on one occasion intervened in his official
capacity as the juridical head of the church, in an affair in which the interests of a Jew
were at stake.78

73
Council of Sardica (343 or 344 CE). Canon 5, stated in the name of Osius of Cordova, asserted
Roman primacy. For discussion see Hefele, vol. 2, 119–29.
74
Translation of Decree of Valentinian III (445). See James Harvey Robinson, Readings in European
History: A Collection of Extracts from the Sources Chosen with the Purpose of Illustrating the
Progress of Culture in Western Europe Since the German Invasions (Boston, Ginn, 1904), vol. 1,
72.
75
See Edward A. Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York, Macmillan, 1965),
32.
76
Gelasius is reported as having called him the devil’s workman, whilst on other occasions he
defended the Jewish origin of the Church. See Synan, The Popes, 32, n.3. See also PL 59:103A–B,
107C, 120C.
77
See PL 59:146C. Gelasius’ intervention was on behalf of the Jew, Telesinus.
78
See PL 59:146D–7A.The affair concerned a certain Judah who had complained to the church
authorities at Venafro that although he had been born a Christian, he had been circumcised by a
previous Jewish master. Gelasius ordered an investigation for fear that ‘religion should suffer
contempt,’(nec religio temerata videatur) or a slave succeed in derogating ‘the legal rights’of a
Jewish owner through a false accusation. ‘nec servus hac obsectione mentitus competentis jura
domini declinare contendat’. See Synan, The Popes, 34, n. 9. There was need of diplomacy in the
situation as the circumcision of Christian slaves was forbidden by imperial law (C. Th.16.9.1) but

29
Conclusion

The physical relationship between Jewish and Christian populations has been
demonstrated. Trade led to the dissemination of ideas. Early local churches developed
originally from centres of Jewish life. Paul’s work in the west led to the church
becoming predominantly gentile. Although there are problems with historicity and
dating, Acts provides the earliest evidence for the use of the term ‘Christian’.
Organisationally, early Christianity owed much to the synagogue structures.
Jerusalem, which originally was a community of Jewish believers was superseded in
time by the centralising of power in the papacy in Rome.
The relationship of Jewish populations to Christian settlement has been shown in the
following series of maps.

Map 1 shows the relationship of Christian populations to Jewish populations in the

third and fourth centuries, Christian populations being mostly in the vicinity of Jewish
populations, but were beginning to move to areas where apparently no Jews were
located, such as Britain and Arabia. The trade routes are indicated.

Map 2 is a detailed map of the trade routes.

Map 3 is comparative map showing Jewish towns and the bishoprics of those who
attended Council of Nicaea. Most of these delegates to Nicaea came from the east,
from towns with a Jewish population.

Map 4 shows the locations of the bishoprics of most of the documented thirty-three
signatories who attended the Council of Arles in the western part of the empire in 305.
In this case, there are fewer who come from towns with Jewish populations.

The maps illustrate that separation is taking place, but that on a physical level, Jews
and Christians continued to live in the same areas, but to a lesser extent in the less
densely populated western part of the empire.

required by rabbinical law (b. Yeb. 48b, 70b; b. Git.43b).

30
Chapter Two. The Jewish-Christian Schism.

The Book of Acts indicates that the process within early Christianity was one of
progressive de-judaisation, a process which, in the Pauline communities appears to
have been more marked. When Paul refused to impose any ritual obligations on his
non-Jewish disciples, the texts indicate he claimed to have the agreement of the
‘pillars of the Church’, Cephas, James and John (Gal 2:9 ff). In the long term, it was
the Jewish-Christians, those who practised Jewish law but followed Jesus as the
Messiah, who became ostracised by both Jews and Christians. They could be seen as
casualties of the ambiguous nature of Christianity, which claimed the place of Israel
but did not follow Jewish ritual law.

The Jewish-Christians

Traditions about the fate of the Jerusalem church are partially contradictory. The
Tübingen School characterises the relations between the Jerusalem church and the
apostle Paul as being tense, whilst others including Lüdemann believe that Paul
maintained harmonious relations with the church of Jerusalem.1 He sees the
opposition to the apostle to the gentiles, notably in Galatia, as emanating from an
intransigent branch of the primitive Christian community, whose influence remained
limited and quickly disappeared from the scene.2

Evidence for the replacement of the Jewish leadership of the Jerusalem church with
gentiles is derived from Eusebius, as mentioned previously. Thus, Eusebius relates
that until the time of Hadrian there were fifteen bishops of Jewish origin belonging to

1
The Tübingen School, an influential school of research, active in the late nineteenth century
argued that most of early Christian history was centred on a vitriolic dispute between Peter,
representing Jewish-Christianity and Paul, who was the spokesperson for hellenised, radical
Christianity. See Christopher Forbes, ‘Archaeology and the Acts of the Apostles’, in The Acts of
the Apostles, History of the New Testament: 08.16, reprint of General Interest Seminar, Friday 16
& Saturday 17 March 1984 (Sydney, Macquarie University School of History, Philosophy and
Politics, 1998), 18–21.
2
See Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat sur le Judéo-Christianisme?’, in Daniel Maguerat
(ed.), Le Déchirement. Juifs et chrétiens au premier siècle, Le Monde de la Bible no. 32 (Paris,
Labor et Fides, 1996) 250−1.

35
the circumcision. After Hadrian they were of gentile origin.

The first, then, was James who was called the brother of the Lord; and
after him was the second, Symeon; the third, Justus, the fourth
Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John;
the eighth Mathias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh,
Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth,
Joseph; and last of all, the fifteenth, Judas. This many were the
bishops in the city of Jerusalem from the apostles to the time
indicated, all of them belonging to the circumcision (Hist. eccl, 4:5).3

Role of James

The fall of Jerusalem and the decentralisation of Jewish authority which moved the
centre of the church from Jerusalem, lead to the eventual establishment of Rome as
the seat of authority in the western church, and the elevation of Peter. Was this the
cause of the obscuring of the position of the part played by James, who was head of
the Jerusalem followers of Jesus before his death? Was James’ position minimised
because of the success of the Pauline mission, when non-Jews were exempted from
the rituals of Jewish law? The evidence suggests that the history of the early church
was written to favour the gentile movement and Rome to the detriment of the Jews.
The fact that Christianity, which began as one of several reforming moments within
Judaism in the Roman Empire, emerged in the period of Constantine in the fourth
century as the official religion of the Roman Empire, lends some credence to this
view. 4

The evidence about James is not wholly clear. One could agree with Joachim
Jeremias, who suggests that originally it was Peter who had been displaced by James.
He points out that in early Christian tradition, the appearance of Christ to Peter (I Cor
15:5; Luke 24:34), despite its fundamental significance, is never portrayed as the first
appearance by Matthew, Luke, or John or by the ‘spurious’ ending of Mark. In
stating that the Gospel of the Hebrews assigns the first resurrection appearance to
James the brother of the Lord, he suggests it was the radical groups in Palestinian

3
See. Eusebius Pamphili, Ecclesiastical History (New York, Fathers of the Church, 1953) 212.
4
See L. Michael White, Building God's House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation
Among Pagans, Jews and Christians (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 3.

36
Jewish-Christianity who took offence at the universalism of Peter (Gal.2:12b; Acts
11:2) and therefore displaced Peter from the position of having been the first to
experience an appearance of the risen Christ.5

A different picture of church leadership is presented by the Gospels, which show

Peter, who received a special spiritual authority from Jesus, to be the leader,6 while
the Epistles and Acts point to James.7 The Pauline letters represent the centralisation
of the Christian movement at Jerusalem, which appears to be under the leadership of
James, Cephas and John, who are described as the στàλαι (pillars) of the church,8
and exercise extensive authority over faith and practice. James the leader is called
‘the brother of the Lord’.9 Robert Eisenman, who has written extensively on the
subject, may be correct in maintaining that James is the key to a re-evaluation and
reconstruction of Jewish Christian history and the Jewish-Christian relationship.10

The narrative of Acts shows that decisions about the new faith are taken by the
Church of Jerusalem, and agrees in essence with the Pauline material about the
position of James. He appears abruptly as a person of authority in Acts 12:17,
whereas, up to this point in the narrative, Peter had been designated as the leader of
the community of disciples at Jerusalem.11

5
See Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, SCM, 1967), vol. 1, 306–7.
6
See Matt 16:17-19; John 21:15–17.
7
See Acts 12:17; 21:18; Gal 2:9 12; Acts: 21:18–26.
8
See Gal 2:9.
9
Gal 1:18, 19; 2:12. See also Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18.
10
See Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (London, Faber and Faber, 1997) 7. Eisenman's
main thesis that identifies or finds parallels in James with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ is based
on his re-dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a dating that is generally unacceptable in the light of
cumulative evidence on the history of the sect. Even so, he raises some interesting questions that
have never been satisfactorily answered, pointing to the marginalisation of James and the
numerous similarly named characters in the New Testament, for example. The confusion created
that he sees as part of the process of minimising the family of Jesus. See Eisenman, James, xvii.
11
See Acts 8:14 (Samaritan question); 11:1–18 (Gentile conversion at Caesarea); 11:22–4;
(Evangelisation of Gentiles at Antioch); 15:6–29 (Council of Jerusalem and decision on
conditions for admitting gentiles).

37
 He (Peter) motioned to them with his hand to be silent, and described
for them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he
added, ‘Tell this to James and to the believers’. Then he left and went
to another place (Acts 12:17).

James’ second appearance occurs at the Council of Jerusalem, where he is clearly the
leader of the assembly.12 Thus a gap exists in the picture presented of the church’s
government, in moving from the earlier epistles, through Acts and the gospels.13 The
Gospel According to Thomas, written in Syria in the early post-apostolic period,
which consists of sayings of Jesus purporting to have been collected by Didymus
Judas Thomas, makes this claim:

12 The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know that you will depart
from us. Who is to be our leader?’
Jesus said to them, ‘Wherever you are, you are to go to James
the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’
(Gospel of Thomas, Sayings 12).14

This non-canonical Gospel from the Nag Hammadi gnostic writings thus presents
another point of view that differs from that of the canonical gospels. This variation in
viewpoint hints that the real significance of James, who would not compromise on

12
See Acts 15: 13-21 ‘Therefore I (James) have reached the decision that we should not trouble
those Gentiles who are turning to God.’ Acts 15:19.
13
Not all are agreed that the Epistle of James is the work of James, the brother of Jesus. Painter
points out that what counts most strongly against the recognition of the epistle as the work of
James the brother of Jesus is that it is unattested until 180 CE, when Irenaeus cites James 2:23 in
AH 4.16.2. Origen in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17 speaks of James’ reputation for
righteousness, but while mentioning a letter written by Jude, mentions no letter written by James.
Again James was not listed as a canonical work at the Council of Nicaea. See John Painter, Just
James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (University of South Carolina Press, 1997),
235.
14
See Sayings 12 (34:22), Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, Bentley Layton (ed.), The Gospel
According to Thomas, tr. Thomas O. Lambdon (Leiden,. Brill, 1989). The Gospel of Thomas does
not appear to depend on the canonical Gospels of the New Testament, and consists of wisdom
sayings. Though the text speaks of the authority of James, this is shown to have been superseded
by that of Thomas (Saying 13), whose authority in turn is contrasted with that of Peter (Gal 1:18;
2:7–9) and Matthew (Matt 16:15–19). Unlike other writings from the Nag Hammadi Library,
there is no proclamation of Jesus’ suffering, death, resurrection or mention of christological titles
such as ‘Son of Man’, ‘Messiah/Christ and Lord’. Though The Gospel of Thomas portrays some
elements of a gnostic theology e.g. Sayings 83–5; 88; 101, it recognises ecclesiastical authority
(Sayings 12). See Layton’s ‘Introduction to The Gospel According to Thomas’, 38–49.

38
Jewish law, has been obscured in favour of the more liberal Peter. The latter was
ready to modify conditions for allowing non-Jews to join Christianity, without being
subject to the rituals of Jewish law.

Blood and Ritual Purity

In Acts 15, James’policies towards the new non-Jewish converts are clearly revealed.
It seems evident that initially, Jews who joined Christianity continued to follow the
rituals of Jewish law. However, according to Acts, it was decided these rituals were
not to be imposed on non-Jews as an added burden.

Now therefore why are you testing God —to lay a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples (™πιθε‹ναι ζυγÕν ™πˆ τÕν τρ£χηλον)
which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?’ (Acts 15:10).

However, this policy caused dissension among the Jewish-Christians, as with the
question of circumcision from which non-Jewish converts were exempt.15
Acts 15 presents two controversies. The first deals with the obligations of non-
Jewish converts to observe the Law,16 and the second concerned the controversy
about social relations between the two groups of Christian converts, the Jewish
Christians and those who were of gentile origin.17 The decision was reached that non-
Jews who adopted belief in Jesus were not required to obey the Mosaic law.18
However, significant exceptions were made for abstaining from food polluted by
idols,19 from sexual immorality (πορνε…aj),20 from the meat of strangled animals21

15
See Acts 11:3; 15:1. Paul did not impose circumcision on non-Jewish converts (Gal 2:3; 5:12).
16
See Gal 2:1–10.
17
See Gal 2:11–14.
18
Acts 15:9–11.
19
The flesh of animals slain for non-Jewish sacrifices. See also Acts 15:29; 21:25, I Cor 8:10 and
m. Hul. 6:2. See Lev 17: 8–9.
20
This word appears to refer to the irregular unions listed in Lev 18. Such practices involved legal
impurity. In some manuscripts, haimatos (the blood) is mentioned before porneias, indicating
emphasis on the former. The western text omits πορνε…aj. In general, the eastern churches

39
and from meat with the blood (Acts 15:20; 27–29). These prescriptions would insure
that the Jewish Christians would feel they could mix with Christians of gentile origin
without incurring legal impurity.22 In prohibiting the consumption of food sacrificed
to idols, it is stated elsewhere that the chief concern was to avoid scandal.23 Again, it
appears that Roman temples often had attached dining rooms, so that Paul was
anxious to dissuade believers from eating there, to avoid offending the consciences
of those who took idols seriously.24 Paul placed the prohibition of blood on the same
level as other ritual law, claiming Christ had superseded the law.25

The severity with which Jewish law forbids meat with blood, explains James’
unwillingness to exempt non-Jews from this prohibition. 26
The non-practice of
Jewish law as a cause of dissension became an important element that brought about
separation between Christianity and Judaism. Early Christianity, in ceasing to
observe Jewish practices, and in view of its growing gentile membership, was well
on the way to separation.

Neusner claims that both the issue of purity of the Temple and the reintepretation of
purity in non-cultic settings tended to occur most commonly in connection with
sectarian strife within the Jewish community.27 He explains that purity had so

retained practices that were closer to Jewish practices than the Western Church. Since there was a
larger concentration of Jews in the east, this is not surprising.
21
See Lev 17:13–14. See also Clem Hom 7.8; 8.19; Clem Rec 4.36.
22
See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135-425), tr. H. McKeating (Oxford University Press, 1986), 334ff.
23
I Cor 10: 27ff.
24
See Edwin Judge, ‘With Whom Did the Cults Compete?, in Christianity and Competing Cults,
Macquarie University Continuing Education Program. Conference Friday 8 & Saturday 9 May,
1998 (Macquarie University, Society for the Study of Early Christianity, 1998), 3.
25
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists.’ I
Cor 8:4.
26
Lev 1:5; Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 17:10–14.
27
See Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism 1: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
from the First to the Seventh Century (40 vols, Leiden, Brill, 1973), 111.

40
prominent a part in inter-sectarian politics because the sectarian movements
determined to define their relationship to the established Temple, while coming to
terms with, and taking over its rules, either by reinterpreting them or rejecting them.28
This explanation fits the description in Acts 15. Again, for Paul in I Cor 3:16-17,
Christ is the foundation of the ‘spiritual’ temple, which is the church. In Ephesians,
Christ is the cornerstone of the Temple. Neusner sees this as the context in which the
role of purity in early Christianity should be interpreted.29

Paul interprets purity mainly in regards to food and sexual relations, considering the
former as no longer subject to impurity.30 James 4:8 compares clean hands to a clean
heart in referring to Ps 24:4. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in a similar way to Philo,
treats the rules of purity as being a metaphor for a higher reality. In chapters 8–10,
the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Jesus’ sacrifice in the heavenly
sanctuary to the Levitical priestly sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary.31 The synoptics
treat purity under three aspects: ethics, bodily afflictions,32 and unclean hands and
food.33

After the fall of the Temple, and the failure of Bar Kochba, about which it is related
that the Christians refused to aid Bar Kochba against the Roman troops,34 the oral
law codified by Judah Ha Nasi spelt out the Jewish position controlled by the
Pharisaic movement. Was one reason the Christians did not help the Jews because
they could not accept Bar Kochba as the Messiah?

28
See Neusner, The Idea, 112.
29
See Neusner, The Idea, 59.
30
See Rom 14: 14–23; I Cor 6:12–13; Gal 2:11 (food offered to idols); I Thess 4:7 (marital
relations).
31
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to be familiar with the halakhah of Yoma.

32
See Jesus’ touching and curing of lepers: Mark 1:40–44; Matt 8:2–4; 10:1,8; 11:5; Luke 5:12–14,
17:22; 17:11–19; healing of the woman with an issue of blood: Mk 5:24–34; Matt 9:20–22; Luke
8:43–8.
33
See Mark 7:15,19; Matt 23:25–6, Luke 11:39–41. See Neusner, The Idea, 60–6, for a
comprehensive discussion. The author of Revelation 21:27 sees cleanliness as a symbol of inner
sanctity, so that nothing unclean should enter Jerusalem.
34
See Dio Cassius, Roman History 69:12–15. This writer is dated to ca. 160–230 CE.

41
Christianity’s abandonment of the oral law increased the drawing apart, for Judaism
began the closing of its ranks through the codification of oral law. Torah study and
strict observance of the precepts became of supreme value in tannaitic Judaism, as a
result of efforts to fill the vacuum created by the destruction of the Second Temple.35

Four Distinguishing Features of Judaism in Graeco-Roman Authors

By the second century, Christians were not encouraged to fulfil the law of Moses.
Jews who had converted to Christianity were bound by the same prescriptions
against Jewish practices. As Christianity claimed to be the true expression of
Judaism, Christian anti-Judaism invented more virulent new arguments against Jews,
rather than merely echoing the main motifs of Graeco-Roman antisemitism, which
would have compromised Christianity in its claim to be the New Israel. Early in the
church’s history, gentile Christians tended to have these same prejudices used against
them.36 In the authors quoted by Josephus there was a consensus that the Jews who
had settled in Egypt were expelled because of some pestilence, usually leprosy,
reaching Judaea under Moses’ leadership.37

Some regarded the customs that Moses had introduced as anti-social and pernicious.
Greek and Roman authors commented consistently on circumcision,38 the

35
See Aharon Oppenheimer, The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People
in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, tr. I. H. Levine (Leiden, Brill, 1977), 98.
36
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism (Part 1)’, 16 (1983/4), 32–3. For example, the
accusation of ass worship first levelled against Jews by Mnaseas was likewise attached to
Christians. See Tertullian, Apol. 16:1–3; Ad Nationes, 1,14; Minicius Felix, Octavius, 9,3. Noted
by Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, The Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976), vol. 1, 97.
37
See for example Josephus, Contra Apion 1:26ff re Manetho’s views. Manetho combined a story
of a defiled people of shepherd kings with that of Moses and the Jews. These people, whose
bodies were wasted by disease were lepers, and were also plunderers. Moses was called a
charlatan and imposter. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1,83, Contra Apion, Bk 1, sect. 14 &
15,27–31). Manetho, in referring to the Exodus, names the number as having been eighty
thousand lepers, a theme elaborated upon by Lysimachus, who lived in the second or first century
CE. See Josephus, Ap, Bk. 1, 33.

38
Tacitus, Histories 5:1. Stern names at least twenty references in his Greek and Latin Authors.

42
Sabbath,39special food laws,40 and belief in one God,41 these being the four main
characteristics which they saw as distinguishing features of Judaism. In addition,
they noted other Jewish customs such as Passover.42 It was over these very questions
that Christianity moved apart from Judaism. The Christian writers continually
emphasised that the ritual prescriptions of Judaism were not to be taken literally,
appealing to the spiritual sense.43

Judaising Christians and Jewish-Christians alike were condemned within the

developing Christian Church for following Jewish practices. On the other hand, the
Romans regarded belief in one God as a pernicious superstition.44 However, if
Jewish-Christians were circumcised, judaising Christians who were not Jewish by
birth and therefore not halakhically Jewish may not have taken this step.

Christianity as a Philosophy in the Graeco-Roman World

When the Graeco-Roman writers began to write about Christians they did not speak
of them in connection with circumcision, the Sabbath or special food laws, but like

39
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 318–20; 348–9; 359; 431; 562. Stern cites at least 39
references.
40
See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 415; 444; 542; 555–7; 566; vol. 2, 25; 99–100; 665
(abstention from pork); vol. 1, 436 (fish eaten on Friday evenings by Jews); vol. 2:441 (Jews
forbidden to eat fish with scales).
41
See Stern, Greek and Latin, for numerous examples such as: Seneca, vol. 1 ,430–4; Perseus, vol.
1, 436. Stern cites at least 30 comments about the God of the Jews. In later centuries, a theme
such as blood libel that had been part of Graeco-Roman antisemitism (Posidinus vol. 1 147)
surfaced in Church antisemitism as in the instances of Simon of Trent or Julian of Norwich.
42
See Stern, Greek and Latin, 1, 563–4.
43
Edwin Judge also suggests that there may be here a hint about commercial interests being upset
by Christians not making sacrifices. ‘ One may most economically assume that he (Pliny) is being
fed dramatic rumours by someone whose interests are at stake in the meat trade.’ (cf. the
silversmiths at Ephesus, Acts 19:24). Judge, ‘With Whom’, 3. See also Barn. 2:7-9; Irenaeus,
Haer 4.17.1–3 (sacrifices); Barn. 9:6; Justin, Dial. 16.2; 19.2 (circumcision); Ignatius of Antioch
Magn 9.1 (Sabbath). The Epistle of Barnabas may have set a precedent among the patristic
writers in spiritualising Jewish ritual laws, and saying they were not to be taken literally.
44
Tacitus, for example, accused the Jews of despising the gods, of conceiving of one god only, and
that with the mind only, and that they set up no statues. Hist 5:1ff, Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2,
26–7.

43
Pliny, linked the spread of this ‘depraved, immoderate superstition’ with the collapse
of the public cults.45 Robert Wilken makes the observation, that in order to become
acceptable as a religion, Christianity needed not only to define itself as against
Judaism but also in terms understandable to Graeco-Roman culture. Early Latin
sources refer to Christians as practising superstitio,46 a derogatory term which Cicero
had used to mean the ‘empty dread of the gods’,47 in contradistinction to the
expression religio, which was expressed as ‘confined to their pious cult’. In order to
rid itself of the label of ‘pernicious superstition’ Christianity needed to define itself
as a philosophy.48 Yet, although in the eyes of the Romans, Christian worship was
not dignified with the term religio, it was recognised that they did posses certain
theological beliefs.

Pliny the younger mentions among the practices of Christians, their custom of
meeting regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses to ‘Christ as to a god’
(Christo quasi deo).49

In Roman circles, the deification of a man was not unknown (divus Augustus) but
here, there was no sacred space (templum, sacrarium) or object by which the god's
presence was manifested, or sacrifice.50 Acceptance within the Graeco-Roman world
was necessary in order for Christianity to establish itself. Judaism, on the other hand
was well established within the Graeco-Roman world.

Marcel Simon argues that the three fundamental problems that continue to appear in
the anti-Jewish literature are firstly, the rejection of Israel and the corresponding call

45
Pliny, Ep.10.96.7. See Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1966), 702–10.
46
See Pliny, Ep. 10.96.7; Suet. Nero 16.3; Tacitus, Ann., 15.44.4.
47
Nat. Deor. 1.42.117.
48
See Robert Wilken, ‘The Christians as the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them’, in E. P. Sanders et
al. (eds), Jewish and Christian Self Definition 2 (3 vols, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1981), 100–25.
49
See Ep.10.96.7.
50
See Judge, ‘With Whom’, 3.

44
of the gentiles and secondly, the law and its observance, and thirdly, monotheism and
christology.51

It seems clear that the Jewish-Christian movement, where Christians continued

Jewish practices, was quelled through the attitude of the majority non-Jewish
membership of the church.

Fate of the Jewish-Christian Jerusalem Church

Where the fate of the Jerusalem Church is not wholly explained by certain passages
in the New Testament in Acts and the Epistles, one has to rely on later authors, such
as Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Eusebius or Epiphanius, for further shreds of
information. How does one weigh the evidence, which is so incomplete and sketchy,
and doubtless biased? Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late forties,
scholars have looked in the direction of Qumran for further enlightenment on the
question of Jewish-Christianity.52 However, Qumran studies also do not provide
answers.

In a recent survey Jean-Daniel Kaestli declares that the term ‘Jewish-Christianity’

should be applied to a precise historical phenomenon, and its use restricted to groups
of Christians who observed all or part of Jewish ritual as decreed by the Law, and
who showed their attachment to the particular destiny of the Jewish people.53 He adds
to this definition, the concept that an important part of Jewish-Christianity affirms its
identity in reaction to Paul, the apostle to the gentiles.54 Kaestli maintains that the
role of Jewish-Christianity should not be minimised.55 Again, the use of the term
‘Jewish-Christianity’ is associated with those groups named in the patristic
heresiological lists who practised a syncretistic form of religion that was a mixture of

51
See Simon, Verus Israel, 181–7ff.
52
See for example: David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes
Press, 1988) or Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, (London,
Fontana/Collins, 1976).
53
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 272.
54
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 250.
55
See Kaestli, ‘Où en est le débat’, 272.

45
Judaism, gnosticism and heterodox forms of Christianity.

Emmanuel Testa defines Jewish-Christianity as those converts of the Mother Church

of Jerusalem who were poor and needy Jews (Acts 6:1), several of whom were
‘judaisers’ and were jealously attached to the Mosaic law (Acts 21:20) including a
large number of priests (Acts 6:7) and some Pharisees (Acts 15:5).

They grouped themselves around the ‘pillars’ of the Church of the

circumcision – James, Cephas, and John (Gal 2:9) with a veiled
antipathy toward the ‘Hellenists’, privileged ones, in their view,
especially through Paul, whom they accused of scant orthodoxy
because of his ‘universalism’ (Acts 15:1,5; 21:21), even though their
leaders considered themselves in communion with him (Gal 2:9b).56

Joan Taylor states that if the term ‘Jewish-Christianity’ were to be defined as

encompassing all Jews who were also Christians, then the term would be
meaningless. She argues that for this term to have any real meaning, it must refer not
only to ethnic Jews but to these, as well as gentile converts who upheld the praxis of
Judaism.57

Patristic Texts on Jewish–Christianity

When the Fathers of the Church write about Jewish-Christians, the picture is not
clear, repeated information being passed on one from the other, including, no doubt,
actual facts and errors as well as prejudices.58 Their writings point to a proliferation
of Jewish-Christian sects, and much confusion as to their identity.59

56
See Emmanuel Testa, The Faith of the Mother Church: An Essay on the Theology of the Judeo-
Christian, tr. Paul Rotondi. (Jerusalem, Fransciscan Printing Press, 1992), 12.
57
See Joan Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford,
Clarendon, 1993), 20.
58
Eusebius appears to quote Irenaeus, while Jerome bases his information on Origen. See Ray Pritz,
Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period until its
Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988), 22–4.
59
Epiphanius, the Bishop of Constantia listed some eighty heresies in Panarion, which he
completed in 376. As a whole, his work is tendentious in its use of sources. See Pritz, Nazarene,
29ff.

46
Bauer set out to challenge the commonly held view that ‘for the period of Christian
origins, ecclesiastical doctrine already represents what is primary, while heresies, on
the other hand, somehow are a deviation from the genuine’.60 Strecker maintains that
this understanding of history, which has dominated church history since the time of
Eusebius is incorrect. On the contrary, in many areas the heresies were ‘primary’.61
Realising that according to the New Testament writings, Jewish-Christianity stands
at the beginning of the development of church history, he concludes that it is not the
gentile ‘ecclesiastical doctrine’ that is primary, but rather a Jewish-Christian
theology. This fact was forgotten early in the church heresiological tradition. Thus,
for example, the Jewish-Christians were usually classified as Ebionites, and
apostates, and were deprecated as being an insignificant minority in comparison with
the ‘great church’.62

While it is clear that Jewish-Christianity is a complex phenomenon, Strecker also

alludes to the fact that the ‘transition from Jewish Christianity to gentile-Christianity’
was fluid. He sees this as being illustrated by the adoption of gentile-Christian forms
by Jewish-Christians, and on the other hand, by the judaising of Christians from the
gentile ranks.63

The decrees of early church councils also reveal ‘Jewish’ tendencies, whose cause
was linked to the Jewish-Christian question. Thus, the problems of Jewish-
Christianity were part of the process of Christian self-definition. The church had an
ambiguous position, for, while seeking to disassociate itself from Judaism and take
on life as a separate entity, it also sought to proclaim itself as the fulfilment of
Judaism. The struggle was painful and protracted. The problem also relates to the
fact that Christianity is based upon Jewish concepts from the very beginning, and

60
See Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, translation of second German
edition (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1971), xxiv.
61
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem of Jewish Christianity’, in Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 241.
62
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem’, 241–2.
63
See Strecker, ‘On the Problem’, 243.

47
that it accepted a biblically based moral and ethical code. From the origins of the
church, when non-Jewish believers were welcomed into its ranks, they found a
religion with well defined beliefs and concepts taken from Judaism.

Certainly, those Christians who continued to hold on to Jewish ritual laws such as
circumcision, food laws and other practices not assumed by the church, were
ostracised and eventually driven out from orthodox Christianity. 64 The new religion,
(for that is what Christianity became), soon would not long tolerate members who
professed to be Christian, yet, retained Jewish practices. The Jewish-Christians also
came under gnostic influences and were considered to have embraced beliefs that
were unacceptable to the developing mainstream church. Eventually the Jewish-
Christians disappeared as a movement. The isolating of the Jewish-Christians was
part of the process of the separation of the church with Judaism.

Flusser argues that since the authority of the founding church in Jerusalem and
Palestine was quite strong in matters of faith, those who developed its Christology
took Jesus’ self awareness and concept of his sonship as the point of departure. He
suggests that during the period between Jesus’ death and Paul’s conversion, a group
of Jewish believers, whose faith was already strongly demythologised, interpreted
Jesus’ self-awareness, the cross and the belief in his resurrection in terms of their
own understanding of the Jewish faith. He suggests that although this group was
probably a minority in the founding church, it had caused Christianity to become a
new religion. He asserts further, that it was the developed christology of the church,
and not Jesus’ faith that became the main content of the Christian religion.65 Thus,
according to David Flusser, it was the Jewish-Christians, the Christians of Jewish
origin, who caused Christianity to become a new religion.66

64
Circumcision, however, was also practised as part of pharaonic Egyptian religion, and Coptic
Christians continued its use. See Jean Doress, Des Hiéroglyphes à la Croix: Ce que le Passé
pharaonique a légué au Christianisme (Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut
in Het Nabije Osten, 1960), 33–4.
65
Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism (Part 1)’, 38.
66
See Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 623.

48
On the other hand, it could be argued that Christianity became a new religion, not
because of the Jewish-Christians, who apparently possessed a different christology,
but because of the influence of the gentile membership who vastly outnumbered
them. The question should be asked ‘At what stage and how did separation lead to
Jewish practices being identified as non-Christian by the Christians?’

It is difficult to pinpoint the moment where Jews identify Christians as non-Jews,

since the process is complex. In the first stage , after the fall of the Temple, during
the process of adaptation to the loss of the Temple cult and new circumstances, there
was a move for the multi-strand pluralistic Jewish philosophies to became one
strand, or a standardised form of Judaism. As part of the process, these Jews, the
Pharisees and their successors, who were the architects of the new Judaism that arose
from the ashes of the Temple, saw all others including Samaritans, Essenes, or
Nazoraeans (Christians)67 as alien, and did not wish to include them in the ranks of
Judaism.68 This process took from 70–135, or perhaps till 200, with the codification
of the Mishnah, whose stipulations defined who was Jewish and who was not
considered to be one of the fold. By this time, Judaism had cut itself off from its
varieties, and made the move to close its ranks. The fact that Judaism in fact did not
achieve uniformity is indicated by archaeological evidence.

The same process was taking place in Christianity. In the beginning of Christianity
there were many varieties of Jewish-Christianity, the original form of Christianity.
The situation changed with the admission of the non-Jews, and the permitting of
non-Jews to be dispensed from Jewish law, with the exception of the stipulations
outlined in Acts 15. However, there was early in Christianity, a movement to force
Jewish-Christianity to conform to a uniformly acceptable form of Christianity, where
the practice of Jewish law was forbidden. The church councils formalised this

67
Mimouni proposes that the disciples of Jesus of Jewish origin, till the year 100 or around 135 were
designated as Nazoraeans or Nazarenes. In Antioch the followers of Jesus were first called
Christian. After the formation of the Ebionite and Elkasaite movements, the term Nazoraean was
used for the group the Church Fathers considered as ‘orthodox’. See Simon C. Mimouni, ‘Les
Nazoréens: Recherche étymologique et historique’, RB, 2 (1998), 208.
68
The problem of the non- acceptance of non-Orthodox Jewish conversions by Orthodox Jewry in
Israel today is an analogous situation.

49
process from the fourth century.

A uniform strand of Jewish-Christianity was never achieved, for Jewish-Christians

were coerced to renounce their Judaism in order to gain acceptance as Christian. At
the same time, their Christian beliefs appeared to have been heterodox. If there was
an accepted form of Jewish-Christianity in Justin’s area of influence, from the
Christian point of view, there do not appear to be any other examples documented
from this time forwards. Thus, the question could be asked: ‘If baptism in Christ was
a stipulation for initiation into Christianity from the early days of the Church, at what
stage did a formal conversion process become acceptable to Christianity with such an
institution as a catechumenate?’ Such an institution would mark a definite break.

Justin Martyr and Jewish-Christians

In the mid-second century, Justin Martyr still differentiated between the two groups,
the radical Christians of Jewish origin who insisted that the gentiles should observe
mitzvot, and those who were ready to accept believers who did not practise halakhah.
He was ready to allow Jewish-Christians to continue to follow the Law of Moses on
condition they did not expect other Christians to follow their example, as can be
gleaned from his dialogue with the rabbi, Trypho.

And Trypho again inquired, ‘but if some one, knowing that this is so,
after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and
obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he
be saved?’

I said, ‘In my opinion, Trypho, such alone will be saved, if he does

not strive in every way to persuade other men – I mean those Gentiles
who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same
things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they
do so…’

‘But if some, through weak-mindedness, wish to observe such

institutions as were given by Moses, from which they expect some
virtue, but which we believe were appointed by reasons of the
hardness of the people’s hearts, along with their hope in this Christ,
and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and

50
 piety, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I said
before, not inducing them either to be circumcised like themselves, or
to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I
hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them
in all things as kinsmen and brethren’. (Dialogue with Trypho, 47) 69

On the other hand, Justin was not tolerant of Jewish-Christians who first
acknowledged Christ and then retracted their belief.

And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man
to be Christ, and who have gone back from some cause to the legal
dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have
repented not before death, shall by no means be saved (Dialogue with
Trypho, 47)70

The Twelfth Benediction (Birkhat ha-Minim)

This benediction has been discussed at length in a plethora of works on Jewish

prayer.71 At the turn of the century, it was Elbogen who repeated that the twelfth
benediction was instituted by Rabbi Gamaliel so as to drive out Christians from the
synagogue.72 This statement has been accepted uncritically by previous generations of
scholars,73 but its validity is now disputed, the belief being that the expression min
did not apply in particular to Christians but rather to the whole gamut of minim, over
many years74 In the first century, the benediction already existed, and was expanded

69
See The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to AD 325, revised A. Cleveland
Coxe (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1956), vol. 1, 218.
70
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 218.
71
See for example Ismar Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichltichen Entwicklung.
Leipzig, Gustav Fock, 1913. See also Joseph Heinemann, Hatefilah be-tekufat ha-tana’im ve
ha’amoraim: Tiba ve-defusiah, 2nd edn (Jerusalem Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1966).
72
See I. Elbogen, Ha-tefilah be-yisrael be-hitpathutah he-historit, with additions by Joseph
Heinemann (Tel Aviv, Davir, 1972). Joseph Heinemann relates that Israel Lewy was the first to
suggest that before the institution of Benediction of the Minim, there were only seventeen
benedictions (MGWJ, 25, 1886). See Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and
Patterns. (Berlin,Walter De Guyter, 1977), 224–5, n. 20.
73
See example, Vincent Martin, A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways Between Synagogue
and Church, A Stimulus Book (New York, Paulist Press, 1995), 153.
74
See Naomi Cohen, ‘Mah hidesh Shmu'el ha-katan ba-birkhat ha-minim’, Sinai, 94:1–2 (1984), 68.

51
and revised over the years.75 The target of the benediction changed over time, minim
originally being a blanket statement against deviant Jews. The talmudic texts relate
that:

rsxv kg kthknd icr hbpk ,ufrc j"h rhsxv hkuepv iugna : r",
vbchc

Simon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in the presence of

Rabbi Gamaliel in order at Yavneh (b. Ber. 27b–28a)

Rabbi Gamaliel said to the sages: Nothing does a man know how to
institute the blessing of the minim. Simon Ha Katan stood up and
related it. The following year he forgot and tried for two and a half
hours, and did not remember it (b. Ber 27b–28a)

The wise men of Javneh have before now appointed the benediction
against minim (y. Ber.8a)

The benediction relating to the minim was instituted in Jamnia (b.

Ber. 28b)

It appears that Shimeon HaPakuli did not compose hatefilah anew, but just called to
mind the benedictions that already existed and put them in order.76 The implication is
that the Twelfth Benediction against the Minim was not instituted at Yavneh but
already existed. In support of this view, Reuven Kimelman shows that the themes of
the Amidah are all biblical.77 Further evidence is to be adduced from Qumran to show
that the benediction against heretics was earlier than Christianity. David Flusser
argues that the publication of new Dead Sea Scroll material from the Damascus
Document (4QMMT) supports the view that the twelfth benediction originally was
against the Essenes. Flusser postulated that the twelfth benediction was the second in
a series of three sections which were inserted in the middle in the later Maccabean
period, and, in support, refers to a fragment of the Damascus Document first

75
See Heinemann, Prayer, 225.
76
See the article by Naomi Cohen, ‘Shimeon ha-pakuli hisdir yod-heth berakhot’, Tarbiz, 52:4
(1983) 547–54.
77
See Reuven Kimelman, ‘The Daily Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption ’, JQR, 2–3 (1988–
1989), 165–97, especially 175-6.

52
published in 1991. The text which speaks of cursing occurs in a list of transgressions.

Or one who reveals the secret of his people to the gentiles, or curses
[his people or preaches] sedition against those anointed with the holy
spirit and error...78

Bilhah Nitzan adds to Flusser’s case by pointing out that in the recently published
Qumran texts, blessings are counterposed against curses in a covenantal context.79
Thus, if such material is preserved at Qumran, might not other Jews have used a
benediction against the minim?

Flusser adds that Christians are explicitly mentioned only in two Palestinian texts
which were found in the Cairo Genizah. These are remnants of the old Palestinian
rite from the fourth century, showing that the reference to Christians is secondary. He
believes it is evident that the term for Christians was added to an older text which
spoke only about heretics. The presence of the expression notzrim in the Cairo
Genizah texts of the Palestinian version is but one variation in the complex history of
the development of the curse against the heretics. 80

However, Flusser believes that from the second century, this benediction referred to
the Christians, and was inserted before 140 CE. He takes his evidence from Neapolis
born Justin Martyr and from the fact that both Jerome and Epiphanius stated that in
their synagogues the Jews cursed the ‘Nazoraeans’ (Nazarenes). However, though
the latter may have believed that the Jews cursed the Christians in their synagogues,
Flusser argues that the word itself may not have appeared at that time in the

78
See David Flusser, ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the
Benediction Against the Heretics’, [Hebrew] Tarbiz, 61: 3–4 (1992) 342–3.
79
1 QS col. ii, etc. See Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, tr. Jonathan Chipman,
(Leiden, Brill, 1994) 122–3.
80
See 4Q270 2ii 12–14 in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XVIII. Qumran Cave 4: The
Damascus Document (4Q266–273), ed. Joseph M. Baumgarten (Oxford, Clarendon, 1966), 144–
6.

53
benediction. 81

The Jerusalem based Dominican scholar Etienne Nodet believes these minim to be
Jews from the same observant milieu who taught doctrines dangerous for their group.
He argues that to identify these minim with the ‘Nazoraeans’ is not valid, for the term
‘Christian’ developed outside of Judea, and could also describe the uncircumcised.
He argues that there was no reason for Christians at this early stage to constitute an
internal threat to the group at Yabneh.82

For the apostates let there be no hope, and uproot the kingdom of
arrogance speedily uprooted in our days.
May the Nazoraeans and the sectarians perish at a moment.
Let them be blotted out from the book of life and not be written
together with the righteous.
You are praised, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant.83

Textual evidence, however, indicates that expulsion from the synagogue did
occur in certain circumstances. Several texts in the New Testament appear to
allude to expulsion, as for example:

Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you,
revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man
(Luke 6:22)
or
His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews;
for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed
Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue
(John 9:22).84

81
See David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988),
638f, and see also ‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT)’, 374.
82
See Etienne Nodet,‘“Les Nazoréens:”’ Discussion’, RB, no 2 (1998), 265.
83
Jacob Mann, ‘Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service’, HUCA, 2 (1925), 306.
Restored in accord with S. Schechter, ‘Genizah Specimens’, JQR, os. 10 (1898), 657, 659.
84
See also John 12; 42; 16:1–3.

54
Other examples are to be found in rabbinic literature.

‘Better that I be called a fool all my days than that I (Akabya ben
Mahalaleel) be made a godless man before God even for an
hour; for they shall not say of me, He retracted for the
sake of office’… Whereupon they laid him under a ban
[niddui]; and he died while he was yet under a ban;
and the court stoned his coffin. (m. Eduy. 5:6).85

Justin Martyr was the earliest of the Church Fathers to declare that the Jews cursed
Christians in their synagogues, a claim which some interpret as meaning that by the
mid-second century in the land of Israel, the benediction was directed towards the
Christians, although this is not made specific in rabbinic texts.

Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live

according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before
death, shall likewise not be saved, and especially those
who have anathematised and do anathematise this very Christ
in the synagogues (Dial.47).86

For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him
Christians (Dial. 96).87

And scoff not at the King of Israel as the rulers of your synagogues
teach you to do, in your prayers (Dial. 137).88

However, Gedaliah Alon notes that these statements by Justin are generalised, and
refer to all Christians and therefore cannot be applied unequivocally to the Birkhat
ha-Minim. 89

85
See Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief
Explanatory Notes, first published 1933 (London University Press, 1980), 432.
86
See Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 218ff.
87
Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 247.
88
Ante-NiceneFathers, vol. 1, 268. See also Dial. 108.
89
See Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 CE), translated and
edited by Gershon Levi (2 vols, Jerusalem, Magnes, 1980–1984), vol. 1, 289. .

55
Origen likewise states that:

The Jews continue to curse Christ every day

Christus usque in hodiernum diem a judaeis anathema fiat (Hom II.8

in Ps. 37). 90

but as there is no explicit mention of the cursing of the Christians or its role in
Jewish liturgy, it is not clear that Origin is referring to the twelfth benediction and
may be a general statement.91

Again, the evidence from Epiphanius is not conclusive. Epiphanius’ report about the
benediction suggests he has not himself heard it, but has it from hearsay.92

They are in every respect enemies of the Jews. For not only do the
children of the Jews hate them, but rising in the morning, at midday,
and in the evening, three times a day when they offer prayers in the
synagogues they curse and anathematise them, three times a day
saying, ‘God curse the Ναζωρα‹οj Nazoraeans’.93 The reason is that
they especially resent them, because although they are of Jewish stock
they preach that Jesus is <the> Messiah, which is in opposition to
those who are still Jews and who do not accept Jesus (Panarion
29:9.2)94

It appears that Jerome interpreted the prayer in question as referring to

Christians in general who were given the name Nazoraeans.95

…until today in their synagogues they [the Jews] blaspheme the

Christian people under the name Nazoraeans (In Amos 1, 11–12).96

… up to the present day they[the Jews] persevere in blasphemy and

three times a day in their synagogues they anathemise the
Christian name under the name of Nazoraeans (In Esaiam 5:18 –19). 97

…for they[the Jews] curse him in their synagogues three times

every day under the name of Nazoraeans (sub nomine Nazarenorum)
90
PG 12:1387.
91
See Lawrence Schiffman, Who was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-
Christian Schism (Hoboken, New Jersey, KTAV, 1985) 57, n. 35 & 36 and Pritz, Nazarene
Jewish Christianity, 105, n. 51.who cites Origen. ‘Enter the synagogue of the Jews and see them
scourge Jesus with the language of blasphemy’. (Hom. Jer. 18.12).

56
 (In Esaiam 49:7).98

in your synagogues, who night and day blaspheme the Saviour,

they utter curses against the Christians three times a day, as
I have said, and the name of Nazoraeans (In Esaiam 52,4–6).99

The Nazoraeans

Simon Mimouni’s carefully documented arguments illustrates that the sources at our
disposal do not allow us to reach any accurate conclusion about the Jewish-
Christians and the ‘Nazoraeans’100 Etienne Nodet points out the term ‘Nazoraean’ is
associated with James, the brother of Jesus and his followers. Again, the harmony
suggested in Acts is contradicted in the writings of Paul, especially in Galatians. The
first Christians were not a homogenous group. He argues that Jesus, in choosing to
be baptised by John also effectively separated himself from his family.101 He sees in

92
See A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, (Leiden, Brill,
1973), 175. Epiphanius’ dates are 315–403 CE.
93
Epiphanius uses the term ναζωρα‹oj (Nazoraeans) to designate a group of Jesus’ disciples who
are of Jewish origin (Panarion 29.6.5). The expression ‘Nazoraeans’ may be translated as
‘Nazarenes’. In Panarion Epiphanius distinguishes between two groups,
the νασαρα‹οι (Nasaraeans), who are Jews who do not accept the Pentateuch (Panarion 18.1.1),
and whom he considers heretical, and the ναζωρα‹οι ( Nazoraeans), whom he calls Christians
because of the city of Nazareth, and because at that time there was no other name in use
(Panarion 29.6.5).
94
See The Panarion of St. Epiphanies, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, tr. Philip R. Amidon
(New York, Oxford University Press, 1990), 93. See also b. Abod. Zar. 4b /b. Ber 7a – the story
of R. Joshua b. Levy involving a min, a cock tied to a bed, and cursing, which may be a reference
to the Amidah and the 12th benediction. See also y. Ber 9c which speaks of removing any reader
from office who, by omitting certain benedictions (the benediction concerning the resurrection of
the dead), the humbling of the arrogant (12th) or of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (15th) came under
the suspicion of heresy.
95
See Schiffman, Who was a Jew? 58.
96
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 219.
97
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 221–222.
98
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 225.
99
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 225.
100
See Simon C. Mimouni ‘Les Nazoréens. Recherche Etymologique et Historique’, RB, 150: 2 (Apr
1998), 208–62.
101
See Nodet,‘“ Les Nazoréens’”, 264.

57
Acts a literary effort to show that Jesus and Paul represent the legitimate posterity of
Jesus’ family. In addition he proposes that the interest of Eusebius and Epiphanius in
James and his successors stems from Acts, being an effort to underline the unity of
the immediate successors of Jesus.102

The Ebionites

Origen designates both ‘Nazoraeans’ and another group as Ebionites, and thus the
picture is not wholly clear. While both groups kept the Law of Moses, and saw Jesus
as the Messiah, one group apparently accepted the orthodox view of christology
while the other denied Jesus’ divine origins.

Some stood up who accepted Jesus so that they in addition to this

boasted of being Christians and yet wished to live according to the
Law of the Jews like the mass of the Jews. These are the two kinds of
Ebionites, some confessing that Jesus was born of a virgin as we do
and others who deny this but say that he was born like the other
people (Contra Celsus 5:61).103

Here, Pritz suggests that the orthodox group in fact were probably ‘Nazoraeans’, and
that Origen has misused the term ‘Ebionite’ to include all Jewish-Christians who
keep Jewish Law.104 Another source, Hegesippus claims that the ‘Nazoraeans’ were
the descendants of the Jerusalem believers who had fled to Pella (Panarion 29.1.1–
29.9.4) whilst Origen adds that the Eucharist was celebrated by the Ebionites with
unleavened bread at the same time as the Jewish Passover.

And Passover lasted one day but the unleavened bread seven, in
which case the day of Passover was obviously counted with the other
six. In accordance with this somebody with no experience perhaps
does some investigating and falls into the Ebionite heresy (starting
from the fact that Jesus during his life celebrated Passover in the way
of the Jews and also likewise the first day of the unleavened bread and

102
See Nodet,‘“ Les Nazoréens”’, 264.
103
See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 135.
104
See Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, 21.

58
 Passover) saying because it behoves us as imitators of Christ to do
similarly (In Matth. comm. ser. 79). 105

Irenaeus describes Ebionites who use only the Gospel of Matthew, and repudiate
Paul’s writings, practise circumcision and Jewish Law and pray towards Jerusalem.106
In addition, they deny the virgin birth107 and celebrate the Eucharist with unleavened
bread and water.108 Epiphanius adds that they used to meet in synagogue and had
elders and archisynagogues.109

Tertullian speaks also of Ebionites who deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

So then, even as he is made less than the angels while clothed with
manhood, even so he is not less when clothed with an angel. This
opinion could be very suitable for Ebion who asserts that Jesus is
mere man and only of the seed of David, that means not also the son
of God; although he is obviously more glorious than the prophets – so
as to say that an angel is in him in the same way as in Zachariah.(De
Carne Chr. 14).110

Jerome records that the Ebionites who practised the Jewish law and accepted the
virgin birth, used a gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

They (Ebionites) believe in Christ, the Son of God born of Mary the
virgin, and they say about him that he suffered and rose again under
Pontius Pilate, in whom we also believe, but since they want to be
both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians (Epist.
112:13).111

Again, in the fourth century, Epiphanius also appears to be acquainted with a similar

105
See Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 133
106
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.26.2.
107
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3. 21. 1 and 5.1.3 .
108
Adv. Haer. 5:1.3. See also Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.1.
109
Panarion, 30.18.
110
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 109.
111
Klijn and Reinink, Patristic Evidence, 201.

59
group of Ebionites. However, he says that for some time Ebion’s followers have been
differing from each other in what they say about Christ.112

Conclusion

The picture of Jewish-Christianity presented by the Church Fathers is confusing, the

sources not allowing for any precise conclusions. It is evident that Jewish-
Christianity was marginalised by both Jews and Christians. Judaism did not accept a
group whose heterodox ideas were not strictly Judaic. Christianity did not accept a
group whose christology was suspect, and who professed to be Christian, yet
continued to practise Jewish law. Jewish-Christians did not remain as part of
Christianity in much the same way that Jews did not remain as a part of Christianity.
The same issues that were unacceptable to Jews, such as the divinity of Christ and
the fact that Jewish ritual law was not practised, but also expressly forbidden, were
unacceptable to the Jewish-Christians. The Jewish-Christians were driven from
Christianity. A compromise was not reached. Jewish-Christianity, once the original
form of Christianity, when Christians were still Jews, was marginalised. It did not
survive as an acceptable movement within either Christianity or Judaism.

112
See Panarion 30.3.1.

60
Chapter Three. The Early Church Councils and the Separation of
Christians from Jews.

The first church councils originated in the east, towards the end of the second
century, in areas in the east where the Jewish population was more numerous than in
the west. By the second half of the second century, the church had gained sufficient
numerical strength and geographical dispersion in the east, at least, to sustain
episcopal reunions.

Besides, throughout the provinces of Greece there are held in definite

localities those councils gathered out of the universal churches, by
whose means not only all the deeper questions are handled for the
common benefit, but the actual representation of the whole Christian
name is celebrated with great veneration. (Tertullian, De Ieiunio
Adversus Psychicos, 13).1

While it is clear that though the focus of episcopal synods and councils was on the
definition of christological doctrines, as well as areas of church discipline and
essential questions, the church’s definition of its stance as regards contacts with Jews
is a constant theme of such gatherings. Various councils deemed it necessary to
continue to comment on Jews, suggesting a desire for separation from Jewish praxis
and a lack of success in the enforcement of such separation. Statements preserved
concerning the Jews, which appear in the council documents, though not numerous,
show that in some areas of the Roman Empire, social contacts with Jews were
sufficiently close to merit constant specific mention in local synods and general
church councils. However, though canons on the church’s relations with Judaism
form but a small part of the overall legislation of the early councils and synods, and
only date from the fourth century, they are an indication of some areas where
separation from Judaism still had not taken place by this time, and of growing
hostility towards Jews, as Christianity became more powerful. The question studied
here concerns the struggle to root out judaising practices, rather than a chronological
treatment of the moving apart from Judaism. The problem about judaising reflects

1
The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson (eds), (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1870), vol. 18, 147.

61
not merely the origins of the church in Judaism, but also the claim by the church that
it was the New Israel, that the law had been fulfilled in Christ, and that its selective
retention of some elements did not preclude the practice of some Jewish rituals. In
addition, judaising in the church during the early centuries reflects the struggle for
the preservation of elements of Judaism within the church among Christians who
experienced confusion.

Again, it is clear that the spread of the bishops did not happen at the same rate
everywhere, but depended on the degree of evangelisation. In the earlier period, the
councils were limited mainly to the east, to Anatolia, Syria and Palestine and to Italy.
In the case of Egypt, the Bishop of Alexandria governed the affairs of the churches of
his own province,2 and his power also extended to those of the Libyan Pentapolis,
which was under the administration of the island of Crete.3 African Councils began
in the third century, while Gaul did not participate till the fourth century.4 Spain also
remained quite isolated for the time being.5 Ecumenical Councils were only possible
from the fourth century, when the church had imperial protection. In the fourth and
fifth centuries they were held at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon,
where again mostly bishops from the east, where the Jewish population was greater,
were present.6 However, anti-Jewish canons do not appear to have been formulated
until early in the fourth century, when they emerged firstly in the west.

Decrees on Judaism were reiterated from the fourth century, from the time
Christianity came under the protection of the emperor until several centuries later.

2
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.24 (which mentions Arsinöe). See also D. Botte et al., Le Concile et
les Conciles: Contribution à l’Histoire de la Vie conciliare de l’Eglise (Paris, Chevotogne, 1960),
22, 24.
3
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.68.
4
Evidence from Tertullian’s De Ieiunio indicates that at the time of writing in the third century CE
councils were unknown in Africa. Agrippinus, Donatus and Cyprian, the bishops of Carthage,
gathered the bishops of all the African provinces, which did not yet include Mauritania
(Numidia). See L. Duchesne, Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution: A Study of the Latin
Liturgy to the Time of Charlemagne, tr. M. L. McClure (London, SPCK, 1904), 18.
5
Botte, Le Concile, 24.
6
See Jean Gaudemet, L' Eglise dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles), in Gabriel Le Bras (ed.),
Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église 3 (5 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1958), 452.

62
The struggle to separate from practices that were considered specifically Jewish
reflects the ambiguous nature of Christianity. On the one hand, Christianity was
styling itself as the fulfilment of Judaism, so that the retention of Jewish terms for
liturgy, for example, was evidently not a problem. On the other hand, there was little
tolerance for Jewish praxis, such as circumcision, or participation in the Sabbath or
Jewish feasts.

Church Councils

Though church councils do not belong to the earliest period of church history, an
exception could be made for the so called Council of Jerusalem, which, though seen
by some exegetes as ‘an imaginary construction answering no historical reality’, it
may indicate the kind of questions regarding separation from Judaism which
preoccupied the early church.7 The period reflected in the text from Acts belongs to
the time when the Temple still stood, when Christianity was very new, and still
attached to the mother religion, as a schismatic movement. The council of the
apostles and the elders described in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 15:6–29) was seen
as the prototype of the assemblies of bishops, which met to regulate matters of
discipline, and to define doctrines in the face of external threats against orthodoxy
from competing ideologies.8

The specific questions to which the text of Acts 15 alludes were of relevance, it
seems, before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, but apparently soon became of lesser
importance, after the destruction of the Temple and the collapse of the centrality and
influence of the Jerusalem priesthood.9 The question of Jewish law, however, was
one that was not easily dismissed. Did gentile converts retain certain elements of
Jewish law partly out of consideration for the Jewish sensibilities of Christians of
Jewish origin, or was it because they found some practices of Judaism attractive?

7
See Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford, Blackwell, 1971), 463.
8
See Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline
(Edinburgh, Nelson, 1960), 17.
9
See F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary
London, Tyndale, 1951), 12.

63
A controversy broke out concerning gentile admission to the new faith and revolved
around the separation from and the degree of attachment to Jewish law as defined by
the Books of Moses to be maintained by these converts. The controversy is
enlightening, for it implies a definite policy towards separation in the nascent church
from this time, and the direction away from being a movement within Judaism.

There appear to have been two controversies raised in Acts 15. The first issue
concerned the obligations of non-Jewish converts to observe the Law,10 and the
second, the controversy about social relations between the two groups of Christian
converts, those of Jewish origin and those who were non-Jews.11 According to Acts,
the decision was reached that non-Jews who adopted belief in Jesus were not
required to obey the Mosaic law (Acts 15:9-11). This included circumcision.

Circumcision

The importance of circumcision to Jewish identity is well documented, being

regarded from the biblical period as a sine qua non for Israelite males and for male
slaves.12 Jewish sources about proselytes emphasise further the importance of
circumcision to Jewish identity.13 In Acts 15, circumcision is the matter that brings
Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, and is the immediate issue that gathers the apostles

10
Gen 17:9–14 shows that the covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of circumcision (Gen
17:11), which was an everlasting covenant in the flesh (Gen 17:3). See also Gen 7:10,12–14.
11
See also Gal 2:11–14.
12
See Gen 17:23–27; Lev 12:3. Although circumcision was practised in many areas, as for example
in Egypt, Syria and various parts of Asia Minor (Herodotos 2:104 and see Jer 9, Edomites,
Amonites, Moabites), circumcision came to be recognised by gentiles as the sign of the Jew–
Judith 14:10; Jub 15:33; I Macc 1:60–64.
13
See for example Ex. Rab. 30.12 where Aquila, who wishes to convert to Judaism, tells Hadrian
that unless he is circumcised he cannot study Torah. See also Robert Wilken, ‘The Christians as
the Romans (and Greeks) Saw Them,’ in E. P Sanders et al., (eds), Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries (3 vols, Philadelphia,
Fortress, 1981), vol. 1, 103ff. See also t. Abod. Zar. 3.12 where a Jew may circumcise a gentile
for the purpose of conversion to Judaism, but a gentile may not circumcise a Jew. Circumcision
divided Jews from gentiles–Gen. Rab. 46.9.

64
and elders (Acts 15:6).14 The fact that circumcision is singled out as the primary issue
for the convocation of the first meeting where decisions for the future direction of the
church are to be taken, underlines its importance. Whether or not the Council is
actually historical does not alter the fact that it seems that it was the Pauline view
that prevailed.

Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break
the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those
who are uncircumcised keep the requirement of the law, will not their
uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then those who are
physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you that
have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For a
person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision
something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart – it is spiritual
and not literal (Rom 2:25–29).15

Romans expresses a view that is Jewish in essence, being an interpretation that is

liberal and inclusive, in contrast to strict and exclusive halakhah found in Qumran
documents. Thus Paul, in liberalising the ritual requirements of Jewish law, paved
the way for the entry of non-Jewish converts.

That the Pauline view prevailed is indicated further by the fact that circumcision
appears not to have been mentioned in church council complaints against judaising
Christians,16 though circumcision as a non religious practice continues to be practised
today.

The Graeco-Roman writers are consistent in mentioning circumcision as a

distinguishing feature of Judaism, whereas they do not link it to Christian practice. 17

14
See also Gal 2:1–10, and Acts 7:8. Circumcision also is an issue in Stephen’s speech. (Acts
10:45; 11:2–3).
15
For circumcision of the heart see Jer 4:4 and 6:10.
16
See Epiphanius and Novella 6 of Justinian. See Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain: Leur
Condition juridique, économique et sociale (2 vols, New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 269–
271, n. 6.
17
See Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1974), vol. 1, 69ff (no. 55 Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, I.28.1–3–
Vogel = F33r), 225 (no. 81 Josephus, Ant. 13.319 Niese), 300 (no. 115, Strabo, Geographica
16,2:37), 312 (no. 118 Strabo, Geographica 16.4.9), 315 (no. 124 Geographica 17.2.5, but he is
incorrect about Jews practising female circumcision), 325 (no. 129 Horace, Sermones (1.60–78),

65
In the second century, Hadrian outlawed circumcision and showed intolerance for the
rituals of Judaism, apparently wishing to obliterate all traces of Judaism from
Jerusalem. During the period of Hadrian’s attack on Jerusalem (132–5 CE) many
sought to hide their circumcision, but after the Bar Kochba rebellion, when no longer
under Roman control, many of these Jews were circumcised again.18

The Christian anti-Jewish polemicists did not hesitate to point out circumcision as a
distinguishing feature of Judaism, whilst negatively contrasting physical
circumcision to circumcision of the heart.19 The Church Fathers wrote consistently
about the futility of circumcision, arguing that this was a rite the Jews shared with
other peoples, thus proving it was not a privilege.20 In addition, its value as a sign
was questioned for it was argued that it was a male prerogative.

Moreover, the fact that females cannot receive circumcision of

the flesh shows that circumcision was given as a sign, not as
an act of justification (Justin, Dial. 23.5)21

The Christian polemicists usually make a distinction between circumcision which

was required of Abraham when already justified by faith, and point out that the older
patriarchs from Adam to Enoch, and then Melchizedek were uncircumcised.22

356 (no. 146 Ptolemy, Historia Herodis, apud Ammonius, De Adfinium Vocabulorum
Differentia, no 243–Nickau), 415 (no. 176 Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.137–Niese) 436 (no.
190 Saturae, 5.176-184–Clausen) 442–444 (nos. 194–195 Satyricon, 64.4–8; 102.13–14;
Fragmenta no. 37–Ernout), 525f (no. 240 Martial, Epigrammata, 7.30–Lindsay), 528 (no. 246
Martial, Epigrammata 12.57.1–14–Lindsay) 2:19–26 (no. 281 Tacitus, Historiae 5:1,
Koestermann, ‘They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other people by their
difference’). Juster also gives an exhaustive list of sources. See Juster, Les Juifs, 263–71ff.
18
See Hist. Aug. Hadrian, 14; Dio Cassius 69.12.1; t. Shab. 15.9 and Lawrence H. Schiffman, ‘At
the Crossroads: Tannaitic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism’, in Sanders, Jewish and
Christian, vol. 2, 125–7.
19
See Aphrates, Hom 11.1.3.7. Zeno of Verona devoted an entire sermon to circumcision,
summarising the arguments Christians had devised against physical circumcision in contrast to
circumcision of the heart. See Tract 13 (PL 11.2:345ff).
20
See Barn. 9:6; Justin, Dial. 16.2–3; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 3. See also Justin, Dial. 28.4.
21
See Writings of Justin Martyr: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schopp (ed),
New York, Christian Heritage, 1948,183.
22
Justin, Dial. 19.4; 23.4; 33.2; 46.3; 92.3. For a fuller discussion see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel:
A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (135–425), tr. H.
McKeating (Oxford University Press for Littman Library, 1986), 164–6.

66
Circumcision, Immersion and Baptism

In Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, Christian baptism was seen as the fulfilment and
replacement of circumcision (Col 2;11). In Acts, baptism was portrayed as washing
away sins if one had true repentance. (Acts 2:38; 3:19). The Septuagint translates the
Hebrew verb kcy as β£πτω, a term expressing the removal of ritual impurity.23 In
the New Testament, the verb (β£πτω) ‘to dip or immerse’ is used also in the literal
sense, the term ‘baptism’ (β£πτισµα) being derived from this verb.

An extension of the general custom of ritual lustration in Judaism was proselyte

baptism, which was used for gentile converts to Judaism. Proselytism appears to
have been practised in the first century CE. Different approaches were evident, as
indicated by the differing attitudes of Shammai and Hillel to the request of a
prospective proselyte to be taught the principles of Judaism.24

When the Temple stood, a proselyte was required to sacrifice a burnt offering either
of cattle or two young pigeons, as well as undergo circumcision and then ritual
immersion. However, R. Yohanan ben Zakkai is said to have ruled that in those
times when sacrifice was no longer possible, a proselyte was not obliged to set aside
money for the sacrifice. Thus, of the three rituals connected with conversion, only
circumcision and ritual immersion remained after the fall of the Temple.25 Yet there
were differing opinions: R. Eliezer and R. Joshua are reported as disagreeing as to
whether someone who immersed himself but was not circumcised or vice versa
could be considered a proselyte.26 Thus, in the first century when Paul was active, he
took the view that gentile converts were not required to undergo circumcision, but
ritual immersion or baptism was a requirement for entry into Christianity. Both

23
Matt 23:15. Contra Ap. 2.39 relates that the inhabitants of both the Greek and barbarian cities
showed a great zeal for Judaism.
24
b. Shab. 31a.
25
See b. Ker. 9a.
26
See b. Yeb. 46b–47a. On the other hand, the Talmud prescribes that a woman proselyte is
required to sit in water up to her neck while two learned men stand outside and give her
instructions in some of the major and minor commandments.

67
circumcision and ritual immersion for converts were to become mandatory in
Judaism after the fall of the Temple and the codification of the Mishnah.

This data indicates that, in fact, non-circumcision for gentile converts was an issue
over which early Christianity began to separate from Judaism.27 This step towards
separation had occurred already in the first century and possibly before 70 CE.
Christianity was to take a different path from Judaism by the spiritualisation of
circumcision28 and the abolition of physical circumcision with the substitution of
baptism in Christ for ritual immersion.

A further parallel with baptism and ritual immersion is indicated in the talmudic text
which declares that a proselyte ends all family ties upon conversion and is considered
to be as a newly born child.29

Dietary Regulations

In ruling that gentile converts were not required to keep the ritual prescriptions of
Jewish law exception was made for abstaining from food polluted by idols,30 from
πορνειαj – sexual immorality,31 from the meat of strangled animals32 and the blood.

27
Jewish Christians such as Ebionites and Elkasaites were distinguished by their respect for ritual
observance, especially the rite of circumcision. (Epiphanius, Haer.19.3.5ff.), and followed
Christian observances as well as Jewish observances (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.27.5).
28
Justin speaks of the eighth day in connection with circumcision, and says this day also does not
cease to be called the first. See Justin, Dial. 41:4. See also Enoch 33:2. Later in the third century
Cyprian speaks of the eighth day, calling it the day after the Sabbath, the day of resurrection
when the Lord gives spiritual circumcision. See Cyprian, Epistula 64:4. Ambrose develops the
thought of Cyprian in the fourth century, calling the eighth day the day of the perfect
circumcision that is passed down to all humankind. See Ambrose, Epistula 31(44) ad
Orontianum. In his commentary on the Psalms 43:62 Ambrose introduces other biblical
witnesses for the number eight: Hosea 3:1–2; and Micah 5:4–5.
29
b. Yeb 22a.
30
The flesh of animals slain for non-Jewish sacrifices. See Lev 17:8–9. See also Acts 15:29; 21:25,
I Cor 8:10 and b. Hul. 6:2.
31
This word appears to refer to the irregular unions listed in Lev 18. Such practices involved legal
impurity. In some manuscripts, porneias changes place with haimatos (the blood) and is placed
first. The Western text omits the word porneias. Porneia was used of incest and homosexuality
(Lev 18:22); T. Benj. 9:1; Jubilees 20:5.

68
(Acts 15:20; 27–29). Verse 20 of Acts 15 appears in two different forms in the
Western and Alexandrian families of manuscripts.

Codex D of the Western text (as is the case in 15:29 and 21:25) omits ‘the meat of
strangled animals’, and adds ‘after the blood’ and ‘do not do to others what one
would not have done to oneself’, the negative form of the Golden Rule.33 These
changes make the list an ethical one: ‘Abstain from idolatry, from fornication, from
bloodshed and do not do to others what one would not have done to oneself’. The
uncials ‘B’ and aleph (of the Alexandrian manuscripts) omit the Golden Rule:
‘Abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what has been
strangled and from blood’ but include ‘the meat of strangled animals’. Talbert
comments that the second is more likely to have been the original text.34

The severity with which the law forbids blood (Lev 1:5f; Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 17:10–
14), explains James’ unwillingness to dispense gentiles from this prohibition. Again,
as blood remains in strangled animals, this is part of the previous prohibition. James’
prescription may be understood against the background of Lev 17–18, if one accepts
that James considered the converted gentiles as analogous to the foreigners of
Leviticus.35 These ritual exceptions announced by James indicate that the question at
issue concerned practices Hellenistic Christians should follow, so that Christians of
Jewish origin could mix with them without incurring legal impurity.36

While the observance of Christian abstinence from meat sacrificed to idols and from
strangled animals retained the force of church law in the east, some vestiges
remained in the western church.37 In the middle of the fourth century, the Council of

32
See Lev 17:13–14; Philo Spec. Leg 4.122. See also Clem. Hom. 7.8; 8.19. Clem. Rec. 4: 36
shows the obligations were enforced for Jewish-Christians.
33
Also v. 29.
34
See Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of
the Apostles (New York, Crossroad, 1997), 141–142.
35
See Talbert, Reading Acts, 141.
36
See Simon, Verus Israel, 334ff.
37
See PL 42: 504. Augustine, Contra Faust 32.13.

69
Gangra, the metropolis of Paphlagonia in Asia Minor, asserted the obligation of
avoiding strangled meat and meat offered to idols.38 Sacrifices to idols were
widespread in fifth century Asia Minor, although Christianisation had begun to take
hold. In some areas, though very little had changed in rural religious practices since
the pre-Christian period, by the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, there were
bishops in most of the cities of Asia Minor.39 However, the literary sources indicate
that the local cultures of Asia Minor adapted slowly to the new religion.40 The synod
met to rectify several misdemeanours arising from the ascetic teachings of
Eustathius, whose errors included the forbidding of all animal food.41 Canon two
reads:

Si quis eum qui carnem praeter sanguinem, et idolothytum, et

sussocatum, cum pietate et fide comedit, condemnat, tamquam eo
quod ea vescatur, spem non habeat, sit anathema.

If anyone condemns one who eats meat, though that person abstains
from blood, sacrifices offered to idols and strangled animals, and is
devout and faithful, as if in doing so had no hope of salvation, let (the
one who condemns) be anathema.42

The form Si quis appears to indicate a legal innovation. Again, these measures did
not require authorisation from secular powers.43

38
The exact date is unknown, and the identity of Bishop Eusebius, mentioned by the text, is also
uncertain.
39
Hefele adds the comment that the Greeks, being very pedantic, were attempting to make a
temporary prescription of the apostolic times, then necessary to unite Jewish and gentile
Christians, into a rule of perpetual validity. See Karle Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils
of the Church from the Original Documents, tr. William R Clark, reprint (5 vols, New York, AMS
Press, 1972), vol. 5, 232–3. Trombley’s work makes it evident that Christianity was still but a
facade to Hellenic religion in some areas. Frank R. Trombley, Hellenic Religions and
Christianisation c.370-539 (Leiden, Brill, 1995), vol. 2, 75.
40
See Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 2, 75.
41
See J. D. Mansi, Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (Graz, Akademische Druck-
U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960), vol. 2, 1095 and Hefele, vol. 2, 326ff.
42
See Mansi, vol. 2, 1099 and Hefele, vol. 2, 328.
43
See Walter Pakter, ‘Early Western Church Law and the Jews’, in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei
Hata (eds), Eusebius,Christianity and Judaism (Detroit, Wayne State University, 1992), 717.

70
Several centuries later, there still are echoes of this prohibition.44 Trombley adds the
comment: ‘A deep sense of insecurity toiled beneath the public facade of
Christianisation, a feeling that would prevail well into the early medieval period’.
There was a strong pre-Christian stratum of religious belief and behaviour in the less
accessible parts of Asia Minor that lasted at least into the seventh century.45 This is
illustrated by the canons of the Council of 691–692 in Trullo, which addressed the
question of the survival of Hellenic cult practices. However, as is clear from the
evidence in canonical decrees, though early church councils deplored social contact
with Jews, the church possessed no legal power to inflict punishment on them. Any
moral punishment was confined to Christian offenders.

Anti-Jewish Canons

Leaving aside the Council of Jerusalem, it appears that it was not until early in the
fourth century that the first known anti-Jewish canons from a church council
appeared, not in the east in Asia Minor, where the Jewish population was the most
concentrated, but at the Council of Elvira in Spain about the year 305, where there
was a sizeable Jewish population. This emerged, despite the fact that in the west, the
density of the Jewish population was perceptibly less than in the east.46 The canons
suggest that Jews were numerous in Spain, and the fact that most of the canons
regarding Jews are repressive indicates that Jews were seen as a threat to
Christianity. Juster’s list of established Jewish settlements in Visigothic times,47
indicates that a large proportion of the Jewish population was concentrated in
northern Baetica, Cordova, Tucci and Elvira, while other nearby cities possessed

44
See Canon 2, in Mansi, vol 2, 1099. See also Hefele, vol. 2, 328. Canon 67 of the Trullo Synod
expressly renews the prohibition of blood. (692 CE). See Mansi, vol. 11, 974. In the eighth
century, Gregory the Third imposed forty days penance on those who broke the rule of blood.
See Simon, Verus Israel, 336, n. 147 and Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 2, 82.
45
See Trombley, Hellenic Religions, 1, 182.
46
See Simon, Verus Israel, 296.
47
Juster, Les Juifs, vol. 1, 183–184. Jewish inscriptions have been found at Villamesias (north of
Merida), Tortosa (Dertosa), Tarragona (Tarraco), Majorca, Ibiza, Elche (Klici) and Adra
(Abdera). See also D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe (Cambridge University Press,
1993), 238–63.

71
strong Jewish populations, making it feasible that the anti-Jewish canons were
proposed by Baetician bishops.48 The Council of Elvira followed in the wake of
Diocletian’s persecutions, the latter abdicating on 1 May 305, a fact which also
indicates a feeling of vulnerability in the church. 49 However, the councils of Gaul
were apparently less developed than in the east, there being little Spanish conciliar
activity from the time of Elvira till the councils of Toledo.50

Feldman comments that the fact that the interdictions concern specific practices
could indicate that these were the very practices the church feared would lead
Christians to apostasy or heresy, through their socialising with Jews.51 Shortly
afterwards, these anti-Jewish measures from Elvira were taken up by the emperor
Constantine,52 and adopted, with many variations, especially in Gaul, by many later
councils.53 This fact demonstrates that without the help of the emperor, the church
would have been considerably less effective in enforcing such measures. The
assistance of the emperor meant that the church could incorporate imperial laws into
its canonical legislation, and add laws of its own, especially in the areas of social
relations, religious fraternising and sexual relations. Further, it seems evident that the
Councils of Gaul maintained the anti-Jewish measures voiced at Elvira until the
decisive victory of the Catholic Church over Arianism.54

According to the nineteenth century commentator on the Council of Elvira, Alfred

48
See Victor de Clerq, Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian
Period (Washington, Catholic University of America, 1954), 42.
49
See Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1982), 197.
50
See Gaudemet, L' Eglise, vol. 3, 36.
51
See L. H. Feldman, ‘Proselytism by Jews in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Centuries’, in JSJ, 24:1
(1993), 23.
52
See C. Th. 3.7.2; 9.7.5.
53
Specifically these were the first Council of Vannes (465 CE), Mansi, vol. 7, 954; Council of
Epaon (517 CE), Mansi, vol. 8, 561; Council of Arles (533 CE), Mansi, vol. 8, 838, and the
Council of Orleans (558 CE), Mansi, vol. 9, 2. See Albert Bat-Ševa, ‘Un nouvel examen de la
politique anti-juive: A propos d’un article récent’, REJ, 135:1 (1975), 6, n. 14.
54
Albert Bat-Ševa, ‘Un nouvel examen’, 6.

72
Winterslow Dale, ‘the true aim of the Council of Elvira was to base the social life of
the community upon principles which without revolutionising the actual condition
and organisation of the social fabric, would yet secure its members against the
special entanglements which would draw them away from their faith and from their
friends’.55 Whatever the motives for the Council, it appears evident that intermarriage
and sexual relations between Jews and Christians from the time of the Council of
Elvira were the subject of continual ecclesiastical prohibition, indicating that these
problems occured.56 Again, the Canons from the Council of Elvira indicate that the
greatest danger was anticipated from the side of the Jews, for the regulations
affecting them were the most numerous and the most severe. At the time, restrictions
were confined to personal and social relations.57

The sources indicate that nineteen bishops who came from all parts of Spain were
present at Elvira when five anti-Jewish measures were adopted.58 The number of
bishops present may have been as high as forty-three.59 The anti-Jewish measures
forbade intermarriage between Christians and Jews (Canon 16), and the related
canon that adultery with Jewesses was forbidden (Canon 78), forbade Christians to
eat with Jews (Canon 50), the making of the Sabbath into a festival (Canon 29) and
included the prohibition of having fields blessed by Jews (Canon 49), ‘lest they make
our blessing invalid (irritam) and feeble (infirmam).60 Evidently this practice was
viewed with some seriousness, as punishment involved complete exclusion from the
church.61 The first and the third anti-Jewish measures in particular, intermarriage and

55
See Alfred William Winterslow Dale, The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth
Century: A Historical Essay (London, Macmillan, 1882), 252.
56
See Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fraticide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York,
Seabury Press), 1979), 191.
57
See Dale, The Synod, 253.
58
See Mansi, vol. 2, 357–97, 469.
59
Hefele, vol. 1, 132
60
See Mansi, vol. 2, 306. ‘Admoneri placuit possessores, ut non patiantur fructur suos, quos a Deo
percipiunt cum gratiarum actione, a Judaeis benedici; ne nostram irritam & infirmam faciant
benedictionem. Si quis post interdictum facere usurparit, penitus ab ecclesia abjiciatur.’
61
See Feldman, ‘Proselytism’, 23.

73
eating with Jews, were to be repeated by councils outside of Spain and beyond the
geographical confines of Gaul. However, the fact that these measures were decreed at
this time indicates a high degree of socialisation between Jews and Christians in this
area of the Iberian peninsula. The decisions also indicate a level of uneasiness among
the church authorities as to judaising practices. At this stage, the decisions were only
of local importance, but they could be regarded as a test of the gathering antagonism
of the church authorities towards the Jewish population.

Intermarriage

An area that evidently was a cause for concern for the Emperor and the church
authorities was the question of intermarriage. In the case of the marriage of Jews and
Christians it could be, as Rosemary Ruether suggests, that the main purpose for its
prevention was the fear of judaising by the non-Jewish partner.62

Legislation against intermarriage was to be repeated throughout conciliar legislation

for centuries, indicating that the prevention of marriage between Jews and Christians
was not entirely successful, despite the very harsh punishment exacted both by the
imperial authorities and the church, and Jewish opposition to intermarriage.

Canon 16 of Elvira reads:

Haereticis si se transferre noluerint ad ecclesiam catholicam, ne ipsis

catholicas dandas puellas; sed neque Judaeis, neque schismaticis dari
placuit, eo quod nulla possit esse societas fidelis cum infideli: si
contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstinere per quinquennium
placet.63

If heretics do not wish to submit themselves to the discipline of the

Catholic Church, Catholic girls are not to be given to them (in
marriage). The decree has been made not to give them to Jews or
heretics, since there may be no association of believers with non-
believers. If the parents (or relatives) disregard this prohibition, they

62
This is suggested by Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 189.
63
Mansi, vol. 2, 191–2.

74
 must abstain (from communion) for five years.64

This early conciliar interdiction on intermarriage only appears to prohibit

intermarriage to Jewish men, for nothing is said about marriage to Jewish women.
Apparently, ancient statutes did not attempt to cover every eventuality, often being
restricted only to problematic cases.65 Apparently marriages to Jewish women were
not considered to be a problem, possibly due to the ingrained natural resistance to
intermarriage with Jewish women by Christian men.66 Again, one could presume
reciprocal reluctance from the Jewish side.

Again, in this canon, Jews are apparently equated with heretics, the same penalties
for disobedience being meted out for marriage with Jews or heretics, both of whom
are ostensibly condemned for not subscribing to belief in all the teachings of the
Catholic Church. It is likewise implied that if the heretic or Jew is willing to be
converted (probably more specifically as regards orthodox christological doctrine)
then intermarriage is permitted. However, the fifteenth canon of Elvira, which
forbids intermarriage with non-believers, fixes no penalty for disobedience. Why this
difference?

Dale highlights the point that the number of women among the Christians of this
time was large in comparison with that of the men, though he does not give his
sources for this conclusion.67 Thus the men could readily find Christian wives,

64
The third Council of Carthage, in its twelfth canon forbids the sons and daughters of the bishops
and clergy to marry unbelievers, (Gentilibus), heretics and schmismatics. Jews are not mentioned
specifically, in these reconstructed canons, but were included in the interdicts concerning
schismatics, according to the commentary in Mansi, vol. 2, 191. Item placuit, ut filii vel filia
episcoporum, vel quorum-libet clericorum, Gentilibus, vel haereticis, aut schismaticis
matrimonio non jungantur. See also Mansi, vol. 8, 646. The African Council of 525 under
Boniface of Carthage renews several earlier decisions, including those of the third Carthaginian
synod. This latter council appears to have been held in 397 on the 28 August. See Hefele, vol. 2,
401, 407.
65
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 720, n. 83.
66
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 720.
67
The Roman army hired mercenaries to do much of their fighting but warfare would have
accounted for the killing of large numbers of the male population. See Pan.Lat. XII. 22 (Goths as
mercenaries).

75
whereas, for many Christian women, the choice was either to remain unmarried or to
marry outside the faith. He suggests that marriage with heretics or Jews was seen by
the church as the greater of the two evils. Both belonged to the minority groups and
possessed positive convictions as compared with the unbelievers, whose beliefs were
less rigid and more tolerant and who were likely to make fewer demands. He reasons
that the unbeliever would be more likely to allow his wife to follow her own
religious practices, than either a Jew or a heretic.68 Dale adds that the wording
suggests a recommendation, to be enforced by the moral sense of the community,
rather than by condemnation and sentence by law.69

Thus, due no doubt to the growing problem of intermarriage, the church found it
imperative to restrict marriage between Christians and Jews. The parents of the bride
were penalised by five years' suspension from communion with the church, as they
were held responsible for such engagements, being punished by the fifty-fourth
canon for breach of contract in betrothal. The woman, in marrying a Jew would be
cut off from the church altogether.70

If intermarriage was forbidden by the church at the Council of Elvira, the same
measure is balanced on the Jewish side by the stricter view found in the oral law
which unequivocally forbids the marriage of non Jews with Jews,71 and the Jewish
written law which forbids marriage with non-Jews.72

An accompanying canon, no. 78 from Elvira, forbids adultery with a Jewish or pagan

68
See Dale, The Synod, 261–2.
69
See Dale, The Synod, 260. See Canon 15: ‘ Propter copiam puellarum gentilibus minime in
matrimonium dandae sunt virgines Christianae, ne aetas in flore tumens in adulterium animae
resolvatur . Hefele, vol. 1, 144.
70
See comments by Dale, The Synod, 258–259. The Council of Toledo decreed that Jews with
Christian wives were to become Christian, or separate from them, and the Council of Clermont
declared that husband and wife were to be excommunicated. 4 Toledo LXII, and C. Arvernens.
(Clermont) VI.
71
See b.Abod. Zar 36b; b. Kid. 66b, 68b; b. Yeb 23a. This is also mentioned by Josephus, AJ 8. 7.
5; Philo, De Spec Leg 3. 5. 29; Tacitus, Hist 5.
72
See Gen 43:14ff; Ex 34:16; Num 25; Deut 7:3ff; I Kgs 11:1ff; Ezra 10; Neh 13:23ff. See also
Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9:22; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 3:5: Josephus, AJ 20.7.2.

76
woman, and decrees a penance of five years if the offender has not confessed
himself. If he has made a spontaneous confession, the canon makes a vague threat
that the offender should be excommunicated (arceatur) but it does not stipulate the
length of time for this punishment. Hefele, quoting the opinion of Mendoza in Mansi
1, 388 suggests that it could be supposed that this was for three years, according to
the analogy with the 76th canon of Elvira, which says that if a deacon has committed
a mortal sin, and makes known his fault, he may be received into communion, after
three years of penance. If another makes known his fault, he may be received into
communion after five years of penance.73 However, one may query the length of
penance being for three years, while the 69th canon decrees five years’ punishment
for every adulterer.74 An added reason to reject this opinion would be the resulting
discrepancy in the severity of the punishment for real adultery covered in canon 78
with that of canon 72, the evidently less criminal offence of a widow having sexual
relations with a man whom she subsequently marries.

Si quis fidelis habens uxorem cum Judaea vel Gentili fuerit

moechatus, a communione arceatur: Quod si alius eum detexeret,
post quinquennium, acta legitima poenitentia poterit dominicae
sociari communioni.75

If one of the faithful has committed adultery with a Jewess or pagan

woman, he shall be excommunicated. In the case where his sin was
discovered by another, after five years’ acts of legitimate penitence,
he is able to return to the society of Sunday communion.76

The punishment is the same, whether adultery be with a Jew or a pagan. Is the
implication that the crime is less serious if the adultery be with another Christian?

About one hundred and twenty-five years after the Council of Elvira, Canon 14 of
the Council of the fifteenth session of the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) also speaks

73
See Hefele, vol. 1, 169.
74
See Hefele, vol. 1, 170.
75
Mansi, vol. 2, 388.
76
See Hefele, vol. 1, 167–71.

77
of the forbidden grades of intermarriage between Christians with Jews and heretics,
adding heathens (pagani) or Hellenists (Helleni). .

Quoniam in nonnullis provinciis concessum est lectoribus &

cantoribus uxores ducere, decrevit sancta synodus nulli eorum licere
diversae a recta opinionis uxorem ducere: eos autem qui ex ejusmodi
matrimonio liberos susceperunt, si eos quidem baptizare apud
haereticos praevenerint, ad catholicae ecclesiae communionem
adducere: si autem non baptizaverint, non posse eos apud haereticos
baptizare. Sed neque haeretico, vel pagano, vel Judaeo, matrimonio
conjungere, nisi utique persona, quae orthodoxae conjungitur, se ad
orthodoxam fidem convertendam spondeat. Si quis autem hoc sanctae
synodi decretum transgressus fuerit, canonicis poenis subjiciatur.77

Whereas in some provinces readers and singers are permitted to

marry, this holy synod decrees that none of these shall take a
heterodox wife; but those who already have children from such unions
(with heterodox wives) if they have already allowed them to be
baptised by heretics, must bring them into the communion of the
Catholic Church. If, however, they are not yet baptised, then they
must not allow them to be baptised by heretics, or to marry heretics or
pagans or Jews, unless the person who is to be united with the
orthodox party promises to adopt the orthodox faith. If any one
transgresses this ordinance of the holy synod, he shall be punished
according to the canon.

According to the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus, who speaks only of the
daughters of the lectors and singers, the meaning probably may not be understood to
mean that the sons of readers may marry heretics, Jews or pagans, but simply that the
latter possibility was less of a problem, Hefele expressing the prevailing view held
that men are less easily led to fall away from the faith than women.78 It appears that
the canon does not mean that other Christians are free to marry Jews, as in 339 CE
Constantine had passed a law prohibiting Jews from marrying women from the
weaving factories (C.Th.16.8.6 [13/8/39]), a measure which was reinforced by the
harsh blanket decree in the year 388 of Theodosius I that made it the crime of
adultery for any Christian to marry a Jew, and exacted capital punishment for the
crime (C.Th.3.7.2 and 9.7.5 [14/3/388]). Again, why are lectors and singers

77
See Mansi, vol. 7, 363. The first part of the canon has been inserted by Gratian, c.15, Dist. xxxii.
78
See Hefele, 3, 400–1. The Arabic canons of Nicaea, rediscovered at Mt Athos, although
commonly held to be spurious, express this view. (See Canon 53). See Pakter, ‘Early Western’,
722.

78
particularly singled out, if not that their official function in the liturgy required a
higher standard of acceptable behaviour than that of the ordinary Christian? It
appears that the one-sided prohibition of marriage to Jewish men was accepted in
some regions, such as Spain, while other regions excluded all marriages to Jews.
While in Spain the one sided ban on marriages to Jewish men existed, all marriages
to Jews were forbidden by St Ambrose, and by Lex Romana Burgundionum, canon
19:100, suggesting that intermarriage between Christian women and Jewish men
occurred frequently enough for this legislation to be passed. 79
Imperial legislation
further exacerbated the position of Jews by decreeing that Jews must observe
Christian laws on marriage, divorce and consanguinity, a measure which
considerably compromised traditional Jewish marriage law but which may not have
been successfully enforced.80

Eating with Jews

Meals with Jews were forbidden at Elvira, as Canon 50 states:

Si vero quis clericus fuerit, sive fidelis, qui cum Judaeis cibum
sumpserit, placuit, eum a communione abstineri, ut debeat emendari.81

If, in fact any among the clerics and faithful should dine with Jews, it
is resolved that he should abstain from communion, so that he should
be corrected.

The immediate result of such a prohibition, with the indefinite punishment attached
to its violation of excommunication from church activities, would have been to
restrict all free association with Jews.

Again, Pakter points out that the term placuit (it is resolved) is used regularly for

79
See Pakter, ‘Early Western,’ 722. While in Spain the one sided ban on marriages to Jewish men
existed, all marriages to Jews were forbidden by St Ambrose, and by Lex Romana
Burgundionum, canon 19:100, suggesting that intermarriage between Christian women and
Jewish men occurred frequently enough for this legislation to be passed.
80
See commentary by Ruether, Faith and Fratricide, 190.
81
Mansi, vol .2, 307.

79
provisions upon which agreement is reached only after a considerable degree of
controversy.82 This in itself would indicate that meals with Jews were a common
event.

This canon was repeated in a very similar form at many councils in Spain and Gaul,
and in other areas. Thus, for example, the fifth Council of Carthage in 421 devoted
its 7th canon to the subject, stipulating that Christians were not to eat with Jews.
Christianus cum Judaeis non manducet.83

At the Council of Vannes (Brittany) in 465 AD, the first Frankish canon on the
subject of the Jews was passed. Six bishops were present when it was decreed that
clerics were not to eat with Jews (Ut clerici Judaeorum convivi declinent),84 which
implied that clerics were not permitted to partake of meals in Jewish precincts, nor
could these clerics invite Jews to their meals. Forty one years later at Agde, in 506
CE in South Gaul, when thirtyfive bishops were present, the prohibition reappears,
with the added stricture, that lay people are to be excluded as well from eating with
Jews.85 There are two versions. In the first codex, canon 40 is summarised as: Ne
Christiani Judaeorum utantur conviviis (Christians are not to enjoy conviviality with
Jews) and in the second: Christianus cum Judaeis non manducet (Christians are not
to eat with Jews).86

Omnes deinceps clerici, sive laici, Judaeorum convivia evitent: nec

eos ad convivium quisquam excipiat. Quia cum apud Christianos
cibis communibus non utantur, indignum est, atque sacrilegum,
eorum cibos a Christianis sumi; cum ea quae apostolo permittente nos
sumimus, ab illis judicentur immunda: ac sic inferiores incipiant esse
Christiani, quam Judaei, si nos quae ab illis apponuntur utamur, illi
82
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 717. The term placuit also occurs in the wording of Canon 49 of
Elvira about the blessing of Christian fields by Jews.
83
See Mansi, vol. 4, 492.
84
This form of the canon reappears at the Council of Venice in 665 (Mansi 7,951-4 ff.), where only
the clerics are forbidden to eat with Jews. See Canon 12 of Vannes, in Hefele, History of the
Church Councils, 4, 17.
85
Near the shore of the Mediteranean, in the province of Languedoc.
86
See Mansi, vol. 7, 319–23 ff.

80
 vero a nobis oblata contemnant.87

Everyone successively, whether clergy or lay is to avoid conviviality

with Jews; and is not to accept any conviviality with them. Because,
when among Christians they do not use the common food, it is
shameful and sacrilegious that their food be taken by Christians, since
the things that we take with permission of the apostle are judged
unclean by them. And so Christians begin to be inferior to Jews, if we
use what is laid out by them, but they spurn what is offered by us

The interdiction is laboriously expressed. The specific reference to Jews in Brittany

is unexpected, as there Jews were apparently never numerous, and had come to the
Province relatively late, in comparison with the east. The only places in Gaul where
Jews were relatively numerous were Nantes and Guérande.88 As one of the
signatories to the Council documents was Nunechius, the Bishop of Nantes, this
may account partly for the anti-Jewish bias. Blumenkranz analyses the three elements
of the prohibition thus, harmonising the various elements of the different canons and
law codes that describe it.

1. Omnes deinceps clerici... a Christianis sumi.

2. Indignum est atque sacrilegum Judaeorum cibos…judicentur
immunda.
3. Omnes d.c. excipiat, quia inferiores inciperent esse clerici…
oblata contemnant.

Here are three parallel justifications for not eating with Jews. Firstly, it would be
unworthy on the part of Christians to eat the food of Jews since Jews refused to eat
Christian food. Secondly, Jews refuse to eat Christian food since they consider it to
be impure (not kosher), but the Christian knows that, thanks to apostolic
authorisation, this food may be eaten. Thirdly, if Christians agree to eat with Jews,
they admit their inferiority.89 Thus, the church canons are specific about naming Jews
directly, indicating the feeling of insecurity of a religion struggling to define itself,
which is not the case with the Jewish sources.

87
This repeats, word for word, the decree of Vannes. Mansi, vol. 7, 331–2.
88
Jews were expelled from Brittany on 10 April 1240. See Bernard Blumenkranz, Juifs et
Chrétiens: Patristique et moyen age (London,Variorum Reprints, 1977), 1055, n. 2.
89
See Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chrétiens, 1056–7.

81
Jewish Sources on the Question of Eating with Gentiles

The Jewish sources do not say directly that Jews cannot eat with Christians.
However, some of the views on the non-acceptance of food from non-Jews are
summarised in Massechet Kutim (dealing with the Samaritans) at the end of the
fourth seder of the Babylonian Talmud, with some laws appearing first in Mishnah
Abodah Zara, Kiddushin, Chullin, and Bechoroth. The laws tend to use terms such as
‘gentiles’ (ohud) or ‘idol worshippers’ (ohcfuf hscug) which cover Hellenistic

religions and other terms, such as minim (ohbhn), which occasionally refer to
Christians.

Their produce (Samaritan) is forbidden as untithed, as in the case of the gentiles (m.
Kut. 1:9). However, there is a contradiction to this law (t. Dem. 3:3), which may
reflect that the opinion comes from a different time or area.90 Fruit from markets that
grew in the royal country where a mixture of Jews and gentiles was settled was
considered dema'i (suspect). However, part was liable to tithing. When the royal hill
country became a predominantly gentile settlement in the days of Abbahu,91 all
produce was forbidden to Jews (y .Demai 2:1). This was due to the fear that the food
bought from the gentiles may have been used in idol worship and was not ritually
pure (b. Hul. 6:2).

They (the Samaritans) invalidate the Erub92 even as the gentiles. (m.
Kut. 1:10.).

The slaughtering by a non-Jew is deemed as carrion (vkcb) (m. Hul.

90
See also t. Dem. 5:21-22 (tithes from Gentiles) and y. Dem. 3:4. (giving grain to an idolatrous
miller). See B. Maisler, ‘Der District Šrq in den Samarischen Ostraka’, JPOS, 14 (1943), 97.
See also S. Klein, ‘The Land of the Samaritans in the time of the Talmud’, (Hebrew) JJ, 6
(1913), 158.
91
R. Abbahu lived in Caesarea in the latter part of the third century and at the beginning of the
fourth. He had many contacts with heretics, minim, who, in some cases were certainly Christians.
A Christian contemporary of Abbahu, Origen of Alexandria, also lived in Caesarea for a time. (y.
Dem. 2:1). See R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (Clifton, New Jersey,
Reference Book Publishers, 1966) 62.
92
Legal prescription to allow the keeping within Sabbath limits.

82
 1:1)

[The milk in the] stomach [of a beast slaughtered by] a gentile

(idolator) or [in the stomach of a beast that had become] carrion is
prohibited. (m. Hul. 8:5).93

The tractate Aboda Zara details rules for the purchasing of food and doing business
with gentiles before their festivals, but since the Kalends, the Saturnalia, the
commemoration of the Empire, the anniversaries of kings and the day of their birth
and of their death are stipulated, it is likely that Christians are not implicated here.94
Numerous foods that cannot be bought from gentiles are stipulated, such as wine,
vinegar,95 and unsupervised milk,96 but the permitted foods, which include honey and
certain vegetables also are listed.

These are [even] permitted as food: milk which a gentile milked when
an Israelite watched him; honey or honeycomb (even though they drip
with moisture they do not come within the law of food rendered
susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid) (Lev 1:36,38); picked
vegetables into which it is not their custom to put wine or vinegar;
unminced fish, or brine containing fish; a [whole] loaf of asafoetida or
pickled olive-cakes. R. Jose says: If the olives are sodden (they may
have been soaked in wine) they are forbidden. Locusts that come out
of the [shopkeeper’s] basket are forbidden (he is suspected of
sprinkling them with wine); but those from the shop-store are
permitted. And the same applied to Heave-offering. (m. Abod. Zar
2:7).

Such rules would make it difficult for Jews to eat with non-Jews. However, inviting
non-Jews to meals does not appear to have been forbidden.

Superstition and Magic

It is evident that the early Christians of gentile origin at least, ascribed magical
powers to Jewish religious symbols, and also to Jewish religious rites themselves.

93
See also m. Bek. (firstlings) 3:12 pertaining to the purchasing of beasts from gentiles.
94
m. Abod. Zar. 1:1ff.
95
See m. Abod. Zar. 2:7.
96
m. Abod. Zar. 3:6.

83
Thus we find specific canons relating to these practices, from the Synod of Laodicea
in Phrygia, which is of uncertain date, but was held about 360 CE.97 The synod
produced no fewer than four canons that forbade Jewish practices. In addition, there
was a canon regulating reading on Saturday. The collections of canons from the
synods of Carthage, from Africa, and the east gathered before the sixth century also
contained similar references to Jews.98

Quod non oportet eos qui sunt sacrati, vel clerici, esse magos, vel
incantatores, vel mathematicos, vel astrologos, vel facere ea quae
dicuntur amuleta quae quidem sunt ipsarum animarum vincula: eos
autem qui ferunt, ejici ex ecclesia jussimus.99

Neither the higher nor the lower clergy may be magicians, conjurers,
mathematicians, or astrologers, nor shall they make so called amulets,
which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear these
amulets shall be shut out from the church.100

A similar canon occurs in the Codex Africanae, collected before the sixth century.101
The African canons are the most complete collections, and the meetings were
principally concerned with disciplinary problems in ecclesiastical organisation and
the life of the church. There were few rulings on questions of dogma or cult. From
348–426, there were at least twenty-three African Councils, mostly at Carthage. The
most important canons were collected in the Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, published
by the Council of Carthage in May 419.

Auguriis vel incantationibus servientem, a conventu ecclesiae

separandum. Similiter & superstitionibus Judaicis vel seriis
inhaerentem.102

97
See Mansi, vol. 2, 563ff; Hefele, vol. 2, 310–318. Both the higher and lower clergy were
forbidden to make or wear phylacteries. Canon 36.
98
Hefele, vol. 2, 410ff.
99
Canon 36. Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70. In the Greek version of the canon, the word used is:
φυλακτ»ρια ‘phylacteries’. Phylacteries are not identical to amulets, though both are written in
Hebrew script, in itself regarded as magical by the less educated.
100
Hefele, vol. 2, 318.
101
See Gaudemet, L' Eglise, vol. 3, 36.
102
Carthage. Canon 89. Mansi, vol. 3, 957–8.

84
 He who deals in auguries (soothsaying) and conjuring must be shut
out of the Church, as must those who join in Jewish superstition.103

The Jews had been accused of superstition by Greek and Latin authors, who used it
as a derogatory term to describe their religious practices. These included Seneca,104
Perseus,105 Plutarch,106 and Tacitus, the latter accusing the Jews of fanaticism,
ignorance, and pervicaciam superstitionis ‘obstinate superstition.’107 The reason for
these attacks is not unconnected to the fact that Romans found Jewish practices
attractive. It could be concluded that the church mounted similar attacks on Jewish
practice for the same reason. However, superstitious beliefs, and belief in magical
practices were evidently part of life in early church communities. A number of
witnesses, particularly in the east, attest to the superstitious use of phylacteries
(tefillin). Thus, according to Jerome, pious women made much use of them. These
mulierculae of the Palestinian communities made themselves phylacteries which
contained pocket gospels, their use deriving directly from the use made of
phylacteries by the Jews, but being regarded as magic portents.108 Again, Jerome
makes it clear that under Jewish influence, amulets with Hebrew writing on them
were used in the same way.109 However, as the above canon illustrates, some of the
clergy also maintained these practices. In the Latin and Greek versions of the canon,
‘amulet’ and ‘phylacteries’ (tefillin) appear to be used as synonymous terms, when in
fact, their primary meaning is different.110

103
See Hefele, vol. 3, 417. Canon 89. This purports to come from the fourth synod of Carthage in
398, but is actually later.
104
End of the 1st century BCE. till 65 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1 429.
105
34–62 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 435.
106
He lived from the fourth decade of the first century CE to the second decade of the second
century CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 1, 545.
107
56 CE to 120 CE. See Stern, Greek and Latin, vol. 2, 7–10.
108
Comm. in Matth. 33.6 (PL 26:175).‘Pietatiola illa Decalogi, phylacteria vocabant. Hoc apud nos
superstitiosae mulierculae in parvulis Evangeliis et in crucis ligno et istius modi rebus...’
109
Ep. 75.3 (PL 22: 687). ‘Ad imperitorum et muliercularum animos concitandos, quasi de hebraicis
fontibus hausta barbaro simplices quosque terrent sono .
110
Matthew23: 5 uses φυλακτ»ρια for tefillin.

85
Among the common people the rabbis had a great reputation as physicians, and their
therapeutic methods exercised a fascination over the people they treated. Thus, John
Chrysostom condemned the practice of many ‘demi’ Christians of running to
synagogues and rabbis in search of cures. However, it was evident that the popular
fascination arose from making an association between physicians, magicians, and
sorcerers. According to Chrysostom, Jewish therapy often depended on the use of
incantations and amulets.111

Another problem was the worship of angels, which continued to be an abuse from
the time of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians (2:18) till at least the time of Theodoret
of Cyprus, who bears witness in his commentary on this epistle that the Synod of
Laodicea had forbidden ‘praying to the angels’, and that in regions of Phrygia and
Pisidia ‘Michael-Churches’ were still in existence in his own time.112

Quod non oportet Christianos, relicta Dei ecclesia, abire, & angelos
nominare, vel congregationes facere; quod est prohibitum. Si quis
ergo inventus fuerit huic occultae idolatriae vacare, fit anathema, quia
reliquit dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, & accessit ad
idolatriam.113

Christians shall not forsake the Church of God and turn to the
worship114 of angels, thus introducing a cultus of the angels. This is
forbidden. Whoever, therefore, shows an inclination to this hidden
idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus
Christ, the son of God, and gone over to idolatry.115

111
Disc. 8.7.1–5. See introduction to Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses Against Judaizing
Christians, tr. Paul W. Harkins (Washington D. C. , Catholic University of America, 1977), xli.
See also Disc. 8.5.6–8; 8.6.11.
112
Hefele, vol. 2, 317.
113
Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70.
114
The term ‘worship’, which occurs in Colossians can be used in a variety of ways, but stands for
the act of worship. In Colossians it may be objective genitive, i.e. the worship given to angels, or
could be subjective genitive. and refers to the worship the angels performed. See Fritz Rienecker,
A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1980), 576.
115
Canon 35 of Synod of Laodicea. ca. 360. See Hefele, vol. 2, 317.

86
The philosophy behind this veneration of angels was the concept that God was too
high to be approached directly, and that his good will must be gained through the
angels. Evidently the canon was referring to abuses, as veneration of angels was not
normally excluded in church practice.116

Sabbaths and Feasts

The observance of the Sabbath, ritual fasts, and the dietary laws apparently also
possessed a magical power in the eyes of the Christian masses.117

There was also the accusation of judaising. Phillip Sigal postulates that judaising in
the church during the early centuries in reference to the date of Easter, food practices
or the observance of the Sabbath was not the effort of Jews to judaise a gentile
church, but the struggle for preservation of elements of Judaism within the church
among Christians who experienced confusion.118 Changes were not made without
strong opposition from Christians who did not dare abandon the feast days of the
Jews, holy days which had been hallowed since ancient times.119

Two canons from the Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia in about 360 CE mention the
Sabbath specifically. Canon 16 stiputates:

Ut evangelium cum aliis scripturis sabbato legatur.120

On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions of the

116
See Augustine, Contra Faustus, 20:21; Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 7:15. Charlemagne’s capitulary
of the year 789 [cap. 16] said that the synod of Laodicea had forbidden the giving of names to
the angels other than those authorised: Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, the only ones which are
named in the Hebrew Bible. See Hefele, vol. 2, 317. The apocryphal Book of Enoch names
several other angels, namely fallen angels, whose names would have been known in various
circles of the period.
117
See Simon, Verus Israel, 355.
118
See Phillip Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, 2 vols, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Pickwick, 1980), vol. 1, 378.
119
See Juster, Les Juifs, vol. 1, 308 .
120
Mansi, vol.,2, 567–8.

87
 Scripture shall be read aloud.121

Though Christian observance of the Sabbath was quite common in certain places till
about the end of the third century, it is unlikely by the last half of the fourth century
that Saturday was honoured with a special ceremony resembling the Jewish
celebration of Sabbath.122 This is supported by the content of Canon 29 of the same
Synod of Laodicea.

Quod non oportet Christianos judaizare, & in sabbato otiari, sed ipsos
eo die operari: diem autem dominicum praeferentes otiari, si modo
possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint judaizantes, sint
anathema apud Christum.123

Christians shall not judaise and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on
that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, in every way
possible as Christians. If however, they are found judaising, they shall
be shut out from Christ.124

Although no canon from church councils appears to have been composed on the
subject, the Didache stipulates that Christians should fast on Wednesdays and
Fridays, in contradistinction to the Jews who fasted on Mondays and Thursdays. This
was part of the process of transposing Jewish customs.125

Jewish Feasts

Superstitious respect apparently was also given to the unleavened bread of Passover.
Marcel Simon reports that the preparation and eating of this bread were accompanied
by mysterious rites, which included a prayer form in Chaldaean, to deceive and drive
away evil spirits. Apparently popular Jewish devotion regarded the unleavened bread

121
Hefele, vol. 2, 360.
122
Hefele vol. 2, 310–11.
123
Mansi, vol. 2, 569–70.
124
Translation based on Hefele, vol. 2, 316. Canon 29 of Laodicea (ca 360)
125
See Didache 8.1 and Epiphanius, Haer 16.1. See also Didascalie Apostolorum, 21, which
incorporated the Didache prescriptions and the later The Apostolic Constitutions, 8.70.

88
as a precious talisman, and people would keep it from one Passover to another,
selling it occasionally to credulous gentiles.126

Quod non oporteat azyma a judaeis accipere, & communicare

impietatibus eorum.127

No one shall accept unleavened bread from the Jews, or take part in
their profanity.128

As well as the forbidding of judaising, this may also be part of the background
behind the non- acceptance of festal presents from Jews which was outlawed by
Canon 37 of Laodicaea.

Quod non oporteat a judaeis vel haereticis quae mittuntur munera

festiva suscipere, nec cum eis festis celebrare.129

No-one shall accept festal presents from Jews and heretics, or keep
the festivals with them.130

Thus Christian participation in Jewish services was discouraged in canonical

legislation and also in the so called Apostolic Canons.131

Ban on Attendance at any Jewish service

The African canons permit Jews to enter churches.

Ut episcopus nullam prohibeat ingredi ecclesiam, & audire verbum

Dei sive gentilem, sive haereticum, sive Judaeum, usque ad missam

126
See Simon, Verus Israel, 355.
127
Canon 38. Mansi, vol .3, 580–1. (Dionysius). From Council of Laodicea, 364 CE.
128
See Hefele, vol. 2, 318.
129
Mansi, vol. 3, 580.
130
See Hefele, vol. 2, 318. Canon 37. See The Apostolical Constitutions, Book 2. 62.The Apostolic
Constitutions mention the forbidding of attendance at Jewish services (and those of the ungodly,
and heathen) in the context of divinations, diviners, wizards, and demons.
131
Christian participation in Jewish services was forbidden in Apostolic Canon 71 (70).

89
 catechumenorum. 132

The bishop shall hinder no one, whether gentile, heretic or Jew, from
entering the church, and hearing the word of God, up to the Mass of
the Catechumens.

These categories of people were permitted to remain for the first part of the
Mass, for the Church lessons and sermons, which was known as the Mass of
the Catechumens, possibly in the hope of winning them over to the teachings
of the Church.133

Another canon from Laodicea states that it is not permitted to heretics, so

long as they continue in heresy, to set foot in the house of God.134

On the other hand Christians were not permitted to attend Jewish services, evidence
being from The Apostolic Constitutions.

Endeavour therefore never to leave the church of God; but if any one
overlooks it, and goes either into a polluted Temple of the heathens,
or into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics, what apology will such an
one make to God on the day of judgment.135

Jewish Catechumens

Jewish catachumens or converts were treated with more strictness by the Church
Councils, according to a canon from the council of Agde, in case they returned to
Judaism.

Judaei quorum perfidia frequenter ad vomitum redit, si ad legem

catholicam venire voluerint, octo mensibus inter catechumenos,
ecclesiae limen introeant: & si puta fide venire noscuntur; tum
demum baptismatis gratiam mereantur. Quod si casu aliquo periculum
infirmitatis intra praescriptum tempus incurrerint & desperati fuerint
132
Mansi, vol. 3, 958. Carthage, Canon 84. Purportedly from the fourth Council of Carthage in 398
but actually later.
133
See Hefele, vol. 2, 301–2.
134
Hefele, vol. 2, 301. Canon 6 of Laodicea, Mansi 3, 577. ‘Quod haeretici non permittendi sint
ingredi in domum (Luc. addit Dei ) in haeresii permanentes’.
135
See Book 2. 61. See also no. 62.

90
 baptizentur.136

If Jews wish to become Catholics, since they may so readily return to

their vomit, they must remain eight months as catechumens before
entering the threshold of the Church: and if they sincerely come to
know the faith: then they will be deemed worthy to merit the grace of
baptism. Only in such case as incurring a dangerous and desperate
illness during the prescribed time may they receive baptism earlier.137

Jews as Witnesses

The African Canons forbade Jews to be witnesses, classing them among undesirable
categories of persons.

Item placate, ut omnes servi, vel proprii liberti ad accusationem non

admittantur; vel omnes, quos ad accusanda publica crimina leges
publicae non admittunt; omnes etiam infamiae maculis aspersi, id est
histriones, ac turpitudinibus subjectae personae, haeretici etiam, sive
pagani, seu Judaei, sed tamen omnibus, quibus accusatione denegatur,
in causis propriis accusandi licentia non neganda.138

Neither may slaves nor freedman come forward as accusers, nor any
on account of public offences are by law excluded from bringing any
accusation, nor any who bear the mark of infamy, such as actors or
persons on whom any other stigma rests, or heretics, heathens or
Jews.139

There apparently had been no Roman legislation prohibiting testimony from Jews
prior to Justinian, or this would have been included in these earlier African church
canons.140

136
Canon 34. Mansi, 8, 330.
137
Hefele, vol. 4, 82. The Council was held in the year 506.
138
Mansi, vol. 3, 825–6.
139
See Hefele, vol. 2, 475 &9. Canon 129 in the African Codex, or second canon of Synod of
Carthage on 30th May 419. Repeated as Canon 6 in 421 at Carthage.
140
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 726.

91
Anathemas and Christology

The Council of Sirmium in 351 CE produced a canon, which defined doctrine about
God and Christ in relation to Jews. 141

Si quis haec verba, Ego sum Deus primus, Ego quoque postea, &
praeter me non est Deus, quae ad subversionem idolorum dicta sunt,
ad subversionem unigeniti ante saecula Dei Judaice accipiat,
anathema esto.142

If any one interprets the words: ‘I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no God143 as opposed to false gods, after the
Jewish manner, as denying the only-begotten God, who was before all
ages, let him be anathema.’144

Use of Term ‘Levite’

Frequently in the Church Council canons the expression ‘Levite’ as a church

functionary occurs, as well as the expressions ‘readers’, ‘singers’ and ‘priests’, terms
used of the Temple liturgy functionaries.145 This appropriation of terms was part of
the supersessionist theology of the church. In addition, there are echoes of the
biblical practice of ritual purity in the strict rules for marital relations of such
personages, as illustrated by rulings from the synods held in Rome in 386 and
Carthage in 393.

‘…suademus quod sacerdotes & Levitae cum uxoribus suis non

coeant, quia in ministerio ministri quotidianis necessitatibus
occupantur’.

141
About a dozen bishops were present. See Hefele, vol. 2, 193
142
See Hefele, vol. 3, 257.

143
Isa 44:6.
144
Hefele, vol. 2, 195. Canon 34. The Council of Sirium was held in 351 at the request of Emperor
Constantius. Hefele,193. This is part of a series of anathemas. A number of Eusebians were
present. Mansi, vol. 3, 257ff. The anathema appears to refer to the Prologue of John’s Gospel and
the pre-existent Christ.
145
See Mansi, vol. 3, 709–10. Canon 3, ‘…episcopos, inquam, presbyteros & diaconos, ita
complacuit, ut condecet sacros antistites ac Dei sacerdotes, nec non & Levitas…’.

92
 Finally we advise (suademus) that the priests and Levites (levitae)
should not live with their wives while in ministry necessitating daily
occupation.146

Role of Emperor in Church Councils

The relationship between Christianity and the Roman Empire in the first three
centuries of this era was undefined. Christianity was tolerated as a non–legal
minority religion except for brief periods of persecution such as those under Nero in
the first century of this era (54–68),147 Domitian (81–96),148 Decius (249–51) and
Diocletian (303–311).149

When Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, imperial protection
ensured its spread, and the growth in power of the church. The emperors’s role and
influence on church council legislation, at least for a time, when the church allowed
emperors to take part in canonical legislation, aided the growing power of the church
and further formalised its estrangement from Judaism.

Although early councils discouraged social contact with Jews, they held no legal
power over them, and no jurisdiction could be exercised over Jews unless these
actions had been authorised by secular powers. The papacy did not possess a
monopoly of legal authority, canon law being as much the product of local councils
as of papal letters. On the other hand, the emperors could command, and possessed
actual legal jurisdiction that restricted civil freedom, while the church’s chief weapon
was moral, employing the threat of excommunication, which some would avoid at all

146
Canon 9. See Hefele, vol. 2, 387, and Mansi, vol. 3, 670. The synodal letter of Pope Siricius,
which contains these nine canons, has been preserved by an African Synod at Tele at the
beginning of the fifth century. There are doubts about its genuineness. See Hefele, vol. 2, 387–8.
147
Suetonius, in his Life of Domitian (Book 10), reports that this Emperor (81–96 CE) condemned to
death many senators, some of whom had been consuls who were accused of wanting to introduce
new things. The possibility exists that some were Christians. See also Sandro Carleti, Guide to the
Catacombs of Priscilla, tr. Alice Mulhern (Vatican City, Pontifical Commission for Sacred
Archaeology, 1982), 10.
148
The exact nature and extent of his persecution are difficult to discern. See Marcel Simon, La
Civilisation de l'Antiquité et le Christianisme (Paris, Arthaud, 1972), 32, 60, 150, 211, 213,468.
149
See Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430. (Hammersmith, Fontana, 1993), 10.

93
costs.

By the early part of the fourth century, when episcopal synods were a permanent
feature of church discipline and organisation,150 the first Christian emperor set a
precedent in his interventions in ecclesiastical disputes, and his calling of church
councils, his role being especially prominent as regards the first so called ecumenical
Council at Nicaea.151

However, neither local or provincial councils nor the African councils required
imperial intervention, and were held regularly.152 The fact that the first four general
Councils were convoked by the emperors, with the ‘Bishop of Rome’ being
represented only by his legates, illustrates that Church authority had not been
centralised in Rome at this stage, and that the Bishop of Rome had not yet set
himself above the emperor when it came to matters of church discipline.

The emperors’ protection was vital in strengthening the authority of Rome over the
rest of the provinces, for the decrees of general councils were acknowledged by the
whole church, whereas the synods wielded only local authority in the provinces.153
Edicts repeated that the privileges bestowed on the Bishop of Rome were inviolate,154
but the several repetitions of this law indicate that these privileges could not always
be enforced.

The role of the emperor in convoking the general councils appears to have been quite
considerable until the middle of the fifth century, at which point Pope Gelasius made

150
See Hubert Jedin, Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline
(Edinburgh, Nelson, 1960), 17.
151
Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.7–14.
152
Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 457.
153
The first four so called Ecumenical or General Councils were held in the fourth century at Nicaea
(325) Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). See Chapter 3 in Jedin,
Ecumenical Councils.
154
See C. Th. 11.16.21 9 (year 397).

94
clear that the council was subject to the Pope.155 The emperor not only intervened in
the convocation of the councils, but participated in its deliberations, personally or
through intermediaries, and confirmed its decisions.156 However, though the emperor
could convoke councils, the papacy was to declare that the authority of a general
council lay in its decisions and the obedience of the church rather than in the imperial
convocation.157 When there were more pressing problems that affected a larger part
of the church, the emperor often took the initiative in convoking the meeting, and
threatened non-conformists with exile.158

Conclusion

Church council documents from the fourth century indicate that Jewish services
continued to hold a certain attraction for many Christians. The church demanded in
its canons that Jewish practices be discontinued. However, the church council
statements on Jews reveal the ambiguity of the church position, for, while denying
Jewish practices, Jewish terms were appropriated in church vocabulary, and other
elements persisted, because of the Judaic basis of Christianity. Again, it was clear
that Christians, while attracted to Judaism, were also experiencing confusion about
Jewish praxis, which is indicated by the struggle against judaising reflected in certain
church canons.

Effectively, the early councils had no jurisdiction over outsiders, and could only
attempt to limit social contacts with Jews. Church canons on Jews were defensive
and repressive, and intolerant. It is evident that without secular support, the church
held moral power rather than judicial, when the offender was a Jew.

155
See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, 3, 460. In the time of Pope Gelasius, the Council was made subordinate
to the Pope.
156
Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 457. See Mansi, vol. 4, 588 and the Pope’s letter to Theodosius
accepting the emperor’s convocation of the Council of Ephesus (449 CE), Ep. 29, PL 54:781. See
also Ep. 62 and 63, PL 24: 875ff. Apparently the Pope himself could not convoke the council, but
had to rely on the emperor. See also Mansi, vol. 6, 558 regarding Marcion and the Council of
Chalcedon.
157
See Athanasius, Apol.contra Arianos, PG 25:281ff. Gaudemet, L'Eglise, 458.
158
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 10.5.21 and the Council of Arles.

95
Legislation about Jews by the secular authorities became more persistent and precise
from the time of Constantine’s accession when the emperor began to play a role in
church councils. The growing harshness of laws about Jews was presumably
influenced by increasing pressure from the church hierarchy, whose power escalated
gradually.159 The raising of Christianity to the status of the religion of the empire
meant that Jews were to be increasingly compromised.

159
See L. H. Feldman, ‘Proselytism’, 9. This is clear from an examination of the Theodosian Code.

96
Chapter Four. The Theodosian Code and Laws on Jews

The laws concerning Jews show three conflicting tendencies: the maintenance of a
privileged status, prohibition of proselytism, and later, as the Christian movement
gathered strength under imperial protection, hostility to Judaism.1 The Theodosian
Code portrays the growing status of Christianity and the gradual erosion of Jewish
rights.

The Code, compiled at the initiative of Emperor Theodosius II, between 438 and
439, incorporates Roman imperial legislation dating from the beginning of the
Christian period.2 Roman law, as reflected in the Theodosian Code is a mixture of
toleration and restrictions, tending to favour the church.3 The new standing of
Christianity is revealed, for example, in the restructuring of the calendar to
accommodate the observance of Sunday, the inclusion of Easter in the calendar of
public festivals as well as the status of the forty days of Lent when tortures were
not to be applied.4

When the Jewish state was destroyed, the first law framed by non-Jews to regulate
Jewish life dates from Hadrianic times in the second century. The redaction of the
Mishnah coincided with an important change in Roman law with the constitio
antoniniana of 212, which bestowed citizenship on most of the inhabitants of the
empire, including the Jews.5 In the Diaspora, laws about Jewry date only from the

1
Jean Gaudemet, L'Eglise dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles) 3: Gabriel Le Bras (ed.), Histoire
du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident, (7 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1955–96), 625.
2
The laws date from Constantine, e.g., C. Th. 4.7.1 (dated 321) and are addressed to Bishop
Ossius of Cordova, on the question of slaves.
3
See Mark R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages (Princeton
University Press, 1994), 32ff.
4
See C. Th. 2.8.19 (389) Sunday and Easter; C. Th. 9.35.5; Lent. See David Hunt,
‘Christianising the Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Code’, in Jill Harris and Ian Wood
(eds), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity (London,
Duckworth, 1993), 144.
5
See Hagith Sivan, ‘Rabbinics and Roman Law: Jewish-Gentile/Christian Marriage in Late
Antiquity’, REJ, 156:1–2 (1997), 64.

97
fourth century, when Christianity became the favoured religion of the empire.6 Fifty
one laws on Jews appear in Book 16 of the Theodosian Code7 and reflect the
changes in public life that are linked to the new status of Christianity as the official
religion of the empire.8

However, Christianity did not entirely repudiate its Jewish origins. The prevailing
view was that Jews held their place in the world order, as ‘witnesses of the ancient
prophecies’9 as Augustine was to phrase it. Unlike those whom the Church
designated as heretics, Jews were not to be made to disappear, this opinion
contributing to the maintenance of some legal measure in their favour.10

Under Roman rule Jews possessed certain rights, as a sui iuris minority. The
Theodosian Code was to legislate on several issues about Jews that had been the
concern of several local church synods and ecumenical councils. Canonical
legislation on such issues as intermarriage, Jews as witnesses, or the prohibition of
circumcision of slaves, was reinforced by the imperial laws. Thus Christian canons
and Roman law converged to act against certain aspects of Jewish life to restrict its
influence. However, in some areas against which church canons legislated such as
the Sabbath, the Theodosian Code provided protection of Jewish life against
aggression by Christians. More than a dozen laws are protective of Jews. However,
a greater proportion of the latter reveal deteriorating relations between Jews and

6
See Walter Pakter, Early Western Church Law and the Jews, in Harold W. Atridge and Gohei
Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Detroit, Wayne State University, 1992), 714.
7
See The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with
Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography by Clyde Pharr (Princeton University Press, 1952)
and Amnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State
University, 1987).
8
Linder, The Jews, 17, points out that the Theodosian Code has 52 texts, three of which are
included in the Code and three in the Digest. The Breviarium (Alaric II) adds an additional
jurisprudential text to the legislative texts of the Theodosian Code, as well as twelve texts from
the Visigothic commentary. The Justinian Code has 32 texts. Texts from other sources include 8
in the collections of Justinian’s Novels, 4 in Sirmond’s law collection, 4 in collections which
originated from the Council of Chalcedon, one from Majorian’s collection of Novels and
another law in the jurisprudence of Julian.
9
Civ. Dei, 18.46.
10
See Gaudemet, L’Eglise, vol. 3, 625.

98
Christians. The greater portion of the laws concerning Jews in the Theodosian
Code are restrictive or repressive, showing the gradual deterioration of Jewish
rights, in converse proportion to the growing power of the church.

Significance of Code Favouring Church

The importance given to Christianity in the Theodosian Code illustrates the

movement towards separation of Christians from Jews. Firstly, as the Church was
granted increasing numbers of privileges, it is clear the Code had broken with the
religious pluralism that historically had been the policy of Roman law. The change
took place gradually from the fourth century. Thus, a small proportion of laws
which favour the church date from the first half of the fourth century with the
accession of Constantine,11 a larger number are from the middle and late fourth
century,12 and by far the greatest number of laws granting privileges to the church
date from the fifth century, when the power of the western empire was in decline.13
By the fifth century, in the wake of a stronger church, and as a consequence of its
firm alliance with the emperor, religious and social contacts between Jews and
Christians appear to have been weakened and ruptured.14

Four main categories of laws concerning Jews can be distinguished: Firstly,

statutes which establish the basic rights and freedoms of Judaism; secondly,
statutes which prohibit injustices or violence against Jews or their cult; thirdly,
statutes prohibiting anti-Christian practices by Jews and finally, statutes which
restrict the Jewish cult and activities.15 By the end of the fourth century during the

11
C. Th. 1.17.1; 4.7.1 (318 and 321 CE).
12
See for example C. Th. 12.1.49 (a bishop not compelled to deliver his property to the municipal
council) (361 CE) or C. Th. 11.36.31 (fines for criminals) (392 CE).
13
See for example: C. Th. 16.2.35–47; 16.10.19. Temples outlawed, bishops given power (407
CE); 11.1.37 (360 – previous rescripts to remain in place).

14
See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol .3, 624. The Code includes the restructuring of the calendar in the
latter part of the fourth century to include the observance of Sunday, the recognising of Easter
as a public festival, as well as the forty days of Lent C. Th 2.8.19 (389 CE) and 9.8.19 (Easter)
and C. Th. 9.35.5 (Lent).
15
See Edward Flannery, The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism, rev.

99
reign of Theodosius II, Jews are classed with pagans, heretics and Manichaeans, all
considered as adversaries of Christians.

Laws on Jews
1. Statutes Maintaining Privileges of Jews16

In general, the legislation of non-Christian emperors in the fourth century, was

tolerant and favourable towards Jews. At first, Judaism enjoyed similar privileges
to the Catholic Church.17 A law passed in 321 recalled the ancient privileges
accorded Jewish clergy, who, although exempted from curial duties had also been
admitted to its honours by Septimus Severus and Caracalla.18

We grant to all the curias in a general law, that the Jews shall be
nominated to the curia. But in order to leave them something of the
ancient custom as a solace, we allow them in a perpetual privilege
that two or three in every curia shall not be occupied through any
nominations whatever. (C. Th. 16.8.3).19

However, it appears that this ancient privilege was not honoured everywhere, even
in the west. It was one of the earliest laws in a series that were designed to secure
and regulate the recruitment of the curias and their functioning even at the expense
of previously privileged groups such as the Jews and Christian clergy.20

Jewish clergy continued to enjoy a good number of personal immunities, as is

illustrated by laws passed in 330 and 331.

edn (New York, Paulist Press, 1985), 56.

16
These are at least seven in number. 16.8.2 (330 CE), 16.8.4 (330 CE), 16.8.8 (392 CE), 16.8.13
(397 CE), 13.5.18 (390 CE), 16.8.15 (404 CE), 16.8.17 (404 CE).
17
See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 625.
18
See Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 626. See C. Th. 16.8.2, which conferred a statute upon Jewish
clergy similar to that of Christian clergy. Constantine decreed that the Jewish religious
leadership should be exempt from personal and civic liturgies, and that those leaders who were
already decurions at that time would be exempt from transport liturgies. See also Linder, The
Jews, 72.
19
11 December, 321. Linder, The Jews, 121–2.
20
See Linder, The Jews, 121.

100
 If any persons with complete devotion should dedicate themselves
to the synagogues of the Jews as patriarchs and priests and should
live in the aforementioned sect and preside over the administration
of their law, they shall continue to be exempted from all compulsory
public services that are incumbent on persons, as well as those that
are due to the municipalities... (C. Th. 16.8.2).21

However, in 383 Gratian, and Honorius rescinded the obligation of compulsory

public service, the first, while citing an analogous obligation incumbent on
Christian clergy,22 and the second in proposing the argument that all men of
whatever superstitious belief (meaning Jews and pagans) should be constrained to
the fulfilment of their compulsory public services.23 It represents another step in the
losing battle of the authorities to prevent the progressive decay of the curial system.
Linder points out that this law should be seen as an equalisation of the status of
Jewish clergy with that of the Christian clergy.24 On the other hand, James Parkes
interprets this law as being the first infringement of the rights of Judaism as a
lawful religion, so that from this point, Judaism had been placed on an inferior
plane to orthodox Christianity.25 In the east, fourteen years later, Arcadius was
more liberal and even handed according analogous immunities to Jews and
Christians alike.

Jews shall be bound by their own ritual. Meanwhile, in preserving

their privileges, We shall imitate the ancients by whose sanctions it
was determined that those privileges which are conferred upon the
first clerics of the venerable Christian religion shall continue, by the
consent of Our Imperial Divinity, for those persons who are subject
to the power of the Illustrious Patriarchs, for the rulers of the

21
See Pharr, Theodostian Code, 467. See also Linder, The Jews, 120. C. Th. 16.8.4 repeats the
law and C. Th. 16.8.3.
22
C. Th. 12.1.99 (383 CE). The text of this law is preserved in two fragments C. Th. 12.1.100 and
C. Th. 12.1 .99. See Linder, The Jews, 165.
23
C. Th. 12.1.158. (398 CE). This law annulled the exemption of Jews from curial liturgies, but,
according to Linder, this law appears to exaggerate the role played by the Jewish population in
the cities of Apulia and Calabria. Linder, The Jews, 214.
24
See Linder, The Jews, 214.
25
See James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (London, Soncino, 1934), 181.

101
 synagogues, the patriarchs, and the priests, and for all the rest who
are occupied in the ceremonial of that religion (C. Th. 16.8.13).26

This state of affairs was not to last. Changing conditions and contemporary needs
resulted in legislation that obliged both Christian and Jewish clergy to fulfil curial
duties.27In 404 Arcadius renewed the privileges of Jewish clergy, but he never again
mentioned their exemption from the curia.28

Julian (361–3)

Julian, though raised a Christian, repudiated this faith, rejecting it in favour of the
Graeco-Roman gods.29 His religion was syncretistic, but his open mindedness did
not extend to the Christian religion, as his decree, ‘Rescript on Christian Teachers’,
which excluded all Christian influences from the educational institutions of the
empire appears to illustrate.30 It was his plan to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem,31
which raised the ire of the Christians, who claimed that the Temple’s destruction
had proved that they, and not the Jews, were the Chosen People of God.32 Julian
had planned to rebuild the Temple on his return from a military campaign against
the Persians, but died in battle on 26 June 363, after only nineteen months as
emperor.33 However, Julian was a theist,34 and his desire to rebuild the Temple was
possibly motivated by personal reasons such as his love of animal sacrifices, rather

26
397 CE. See Pharr, Theodosian Code, 468
27
C. Th. 12.1.163-5 (399 CE ).
28
C. Th. 16.8.15. See also Gaudemet, L'Eglise, vol. 3, 626.
29
See Jeffrey Brodd, ‘Julian the Apostate and His Plan to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple’, Bible
Review, 11:5 (1995), 33.
30
See ‘Rescript on Christian Teachers’ in The Works of the Emperor Julian 3, tr. W. C. Wright (3
vols, London, Heinemann 1913–1926), 61–7.
31
See, Works of Emperor Julian, vol. 3, 47.
32
See PG 48:900; PG 96:1305; Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 10.38–40.
33
See Brodd, ‘Julian the Apostate’, 34–35. See also Julian, ‘Fragment of a Letter to a Priest’ in
Works, vol. 2, 297–339.
34
See Sozomen, Hist .eccl. 5.22 who believed Julian’s motives were aimed at drawing Jews into
offering sacrifices to Graeco-Roman gods.

102
than a genuine interest in the welfare of Jews in his empire.35 The shortness of his
reign ensured that his influence on legislation affecting Jews and Christians was
limited. As he was followed by a Christian emperor who did not subscribe to his
views, all plans for rebuilding the Temple were abandoned.36

Authority of Patriarchs Upheld in Religious Matters

Despite the growing power of Christianity, a law passed in 392 recognised the right
of the Jewish authorities in Palestine and in the Diaspora to excommunicate and to
revoke excommunications, not admitting the imperial authorities any rights in this
matter. The legislation was significant, for it recognised the authority of the
patriarchs in all matters pertaining to the Jewish religion, and showed a clear
recognition of the organisational and legal autonomy of the Jews throughout the
empire.37 The position of the patriarchs was evidently held in high honour, since the
title clarissimus was reserved till the middle of the fourth century for the highest
magistrates and the senatorial order, and the title illustris, introduced about 380,
designated the highest magistrates of the empire.38

In the complaints of the Jews it was affirmed, that some people are
received in their section by the authority of the judges, against the
opposition of the Primates of their Law, who had cast them out by
their judgement and will. We order that this injury should be utterly
removed, and that a tenacious group in their superstition shall not
earn aid for their undue readmission through the authority of judges
or of ill-gotten rescript, against the will of their Primates who are
manifestly authorised to pass judgement concerning their religion,
under the authority of the Most Renowned (clarissimorum) and the
Illustrious (inlustrium) Patriarch (C. Th. 16.8.8.).39

35
See Ammianus Marcellinus, 25.4.17.
36
See Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book: 315–1791, first
published 1938 (New York, Temple Library, 1965), 8.
37
See Linder, The Jews, 186.
38
See Linder, The Jews, 188–9, n. 7.
39
See Linder, The Jews, 187–8.

103
Juridical Powers of Jewish Authorities.

A law passed in 398 defined the juridical powers of the Jewish authorities, and
stipulated that Jews, as Roman citizens, were bound to live according to Roman
law and its practical application.40 This latter law reinforced the principle
established by Theodosius II in 392 that the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs in
religious matters was final.41 However, the 398 law marked a definite change in
jurisdiction. Two types of litigation were operational, cases belonging specifically
to the sphere of Jewish religion, and those that pertained to Roman law. The
significance of the 398 law was that it abolished Jewish jurisdictional autonomy
and withdrew recognition from the Jewish courts.

The Jews, who live under the Roman common law, shall address the
courts in the usual way in those cases which do not concern so much
the superstition as court, laws and rights and all of them shall bring
actions and defend themselves under the Roman laws; in
conclusion, they shall be under our laws. Certainly, if some shall
deem it necessary to litigate before the Jews or the patriarchs
through mutual agreement, in the manner of arbitration, with the
consent of both parties and in civil matters only, they shall not be
prohibited by public law from accepting their verdict; the governors
of the provinces shall even execute their sentences as if they were
appointed arbiters through a judge’s award (C. Th. 2.1.10).42

Thus, the judicial powers granted to the Jewish authorities became dependent on
the imperial government.43 Jewish legal autonomy was being withdrawn.

In 404, a law given by Arcadius in his own name and the name of Honorius
confirmed the privileges granted to the Patriarchs and office-holders whom they

40
C. Th. 2.1.10
41
C. Th. 16.8.8. See Linder, The Jews, 205.
42
C. Th. 2.1.10. See Linder, The Jews, 208.
43
See A. M. Rabello, ‘Jewish and Roman Jurisdiction’ in N. S. Hecht et al. (eds), An Introduction
to the History and Sources of Jewish Law (Oxford, Clarendon, 1996), 153. See also Linder,
The Jews, 205–6, who points out that Justinian’s editors made subtle changes in the original
Theodosian Code law, abolishing the original distinction between religious and non-religious
litigation, and thus the distinction between the different courts authorised to deal with religious
and civil litigation. Such a change was typical of the Justinian Code, which eroded many of the
privileges that had been given to the Jews by former Roman emperors.

104
nominated.44 In July of that same year permission in the west was renewed to
collect money for the Patriarchs.45 This represented the reversal of the prohibition
on collecting money for the Patriarch which had been passed in 399.46 The feeling
of good will towards the Patriarch was shortly to change.

Exemptions from Liturgies

Jews had been exempted from liturgies that involved transgression of their religion
by Septimus Severus and Caracalla,47 and this exemption was repeated by Modestin
in the third century.48 Jewish religious leaders benefited when Constantine passed a
law that exempted holders of religious offices from participating in civil liturgies in
about 330.49 Those who were not decurions at that time were granted only a partial
exemption, which applied to transportation liturgy only. Constantine had already
legislated on the nomination of Jews to the curia, when he ruled over the western
half of the empire: Britain, Gaul, Africa, Spain, Italy, Illyricum, and the Balkans,
except for Thrace.50

A law passed by Theodosius in 390 prohibited the enforcement of maritime

transport liturgy on the Jewish and Samaritan communities in Egypt,51 and a further
law on Jewish exemptions from liturgies was passed in 397 by Arcadius in his own
name and that of Honorius.52

44
C. Th. 16.8.15.
45
C. Th. 16.8.17.
46
C. Th. 16.8.14.
47
See Digesta 50:2:3:3, ed. Mommsen & Kruger, as cited by A. Linder, The Jews, 103–4. (Years
196/197–209/211).
48
See Linder, The Jews, 110–12. Digesta 27:1:15:6.
49
See C. Th. 16.8.2 and 16.8.4.
50
See C. Th. 16.8.3. (321 CE) and Linder, The Jews, 120.
51
C. Th. 13.5.18.
52
C. Th. 9.45.2.

105
2. Statutes Protective of Jews

There are at least sixteen laws protective of Jews which date from 368.53 The
central government granted synagogues protection when the local authorities
prevented gatherings in them, or when Christians seized, destroyed, or looted them.
There was consistency in the legislation from the end of the fourth century until the
third decade of the fifth century.54

Protection of Synagogues

At least eight of these laws are concerned with the protection of synagogues from
over zealous Christian mobs, a fact which indicates deteriorating relations between
Jews and Christians on the one hand and the legal authorities’ desire to maintain
law and order on the other. The attacks indicate a growing pattern of Christian
aggression towards Jews.

Other laws protecting synagogues from being attacked or razed to the ground
reflect increasing Christian aggression against Jews, with the populace seeking a
scape-goat. Again, it is clear that Christian aggression against Jews far exceeded
Jewish aggression against Christians.

Laws forbidding troops to be lodged in religious edifices mirror the turbulence of

the times, and political instability. When a sizeable army was in Trier from 367–
373 because of fighting on the German border, a law was passed on 6 May 368,
370 or 373, addressed to Remigius, the officer in charge of the mensores who
lodged and fed the troops, ordering him to evacuate from synagogues all who
invaded them with claims of the right of hospitality. The exemption from the duty

53
C. Th. 7.8.2 (368, 370 or 373 CE), 13.5.18 (390 CE), 16.8.9 (393 CE), 16.8.10 (396 CE),
16.8.11 (396 CE), 16.8.12 (397 CE), 2.1.10 (398 CE), 2.8.26 (412 CE), 8.8.8. (412 CE), 16.8.20
(412 CE), 16.9.3 (415 CE), 16.8.23 (416 CE), 16.8.21 (420 CE), 16.8.25 (423 CE), 16.8.26 (423
CE), 16.8.27 (423 CE).

54
See Linder, The Jews, 74.

106
of hospitality applied not only to synagogues but to all religious edifices.55

You shall order those that invade a synagogue as though on right of

hospitality of the Jewish law to evacuate it, for they ought to occupy
houses of private persons, not places of religion, on right of
habitation (C. Th. 7.8.2).56

Christian attacks on synagogues were evidently a growing problem. One such

known attack was the burning down of the Callinicum on the Euphrates in 388.
Theodosius had demanded that the bishop, Ambrose, who had initiated this act of
violence should rebuild the synagogue. However, Ambrose refused and the
Christians were not made to pay.57 Ambrose also chided Maximus for adopting
penal measures for those responsible for burning down the synagogue of Rome.58
This was a dangerous precedent set by a powerful bishop.

A law passed in 393 in the reign of Theodosius repealed the prohibition of

synagogues, and forbade their destruction and spoliation.

It is sufficiently established that the sect of the Jews is prohibited by

no law. We are therefore gravely disturbed by the interdiction
imposed in some places on their assemblies. Our Sublime
Magnitude shall, upon reception of this order, suppress with due
severity the excess of those who presume to commit illegal deeds
under the name of the Christian religion and attempt to destroy and
despoil synagogues (C. Th. 16.8.9).59

Another law passed in 397, in the name of Arcadius and Honorius, reiterates that
the synagogues of the Jews are not to be disturbed, indicating that violent attacks
against the Jews were continuing. Conditions at Illyricum, at that time were
disturbed after the recent invasion by Alaric in 395 and the weakening of the
government that resulted from the conflict between Stilicho, who was Honorius’

55
See Linder, The Jews, 161. See C. Th. 7.8.2.
56
See Linder, The Jews, 162. C. Th. 16.2.31 condemns the sacrilege of troops invading Churches
(409 CE).
57
Ambrose, Ep 40 & 41 (PL 16:1101ff).
58
Linder, The Jews, 190, n. 1.
59
Linder, The Jews, 190.

107
general, and Rufinus, who served under Arcadius.60

Your Excellent Authority shall order the governors to assemble, in

order that they shall learn and know, that it is necessary to repel the
assaults of those who attack Jews, and that their synagogues should
remain in their accustomed peace (C. Th. 16.8.12).61

In 412 a law given by Honorius in Ravenna decreed in the first part that synagogues
were not to be seized or damaged.

No one shall dare to violate or seize and occupy what are known by
the names of synagogues and are assuredly frequented by the
conventicles of the Jews, for all must retain what is theirs with
unmolested right and without harm to religion and cult (C. Th.
16.8.20).62

In 420 a law given by Theodosius II and addressed to Philippus, Praefectus

Praetorio of Illyricum indicates growing intolerance for Jews. It extends protection
to Jews who are being persecuted because of their religion, and so forbids the
damaging or burning of their places of worship. The law seems to be a late reaction
to the attacks that had been directed against Jews in several provinces in the
preceding years such as in Edessa in 411–263 and in Alexandria in 414.64

Three laws promulgated in 423 on 15 February, 9 April and the 8 June point to
worsening conditions for the Jews, while relations with the Christian population
were growing more tense.65

The first law promulgated in 423 is free from offensive language, and makes three
stipulations: that synagogues are not to be seized or burnt down, that Jews should

60
See Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 9.3.
61
Linder, The Jews, 198.
62
Linder, The Jews, 264.
63
See C. Th. 16.8.21. See also Parkes, The Conflict, 236, n. 3.
64
See Linder, The Jews, 284–45.
65
C. Th. 16.8.25, 26 & 27.

108
be given places to construct new synagogues to replace those seized and
consecrated as churches, and that it was forbidden to construct new synagogues,
with the existing ones being kept in their original state.66

The second law, passed two months later, in 423 reiterated the command that
forbade the molesting of Jews or the burning of synagogues. However, the
language has returned to its insulting vein, and the forbidding of circumcision of
non-Jews is added as a proscription. In addition, Jews are classified with
‘abominable’ pagans and heretics, who are considered marked by audacity
(audacia).67 In his third law in June 423, Theodosius II reconfirmed his hostile
policy towards Jews, pagans and heretics. Evidently the recent legislation needed to
be reiterated, for construction of new synagogues continued. The protection of
existing synagogues and of Jews needed to be repeated, owing to militant action on
the part of Christians.68 Thus, the situation of the Jews continued to deteriorate,
illustrated in 423 by the Christian destruction of the synagogue in Antioch. On this
occasion, the attempt of Theodosius II to rebuild it was thwarted by the ascetic,
Simeon Stylites.69 Yielding to pressure from church authorities, and in
contradiction of the mores of justice and truth, Theodosius passed no more laws
protecting Jews after 423, thus officially permitting the spoliation of synagogues to
continue. In 442, Theodosius himself authorised the confiscation of the synagogue
in the Copper Market of Constantinople.70

Laws protecting synagogues could be seen as a consequence of the christianisation

of the empire and the growing power of Christianity to the detriment of Judaism.
Although imperial authority continued the conservative policy of protection of the

66
C. Th. 16.8.25.
67
C. Th. 16.8.26.
68
See C. Th. 16.8.27. and 16.10 24.
69
See PG 114:381 and PG 86:2456. See also Evagrius Hist. eccl. 1.13. and A. M. Rabello, ‘The
First Law of Theodosius II and Celebrations of Purim’, in Christian News from Israel, ns. 24:4.
(1974), 166.
70
See Theophanes, anno 442; PG 108:265. See Parkes, The Conflict, 238, and C. Th. 16.8.20;
2.8.26. and 8.8.8.

109
Jews, these privileges were removed gradually. The appropriation of synagogue
property reflects an economic crisis, a breakdown in central authority and the
unsettled conditions of the time.

Sabbaths and Holy Days

Laws were passed exempting Jews from civic duties on Saturdays and their
holidays, and extending the measures of 389, which freed Jews from appearing in
Court on Christian and Imperial holidays.71

After other matters: We order, that no one shall be obliged to do

anything or be summoned in any way whatsoever, on the Sabbath
day or on the other days on which the Jews keep the reverence of
their cult, or it is clear that the remaining days could suffice for the
fiscal revenues and for private litigation (C. Th. 8.8.8).72

3. Statutes Prohibiting Anti-Christian Practices by Jews

Evidence of tension between Jews and Christians is also illustrated by several laws
prohibiting anti-Christian practices by Jews, which were passed between 313 and
409.73 Also relevant to the law in C. Th. 16.8.18 (408) is the incident in the Syrian
town of Inmester, located between Antioch and Chalcis. Socrates relates that in the
course of unbridled merriment during Purim, local Jews began to mock the
Christians.74 This affront to Christians by Jews evidently provoked serious
disturbances between Christians and Jews. Rabello comments that the law of
Honorius and Theodosius II concerning Purim ‘constitutes a patent intervention on
the part of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in the religious life of the
Jewish community in the Roman Empire. Thenceforth (from 408), the observance
of Purim continues to be permitted’ but on the condition that Jews were to observe

71
See C. Th. 16.2.20 and 2.18.9. See also C. Th. 8.8.8 which was also passed in 412 and repeated
the Sabbath privilege.
72
See Linder, The Jews, 266.
73
See C. Th. 16.8.1 (329 CE), 16.8.18 (408 CE), 16.5.44 (408 CE), 16.2.31 (409 CE), 16.5.46
(409 CE).
74
See Socrates, Hist eccl. 7.16.

110
their customs in ways that would not offend Christian sensibilities.75

A law passed in 408 by Theodosius II in Constantinople76 ordered the prohibition of

the burning of Haman’s effigy on a cross, during the festival of Purim. This first
law of Theodosius II, is ominous in its curtailing of ancient Jewish privileges.77
While the custom of burning the effigy of Haman was especially common, in some
places this effigy was crucified or hanged on a cross, practices likely to have been
widespread earlier than Christianity’s rise to power.78 Genesis Rabba 30:8 and also
Leviticus Rabba 28:6 portray the tradition that Haman’s punishment was conceived
as a crucifixion, showing this practice not to be an isolated incident.

Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius,

Praetorian Prefect.
The governors of the provinces shall prohibit the Jews from setting
fire to Haman in memory of his past punishment, in a certain
ceremony of their festival, and from burning with sacrilegious intent
a form made to resemble the holy cross in contempt of the Christian
faith, lest they mingle the sign of our faith with their jests, and they
shall restrain their rites from ridiculing the Christian law, for they
are bound to lose what had been permitted them till now unless they
abstain from those matters which are forbidden (C. Th. 16.8.18).79

Roman Criminal Justice

Although Roman criminal justice was brutal it also was inefficient. There was no
adequate method for detecting crime. Local authorities, the magistrates, curatores
and councils of the cities were expected to denounce the authors of flagrant
breaches of the peace to the provincial governor.80 It appears that generally, the
prosecution of crime was left to private accusers. In order to prevent abuse, the

75
See. Rabello, ‘The First Law’, 163.

76
C. Th. 16.8.1. Translation from Pharr.
77
See Rabello, ‘The First Law ’, 160.
78
See Rabello, ‘The First Law’161–2.
79
See Linder, The Jews, 237. See also Rabello, ‘The First Law’, 159–66.
80
See A .H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative
Survey (2 vols, Oxford Blackwell, 1964), vol. 1, 520–1.

111
accuser was obliged to make a formal charge in writing whereby he bound himself
to maintain his accusation, and was liable to severe penalties if he were unable to
substantiate his accusation.81 The repetition of different laws which sometimes
involved the death penalty would suggest that they were not enforced.

Further laws, which were passed by Honorius in 408 and 409, forbade the
harassment of the Catholic cult by Donatists, heretics and Jews, should be seen in
the context of the African church, which suffered violence in those years. Honorius,
emperor of the west was sympathetic towards the bishops’ cause. Again, though
these laws suggest that Jews and Donatists in Africa had cooperated in anti-
Catholic activities, this claim, except for Augustine, is not well supported by other
sources.82

4. Statutes which Restrict Jewish Cult and Activities

Over fifty percent of the Theodosian Code laws on Jews are repressive or hostile.83
A law passed in 329 is sharply antisemitic in style and content, imposing the
sentence of death on Jews who persecute Jewish converts to Christianity, and
imposing penalties on proselytes to Judaism.

It is our will that Jews and their elders and patriarchs shall be
informed that if, after the issuance of this law, any of them should
dare to attempt to assail with stones or with any other kind of
madness – a thing which We have learned is now being done-any

81
See Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 1, 521.
82
See Linder, The Jews, 239. The complete text has been preserved in the Constitutiones
Simondianae No. 14 and only partially in two fragments received into the Theodosian Code, C.
Th. 16.2.31 and 16.5.46. Linder, The Jews, 242 ff.
83
These repressive statutes number at least twenty five (from 321–425 CE): 16.8.3 (321 CE),
16.8.5 (335 CE), 16.9.1 (335 CE), 16.9.2 (339 CE), 16.8.6 (339 CE), 16.8.7 (353 CE), 12.1.99
(383 CE), 12.1.100 (383 CE), 16,7.3 (383 CE), 3.1.5 (384 CE), 12.1.157 (398 CE), 12.1.158
(398 CE), 12.1.164 (399 CE), 12.1.165 (399 CE), 16.8.16 (404 CE), 16.8.19 (409 CE), 16.9.4
(417 CE) 16.8.24 (418 CE), 16.8.25 (423 CE), 15.5.1 (425 CE), 16.2.46 (425
CE)+16.5.62/16.5.63, 6.2.47 (425 CE), 16.5.59=16.8.26/16.9.5/16/1022 (Jews classified with
pagans and heretics, with at least ten more hostile measures passed between 383 and 409 CE:
16.7.3 (383 CE) (includes law on Manicheans); 9.45.2 (397 CE), 16.8.14 (399 CE), 16.8.19
(409 CE), 16.8.22 (415 CE), 16.8.26 (423 CE), 16.8.29 (429 CE), 16.8.28 (426 CE), 16.7.7 (426
CE).

112
 person who has fled their feral sect (feralem sectam) and has
resorted to the worship of God (Christianity) such assailant shall be
immediately delivered to the flames and burned, with all his
accomplices.

1. Moreover, if any person from the people shall betake himself to

their nefarious sect (nefariam sectam) and should join their
assemblies, he shall sustain with them the deserved punishments
(C. Th. 16.8.1.).84

Another such law passed in 396, forbade the establishment of prices for Jewish
merchants and indicates an attack on Jewish economic life.85

Jews Forbidden to Possess Christian Slaves

One special section, Section 9 of Book 16, declares that Jews shall not possess
Christian slaves, and on analysis of the laws, it can be seen that this prohibition is
closely linked to concern for proselytism, and conversion, which is likewise
forbidden, as well as circumcision. Thus, Jews were being restricted on account of
their religion, restrictions which also would have economic repercussions. The
concern arose out of the fact that Jewish law required that male slaves should be
circumcised and converted by ritual immersion in water when entering service of a
Jewish household.86 Concern for the law of niddah in women as well as kashrut
was a consideration in wishing for non-Jewish slaves to be converted when
entering the service of Jews.

A law promulgated by Constantine II in 339, and preserved in two texts, C.

Th.16.8.6 and 16.9.2 prohibited Jews from buying and proselytising non-Jewish
slaves. As in all these laws on slavery, capital punishment was prescribed for its
transgression but was possibly not exacted.

84
See Pharr, Theodosian Code, 467.Linder sees this law as being characteristic of the latter part
of Constantine’s rule. He suggests that the sharpness of the language is to appease the Christian
mobs. See Linder, The Jews, 124.
85
C. Th. 16.8.10.
86
See Ben Zion Wacholder, ‘The Halakah and the Proselytising of slaves during the Gaonic Era’,
Historia Judaica, 18 (1956), 90.

113
 If someone of the Jews shall believe that he should buy a slave of
another sect or nation, the slave shall be immediately vindicated to
the fisc; but if he shall circumcise the purchased slave, not only shall
he suffer the loss of the slave, but he shall be punished, indeed, by
capital punishment. But if a Jew shall not hesitate to purchase slaves
who are associated in the venerable faith, all those found with him
shall be immediately be taken away, and he shall be deprived, in no
time at all, of the possession of those men who are Christians (C.
Th. 16.9.2).87

A legal principle had been established in 335 that slaves were not to be converted
to Judaism, and thus were not to be circumcised, and Jews were also forbidden to
persecute converts to Christianity.88 A law passed in 384 reinforced the
prohibition.89 However, in 415, by way of exception, Jews were permitted to
possess Christian slaves on the condition that their slaves should be allowed to
remain Christian.90 This law was not received into the Justinian Code.91

In 417, the legislator prohibited Jews from acquiring Christian slaves, but permitted
Jews to inherit Christian slaves and keep them, providing they were not converted
to Judaism. If conversion occurred, it was decreed that capital punishment should
be exacted.92

Earlier in 415, Honorius had permitted Jews to possess Christian slaves, but under
restricted conditions.93 The repetition of these laws indicates they were not
effective, that Jews were circumcising non-Jewish slaves, and possibly that capital
punishment was not being applied.

87
See Linder, The Jews, 148–9.
88
C. Th. 16.9.1. See Constitutiones Sirmondianae 4, which conserves the text of the whole law.
See also C. Th. 16.8.5 and 16.8.1. Constantine had legislated in 329 that converts to Judaism
and proselytism were to be forbidden. See C. Th. 16.8.1.
89
C. Th. 3.1.5.
90
See C. Th. 16.9.3.
91
See Linder, The Jews, 273.
92
See C. Th. 16.9.4.
93
See C. Th. 16.9.3.

114
Proselytism & Circumcision Forbidden

The laws against proselytism and circumcision continued to be multiplied, while

Christians grew in favour. In 353, Constantius II decreed that the properties of
Christian proselytes were to be confiscated, if they should be joined to sacrilegious
assemblies (sacrilegis coetibus adgregetur).94 A law promulgated in the names of
Arcadius and Honorius in 397 prohibited the conversion to Christianity of Jews
who wished to avoid paying their debts or being punished.95 In 409 a law
condemned God-Fearers, conversion to Judaism and the profanation of Sunday.96 A
law passed in 416 permitted Jewish converts to Christianity to return to Judaism, if
their original motivation for conversion was to escape punishment for crimes, or
material considerations.97

In April 423 a law regulating policy towards Jews, who were classed with pagans
and heretics, likewise spoke strongly against proselytism and circumcision, and
ordered confiscation of the property of proselytes.98 Repressive measure against
Jews were intensifying. However, though the law forbade Jews to buy Christian
slaves, it ignored those already owned by Jews or acquired by means other than by
purchase, including birth. Thus, under the Theodosian Code, Jews could legally
own Christian slaves.99 In June the policy towards Jews, pagans and heretics was
renewed.100 The laws on Jews owing non-Jewish slaves are therefore contradictory.

94
See C. Th. 16.8.7.
95
See C. Th. 9.45.2.
96
See C. Th. 2.8.25.
97
See C. Th. 16.8.23.
98
C. Th. 16.8.26. See also C. Th. 16.9.5 which forbade Jews to buy Christian slaves as well as the
rest of the prohibitions concerning proselytism.
99
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 718.
100
C. Th. 16.8.27.

115
Intermarriage

Both church law as reflected in canons from the councils and Jewish law forbade
intermarriage.101 Juster points out that Christianity borrowed the Jewish interdiction
against marriage with infidels and classified the Jews among the latter category.102
When the Fathers of the church spoke against the practice, the first being
Epiphanius103 and Ambrose,104 these passed into the church canons, and from thence
into the imperial law.105

The Theodosian Code makes it evident that intermarriage, legislated against by

several church councils from the time of the Council of Elvira was a serious
problem, where the wives often converted to Judaism. Thus, two years after
Constantius II became Emperor in 339, he issued legislation (Codex Theodosianus
16.8.6.), which made it a capital offence for any Jew to marry a woman employed
in the imperial weaving factories, ‘lest they join Christian women to their deeds of
disgrace.’106

Post alia: Quod ad mulieres pertinet, quas Iudaei in turpitudins suae

duxere consortium in gynaeceo ante versatas, placet easdem restitui
gynaeceo idque in reliquum observari, ne Christianas mulieres suis
iungant flagitiis vel, si hoc fecererint, capitali periculo subiugentur

After other matters: in regard to women formerly occupied in our

weaving-establishments, whom the Jews led to their fellowship in
turpitude, it is resolved that they shall be restored to the weaving-
establishment, and it shall be observed, in the future, that they do

101
See Gen 34:14ff; Exod 34:16; Num 15; Deut 7:3ff; 1 Kgs 11:1ff; Ezra 10; Neh 13:23ff.
102
See Juster, Les Juifs, vol. 2, 46ff.

103
Haeres. 61.1 & 5 (PG 41:1040, 1045).
104
De Abrahamo 1. 9.84 (PL 14:51).
105
Elvira (306) canon 16; Chalcedon (451) canon 14; Orleans (533) canon 19: Clermont (535)
canons 6 & 9; Orleans (538) canon 13; 3rd Council of Toledo, canon 14, which said the
children of these marriages should be baptised.
106
See Feldman, ‘Proselytism’, 9.

116
 not join Christian women to their deeds of disgrace, or if they shall
do so, they shall be subjected to capital punishment (C. Th.
16.8.6).107

The working force consisted of men and women who were considered to be slaves,
and lived and worked under supervision in establishments set up by the State.
Linder suggests that as the preceding paragraph in the code deals with the
proselytising of male-slaves, this paragraph, by analogy deals with the proselytising
of women-slaves.108 He also suggests that the law is concerned with intermarriage
between Jews and non-Jewish women.109

Legislation against Christians marrying Jews was repeated by Theodosius, in his

own name and those of Valentinian II and Arcadius on 14 March 388. It was clear
that the purpose of the law was to close another possible channel for the spread of
Judaism, and therefore was aimed at the segregation of Jews and Christians.
However, this remained an isolated measure. Both the editors of Alaric and
Justinian were to accept this law, which meted out the same punishment as for an
adulterous marriage.110

Measures Hostile to Jews

From the latter part of the fourth century, earlier in the period of Gratian, but
especially from the time of Theodosius, hostile or unfriendly attitudes towards Jews
multiplied in the Code, the privileges in favour of Christianity increasing to the
detriment of Jews, and the even worse fate of heretics and Manicheans.

Participation in Jewish Cults Forbidden.

The Apostolic Constitutions had forbidden Christians to participate in Jewish

107
See Linder, The Jews, 148.
108
Linder, The Jews, 150.

109
Linder, The Jews, 150.
110
See Linder, The Jews, 86.

117
ceremonies.111 Various Councils in the fourth century had forbidden the keeping of
the Sabbath or Jewish feasts by Christians or the acceptance of festal presents from
Jews. In Antioch, John Chrysostom, well trained in the art of rhetoric, had railed
against judaising Christians in the late fourth century, devoting most attention in
his eight sermons to the autumn feasts. In 383, these interdictions, possibly through
the influence of the church received the status of civil law, with Gratian’s passing
of a law forbidding Christians from participating in pagan, Jewish and Manichean
cults.112

Jews in the Public Service

The laws which ruled on the exemptions of decurians in the public service reveal
the deteriorating status of the curial system rather than specifically anti-Jewish
legislation, as Christian clergy were not exempted. In 383, Gratian repealed the
exemption from curial liturgies that Jewish men of religion had enjoyed, and Jews
who had belonged to the curial classes were made to serve on the curias.113 The law
expresses Gratian’s Christian bias. Extensive legislation on this subject was
undertaken from the reign of Valentinian I and Valens until the end of 386.114

In 398, Honorius repealed for the western part of the empire under his rule, the
confirmation granted by Arcadius of the ancient exemption115 of Jewish clergy from
curial liturgies.116 In 399, Arcadius applied this law to the eastern part of the
empire.117

111
Apostolic Constitutions, 71 (70).
112
See C. Th. 16.7.3.
113
See C. Th. 12.1.100 and 12.1.99.
114
See Linder, The Jews, 164 and C. Th. 12. 1.59–115.
115
C. Th. 16.8.13 (397 CE).
116
C. Th. 12.1.158. See also 12.1.157 which obliged all religions to serve in the curia who were
legally liable.
117
See C. Th. 12. 1. 164. and 12. 1.165.

118
The Theodosian Code reveals that the social status of Jews was being eroded, so
that certain professions were not permitted to Jews. Progressively Jews were
subordinated to Christians through these laws. A law passed in 418 determined the
limits of the employment of Jews in public service offices, and three services,
executive agents, palatins and the military were closed to Jews. However, Jews
were permitted to serve in municipal offices and as lawyers.118 In 425, a law given
by Placidia, acting for the five year old Valentinian II, repealed Johannes’ anti-
Christian measures. Heretics and schismatics were to be banished from cities, and
Jews and pagans expelled from the imperial administration and the legal
profession.119 As yet, the status of Jews was superior to the latter classes of people.
The text should be seen against the background of the attempt to eradicate the
Pelagian heresy in Gaul, where Amaius cooperated with the Bishop of Arles, and
was also directed to act against the heretics of Rome.120

We also deny to the Jews, and to the pagans, the right to practise law
and to serve in the State service; we do not wish people of the
Christian Law to serve them lest they substitute, because of this
mastery, the venerable religion by a sect. We command, therefore,
that all persons holding an unpropitious error be excluded, unless
they are succoured by a timely emendation (Constitutiones
Sirmondianae, No. 6).121

Control of Jewish Authorities

In 396 Arcadius passed a law forbidding public insults to the Patriarch, showing
that this problem was occurring for the Jews. Offenders were to be punished by the
state, as this was an offence against a Roman citizen.122 However, by the second
half of the fourth century criticism of the Patriarch was frequent, and a law

118
See C. Th. 16.8.24.

119
The text is preserved in Constitutiones Sirmondianae No 6, C. Th. 16.5.62; 16.2.46; 16.5.63;
16.2.47; 16.5.64.
120
Linder, The Jews, 305.
121
See Linder, The Jews, 308.
122
See C. Th. 16.8.11.

119
demoting Gamaliel for his political actions was passed in 415.123 Such a law
marked the circumscription of the Patriarch’s position, and his subjection to the
legislation that was applied to individual Jews.124 The law makes it clear that the
Patriarch was prohibited from founding new synagogues, was commanded to
destroy synagogues in deserted places, and was stripped of any right to judge
Christians, or to preside at trials involving Jews and non-Jews. Again, if the
Patriarch or another Jew converted a freedman or slave to Judaism he was to be
punished, and he was forbidden to own Christian slaves. It is probable that
Gamaliel had transgressed in all these matters, and had overstepped his imperially
designated legal powers.

A law give by Honorius in his name and that of Arcadius in 399 prohibited the
collection of taxes from synagogues by the Patriarch's delegates and the synagogue
officers, ordering the sums already collected to be handed over to the treasury.125
The law referred to the Archsynagogue, presbyter and the apostles as emissaries
sent by the Patriarch, but Linder comments that only the apostles fitted this
description, for the synagogue officers were resident in their communities.126

It is a matter of shameful superstition that the Archsynagogues, the

presbyters of the Jews and those they call apostles who are sent by
the patriarch on a certain date to demand gold and silver, exact and
receive a sum from each synagogue, and deliver it to him. Therefore
everything that we are confident has been collected when the period
of time is considered, shall be faithfully transferred to our Treasury,
and we decree that henceforth nothing shall be sent to the aforesaid.
Let the populace of the Jews know, therefore, that we have removed
this depredatory tax. If, however, people shall be sent to perform
this task of exaction by that despoiler of the Jews, they shall be
handed over to the governors, in order that they shall be sentenced
as violators of our laws (C. Th. 16.8.14).127

123
C. Th. 16.8.22. See also Linder, The Jews, 196.
124
C. Th. 16.8.22.
125
C. Th. 16.8.14.
126
C. Th. 16.8.14.
127
See Linder, The Jews, 216.

120
The comment ‘that despoiler of the Jews’ (ab illo depopulatore Iudaeorum),
evidently referring to the patriarch, purports to be motivated by a desire to ease the
burdens of the Jews, in an attempt to gain their goodwill, and appears to have
directed Julian’s declaration of 363 to the Jews.128 It represents, however, an act of
interference in the administration of Jewish affairs, and a restriction of freedom of
movement. In 404, a reversal of this law was enacted.129

We order that all the privileges granted by our father, of divine

memory, and by the emperors before him to the excellent patriarchs
and to those set by them over others, shall retain their force (C. Th.
16.8.15).130

This also meant that Jews again were exempted from curial liturgies.131 However, it
was a dangerous precedent, the policy towards Jews now being according to the
whim of the particular legislator in power. The emperors had allowed the privileges
of the Jews to be dependent on their good will, and did not necessarily see these
privileges as ancient rights that were inviolate. In 429, Theodosius II dealt with the
Crown Tax, which the Jews used to pay every year to the Patriarch and his
household, appropriating it for the treasury.132 By this stage the Patriarchate had
ceased to exist, though apparently not by decree of the Emperor.133 It seems evident
that the office of Patriarch had been severely compromised by the law of 415 which
forbade the establishment of new synagogues and forbade him to judge
Christians.134

The law passed in April 404 on Jewish and Samaritan agents is not entirely clear

128
‘The worst burden of the yoke of slavery imposed upon you in the past has been that you were
subjected to unpublished taxes’. Epistulae, 51, as cited by Linder, The Jews, 156–7.
129
C. Th. 16.8.15.
130
See Linder, The Jews, 221.
131
See C. Th. 12.1.158, which repealed this exemption and 12.1.157.

132
See C. Th. 16.8.29.
133
See Linder, The Jews, 320.
134
See C. Th. 16.8.22.

121
for, though it concerns offences in conjunction with the privilege of the Executive
Agent, it does not appear to be a formal prohibition against Jews and Samaritans
serving as executive agents. The law passed in March 418 against Jews being
employed in three of the branches of the public service as executive agents, palatins
and in the military, indicates that no previous interdiction against recruiting Jews to
the central government existed till this time.135 Seven years later, in 425,
Valentinian II (425–455) decreed that Jews and pagans would no longer be
permitted to enter the military or to plead cases.136 It seems clear, however, that
Jews continued to practise law, because in 468, Anthemius (467–72) banned all
non-Catholics from the bar through his edict Nemo vel in foro.137 This law was also
not enforced as Anthemius was beheaded in Rome by the Burgundian King
Gundobad. Shortly afterwards in 476, the western empire fell to the German
Odoacer.138

Justinian Code

The Theodosian Code remained as the basis of subsequent law codes, being
succeeded by the Justinian Code, which came into effect in 534, in the east, but had
little effect in the west till the twelfth century. Twenty-five laws out of thirty- seven
or eight laws in the Justinian Code which deal with Jews, are derived from the
Theodosian Code, which originated in the fourth and fifth centuries.139 Justinian
abolished more than half of the fifty plus laws dealing with the Jews in the
Theodosian Code and effectively abolished the legality of Judaism.140 Christianity,
when fostered by the imperial system, had effectively risen to dominance in the
space of less than a century. Juridical separation of Christianity from Judaism had
begun to take effect.

135
See C. Th. 16.8.24. and Linder, The Jews, 280.
136
Constitutiones Sirmondianae, No. 6.
137
C.J. 1.3.15=C.J.1.5.12.9.
138
See Pakter, ‘Early Western’, 723.
139
See Linder, The Jews, 46–47.
140
See Parkes, The Conflict, 246.

122
Conclusion

It was quite clear that the church network had been strengthened by official
recognition by the Christian emperors, when Christianity became a licit religion.
The church’s power grew steadily from the time of Constantine, its numbers
multiplying, while a power crisis developed in imperial government, especially in
the west, where attacks from barbarian kings were taking their toll. The fall of the
Roman Empire is conventionally dated to 476 CE. If the western empire had
disintegrated, the east is traditionally said to have remained unified till about the
fifteenth century.141 It was also evident that the growing power and intolerance of
the church boded ill for Jews. Since the church’s power was moral rather than
judicial, the church alone could not have effected separation. When Christianity
became the religion of the empire, the church and the secular authorities
collaborated to erode the position of Jews, so that, even socially, there was
separation between Jews and Christians.

The Theodosian Code in its restrictive measures against the Jews set the lines for a
growing lack of tolerance. Roman law enforcement was not efficient. The
contradictions and withdrawals of repressive laws and the sheer number of
repetitions of the same laws indicate that in practice these laws were ineffective.
Church influence was possibly not yet strong at this period, but it was growing.

Other laws reflect the progressive decay of the curial system. The interference with
the Patriarchy indicates that Gamaliel, for example, did not heed the restrictions
against Jews. Why was the Patriarchy abolished later? Had the Jewish authorities
decided that it was better to be less conspicuous in face of rising Christian power
and aggression? Again, the interference with Jewish money collected for Jewish
purposes was a symptom of imperial financial difficulties. Despite problems with
enforcement, it was significant that the imperial laws at this time gave legal

141
Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire. AD 284–430 (Hammersmith, Fontana, 1993), 187.

123
sanction to the condemnation of judaising practices by church authorities.
Conditions had been created for the juridical separation of the church from
Judaism. The Theodosian Code was a significant step in this direction. The
Justinian Code, which came later was revelatory of a further estrangement, for, by
the sixth century, many of the privileges and protective laws concerning Jews
present in the Theodosian Code had been removed.

124
125
Chapter Five. The Separation of Christian Liturgy from Jewish
Liturgy

A study of the Jewish roots of Christian liturgy casts light on another aspect of the
separation of church and synagogue. The issue raised through a study of common
elements in Jewish and Christian liturgy concerns the extent to which the church
and synagogue can be said to have inter-related and to have separated in the
matter of religious practice. However, in any attempt to decide exactly which parts
of the Temple service or synagogue ritual formed the basis of apparently
corresponding parts of Christian service, the way ahead is not clear.

On the institutional level, the picture was varied. It could be argued that in the
beginning, it was not a separation between church and synagogue, but between
strands of Judaism which did not attach any importance to the person of Jesus,
and those for whom he was important. A talmudic reference records that when the
Temple was destroyed, there were twenty-four kinds of Judaism.1 It was in this
climate that Christianity started out as another expression of Judaism. In addition,
there was a wide overlapping between church and synagogue on the level of
popular piety as well as in the official stance, at least until the end of the fourth
century.2 Popular practice did not always reflect the official stance, as the frequent
repetition of prohibitions concerning judaising practices in church canons and
laws in the Theodosian Code has indicated. The rate of separation varied between
the eastern and western parts of the empire. Again, there was a wide range of
differences in the eastern churches, which tended to hold to more Judaic practices,
as has been gleaned from a study of church council documents.

The evolution of Christian liturgy and its relationship with Jewish liturgy is a
complex issue. Though Christian liturgy retained its Jewish base, an examination
of the elements retained by early Christianity appears to indicate that many of

1
See y. Sanh. 29c.
2
See Wolfram Kinzig,‘“Non-Separation”: Closeness and Co-Operation Between Jews and
Christians in the Fourth Century’, VC, 45 (1991), 29.

125
these belonged to the era when The Temple still stood, rather than to the Judaism
that developed into rabbinic Judaism as expounded in the Mishnah, the realm of
oral tradition. The names of Temple functionaries, such as readers, lectors, levites,
and singers, were retained in Christian worship, but these names do not occur in
New Testament texts, suggesting a later appropriation from the Hebrew Bible.
The church clung to several elements of Jewish worship that had existed before
the fall of the Temple, and even today still preserves elements that were part of
the fabric of Jewish worship in Temple times. These include some ceremonial
actions such as processions and prostrations, and the antiphonal nature of prayers.

This phenomenon indicates a separation from the emerging rabbinic Judaism in

the wake of the destruction of the Temple. In the first century, the church could be
grouped with Samaritans, Ebionites, Essenes and the creators of the Dead Sea
writings. These were forms of Judaism that accepted one Torah, the written
Torah, whereas, rabbinic Judaism had two Torahs the written (to which the so
called one Torah Judaisms adhered to a greater or lesser extent) and the oral Torah
which became enshrined in the Mishnah, Talmuds and Midrash.3

Like every new religion, Christianity developed stage by stage. In

its first years its development was extremely fast. Christianity had
already [in the first century] spread not only among Palestinian
Jews, but also among Jews in the Diaspora.4

Like many scholars Flusser holds that John’s Gospel and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, as well as some other New Testament epistles, represent a second
stratum of Christianity, as against the first one, that of Jesus and his disciples. He
demonstrates that the first stratum of Christianity had special affinities with
rabbinic Judaism, whereas he sees the second stratum, to which Paul belonged, as
being influenced by the Essenes and their world-view. Through channels which
are unknown to us, this group also influenced Hellenistic Jewry in Asia Minor and

3
The Sadducees, like the Samaritans, Essenes, and authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the
oral Torah espoused by the Pharisaic movement. See Josephus, Ant. 18:11, m. Yad. 4:7, Acts
23:6-8. See also R. North ‘The Qumran Sadducees’, CBQ, 17 (1955), 44-68.
4
See David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity (New York, Adama Books, 1987),
68.

126
other countries. According to Flusser’s view, these Hellenistic circles were an
important factor in the later disengagement of Christianity from Judaism.5

Whether or not one accepts Flusser’s premise, it could be assumed that Jewish
converts, drawn from the various strands of Judaism, tended to practise elements
of the Judaism they had known before becoming Christian. At the same time, in
becoming Christian, they were subscribing to many Christian practices that were
derived from Judaism. Again, converts of non-Jewish origin also would have
imported their world-views into Christianity. This would have contributed to a
variety of forms in the Christian stance. In addition, what Flusser identifies as the
Essene world-view may rather have been the ground milieu that influenced Essene
thought and the thought patterns of other groups, including Christianity. Again,
even in terms of the written Torah, there was a selection of elements retained in
Christian liturgy and practice. Other elements were added to Christian liturgy that
reflected the increasingly gentile background of its converts. Added to these
phenomena was the fact that the Christian expulsion from the synagogue
apparently was not effected at least until after Gamaliel II’s activities at Yabneh,
thus allowing almost two-thirds of a century of Christian liturgical development
within a Jewish milieu.6

The elements that were absorbed into Christian worship evidently sprang from
this period as well as from the common biblical heritage.7 Early Christian rituals
and liturgical practices described in the New Testament or in the Church Fathers,
are similar to practices in both the early and later Jewish mainstream and sectarian
rites. The number of such practices did not develop independently of Judaism.8

It is clear in hindsight that during the Second Commonwealth period, sacrificial

5
He appears to be identifying the writers of Qumran documents with Essenes, a much debated
point.
6
See b. Ber. 28b–29a and parallels.
7
See Alan Crown, ‘Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy’, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies,
7:2 (1993), 65.
8
See Crown, ‘Jewish Roots’, 66.

127
ritual was undergoing a decline and was being replaced by synagogue prayer and
liturgy as well as by rituals within the home. It was the Sadducees whose lives and
destinies were closely bound up with the Temple who fell from positions of power
with the destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees, on the other hand, by
transplanting the rituals of the Temple to the home, had helped to free the later
sages from the necessity of offering sacrifices, thus preparing the way for the
reforms of rabbinic Judaism needed to adapt to life without the Jerusalem Temple.
At the same time, rabbinic Judaism continued to cherish the memory of the
Temple and details of sacrificial ritual were remembered and preserved in
rabbinic literature. In addition, the writers of the scrolls found at Qumran
developed liturgies and a world view to compensate for the lack of a temple, since
these sectarians regarded the Jerusalem priesthood as corrupt, and the Jerusalem
Temple consequently as being polluted.9

Sources on Jewish Prayer

Christian worship was clearly derived from Jewish liturgy. Thus, the development
of Jewish liturgy during the formative period of Christianity needs to be
examined, in the period prior to the destruction of the Second Temple and after it.
To date a problem exists, in that there is little material from the earliest formative
period of the Jewish liturgy itself. The texts that have been transmitted to us
represent a relatively late stage in its development. Sources predating the first
century, including parts of the Hebrew Bible, as well as intertestamental literature
such as Judith, Maccabees, Jubilees, I Enoch, and the Testament of Levi, were
found at Qumran. In addition, there is the Nash Papyrus from the second century
BCE,10 and some information is provided by the New Testament, incidental
references by Josephus and Philo, material from the Cairo Genizah, Targum

9
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the
Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication
Society, 1994), 289–90.

10
See W. F. Albright, ‘A Biblical Fragment of the Maccabean Age: The Nash Papyrus’, JBL, 56
(1937), 145–176. The document gives evidence of the Shema and Decalogue being used for
instruction or liturgy.

128
Neofiti, Megillat Taanit and the baraitas of the Mishnah and Talmuds.11

Christian worship, as depicted in the New Testament and early Christian writings
of the Apostolic Fathers is also a witness to Jewish worship, because of the
indications given of growth from Judaism.12 Again, a sizeable number of liturgical
fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal an organised prayer ritual. This
material from Qumran indicates that although the forms of Jewish prayer are
thought to have been fluid at this time, it is clear that the building blocks of much
of the future structure of Jewish prayer were already in place. Forms of blessings
of the Amidah and the blessings of the Shema, as well as Sabbath liturgies were
already in evidence.13 The authors of the scrolls at Qumran in a sense predated a
later movement in Judaism, in evolving prayer forms in a worship that no longer
functioned with a Temple and daily sacrifices, and yet were deeply marked by it.
Talmon commented in 1960:

Embedded in the scrolls and fragments...there appear to be

scattered portions of a ‘Manual of Benedictions’, viz, a collection
of blessings arranged according to the calendar, containing daily
prayers side by side with festival prayers, after the manner of the
mahazorta still used in the Syrian Church.14

His remarks have been vindicated in recent years with the publication of scrolls
showing the practice of prayer at fixed times, public prayers, and prayers of fixed
content.15

11
See Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (Berlin, Walter De
Gruyter, 1977), 5.
12
See article by R. T. Beckwith, ‘The Jewish Background to Christian Worship’, in Cheslyn
Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold (eds), The Study of Liturgy (London,
SPCK, 1978), 39–40. See also James H. Charlesworth, ‘A Prolegomena to a New Study of the
Jewish Background of the Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament’, JJS, 33 (1982), 265–5.
13
For a useful survey see James H. Charlesworth, ‘Jewish Hymns, Odes and Prayers (ca 167
B.C.E.–135 C.E.)’, in R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds), Early Judaism and its
Modern Interpreters (Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986), 411–36. See also David Flusser,
‘Psalms, Hymns and Prayers’, in M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple
Period (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1984), 551–7.
14
See S. Talmon, ‘The Manual of Benedictions of the Sect of the Qumran Desert’, REQ, 2:8
(1960), 476.
15
See for example 1Q34bis 2+16 (Prayer for the Day of Atonement), 4Q504 1-2 vii 4 (Hymns

129
Joseph Heinemann postulated that Jewish prayers were originally the creation of
the common people, the result of the spontaneous improvisation of those who
gathered to pray in the synagogues. He believed that only later did the Rabbis
systematise and impose order on this multiplicity of patterns, forms and
structures, rejecting some and favouring others that appeared more acceptable.16
On the other hand, Tzvee Zahavy, following the line of thought set by Jacob
Neusner, gives a much greater role to the rabbis in the formulation of specific
synagogue prayers.17 Whatever the reality, the evidence from Qumran fills in some
gaps in knowledge, and suggests that a number of groups, including those at
Qumran, were involved in the composition of prayers for specific purposes.
Again, it is feasible that once there were communal prayers in more than one
centre, there was also a variety of oral versions, and that no one original text
existed.18

Prayers in the Temple

Heinemann postulates that originally the Temple cult proper was not accompanied
by any oral form of prayer, but rather by a ‘sacramental silence’. He concedes that
certain forms of songs and prayers which developed during the Second Temple
belonged to the sphere of the popular cult, and were incidental to the sacrificial
cult itself.19 It is likely that among the elements that appear to have transferred
from the Second Temple to the synagogue, in addition to the Shema and a form of

on the Sabbath day) or 4Q509 (First Fruits Festivals) as well as daily blessings (4Q503). See
Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, tr. Jonathan Chipman (Leiden, Brill,
1994), 49ff. See also Steven Fine (ed.), Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the Ancient
Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period (London, Routledge,
1999).
16
See Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 37.
17
See Tzvee Zahavy, Studies in Jewish Prayer (Lanham, University Press of America, 1990),
21ff.
18
See Stefan Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History
(Cambridge University Press, 1993), 77ff.’
19
See Joseph Heinemann, Hatefilah be-tekufat ha-tana’im ve ha’amoraim: Tiba ve-defusia, 2nd
edition (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1966), vi.

130
the Amidah, was the use of certain biblical psalms including the Hallel psalms
(113–118), the recitation of the Decalogue as part of the Shema liturgy, versions
of the poetic selihoth and hosha’noth, and certain rituals of the High Priest on the
Day of Atonement.20 Other likely elements include the grace after meals, and the
priestly blessing.21 Heinemann also concludes that it is more probable that the
synagogue service, with its characteristic combination of readings from the
Scriptures and prayers, evolved independently of the Temple, being the result of a
popular movement. These prayers were in the form of a series of berakhot. He
argues that otherwise it would be difficult to understand the reason these elements
appeared in the Temple only on rare occasions, such as Yom Kippur, but not on
Sabbaths and other festivals. He points also to the fact that these prayers were
recited at unsuitable times and in remote locations, always remaining marginal,
and not being integrated into the sacrificial cult itself.

Moreover the new abodah of prayers was undoubtedly a novel

conception, a new style of worship; had it been created in the
Temple itself, it would of necessity have affected, and to some
degree transformed, the entire abodah of the Temple itself.22

He continues that even in the Temple, these prayers possessed certain specific
characteristics, such as the use of the Tetragrammaton. Other characteristics are
the antiphonal or responsorial nature of most of these prayers, and the numerous
and lengthy responses on the part of the people. Again the prayers were
accompanied by certain ceremonial practices, such as processions, prostrations,
and the sounding of the trumpet and shofar. Even in connection with these
prayers, which were peripheral to the sacrificial cult, special tasks were assigned
to the priests.23

20
See Heinemann, Hatefilah ,vi-vii. See also b. Yoma, 6:2 and 7:1.
21
See Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 85 who cites the recent discovery of a seventh-century
BCE silver amulet with a form of the priestly benediction.

22
See Heinemann, Hatefilah, vi.
23
See Heinemann, Hatefilah, vii.

131
Daily Prayer

It is evident that in the Second Temple period and the period following it, prayer
in the synagogues was regarded as abodah, in a manner analogous to the
sacrificial cult. Thus synagogue prayer was seen as complementing the Temple
sacrifices, the daily synagogue prayers, according to talmudic tradition, being
instituted to correspond to the daily sacrifices (b. Ber. 26b).

Synagogue worship traditionally dates from after the Babylonian exile in the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus, worshippers were able to offer up sacrifices of their
own in addition to those that were offered up in the Temple through the medium
of the daily communal prayer, which could be offered anywhere and was not
confined to the particular geographical location of the Jerusalem Temple.24
Evidence from Qumran shows that prayer and exactitude in the fulfilment of the
commandments as a means of pleasing God was seen as fulfilling the role of
sacrifices for the atonement for sin.25

Sources from the days of the Second Temple indicate that worshippers were
scrupulous about reciting their prayers at exactly those hours when the daily
services were being offered in the Temple, and the incense was being burned.26
Statutory prayer appears to have been communal from its inception, and in the
synagogue worship, a minyan was sufficient to represent the entire people, unlike
the situation in the Temple where special functionaries, priests and Levites offered
the sacrifices on behalf of the community.27 Although the evidence available can
be variously interpreted, it would appear that the Judaism that was reconstructed

24
See Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 15. See also m. Meg. 4:3.
25
See 1QS (9:4–5) ‘They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they
may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of
sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and
perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering.’ See Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls
in English, 4th edition (London, Penguin Books, 1995), 82.
26
See Judith 9:1; Luke 1:10; Josephus, Ap. 2, 23.
27
See m. Meg. 4:3

132
after the fall of the Temple by the rabbis, built on the elements already present in
synagogue worship, incorporating several elements from Temple practice, and
modified them to fit the changed conditions.

Though elements from Temple worship and synagogue liturgy were retained, it
would appear that the practice of common worship of the first Christians with
Jews was weakened with the fall of the Temple and the cessation of sacrifices,
and the political upheaval and displacement of population, many possibly to
Galilee. Eric Meyers considers that archaeological evidence supports the view that
Jews and Christians relocated to Galilee, and declares that it also indicates that the
Jewish and Christian communities continued to live in harmony till the seventh
century CE, in various locations such as Capernaum.28

Some scholars associate the ejection of Christians from the synagogue with the
period of Yabneh and the Twelfth Benediction, the so-called Benediction of the
Minim. This latter point is also a controversial issue. Passages in John (9:22,
12:42 and 16:2), have been interpreted as pointing to the expulsion of Christians
from the synagogue. If this is so, were these expulsions isolated cases, or on a
more universal level?29 It would be difficult to pinpoint when Christian
participation in synagogue worship ceased. Any decision made by the rabbis
would have been limited to their own communities, and to the few in their
immediate sphere of influence. The process of separation of Christians from the
synagogue was protracted and varied with the locality.30

28
See Eric Meyers, ‘Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology’, BA,. 51:2
(1988), 69–76. His view contradicts the opinion (derived from Eusebius) Hist. eccl. 3.5.3.
and noted by Ephiphanius of Salamis, Panarion, 29:7.7–8; 30.2.7 and Treatise on Weights
and Measures 15, that most of the Jerusalem Christians relocated to Pella.
29
See also Luke 6:22; 2 Cor 11:24; 13:45–50; 14:2-6; 14:19; 17:5; 17:13; 18:12–17; Acts 18:7;
Acts 19:9; 21:27; 23:30. See for example P. M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God:
The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology, The Edward Cadbury Lecture
at the University of Birmingham, 1985 (Cambridge, James Clarke, 1991), ch. 7. Casey
presents a three stage model of christological development in the first century, culminating
with the expulsion of members of the Johannine community from the synagogue.
30
Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (University of Chicago Press,
1994), 18ff.

133
New Testament View of Jesus

The evidence indicates that in terms of liturgy, it was Christianity’s doctrinal

position on Jesus which eventually made worship together of Christians and Jews
untenable. This was a primary area of separation. Again, the Christian stance on
Jesus was to determine the character and development of Christian worship.31
Larry Hurtado demonstrates that the binarian devotional practices of generations
of Christians who reverenced the exalted Christ along with God, amounted to a
mutation in monotheism. Hurtado identifies as the six features of the religious
devotion of early Christianity, hymnic practices, prayer and related practices , use
of the name of Christ, the Lord’s supper, confession of faith in Jesus, and
prophetic pronouncement of the risen Christ.32 These indicate a significant
mutation in the Jewish monotheistic tradition: His research demonstrates that the
complexities of the development of Christian monotheism defy simplistic
explanations. Certainly the growth of the non-Jewish membership of Christianity
led to the ‘mutation’ becoming unacceptable to so-called normative Judaism by
the end of the first century. The christological rhetoric of the New Testament and
of the later christological controversies and creeds reflects the attempt to explain
and defend intellectually a development that began in human terms in profound
religious experiences and in corporate worship.33

The Christian belief in Jesus’ messiahship is shown by the earliest New

Testament texts as a cause of tension, as well as christological titles such as ‘Son
of God’, ‘Lord’, and ‘Saviour’.34 If one accepts that the writing of the books later
in included in the New Testament is dated from 30 to 100 CE, the use of ‘God’ for

31
See Kinzig, ‘“Non-Separation”, 28.
32
See Larry W. Hurtado, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism
(Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988), 100ff.
33
Hurtado, One Lord, 128.
34
See Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflection (London, Geoffrey
Chapman,1968). He points out the complexity of the question, and the extent of the material
needing to be discussed. This has been the subject of many full-scale works by Christian
theologians such as Oscar Cullmann, V. Taylor and F. Hahn. See Brown, Jesus, 2–3ff. The
term ‘son of man’ occurs several times in the synoptics, including Mark 2:28; Matt 12:32;
Luke 12:8–9; Matt 10:32 -33; Luke 9;48; Matt 8:20.

134
 Jesus clearly belongs to the second half of the period, becoming frequent only
towards the end of the period. The first kerygmatic formulae appeared in written
form in Paul’s letters and in the synoptics.35

After listing a number of texts which give only unequivocal support to the claim
that Jesus was called ‘God’,36 Brown lists three texts he considers to be clear
statements of Jesus’ divinity. Two of these occur in the Gospel of John.37 Unlike
the synoptics, which do not appear to have clear declarations of Jesus’ divinity,
John’s gospel provides instances which speak of the pre-existent Word (1:1), and
the confessional declaration of Thomas to the resurrected Jesus (20:28).38 Yet
there is a certain reticence here, and it is not surprising that a first century Jew
would have exercised restraint in identifying a contemporary historical figure with
God, and, in the words of Vermes, in ‘bridging of the gulf between son of God
and God’.39 The third text in Brown’s list is Hebrews 1:8–9, the authorship, place
and exact date of whose composition is not known. It may have been compiled by
a Christian of Jewish origin.40

35
See 1 Cor 12:3 and ‘Who, though he was in the form (µορφÍ) of God, did not count equality
with God a thing to be grasped’ (Phil 2:6–11). See also Rom 10:9 and. ‘And he asked them,
“But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ”’(Mark 8:29). See
Brown, Jesus, 31ff. Brown’s analysis is generally accepted by scholars. See O. Cullmann, The
Christology of the New Testament, tr. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. (London,
SCM Press, 1959), 314.
36
Brown’s list of texts implying that the title ‘God’ was not used for Jesus, but rather for God the
Father include: Mark 10:18; 15:34, 27:46; Eph 1:17; John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4–6; I Tim
2:5; John 14:28; Mark 13:32; Phil 2:5-10; 1 Cor 15:24. He also lists other texts where the use
of ‘God’ for Jesus is dubious (a) passages with textual variants: Gal 2: 20; Acts 20:28; John
1:18; Col 2:2; and (b) passages with obscurity arising from the context: 2 Thess 1:12; Tit 2:13;
I Jn 5:20; Rom 9:5 and 2 Pet 1:1. He considers that the latter five instances have a certain
probability, the use of theos that is attested the early second century being a continuation of a
usage (also liturgical) that had begun in New Testament times. See Brown, Jesus, 6–23, 28–29.
37
Common consensus dates John later than the synoptics. The Gospel of John, in which the
prologue is significant to christology has been called a non-proleptic gospel written in
retrospect. See Phillip Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism (Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Pickwick Papers, 1980), vol. 1, 403.
38
However, in the synoptics various actions of Jesus are portrayed as actions considered as
belonging to God, such as the forgiving of sin (Matt 9:2-8; Mark 2: 5–7; Luke 5: 20–24), and
he is accused of blasphemy.
39
See Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: An Historian‘s Reading of the Gospel (London
Fontana/Collins, 1976), 212.
40
See Brown, Jesus, God and Man, 25, 28. The author of Hebrews may have been a Christian of

135
An extensive treatment of Christology is not the aim, here, as theological analysis
is not being attempted. However, the question of developing Christian attitudes to
Jesus cannot be avoided, as this was a basic cause of division. Cullmann has
stated that when ‘God’ is used in some of the epistles of the New Testament, this
use never goes beyond the idea of the exalted Lord and revelation incarnate. What
attestation exists of the custom of calling Jesus ‘God’ in the developing Christian
centres of the New Testament world in Greece, Rome, Macedonia, Crete,
Alexandria, Palestine, Ephesus in Asia Minor, Antioch and Bithynia, in the late
first century?41 Whatever the actual situation, in the early second century Pliny
claims that Christians from Bithynia in Asia Minor sang hymns to Christ as to a
God.42 At the beginning of the second century, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch speaks
of Jesus as God.43

The break would have been sealed when Christian assertions about the divinity of
Jesus made it impossible for Jews and Christians to worship together. This may
have been happening about the time of the composition of the Gospel of John, but
an exact date cannot be pinpointed. When the particularity of Christian ritual was
so defined as to make worship together with Jews untenable, a break had occurred
and another step towards separation taken. One fact is evident. The more
significance that was attached to the person of Jesus, the further apart the
separation became between Jews and Christians.44

Jewish origin because of his detailed knowledge of m. Yoma which is clearly attested in the
author’s descriptions of the scape goat on the Day of Atonement, and in other allusions to
Christ the High-Priest where he claims Christ superseded the rites of Judaism. This theology
of supersessionism was to continue to characterise Christian writings.
41
Brown, Jesus, 32.
42
See Brown, Jesus, 32.

43
See his commentary on Ephesians 18:2 .‘For our God, (ΘεÕj) Jesus the Christ’, or Ephesians
1:1 or Smyrnians 1:1. According to Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.36. Ignatius was the third bishop of
Antioch.
44
Geza Vermes said: ‘One thing, however, is sure. When Christianity later set out to define the
meaning of son of God in its Creed, the paraphrase it produced – “God of God, Light of Light,
true God of true God, consubstantial with the Father”– drew its inspiration, not from the pure
language and teaching of the Galilean Jesus, nor even from Paul the Diaspora Jew, but from a
gentile –Christian interpretation of the Gospel adapted to the mind of the totally alien world of

136
Development of Christology – Divisions Over the Nature of Christ

The Church’s continuing elaboration of the christological doctrine was part of the
process of separation from Judaism, for the status of Christ posed a problem for
monotheism. Controversies were twofold, revolving around the definitions of the
divinity of Christ on the one hand, and of his humanity on the other. The solutions
provided further differentiated Christian theology from Judaism.

The fundamental principle that God is one could not be compromised. The
problem faced by the developing Christian theology was the harmonising of this
fundamental principle of monotheism with the independent existence and the
divine activity of Jesus as related in the gospels. From the second century
onwards, the various christological controversies were attempts to come to terms
with monotheism, culminating in credal formulations and statements by
ecumenical church councils on christology.

One controversy was Monarchianism, an attempt to harmonise monotheism with

the fact that the New Testament speaks not only of God but also of Christ and the
Holy Spirit. The problem was ‘solved’ by the modalistic Monarchianists who
designated Jesus and the Holy Spirit as modes of divinity. Thus divinity had
different ways of appearing, as Father, as Son or as Holy Spirit. The dynamistic
Monarchianists preached that God had sent his spirit into the man Jesus, and in
this way changed him into Christ. At the end of the second century the
Monarchian controversies had begun to spread from Asia Minor to Rome.

Arianism

The fourth century and those succeeding it would witness the Church’s struggle to
define itself and its christological position in the face of Arianism, and other
positions considered aberrant.45 The Arian controversy, which pursued its tortuous

pagan Hellenism’. Vermes, Jesus, 213.

45
J. Daniélou, A. H. Couratin and John Kent, Historical Theology. Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1969), 17, 87.

137
path for at least sixty years in the fourth century, was an argument as to the extent
of Christ’s divinity, and his place within the Trinity. The controversy was so
divisive that at one time, Antioch had four bishops corresponding to the
Eustathians, Apollinarians, Arians and Homeans, who could not agree on
christology. It was not the popes, emperors, councils or theologians who settled
the controversy, but rather the steady pressure from the masses who worshipped
Christ as God, and that he had been so worshipped from the very earliest times of
the church.46

The adoption of the homoousius doctrine to describe the relationship of the Father
to the Son by the Council of Nicaea (325), was refined by the Council of
Constantinople in 381. Even with further refinements made by the Council of
Chalcedon (451) the problem remained unresolved.47

Apollinarianism and Nestorianism

The second strand of the controversy, concerned the humanity of Christ. There
were attempts to refute Apollinaris of Laodicea who said it was impossible for
Christ to be completely human. Nestorius, who became patriarch of
Constantinople, was involved in the controversy which dealt with whether Mary
should be called anthropotokos or theotokos. Nestorius’ answer was to declare
Mary to be the Christotokos or ‘bearer of Christ’. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444),
with questionable methods, succeeded in having Nestorius’ answer overturned at
the Council of Ephesus in 431.

In the third stage of the controversy, Cyril’s victorious party was attacked by the
archimandrite of Constantinople, Eutyches, who declared that ‘Before the union
of the two natures I recognise two natures, but after the union the flesh of the Lord
is not like ours’. Though the counter attack at Chalcedon theoretically solved the

46
See. See Kurt Aland, From the Beginnings to the Threshold of the Reformation 1: A History of
Christianity, tr. James L. Schaaf (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985), 109–191. A solution was
offered by Logos Christology, with Christ being described as the Logos who proceeded from
God (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian).
47
See Aland, From the Beginnings, 192–198.

138
argument, the controversy about Christology really began to take on its full force
from that time.48

Within the church, itself, therefore, the definition of christology had led to
tensions and eventual separations of different strands of Christianity in the east
and west. This needs to be viewed against the background of the question of the
establishment of authority within the church itself. Again, its developing self-
definition and its growing alliance with imperial power occurred in the wake of
Diocletian’s short lived persecution and the accession of Constantine. The latter
made Christianity a protected religion, giving it a legitimacy from which to
expand its powerbase. 49

Flusser argues that Jesus’ whole metaphysical drama is composed of Jewish

elements, and he sees original christology as developing from Jesus’ exalted sense
of self-awareness. Jesus’ personal experience of divine sonship came to be linked
with the Jewish concept of the pre-existence of the Messiah.50 This led in turn to
the idea that Christ was at the same time God’s hypostasis, and that God created
the world through him.51 Jesus’ crucifixion was seen in terms of the death of a
martyr expiating sin, and the concepts of Jesus’ resurrection and ascension are
also Jewish.52 Again, the idea of Son of Man, expressed in Daniel and Enoch,
represents the highest concept of Messiah in Judaism. Flusser claims that ‘the
church’s christology was a sublime expression of the tendency of Second
Commonwealth Judaism to remythologise itself; Christianity showed the extreme
possibilities of this remythologisation’.53 Christology continued to be elaborated,

48
Chalcedon established that even after the union of the two natures into the one Christ, each of
the natures retained its own properties, and the two natures were joined together in one person
in one hypostasis. See Aland, A History, 201–3.
49
See Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire. AD. 284–430 (Hammersmith, London
Fontana Press, 1993) 10 ff. Diocletian’s persecution was from 303–11 CE.
50
David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, in Immanuel, 16 (1983), 35.
51
See John 1: 1–17.
52
‘For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.’ (Romans 5:6).
53
See Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, 35.

139
with the doctrine of the Trinity being developed as part of the definition of
christological doctrine.

As increasing numbers of non-Jews joined the Christian movement, and quickly

began to outnumber Christians of Jewish origin, its christology became less
inhibited by the constraints of Jewish monotheism.54 Judaism, with its stress on
monotheism could not accept the divinity of Christ.55

Flusser asks whether it would have been possible for a belief in Jesus’
metahistorical biography, without its later expressions, to have found a place in
Judaism? He argues against it, seeing messianism as a strong remythologsation in
a specific direction, and the expression of only one of the tendencies in ancient
Judaism. Secondly, he views the christology expressed in the New Testament as
being unacceptable, finding the superhuman nature and mission of Christ and the
whole cosmic drama to be in disharmony with the Jewish belief in the God who is
One, and whose Name is One. In addition, many Jews expected the Messiah to
liberate Israel (Luke 24:21).56

Shaye Cohen argues that belief in Jesus’ resurrection and status as messiah was
the focal point for the differentiation between ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’
Jews. He points out that in ancient Judaism, sectarianism generally expressed
itself in polemics against the central institutions of Jewish society, especially the
Temple and its authority figures such as the priests, and its religious practices, in
particular purity, Sabbath and marriage law. He declares that the ‘cutting edge’ of
sectarianism was not theology but practice. Thus, early Christianity ceased to be a
Jewish sect when it no longer observed Jewish practices.57

54
See chapter 7 of Casey, From Jewish Prophet.
55
See Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, 34–5.
56
See Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, 34–5.
57
See Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia, Westminster
Press, 1987), 168.

140
Yet, despite Christian borrowing of elements belonging to Jewish liturgical
practice, certain elements that belong to the essential framework of Jewish liturgy
as it was developing before the fall of the Temple were not retained in Christian
liturgy, or were retained only for a short time, or were radically changed.58 These
elements include the prayer section of the daily service, which consists of the
Shema liturgy and its blessings as well as the Amidah, and accompanying
blessings. The other essential element of the daily services was retained, namely
the Torah readings. Research indicates that Torah reading and study were the
chief religious activities in the synagogue during the Second Temple period.
However, from material found at Qumran it would appear that the prayer forms
were well developed, prayer being a substitute for Temple sacrifice.59

The Question of the Shema for the Early Christians

If one accepts that it was the Christian stance on Jesus that was one of the key
elements leading to separate Christian worship from Jewish worship, one would
conclude that this would have been the chief reason for the non-retention in
Christian worship of the recitation of the Shema, and the retention of a form of the
Amidah for a limited period 60 The question of the Shema is fundamental, as it
concerns the question of monotheism, a basic tenet of Judaism. In the case of the
Shema, the point could be made that a movement that declares Jesus to be divine,
would not be inclined to recite the text of the first two paragraphs of the Shema,
but would substitute cult prayers centred around Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Again, why retain the use of tefillin or prayer shawl, or mezzuzah if ‘Jesus’
symbolism is to distinguish the new movement, whose members came in
increasing numbers from the ranks of non-Jews? Thus, the non-retention of the
Shema in Christian worship represented a fundamental break and further step
apart, a corollary of the Christian view of monotheism and the place of Jesus. The

58
Evidence is taken from such texts as the Didache and the Apostolical Constitutions.
59
See Esther Glicker Chazan, Dead Sea Discoveries, 1,3 (Leiden Brill, 1994), 265–80. Over
two hundred prayers, hymns and psalms were discovered in the Qumran caves.
60
See Apostolical Constitutions, 8:34–8.

141
other liturgical issues should be considered as secondary, their retention or non-
retention not being the primary cause of separation.

There is an allusion to the Shema in the beginning of the Didache, which speaks
of loving God and neighbour, cited as being the first two commandments in the
synoptics (Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10: 25–8; Mark 12: 28–34).

The Way of Life is this: First, you shall love the God who made
you, secondly, your neighbour as yourself; and whatsoever you
would not have done to yourself, do not do to another (Didache
1:2).61

Some have argued that the Amidah or Shemoneh Esreh, called HaTefillah, The
Prayer par excellence, was a creation of the rabbis of Yabneh, as well as the
building of the recitation of the Shema into a regular daily liturgy.62 This,
however, would not do justice to the evidence from Qumran, nor of the obvious
Jewish practice of the Shema pictured in the New Testament63 and Philo,64 and
Ben Sira, who gives a list of benedictions of which several bear striking
resemblances to the benedictions of the Amidah and other parts of the liturgy.65

61
The Apostolic Fathers 1, tr. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (2 vols, London,
Macmillan, 1912), 309.
62
See Zahavy, Studies in Jewish Prayer1990, 16ff. Stefan Reif argues that there is no
convincing evidence that even the earliest known text of the Amidah predates the destruction
of the Temple, and suggests that m. Tam. 5:1 which speaks of the daily recitation in the
Temple of an introductory benediction, the Decalogue, the Shema, and the priestly blessing
may be another example of a later text projecting back a contemporary custom on to earlier
times. See Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 57–60.
63
For the Shema see Matt 22:36–39, Mark 12:28-30; Luke 10:25–28. Jeremias holds that Mark
12.26ff, when Jesus speaks of God as the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God
of Jacob, as well as Matt 11:25, where Jesus calls God ‘Lord of heaven and earth’, recalling
Ex 3:6,15 and Gen 14:19, 22 are instances where reference is made to the first blessing of the
Amidah. He holds that these expressions were not in use in Palestinian Judaism outside the
Amidah. See Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London, SCM, 1967), 75.
64
Philo Spec. Leg. IV 137–8 contains a paraphrase of the Shema. See Naomi G. Cohen, Philo
Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt, Land, 1995), 129–77.
65
See Sir 36:1–17 and chapters 50–51. See also A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and its
Development (New York, Schocken, 1967), 20–2.

142
According to the Talmud, the recitation of the Decalogue was dropped by
Judaism, in reaction to the sectarians who retained only the Decalogue, then part
of the liturgy of the Shema.66 This information is corroborated by evidence from
the first part of the Didache, itself believed to be a composite document. It seems
evident that the first part, known as The Two Ways, was part of an original pre-
Christian Jewish document from the first century or earlier, where the author
shows how a minor breach leads to serious sin (rnuju ke).67 While the so-called
Golden Rule of Hillel and some of the prescriptions of the Decalogue are
mentioned, the Sabbath is omitted.

The Way of Life is this: ‘First, you shall love the God who made
you, secondly, your neighbour as yourself; and whatsoever you
would not have done to yourself, do not do to another’ (Didache
1:2).

But the second commandment of the teaching is this; 2. You shall

not murder; you shall not commit adultery, you shall not covet your
neighbour’s goods (Didache 2:1, 2).68

Naomi Cohen postulates that the third paragraph of the Shema, which sums up the
commandments was substituted by the rabbis for the Decalogue. As part of the
evidence to support this theory, she points out that this third paragraph is not
attested in Philo in his descriptions of the Shema.69 The Didascalia, a third century
document from Asia Minor declares that only the Decalogue need be observed by
Christians. It claims to have been compiled by the apostles at Jerusalem

66
b. Ber 12a. See also m. Tam. 5:1, where both the Decalogue and Numbers 15:37–41 are
listed.
67
The ‘Two Ways’ is the only doctrinal treatise that has been found among ancient Hebrew
writings. See commentary ‘The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’ in The
Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 307. See also David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of
Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes, 1988), 200, 497–9 (The Two Ways). Evidence from
Qumran shows a version of this doctrine has been preserved in the so-called Community rule.
See 1 QS iii:17–20; ix:17–18. There is also a version in the Epistle of Barnabas (Barnabas
18–20).
68
See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 309–11.
69
See Cohen, Philo Judaeus, 168.

143
immediately following the Council described in Acts 15.70

The law therefore is indissoluble; but the second legislation is

temporary, and is dissoluble. Now the law consists of the ten words
and the judgements (decalogus et iudicia). (Didascalia 26:9–10).71

In addition, the Apostolical Constitutions declare that the Decalogue is valid, but
that Christ has released Christians from the bonds of the law.72 Opinions are
divided about the date of the work, but now it is believed to have been written in
the fourth century by an editor who used earlier material. The dating is supported
by internal evidence, which reveals that it is based on earlier sources such as
Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and the lost Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus
on which book seven of the Apostolical Constitutions appears to be based.73 It is
possible the text in the Babylonian Talmud omitting the Decalogue is a reaction to
the Christian attitude to the law. As the Didascalia, Apostolical Constitutions and
the Babylonian Talmud are more or less contemporary, it is suggested that the
Decalogue may have been omitted in Jewish liturgy in the third, or fourth or even
fifth century. If Naomi Cohen’s theory is correct, the third paragraph of the Shema
may have been introduced about this time by the rabbis as a substitute for the
Decalogue.

In addition, since the doctrine of the unity of God expressed in the Shema, is the
foundation stone of Judaism, it stands to reason, that the first Christians, being of
Jewish origin, were strongly affected by its influence and by their religion of
origin. The New Testament reveals that Jesus reveres the Shema.74 Thus, it is
likely that Jewish converts continued the daily recitation of the Shema and a form

70
See Hugh Connolly (ed.), Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version translated and
accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969), xxvi ff. The
third century document, originally in Greek, survived in Syriac translation. Considerable
portions of the Greek lie embedded in the fourth century Apostolical Constitutions.
71
See Connolly, Didascalia, 218.
72
See Apostolical Constitutions, 6:23, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 460.
73
See Introductory note to ‘The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.
7, 372–6.
74
See Mark 12:28–37.

144
of the Amidah in the early days of the church. Some contemporary evidence to
support this premise is a fragmentary text of benedictions from Qumran from
Cave 4.75 Schiffman postulates that the benedictions preserved in this text, which
focus on the cosmic order and the heavenly luminaries may have been the
prototype of the first benediction before the morning and evening Shema.

7–9 Column IV

the light of day for our knowledge…in the six gates of ligh[t...and
we] the sons of Your covenant, will prais[e Your name]with all the
troops of [light…al]l the tongues [endowed with knowledge],
bless...the light of peace [upon you O Israel...On the seventh of
t[he month in the evening, they shall bless, recite and sa]y: Praised
be the God of Is[rael who...righteousness...al]l [th]se things we
knew...] Blessed be t[he G]od [of Israel]... (Daily Prayers 7–9 IV
1–8).76

Again, as the Mishnah dates the recitation of the Shema to Second Temple times,
and Philo of Alexandria writes on the Shema, Schiffman suggests that a version of
the first benediction before the Shema was already in use in Temple times.77 Thus,
the first Christians of Jewish origin would also have recited the benedictions
surrounding the Shema.78

75
See Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the
Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication
Society, 1994), 294ff.
76
Schiffman, Reclaiming, 294. See Maurice Baillet (ed.), Discoveries in the Judean Desert VII.
Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482–4Q520) (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982), 108, 503. Prières
Quotidiennes: Colonne IV, 7–9.
77
Schiffman, Reclaiming, 294ff.
78
Matthew (22:37) and Luke (10:27) omit the first verse of the Shema (Deut 6: ‘Hear, O Israel:
The Lord is our God, the Lord alone’ but it is quoted in Mark (12:29), which general scholarly
consensus designates as the earliest of the synoptics. A suggestion has been made that already
the Christian communities of Matthew and Luke had ceased to pray the Shema regularly. See
Michael Hilton and Gordian Marshall, The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism: A Study Guide
(London, SCM, 1988), 23–24. Discoveries in Qumran have revealed sets of prayers for the
morning and evening of each day of the month (4Q503); prayers for every week day (4Q504–
506); prayers for festivals (4Q507-509), hymns (4Q510-511); purification blessings (4Q512)
and texts of Sabbath songs from Cave 4 and 11. See Eileen M. Schuller, ‘Prayer, Hymnic, and
Liturgical Texts’, in Eugene Unrick and James Vanderkam (eds), The Community of the
Renewed Covenant (University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) 157.

145
Josephus also alludes to the morning prayers of the Essenes,79 which presumably
would have included the Shema and its blessings as well as a form of the Amidah
and its surrounding blessings.

And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for

before the sunrise, they speak not a word about profane matters,
but put up certain prayers which they have received from their
forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising (Wars
2.8.5).80

It follows that the first Christians who were Jews continued to recite the Shema
and Amidah. Again, the jewishness of the first Christians would explain the
reticence of declaring the divinity of Jesus in the synoptic gospels. The Epistle to
the Hebrews contains what may be one definite declaration of Jesus’ divinity, but
uses symbolism to show that Jesus has a claim to the high-priesthood of
Melchizadech (being of heavenly origin) which is considered to be superior to that
of the Aaronic priesthood.81 John’s Gospel, which appears to have at least two
direct declarations of Jesus’ divinity, evidently is later, when the Christians of
gentile origin were becoming more numerous, and would have been less
constrained by considerations of a Jewish monotheism. However, it should be
noted that John 17, for example, brings together the themes of love and unity in
God, which are central to the Shema, but in an altered context.

May they all be one,

just as, Father, you are in me
and I am in you...
With me in them and you in me,
may they be so perfected in unity
that the world will recognise
that it was you who sent me
and that you have loved them

79
Despite much discussion of this point over the last fifty years, there is no consensus as to who
wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.
80
See Josephus, Complete Works, tr. William Whiston, (London, Pickering & Inglis, 1960), 476.
81
Heb 5:6–7. The form of exegesis used by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews resembles
that of material found at Qumran, and depends on a play on words (Hebrew) with a base in
Psalm 110.

146
 as you have loved me (John 17:21, 23).82

In Ignatius of Antioch, a text emanating from the end of the first century or early
in the second, the themes of love and unity in God also occur together but in the
context of perfect faith in Jesus.83

None of these things are unknown to you if you possess perfect

faith towards Jesus Christ, and love, which are the beginning and
end of life; for the beginning is faith and the end is love, and when
the two are joined together in unity it is God. (Epistle to the
Ephesians, 14:1)84

The Clementine Homilies, believed to be the writings of a Jewish-Christian group,

apply to Christ a certain subordination as compared with the Father.

And Peter answered: ‘Our Lord neither asserted that there were
gods except the Creator of all, nor did he proclaim Himself to be
God, but he with reason pronounced blessed him who called him
the Son of that God who has arranged the universe’ (Clementine
Homilies, 16:15).85

The Didache also conveys a certain restraint in speaking of Christ’s divinity.

Though there are some exceptions,86 the Apostolic Fathers do not speak of Christ
directly as God.87 Again, in the earliest liturgical records, prayer is never
addressed directly to Christ, but to God the Father.88 Clement of Rome’s Epistle to
the Corinthians gives a short expression to Christ’s mediatorship with God, which

82
The first Christians were exhorted to love for one another: ‘Beloved, let us love one another,
because love is from God’ (1 John 4:7). The love they had for one another was questioned, as
were the reasons this new race or practice had not emerged earlier. See Epistle to Diognetus 1
(ca 150 CE).
83
See commentary to The Epistles of Ignatius, in The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 166–7.
84
See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 189.
85
See Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1870), 252. This literature is
regarded as being influenced by gnosticism.
86
Ignatius of Antioch. See Ignatius, Eph., 19.
87
Polycarp to the Philippians, 12:2 (Jesus Christ, the eternal priest).
88
See W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1925), 122–3.

147
became standard in the Roman liturgy.89

The Church of God which resides as a stranger90 at Rome to the

Church of God which is a stranger at Corinth; to those who are
called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus
Christ. May grace and peace from almighty God flow to you in rich
profusion through Jesus Christ! (I Clem. 1).91

Origen, an Alexandrian, declared that prayer must be made in the name of Jesus,
but not addressed to him directly92 and Augustine of Hippo appears to follow this
same tradition of primitive Christianity.93

Shema’s Influence on Early Christological Controversies

In the christological controversies in the first few centuries, two tendencies are to
be discerned regarding the person of Jesus, each of which respectively laid
emphasis on his human and divine nature with a view, in either case, of insisting
upon the doctrine of the unity of God. Oesterley states that insistence on Jesus’
humanity was a safeguard against the idea of there being more than one God.
However, this developed into Arianism, whose adherents did not subscribe to the
divinity of Jesus. On the other hand, insistence on Jesus’ divinity by identifying
him with the Father likewise emphasised the doctrine of the unity of God. The
latter view manifested itself in Docetism, its various forms denying the humanity
of Jesus.94 Thus, when it is considered how deeply rooted and venerated was the
Shema and its teaching among Jews, and therefore among Christians of Jewish
origin, it is possible to conclude that the bitter controversies in the Church on the
nature of God, and Jesus’ place in the Trinity during the early centuries of the

89
See 1 Tim 2:5.
90
The Greek term used is παροικοàσα.
91
See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 9. See also James A. Kleist (ed.), Epistles of St. Clement of
Rome and St Ignatius of Antioch, (Westminster, Newman Bookshop, 1946) 104, n. 4.
92
See Origen, De Orat., 15.
93
See also Augustine, Confessions, xi.2, 4.
94
See Oesterley, The Jewish Background, 123–4.

148
Common Era can in part, be traced back to this cause.

The Amidah in Early Christianity

The rule of the three hours of prayer present in daily worship in the synagogue
was observed by the early Christians, and references to the third, the sixth and the
ninth hour are found in the Book of Acts.95 According to the Didache, the Lord’s
Prayer also was said three times daily.96

Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy

Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in Heaven so also upon earth;
give us to-day (™πιοÚσιον) daily bread, and forgive us our debt
as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into trial, but deliver us
from the Evil One, for thine is the power and the glory forever
(Didache 8.2).97

Tertullian asserted that praying three times a day was based on apostolic
practice.98 This practice clearly stems from the three-fold recitation each day of the
Amidah. Again, the so-called Community Rule material found at Qumran shows
that it was the practice to pray thrice daily.

In accord with the times which he has decreed: at the beginning of

the dominion of light, at its turning point when it withdraws itself
to its assigned dwelling, at the beginning of the watches of
darkness (IQS 10:1–2)99

It was K.G. Kuhn who discovered end rhymes in the Aramaic version of the
Lord’s Prayer, which correspond to ancient Jewish prayers, especially the

95
See Acts 2:15 (third hour); Acts 10:9 (the sixth hour); Acts 3:1 (the ninth hour).
96
See Didache 7.3. This is one of three related Syrian documents: the Didache, Didascalia and
the Apostolic Constitutions, which in turn show increasingly anti-Jewish sentiments.
97
See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 321.
98
De Ieiunio 10.
99
‘Rule of the Community’. See James H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translation (Tübingen, Möhr–Paul Siebeck, 1994),
vol. 1, 43.

149
Amidah.100 Many authors, especially those subscribing to the eschatological
orientation of the Lord's Prayer point out the striking resemblance of:

‘Father, hallowed be your name, Your kingdom come’ (Luke 11:2/Matt 6:9) with
the Kaddish.101

Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world that he

has created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom in
your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of all the house
of Israel, even speedily and at a near time.102

Again, the petition, ‘and lead us not into temptation’,103 in Luke 1:4 and Matt 6:13
has a parallel in b Ber 60b that reads:

And lead us not into sin or into iniquity or into testing or into
contempt.104

The first three benedictions of the Amidah of praise are evidently of ancient
origin, going back to Second Temple times. In the first benediction of praise, the
expression ‘God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ is attested in the Palestinian

100
See Anton Vögtle, ‘The Lord’s Prayer: A Prayer for Jews and Christians’, in Jakob J.
Petuchowski and Michael Brocke (eds), The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (London,
Burns & Oates, 1978), 94, n. 7 and n. 8, in referring to the work of K. G. Kuhn. See also the
eleventh petition of the Palestinian recension of the Amidah: ‘Restore our judges as at first
and our counsellors as in the beginning and you yourself reign over us. Blessed are you Lord,
who loves justice.’
101
See Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 3rd impression (Norwich, SCM, 1976), 76– 98.
102
See Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New
Testament Interpretation (London, SCM, 1976), 28–9. Perrin’s claim that the Kaddish was
regularly in use in synagogues immediately before the time of Jesus is problematic, and is
still a disputed issue. Ezra Fleischer, Tarbiz, 59:3–4 (1990), 397–440) argues against it, ‘On
the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer’, [Hebrew], as does Joseph Heinemann, Prayer
in the Talmud, 256.
103
Or ‘O Lord, preserve us from falling away, from apostasy.’ See Jeremias, The Prayers of
Jesus, 106.
104
See Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 105.

150
benediction of the Abot.105

You are praised, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of
Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, the great, mighty, awe-
inspiring God, God supreme, Creator of heaven and earth, our
shield and the shield of our fathers, our trust in every generation.
Blessed are you, O Lord, shield of Abraham (First Benediction of
the Amidah)106

As similar expressions occur in the words of Jesus in the synoptics, Jeremias

believes this indicates a familiarity with this benediction.107

The theme of the second benediction, which revolves around the resurrection of
the dead was applied to Jesus, a concept which finds clear expression in the New
Testament writings, and remains pivotal to Christianity. Again, the long liturgical
prayer in I Clement 59:3–61:1ff. reveals the influence of the Amidah, with
parallels to the second benediction, the Gevurah (Powerful One) and including
some of the themes forming the intermediary petitions of the weekday Amidah.
Oesterley maintained that by means of 1 Clement, certain themes of the Amidah,
passed into the early liturgies of the Church.108 This is evident when comparing
the Palestinian version of the Amidah with the relevant sections of I Clement.

You are mighty, bringing low the proud;

powerful, judging the arrogant;
ever-living, raising up the dead; causing the wind to blow and the
dew to descend
sustaining the living, quickening the dead. O cause our salvation to
sprout as in the twinkling of an eye. Blessed are you, O Lord, who
quickens the dead (Second Benediction of Amidah).

105
See translation of the Amidah in: Petuchowski, The Lord’s Prayer, 27ff.
106
Petuchowski, The Lord’s Prayer, 27.
107
Matt 8:11; Luke 13:28. See Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 75.
108
See Oesterley, The Jewish Background, 129.

151
 Look on our affliction, and champion our cause and redeem us
according to your name. Blessed are you O Lord, who redeems
Israel (Seventh Benediction).

Blessed are you, O Lord, who heals the sick of His people (Eighth
Benediction).

And lift up a banner to gather in our exiles (Tenth Benediction).

You are praised, O Lord, the Maker of peace (Eighteenth

Benediction).

The first section of I Clement echoes the Gevurah benediction.

You humble the pride of the arrogant, you overthrow the pride
[Ûβριν] of the nations, you raise up the humble and bring down
the proud, make rich and make poor, kill and restore life, you alone
are the creator109 of spirits and God of all flesh; you look into the
depths, you see into the works of humankind, you are the helper of
those in danger, the saviour of those in despair, the Creator of
every spirit and watcher over it. You multiply nations upon earth
and has chosen out from them all those that love you through Jesus
Christ your beloved servant, and through him you discipline,
sanctify and honour us (I Clem. 59, 3–4).110

The next section of I Clement summarises the themes of redemption, healing and
gathering of the exiles contained in the seventh, eighth and tenth benedictions of
the weekly Amidah.

We beseech you, Master, to be our helper and defender. Save those

of us in affliction, have mercy on the humble, raise up the fallen,
show yourself to those in need, heal the sick, turn back those of
your people who have gone astray. Feed the hungry, release our
prisoners, raise up the weak, comfort the faint-hearted (1 Clem.

109
The Loeb edition favours eÙršthn ‘finder’– over eÙergšthn ‘creator’, K, or ‘benefactor’, C.,
110. See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 110, n. 2.
110
Translation based on Robert Grant, First and Second Clement 2: The Apostolic Fathers: A
New Translation and Commentary (5 vols, Toronto, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965), 93.

152
 59:4).111

It is possible that the eighteenth benediction of the Amidah has influenced the
following section of I Clement, which is a petition for peace.

Grant harmony and peace to us and to all that dwell upon earth, as
you gave to our fathers who called on you in holiness with faith
and truth, and grant that we may be obedient to your almighty and
glorious name, and to our rulers and governors upon the earth.
(I Clem. 60:4).

Again, in the so called Apostolical Constitutions is a series of benedictions clearly

modelled on the Amidah. These occur in Book 7:33–38. As is consistent in early
Christian texts, the themes are applied to Jesus. Heinemann points out that their
form is modelled on the Sabbath Amidah with its seven blessings, for the
intercessions that occur in the weekday Amidah are lacking. These prayers may
have been used on Saturdays or in Sunday liturgies.112

Apostolical Constitutions

Our eternal Saviour, the King of Gods, who alone art mighty and
Lord, the God of all beings, the God of our holy and blameless
fathers… Thou protector of the offspring of Abraham, blessed be
thou forever…

Blessed art thou, King of the ages, who hast made by the anointed
the universe and through him in the beginning didst turn the chaos
into order... Thou revivest the dead through Jesus, the anointed,
our hope…

Great art thou, O Lord Almighty and great is Thy power, and of thy
understanding there is no counting... ‘There is but One holy’, and
the holy Seraphim together with the six winged Cherubim, who
sing to Thee their triumphal song, cry out with never ceasing
voices: ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord Sabaoth, full is the heaven
and the earth of thy glory’ ...for thou art the Father of wisdom... the

111
See Grant, First and Second Clement, 293–94.
112
Heinemann maintains that the seven berakhot for Sabbaths and festivals were possibly from a
different, independent tradition of an ‘order of prayers’ and not an abbreviation of the
eighteen berakhot. The total number of berakhot was apparently eighteen before Yabneh. See
Heinemann, Hatefilah, xi. Recently published material from Qumran supports his
conclusions.

153
 God and Father of Christ...

O Lord, almighty! Thou hast created the whole world by thy

Anointed and hast appointed the Sabbath as a memorial thereof…
for the Sabbath is the ceasing of the work of creation, the
completion of the world, for the study of the Laws, and the grateful
praise of God for the blessings He gave to humankind...

Thou who didst fulfil Thy promises made by the prophets and hast
had mercy on Zion and compassion on Jerusalem113 by exalting the
throne of David,114 thy servant... do thou also, now, O Lord God,
accept the prayers from the lips of Thy congregation,115 those of the
offerings of the righteous in their generations... so do thou receive
also now the prayers of Thy people...

We thank thee, O Lord Almighty, for all things, that thou hast not
taken thy mercies and thy compassion from us...116 Thou takest care
of us now when we have been created. Thou sweetenest our life.
Thou providest us with food.117 Thou has announced to us
repentance…118

Glory and worship to Thee, through Jesus the Anointed, for all
these things now and forever and through all ages. Amen.119
Meditate on these things, Brethren; and the Lord be with you upon
earth, and in the kingdom of His Father, who both sent Him and
has ‘delivered us by Him from the bondage of corruption into His
glorious liberty’ (Rom 8,21) and has promised life to those who
through Him have believed in the God of the whole world…
(Apostolical Constitutions, 7:33–38).120
113
Fourteenth benediction. ‘and to Jerusalem, your city, return in mercy…’ The translations of
the benedictions based on Joseph Heinemann's Tefilot Yisra'el ve-toldoth'eyhen: leket
Mekorot le-shiur ve-targil. (Jerusalem, Hebrew University 1963), 18–20.
114
Fifteenth benediction. ‘Speedily cause the offspring of David your servant to flourish...’
115
Seventeenth benediction: ‘Accept, O Lord our God, your people Israel and their prayer...’
116
Eighteenth benediction: ‘We give thanks to you, for you are the Lord our God and the God of
our father for ever and ever...’
117
Ninth benediction: ‘Bless this year for us, O Lord our God, together with every kind of
produce, for our welfare, give a blessing upon the face of the earth. O satisfy us with you
goodness, and bless our year like other good years....’.
118
Fifth benediction: ‘Cause us to return, O our Father unto your Torah: draw us near, O our
King... ’
119
Apostolical Constitutions, 8:38. This latter part of the benediction has the form of a doxology.
120
See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 472–5

154
The Didache likewise shows traces of the influence of the Amidah, as in Didache
9:9, which resembles the tenth benediction of the Amidah.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, but was
brought together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered
together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom; for Yours
is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever (Didache
9:9).

Sound the great horn (shofar) for our freedom; and lift up the
banner to gather in our exiles, and gather us together from the four
corners of the earth. Blessed are You, O Lord, who gathers the
outcasts of Israel (Tenth benediction)

Christian Festival Liturgy

In the primitive Church, it appears that the first Christians, who were born Jews,
continued to keep the Sabbath and follow Jewish practices. A specific Christian
practice was the weekly Sunday, which commemorated the resurrection of Jesus.
While it is not clear from the New Testament texts whether Sunday was
celebrated weekly,121 it appears to have been an established practice by the time of
Ignatius in the early second century.122

The primitive Christian festival calendar seems originally only to have celebrated
Passover, with the Epiphany, Ascension and Pentecost being added at the earliest
by the fourth century, judging from the report of Egeria’s writings.123 Passover and
Pentecost, its completion, were retained, but transformed, whilst the feast of
Succoth, the third pilgrimage feast, was never successfully christianised, despite
the attempt by Gregory of Nyssa to link it to Christ’s nativity.124 The other Jewish
feasts were not christianised. In the case of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the

121
This question is treated in detail in Chapter 6.
122
See Magnesians, 9.
123
See Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage, tr. and annotated by George Gingras (New York, Newman
Press, 1968), 24–49.
124
PG 46:1129B.

155
idea of repentance was interpreted as revolving around Christ as High Priest, as in
Hebrews. As the Temple had been destroyed, Hannukah, which celebrates its
rededication in the time of the Maccabees, was not celebrated, whilst Purim was
of no interest to the emerging consciousness of the Church. When gentile
Christians began to outnumber Jewish converts to Christianity, other elements
from Greek religion were added to the primitive Jewish basis. Clearly, however,
in the final analysis, the break between Church liturgy and synagogue liturgy
developed from the Christian attitude to Jesus, an element pivotal also in the
seven sacraments,125 which can be traced back to Jewish roots.

The Eucharist

The Pauline view of the Eucharist is set forth in Chapter 10 of 1Corinthians.

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our

ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
and all were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and
all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them
and the rock was Christ (I Cor 10:1–4).

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of

Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of
Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body,
for we all partake of the one bread (I Cor 10:16–17).

As in the case of Jewish prayer, it appears that a large measure of spontaneous

expression existed in the early period.126 Christian liturgy centred from the
beginning on the Lord’s Supper. This was a meal with the significance of
covenanting, in the tradition of Jewish meals.127 The meal functioned as the
principal part of the gathering (Acts 2:46), and appeared to be modelled on a

125
Traditionally: Baptism, Eucharist, Penance, Confirmation, Extreme Unction (Sacrament of
the Sick), Holy Orders, and Matrimony.
126
See Justin Martyr, First Apol. 67.
127
See Chapters 26 and 28–31 of Genesis; Chapter 7 of Job; Ps 41:9.

156
Sabbath type meal with certain adaptations.128 The meal grew into the Christian
agape, which accompanied the Eucharist in I Cor 11 and in the Didache 9, but
had become separate by the time of Justin Martyr and Hippolytus.129

In early Christian tradition, Jesus began to be associated with the Paschal Lamb,
becoming as it were, its replacement. Thus in the New Testament there is already
a change in the Jewish practice. This is against the background of fall of Temple
and cessation of the sacrificing of the Paschal lamb.130 Belief in Jesus was said to
replace the worship in the Temple, as, for example in the Epistle of Barnabas.

For he has made plain to us through all the Prophets that he needs
neither sacrifices nor burnt-offering nor oblations… 6. These
things then he abolished in order that the new law of our Lord
Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have its
oblation not made by man (Barn. 2:4, 6).131

The Didache describes what appears to have been an early celebration of the
Eucharist. However, in looking at the occurrence of the noun eucharistia in
chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, Robert Kraft points out that the various verbal
forms of eucharistia and related verbal forms should not be given too much
weight, since these words originally referred in general to prayer and the ‘giving
thanks’.132 The Didache describes the way in which the meal is to be celebrated,
but does not mention the resurrection or the death of Jesus, or the remembering of
him or mention Jesus’ body and blood. The emphasis is on Jesus Christ, the ritual
meal, the wine and bread with the themes of creation, knowledge, and unity
woven in as well as redemption. Only those who had been baptised could receive

128
See also I QS vi, 1–6 and Josephus, Wars 2.8.5.
129
See Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold (eds), The Study of Liturgy,
(London, SPCK, 1978), 49ff.
130
The Samaritans continue this practice to this day.
131
See The Apostolic Fathers 1, 345.
132
See Rom 14:6; I Cor 14:17; I Tim 4:3; Rev 4:9. See Robert Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache
3: Robert Grant (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, 165–6. See Didache (9:1, 5) and related verbal
forms (9:1–3; 10:1–4, 8).

157
this Eucharist. Again, the fact that the prayer takes place at a meal,133 has lead
many commentators to suggest that Didache 9–10 is describing early Christian
‘Agape’ meals which were modelled on formal Jewish festive meals, and
sometimes accompanied the ritual Eucharist and baptism.134 Kraft suggests that
what is being described in the Didache 9–10 is the annual baptism-Eucharist
service.135

9:1 Now concerning the giving of thanks. Give thanks in the

following manner. 2. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our
Father for the holy vine of David your Servant Glory to you
forever!

3. And concerning the broken loaf: We thank you, our Father, for
the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through
Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever!

4. Just as this loaf previously was scattered on the mountains, and

when it was gathered together it became a unity, so may your
Church be gathered together from the end of the earth into your
kingdom, for glory and power are yours forever, through Jesus
Christ!

5. But let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those who
are baptised in the Lord’s Name. For the Lord also has spoken
concerning this: Do not give what is holy to dogs (Matt 7:6).

10:1 And after you have been filled, give thanks as follows:

2. We thank you, Holy Father, for your Holy Name which you have
made to dwell in our hearts: and for the knowledge and faith and
immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your
Servant. Glory to you forever!

3. You, almighty Master, created everything in your Name’s sake;

you have given food and drink to men for their pleasure, so that
they might give you thanks and to us you have graciously given
spiritual food and drink, And life eternal through Jesus your
Servant.

133
See Didache,10:1 and Luke 22:20; I Cor 11:25.
134
Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 166.
135
See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 166.

158
 4. Most of all, we thank you because you are mighty. Glory to you
forever!

5. Lord, remember your Church – rescue it from all evil and perfect
it in your love – and gather it, the sanctified one, from the four
winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for it. For
power and glory are yours forever!

6. Let grace come, and this world pass away.

7.But permit the prophets to give thanks as they see fit.

8.And concerning the ointment,136 give thanks as follows:

We thank you, (our) Father, for the fragrant ointment

which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant.
Glory to you forever! Amen Hosanna to the God of David.
If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent.
Marana tha (Our Lord, come).137 Amen. (Didache 9:1–10:7)138

However, the background to the Didache meal in chapters 9 and 10 is not entirely
clear, and it cannot be concluded with certainty that the description, here, should
be linked to the regular celebration of Sunday Eucharist, which is described in
chapter 14.

And when you gather together each Lord’s Day

(κυριακ¾ν δε κυρ…ου) break bread and give thanks. But first
confess your transgressions so that your ‘sacrifice’ may be pure
(Didache 14:1) 139

136
The prayer for ointment is lacking in some manuscripts. In the New Testament, it is
mentioned as being used for anointing the dead (Mark 16:1) or the sick (James 5:14). See
Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 169.
137
Cullman suggests that the Aramaic phrase, retained by the Greek speaking church was
used originally by the Aramaic-speaking church to express the cultic veneration of Christ.
See Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, tr. Shirley C. Guthrie and
Charles A. M. Hall (London, SCM, 1959), 209–15.
138
Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 169.
139
Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 173.

159
Baptism

The baptism of John the Baptist was called the baptism of repentance.140 This idea
was present in Qumran, one of the important functions of the sect as an institution
being to ‘atone for the guilt of transgression and iniquity of sin.’141 Josephus’
description of John’s baptism makes it clear that its purpose was to obtain ritual
purity, which was only possible with a previous cleansing of the soul, or
repentance.

For thus, it seemed to him, would baptismal ablution be

acceptable, if it were not to beg off from sins committed, but for
the purification of the body when the soul had previously been
cleansed by righteous conduct (Ant. 18:117).

Thus in early Christianity it was accepted that baptism led to the remission of sins.
However, it was understood that atonement was really caused by the repentance,
which preceded the immersion of the candidate.142

Flusser points out that when the early Church introduced baptism, the connection
between repentance and baptism was still clear, but this connection was gradually
replaced by a concept among the Apostolic Fathers that repentance was the result
of baptism, and not a condition for it.143 He shows that two elements in the
baptism of John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Scroll Sect were weakened in the
practice of Christian baptism as it developed. These were the concepts of ritual

140
Mark 1:4; Acts 13:24; 18:25.

See David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem, Magnes Press,
1998), 50.
142
See Flusser, Judaism, 51. Phillip Sigal points out that it is possible to draw a good number of
affinities and parallels between early Christian literature and tannaitic literature, evident in
the halakhic approach of the chapters on baptism, which correspond to the halakhah of
baptism and immersion in Judaism. See for example b. Ber 6:5ff; t. Ber 3:7; 4:8. b. Ber 35a;
43a; b. Pes 101-2; y. Ber 10d. See Phillip Sigal, ‘Early Christian and Rabbinic Liturgical
Affinities’, New Testament Studies, 30 (1984), 65ff, and n. 20–24.
143
See Barn. 16:8–9; Herm 4; Mand 3:1–2. These texts however, may not have been considered
to represent orthodox views.

160
purity and the premise that repentance is a condition for valid baptism. Thus the
original Jewish concepts were replaced by different themes. A third element, the
function of the Holy Spirit in baptism, was taken up by the church.144

Question of the Catechumenate

The catechumenate involved the rites of initiation into the Church, and was a
preparation for baptism. Baptism is mentioned frequently in the New
Testament,145 being seen as the Christian equivalent of circumcision, the latter
being spiritualised. Circumcism was not a requirement of gentile converts
according to Acts 15, which indicates that this step towards separation was taken
in the days of Paul.146 Again, the first part of Colossians preserves what may be an
ancient baptismal hymn where Christ is called ‘the image of the invisible God’.147

The key to understanding the catechumenate is in early liturgical texts,

catechumens being known from earliest times in the Roman Church, as for
example in the writings of Justin.

Those who are convinced and believe what we say and teach is the
truth, and pledge themselves to be able to live accordingly, are
taught in prayer and fasting to ask God to forgive their past sin,
while we pray and fast with them. Then we lead them to a place
where there is water, and they are regenerated in the same manner
in which we ourselves were regenerated. In the name of God, the
Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the

144
Flusser, Judaism, 246. See also Luke 3:16; Acts 1:4; Acts 2 ff; Acts 11:16; Acts 8:12, 15–17;
19:1–7.
145
See Matt 3:5; 10:17 (baptism of John and Jesus' baptism); John 1:31–34; 3:5; 3:22 (Jesus and
his disciples baptise); John 19:34 (water and blood). Acts 1:5. Romans 6:4; I Cor 10:2; 15:29–
30 (being baptised for the dead). Gal 3:27; Col 2:11-13. (Baptism in Christ being counted as
circumcision); Heb 6:2; 10:32; I Pet 3:21-22; I John 5:6–8.
146
Col 2:11-13.‘In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off
the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him through
faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead’ .
147
See Col 1:9–20. See also E .C. Selwyn, ‘The Feast of Tabernacles, Epiphany and Baptism:
Notes and Studies’, in JTS, 13 (1912), 225–49. He suggests that the mixing of water with wine
from the water bearing ceremony of Succoth (m. Sukk 4:9, 10) could be behind the symbolism
of the water and blood in John 19:34.

161
 Holy Ghost, (see Matt 28:19), they then receive the washing with
water. For Christ said: ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven’ …

In order that we do not continue as children of necessity and

ignorance, but of deliberate choice and knowledge, and in order to
obtain in the water the forgiveness of past sins, there is invoked
over the one who wishes to be regenerated, and who is repentant of
his sins, the name of God, the Father and Lord of all; he who leads
the person to be baptised to the laver calls him by this name only
for no one is permitted to utter the name of the ineffable God…

Furthermore, the illuminated one148 s also baptised in the name of

Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the
name of the Holy Spirit, who predicted through the Prophets
everything concerning Jesus (Justin, First Apology, 61:1–2).149

This would suggest that by the time of Justin, in the mid second century, rites of
initiation into the Church were being practised, so that it could be surmised that
Christianity had a separate identity from Judaism by this time in the mid-second
century.150 This co-incides approximately with the codification of the Jewish oral
law, the Mishnah and Tosephta.

Although the earliest historical evidence of the rite of entrance into the
catechumenate is from the writings of Hippolytus of Rome,151 who speaks of a
three year period of preparation in the third century, specific historical data is
sparse. Further evidence from the third century for liturgical practice in Egypt and
Israel is provided by Origen of Alexandria who speaks of the first period of
initiation into Christianity, the pre-catechumenate,152 which is followed by the

148
‘The illuminated one’ is a synonym for the one who is baptised.
149
See Writings of Justin Martyr: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schopp
(ed), New York, Christian Heritage, 1948), 99–100.
150
See b. Yeb. 46b. Eventually, both circumcision and a ritual bath became mandatory for Jewish
initiation.
151
See Apostolic Tradition 18, 19, 20. This material is dated ca 215.
152
Origen, Against Celsus, 3 .51, 2–3. This stage is the entrance into the catechumenate. The
actual catechumenate began the second stage of the initiation process.

162
catechumenate itself. He parallels the stages of the catechumenate with the
Exodus journey, the crossing of the Red Sea, which he sees as comparable to
entrance into the catechumenate.153

Early church canons from about the fourth century reveal an established rule that
Jews and non-Jews were allowed to be present at church services till the missa
catechumenorum.154 At this point the catechumens also left. However, all was not
peaceful. The Jerusalem Church complained of ‘Jewish serpents and Samaritan
imbeciles listening to sermons in church like wolves surrounding the flock of
Christ.’155 Christians were not permitted to attend Jewish services.156 Thus, by the
fourth century, Jewish services were considered inappropriate for Christians,
liturgical separation being legislated. The fact that Jews were permitted to remain
for the missa catechumenorum shows the proselytising nature of the church.
However, Jewish catechumens were treated more strictly than non-Jewish
initiates, to discourage them from returning to Judaism.157

Conclusion

The separation of Christianity from Judaism is typified no more clearly than in the
omission of the Shema from Christian liturgy. Although many elements from
Jewish liturgy were absorbed into Christian liturgy, the growing gentile
membership of the church and consequently the increasing christological focus in
Christian liturgy, doubtless explain this omission. In the first century, Christians
could continue to pray in synagogues, though tensions were developing about the

153
Origen, Homily on Numbers, 26: 4; and Homilia in Jesus Nave, 4:1.
154
See Council of Carthage, 4, canon 89. See Karle Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils
of the Church from the Original Documents, tr. William R Clark, reprint (5 vols, New York,
AMS Press, 1972), vol. 2, 301–2.
155
See James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism (London, Soncino, 1934), 173. He cites Letter of the Synod of Jerusalem, PL
22:769.
156
Mansi, 3, 958. See Council of Carthage, Canon 84. this is purportedly from the so called
fourth Council of Carthage in 398 but actually later.
157
Canon 34. Mansi, 8, 330. See also Hefele, 4, 82. The Council was held in the year 506.

163
position of Jesus. On the other hand, it is doubtful that Jews would have felt at
ease with the early Eucharists, so that worship together was possibly not
reciprocal. In addition, the growing number of gentile believers who were not
obliged to keep Jewish law was a major block to both common worship and social
relations.

In the second century, new, specifically Christian liturgies were developed in a

less Jewish style. As time progressed, east and west took differing paths, while
schisms wracked the church in the wake of doctrinal conflicts not resolved by the
numerous church councils. Though the Amidah exerted an influence on the shape
of Christian prayers, the themes gradually became more Christ-centred, and the
process of growing apart continued.

164
165
Chapter Six. The Separation of Sunday from Sabbath.

It was clear from the beginning that the Sabbath could not be accepted as a Christian
holiday. Flusser attributes this phenomenon to the fact that it remains one of the
central elements of Jewish ‘legalism’.1 However, it continued to be partially
observed. As Christianity tended to see itself as the continuation or fulfilment of
Judaism, it had to solve the problem of its obligations towards Judaism and its
acceptance of the Hebrew Bible. Christians had been exempted from ritual law, but
not from the Decalogue, regarded as the natural law. Thus, the question of the
Sabbath presented another dilemma, for as such, it was not considered to have been
abolished by Christ’s advent. However, Jesus’ Sabbath controversies were
understood as having abolished the legal aspects of the Sabbath. The Sabbath only
became forbidden for Christians when Sunday became the substitute for the Jewish
Sabbath.

The process was gradual and took several centuries. It was aided by imperial decrees.
In the wake of Constantine’s decree making Sunday a day of rest, the focus of the
Christian week moved to a weekly celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, with some
themes belonging to the Sabbath being subsumed in the themes attached to the
resurrection of Jesus.

First Century

The book of Acts, in speaking of the primitive Jerusalem church in the middle of the
first century, records that Christians continued to worship in the temple:

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in
their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts (Acts
2:46).2
1
See David Flusser, ‘Tensions between Sabbath and Sunday’, in Eugene Fisher (ed.), The Jewish
Roots of Christian Liturgy (New York, Paulist Press, 1990), 143–4.
2
See also Acts 3:1; 5:12,20. The question of whether the Eucharist and the agape were separate is
not the concern of this chapter.

166
At the same time, they met together in groups for meals after prayer in the Temple,
this latter action in itself being a continuation of the celebration.

Though the earliest patristic texts support the view that the Lord’s Day was Sunday,
this does not give clear indications of what occurred in the developing Christian
communities in the first century, 3 but it is likely that both Sabbath and Sunday were
celebrated.

Samuele Bacchiocchi argues that the three New Testament passages usually cited as
evidence for Sunday observance in apostolic times (I Cor 16:1–2, Acts 20:7–11 and
Rev 1:10) do not in fact provide any hint that a new cult was celebrated in honour of
the risen Christ, or that it was celebrated on the first day of the week.4 On the other
hand, the same texts have been used as proof that Sunday was celebrated in apostolic
times.5 Thus, the evidence is inconclusive, since both cases can be ‘proved’ from the
texts.6

Bacchiocchi adds that Paul’s statement that the eating of the bread and the drinking
of the cup proclaims the Lord’s death till he comes,7 shows that it is not Christ’s
resurrection that was being commemorated but rather His sacrifice and parousia.8 He
reasons also, that although Paul is explicit in instructing the Corinthians about the
way to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, he does not specify a particular day, but uses

3
See Didache 14; Ignatius, Magnesians 9; Barn. 15; Gospel of Peter 9; Justin, 1 Apol. 67.
4
See Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of
Sunday Observance in Early Christianity. (Rome, Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977),
90ff.
5
See for example G. G. Willis, A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory
the Great (London, Henry Bradshaw Society, 1994), 78ff. See also Roger T. Beckwith and
Wilfrid Stott, This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian Sunday in its Jewish and
Early Church Setting (London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978). See Bacchiocchi, From
Sabbath to Sunday, 74ff.
6
Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, 76.
7
I Cor 1:26.

8
Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, 76.

167
only the expression συνερχοµšνων (when you come together).9 In speaking of the
first day of the week, Paul refers only to the contributions for the saints, and not to a
special day of worship (I Cor 16:1–2). The fact that many gospel incidents are related
in the context of the Sabbath shows that all the apostles who were Jews
continued to observe the Sabbath.

Although the evidence fails to present a clear picture, the evangelists put emphasis
on the fact that Jesus’ resurrection occurred on the first day of the week. At the same
time, there is no conclusive evidence that already in apostolic times there was a
special day to commemorate the resurrection.

Bacchiocchi also demonstrates, through a rigorous analysis of the three Pauline texts
usually brought forward as proof of Paul’s repudiation of the Sabbath (Col 2: 16–17;
Rom 14:5–6; Gal 4:8–11), that Paul did not advocate abolishing the Sabbath.10 He
argues that Paul states that the Sabbath has been fulfilled, the Jewish Sabbath being a
foretaste of what is to come:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and

drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or a Sabbath. These are
only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ
(Col 2: 16–17).

Paul does not discuss whether the Sabbath commandment is still binding for
Christians, but says that the only Law to be obeyed is that of love. ‘For he who loves
his neighbour has fulfilled the law’ (Rom 13:9).11

Paul in fact continued to worship on the Sabbath with Jews and Greeks.12 What of
Christians of non-Jewish origin in apostolic times? In the absence of direct evidence
is it to be inferred that Diaspora Christians also continued to worship in synagogues

9
I Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34.
10
See Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, 352–369.
11
See Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:14.
12
See Acts 18:4,19; 17:1,10,17.

168
with Jews, meeting on occasions to celebrate the Lord’s Supper? In attempting to
answer this question, it has been noted that this process was uneven, since there were
different developments in both the east and the west.

Though the fall of Jerusalem would have been decisive in weakening the influence of
the Jerusalem Church with its strict adherence to the ritual precepts of Judaism, the
abandonment of Sabbath observance among Christians was evidently a gradual
occurrence, the time of the break with the Sabbath observance varying in different
localities in the west and east. Robert Kraft attests, for example, on the basis of his
investigations, that in the fourth century, and as late as the fifth, both Hellenistic
Egypt and the rest of the Hellenistic Christian East practised the observance of both
the Sabbath and Sunday. However, Sunday observance was being advocated instead
of Sabbath rest as early as the beginning of the second century.13

Another factor that needs to be considered is the evidence for the origins of the
practice of Sunday as the first day of the week to be gleaned from the Passover
controversy that took place over a number of centuries. What role did the Church of
Rome play in the fixing of Sunday? There is some evidence for believing that the
Sunday celebration of Easter originated at Jerusalem about 135, this practice being
adopted in Rome about 165 under the episcopate of Soter, after it had spread to
Alexandria and elsewhere.14 As has been seen, the Quartodecimans did not celebrate
the Passover on Sunday, but kept it on the fourteenth of Nisan. However, this does
not rule out the possibility Sunday was practised earlier by the Roman Church or
Jerusalem Church.

Jesus and the Sabbath in the Synoptics

The controversies portrayed by the synoptics concerning Christ and the Sabbath
occurred in the context of his worship and teaching that took place in both the

13
See Robert A. Kraft, ‘Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early Christianity’, AUSS, 3 (1965),
32.
14
See Thomas Talley, ‘Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: the State of Research’, Studia
Liturgica, 14 (1982), 36. See also Epiphanius, Adversus haereses, 70:10; PG 43:355–6.

169
synagogue and the Temple. In four clear contexts, the Gospels show Christ teaching
in the synagogue on the Sabbath.15 In Luke 4:16–27, he is shown taking an active part
in the normal Sabbath service by reading the prophetic text and expounding it. It is
said that his custom was to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath day.

Controversies over Jesus’ Sabbath were centred around the idea of the Sabbath rest.
In disputes over the Sabbath detailed in the Gospels, most appear to be with the
Pharisees,16 though the identity of the protagonists is often unclear because of the
contradictory nature of the sources.17 Flusser has pointed out that in the synoptic
Gospels, Jesus’ actions conform with the current practice of Sabbath, with the
exception of the plucking of heads of grain on the Sabbath, itself open to
interpretation.18 Again, the washing of hands before meals was not part of the oral or
written tradition, but belonged to custom,19 and cures performed on the Sabbath were
used as part of a pedagogal message.20 In addition, Flusser points out that Jesus’
creative innovation was to apply a common Jewish principle to the attitude towards
healing on the Sabbath and towards the day in general.21

Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if
any man has caused a single soul to perish from Israel Scripture
imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish;
and if any man saves alive a single soul from Israel Scripture imputes
it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world (m. Sanh. 4:5).22

It has been suggested that the cessation of the observance of the halakhah of
Sabbath, and the transfer of the Sabbath concept to Sunday are two separate issues,

15
See Mark 1:21f; 6:2; Luke 6:6; 13:10.
16
Mark 2:24; 3:6; Luke 14:1, 3; John 9:13–16.
17
See Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (London
(Fontana/Collins, 1976), 35.
18
See David Flusser, Jesus, 2nd rev. edn (Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1997), 58ff.
19
See t. Ber. 5:13.

20
See Luke 6:6–11; Matt 12: 9–14; Matt 9:1–8.
21
See Flusser, Jesus, 63.
22
See Herbert Danby, The Mishnah, Oxford University Press, 1980, 388.

170
and pointed out that the Jewish idea concerning a messianic cessation of observance
when all of life will be a ‘complete Sabbath’ are sufficiently clear to understand
Paul’s attitude towards the Sabbath, observance becoming non-obligatory with the
death of Jesus.23 The earliest literature of the Apostolic Fathers does not cite the
resurrection as being the primary reason for the celebration for the Lord’s Supper or
for the observance of Sunday.24

Epistle to Clement

The Epistle attributed to Clement Bishop of Rome,25 a letter sent from the Roman
Church to the Church in Corinth, refers to the resurrection through the symbols of
day and night, the cycle of the seed,26 and the imagery of the phoenix27 but does not
speak of the Lord’s Supper in connection with the resurrection.28

The occasion of the letter appears to be a problem in the turbulent Corinthian

community, which resulted in several presbyters being deposed. Though the right
order of the celebration of the liturgy is a preoccupation of the author of 1 Clement, a
link is not made directly between the Eucharist and Lord’s Supper.29 The description
instead is couched in biblical language, and uses Temple imagery, which refers to the
making of oblations or offerings (προσφορ¦j), the High Priest (¢ρχιερεàj), priests

23
See Phillip Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism (Pittsburgh, Pickwick Papers, 1980),
vol. 1, 448. See also Rom 8:3; 1 Cor 5:7; Eph 5:2; Rom 12:1; 15:16ff; Phil 2:17; 4:18; 2 Tim 4:6.
24
See Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, 78.
25
The letter, sent by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, appears to be the letter of a
Church, rather than that of a single person. It can be dated between 75 and 110. CE. See The
Apostolic Fathers, tr. Kirsopp Lake, 2 vols (London, William Heinemann, 1912), vol. 1, 3–5. The
troubles to which it alludes in the first chapter refer to persecutions of the Roman Church.
26
I Clem. 24.
27
I Clem. 25. The imagery of resurrection persisted in Rome, a fresco of a phoenix being on the
walls of the so-called Greek Chapel of the Catacombs of St Priscilla, for example. See Sandro
Carletti, Guide to the Catacombs of Priscilla (Vatican City, Pontifical Commission for Sacred
Archaeology, 1982), 26, 28 (and personal observation).
28
Clement, Epistle to the Corinthians 24–27.
29
I Clem. 40–41.

171
(ƒερεàι) and Levites (Λευ…ται). The daily sacrifices are only to be offered in
Jerusalem, at the altar and must first be inspected by the High Priest and the priests
and Levites.

40:1. Now then, since this is quite plain to us, and we have gained
insight into the depths of the divine knowledge [see Rom 11:33; 1 Cor
2:10], we ought to do in order all those things the Master has ordered
us to perform at the appointed times. 2. He has commanded sacrifices
and services to be performed, not in a careless and haphazard way but
at the designated seasons and hours. 3. He himself has determined
where and through whom he wishes them performed, to the intent that
everything should be done religiously to his good pleasure and
acceptably to his will. 4.Those, then who offer their sacrifices at the
appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed; for since they comply
with the Master’s orders, they do not sin. 5. Thus to the high priest
have been appointed his proper services, to the priests their own place
assigned, upon the Levites their proper duties imposed; and the
layman is bound by the rules for laymen.

41:1. Each of us, brethren, in his own rank (see 1 Cor 15:23) must
please God in good conscience, not overstepping the fixed rules of his
ministry, and with reverence. 2. Not everywhere, brethren, but in
Jerusalem only are the perpetual sacrifices (see Ex 29:38; Num 28:3),
offered, whether thank offering or those for sin and trespass; and even
there they are not offered in every place, but only in front of the
sanctuary, at the altar, after the offering has been inspected by the
high priest and the aforementioned ministers. 3. Further, those who do
anything, contrary to the duty imposed by his will incur the death
penalty. 4. Understand then, brethren, the greater the knowledge that
has been bestowed upon us, the greater the risk we run (I Clem. 40–
41).30

The reference to the sacrificial worship in the Temple may be interpreted as

reflecting the esteem in which the Temple continued to be held by the author of the
epistle, for it is being held up as a model for Christian worship. As a homilist who is
seeking to edify, he is showing that the priesthood of the Hebrew Bible is the model
for the Christian ministry, which is derived from God through Jesus Christ and the
apostles. Again, Clement is using Temple worship as an analogy to show that
offerings and services should be carried out by specific persons at fixed times and in
30
See Robert Grant (ed.), First and Second Clement in The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation
and Commentary, tr. Robert A. Grant and Holt M. Graham (6 vols, London, Thomas Nelson &
Sons, 1965), vol. 2, 68–72.

172
fixed places. His purpose appears to be to show the continuity of Christian tradition
with Jewish tradition, rather than as separated from Judaism. The apostles had
appointed bishops and deacons, just as Moses had set up a priesthood, and had
provided for its succession. The apostles were replaced by bishops and deacons who
saw themselves as the successors of the priesthood.31

There is a parallel with the Qumran sect in the attitude to the Temple as revealed in
the Temple Scroll. Here, there is a description of a heavenly Temple. The Qumran
sect no longer participated in the worship of the Jerusalem Temple, considering it to
be polluted, though they held the Temple worship in great esteem. Again, this
nostalgia for the Temple is reflected in rabbinic literature, where the dimensions of
the sukkah are those of the hechal of the Temple,32 and as the longing to rebuild the
Temple had not yet been lost, all the minute prescriptions relating to the Temple
worship are preserved in the Mishnah and Talmud.33

Clement’s commentary seeks to build on shared information about the history of

Israel and an appreciation of its practices as known from biblical texts. There is no
clear evidence that Clement has broken with the Sabbath, or that a new day of
worship has been adopted to replace the Sabbath. However, leadership of worship in
Clement’s eyes has now passed to the followers of Jesus. This implies that it has
passed out of the hands of the Jewish leaders and suggests separation from Judaism.34
Yet as a Roman Christian he appears to be influenced not by apocalyptic visions or
an eschatological view of the world, but more by Judaism itself with his prayers for
the rulers to whom God has given authority and a world of universal peace and unity.
Arguing through analogies, he implies that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of
thanksgiving and praise offered through the Lord Jesus Christ to God for his gifts.35
As yet, a clear connection in the developing liturgy does not appear to have been

31
See Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 32–33.
32
The hall of the shrine in the Temple where worship was performed.

33
m. Suk 1:1; t. Erub. 2a-3a; m. Midd 2:3; t. Suk. 4b-5b; 1 Kgs 6:2; Exod 25:22.

34
See I Clem. 42ff.
35
This comment is made by Robert Grant in Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian
Movement into the Roman World (London, Collins, 1971), 323.

173
made between resurrection and the Lord’s Day, on the one hand and the first day of
the week, on the other.

The Epistle of Barnabas

Unlike Clement, The Epistle of Barnabas seeks to emphasise strongly the differences
between Judaism and Christianity. It presents all Jewish institutions as having been
superseded by Christ. Here one encounters a strong leaning towards replacement
theology and extreme separationist views from Judaism, with the original meaning of
the Hebrew Bible texts being distorted. The orthodoxy of the writer is questionable,
for the premise that Judaism is an aberration from which Christianity should
disassociate itself is gnostic.36 In addition, the Epistle of Barnabas shows other
characteristics which mirror well known traits found in Qumran material and Philo.
These include an allegorical method of biblical exegesis, the quotation of texts from
the Hebrew Bible and their application to contemporary events, a communal ideal,
and a spirituality which reflects high ethical standards. In several instances the
language in Barnabas shows similarities to language encountered in documents
found at Qumran, such as the Rule of the Community and the Habbakuk Document.
These similarities reflect the diverse nature of first century Judaism, from whose
matrix Christianity was derived. Flusser has commented:

Essene thought deeply influenced the anthropology and ecclesiology

of the Hellenistic Church (by hidden channels) and the centrifugal
separatist tendency of Essene ideology fostered by the separation of
Christianity from Judaism.37

The text of the Epistle of Barnabas reflects a community that is celebrating Sunday
but may also be practising the Sabbath at the same time, as indicated by the
comments made by the writer to discourage Christians from celebrating the Sabbath.
There is an emphasis on Christ’s sacrifice, which is seen as the new Covenant which

36
The provenance and place of composition of Barnabas is in doubt, though it has been attributed to
an Alexandrian milieu. Its origin in Egypt is merely a possibility. See Robert Kraft’s comments in
Walter Bauer (ed.), Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1971),
47.
37
See David Flusser, ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’, Immanuel, 16 (1983), 47

174
has replaced all other Covenants.

New Covenant

In chapter four, the writer declares that the Covenant has been given over to the
gentiles, as the Jews have lost their right to it through unworthy behaviour.

But they lost it completely in the following manner, after Moses

already had received it – for the scripture says: ‘And Moses was on
the mountain fasting for forty days and forty nights, and he received
the Covenant from the Lord, stone tablets inscribed by the finger of
the Lord’s hand’. But when they turned to idols, they lost it (Barn.4:
4:6–7).38

The idea of Covenant is exclusive in its claim of being a new Covenant in Christ.
The thought expressed in the Epistle of Barnabas has a parallel with Qumran
separationist thought. Where the work claims that the Covenant has been given over
to the gentiles, the Qumran documents convey the idea that only the initiates of their
own ‘new Covenant’ were to be regarded as the elect of God, who, while on earth
were already united with the angels of heaven.
Those whom God has chosen he has set as an eternal possession. He
has allowed them to inherit the lot of the holy ones. With the sons of
heaven he has joined together their assembly for the Council of the
Community. (Their) assembly (is) a House of Holiness for the eternal
plantation during every time to come (1QS XI, 7–9).39

The Epistle of Barnabas chapter five gives the reasons for the sufferings of Christ,
that we should be sanctified by the remission of sin.40

We ought, therefore, to give heartfelt thanks to the Lord both because

he has given us gnosis of the things which have come to pass, and has

38
See Robert Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache 3: Robert Grant (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: A
New Translation and Commentary, 6 vols, Toronto, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964–589–91.

39
See Rule of the Community and Related Documents, in James Charlesworth (ed.), The Dead Sea
Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English (Tübingen, Mohr – Paul Siebeck, 1994),
vol. 1, 49.
40
Barn. 5:1.

175
 given us wisdom in the present events – nor are we without
understanding concerning what is about to happen (Barn.5:3).41

In chapter ten there is a specific mention of the Covenant. Jewish laws are
spiritualised.

Further he says to them in Deuteronomy: And I will ordain as a

Covenant for this people my righteous ordinances (Deut, 4:10, 13).
Therefore it is not God’s commandment that they (literally) should
not eat, but Moses spoke in the spirit (Barn. 10:2).42

While chapter twelve speaks of the symbolism of the serpent in the wilderness and
Joshua/Jesus, a theme employed also in John 3, in connection with the saving death
of Jesus, in chapter thirteen the context is the Covenant for both Jews and Christians.

Take note on which of them he placed (his right hand)-this ‘people’ is

to be first, and heir of the Covenant!
Was, then, this situation also in view in the case of Abraham? We are
receiving the perfection of our gnosis! (Barn. 13:6–7)43

The references to atonement, pardon of sins, baptism and to circumcision, the sign of
the Covenant, have led up to the covenantal ideal in Barn. 13:1–7, pardon being a
first effect of the Covenant.44

In chapter fourteen the Covenant is viewed as having been fulfilled in Jesus (14:5)
and following this thought it says that the Sabbath (a sign of the Covenant) is being
replaced by the eighth day, which commemorates the resurrection of Jesus (15:1–9).
Thus the new Covenant is brought about by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This
appears to be the climax of the document. The eighth day is the beginning of eternity
which the resurrection celebrates. In this way the Epistle of Barnabas has replaced
the Sabbath with the eighth day of the Christian week. However, it is not known yet

41
See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 93.
42
See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 110.
43
See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 124.
44
See Damascus Document CD 111 18–19A and 20:12, plus the gloss which mentions ha-brit ha-
hadasha (the new covenant or testament), which became the name of the Christian scriptures.

176
whether Sunday was a definite day in the church’s calendar at Alexandria at the time
of the Epistle of Barnabas. The work’s comments on the Sabbath in chapter 15 speak
of creation and the eschatological thought of the parousia in six thousand years.
Again, it concludes that the present Sabbath is no longer acceptable:

3. He mentions ‘the Sabbath’ at the beginning of creation:

and God made the works of his hands in six days,
and he finished on the seventh day.
and he rested on it, and kept it holy (Gen 2:2–3)

4. Pay attention children to what he says: ‘He finished in six days’. He

is saying this, that in six thousand years the Lord will finish
everything. For with him the ‘day’ signifies a thousand years. And he
bears me witness (on this point) saying: Behold, a day of the Lord
shall be as a thousand years (Ps 90:4)

5 ‘And he rested on the seventh day’. He is saying this: When his son
comes he will put an end to the time of the Lawless One, and judge
the impious and change the sun and moon and stars – then he will
truly rest ‘on the seventh day’.

6. Furthermore, he says: ‘Keep it holy with clean hands and a clean

heart’. If then, anyone at present is able, by being clean in heart, to
keep the day which God hallowed, we have been deceived in
everything!

7. But if he keeps it holy at that time by truly resting, when we

ourselves are able (to do so) since we have been made righteous and
have received the promise – when lawlessness is no more and all
things have been made new by the Lord – at that time we will be able
to keep it holy, when we ourselves have been made holy!

8. Further, he says to them: I cannot bear your new moon celebration

and Sabbaths (Isa 1:13).
See how he is saying that it is not your present Sabbaths that are
acceptable to me, but that (Sabbath) which I have made, in which,
when I have rested, everything I will make the beginning of an eighth
day–that is-the beginning of another world.

9. Wherefore also we observe the eighth day as a time of rejoicing,

for on it Jesus both arose from the dead and, when he had appeared he
ascended into the heavens (Barn.15:3–9).

In the Epistle of Barnabas, the primary meaning for the eighth day is given as being a

177
day of holiness and rest, and the beginning of eternity.45 The idea of the resurrection
is added, but is not central. The celebration of the Sabbath is discouraged, but, as yet,
the resurrection is not the primary reason for celebrating Sunday. However, Sunday
or the eighth day has taken over in the Epistle to Barnabas part of the symbolism of
the Sabbath – its holiness and rest, as well as the eschatological aspects of the eternal
Sabbath.46 Again, despite it’s opposition to Judaism and it’s comment against Jews,
the latter also makes use of materials that are Jewish in origin to construct its
theology.47 As yet, the links between church and synagogue are still clear.
Christianity has not yet clearly defined itself as to what is considered orthodox
Christian teaching and what is unacceptable. The epistle’s opposition to Judaism
appears to be not so much anti-Judaism as opposition to the Jewish cultus and
Temple.

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius also, takes a similar stance to Barnabas, but less extreme.48 It appears that
Sabbath and Sunday were both celebrated in the environs of Ignatius of Antioch in
the late first century or early second century.49 This is indicated by the polemical
tones of his writing, though the picture is not clear. The tone of the epistle
discourages the celebration of the Sabbath. Does this also indicate that some, at least

45
Athanasius in the fourth century called seven a symbol of the Old Testament and eight a symbol
of the New Testament. See Athanasius, De Sabbatis et circumcisione 1 & 4. Augustine has the
same thought. See City of God, 16.26.
46
A halakhic text from Qumran, 4QMMT 75–85 (Frag 1 col. IV) reads:‘Until the sun sets on the
eighth day.’ See Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran
Texts in English, tr. Wilfred G.E. Watson, 2nd edn (Leiden, Brill, 1996), 82. See also Num 30:35.
‘On the eighth day you shall have a solemn assembly’.
47
See Barn. 7:6 which mentions in the context of the scapegoat that the two goats must resemble
each other (m. Yom. 6:1). In addition, Barn. 9:9 and 1:1 share material that is common to Jewish
apocalypses of the end of the first century CE. See William Horbury, ‘Jewish-Christian Relations
in Barnabas and Justin Martyr’, in James D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of
the Ways AD 70 to 135. (Tübingen, Mohr–Paul Siebeck, 1992), 332–3.
48
See Grant’s remarks in The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 97.
49
According to Eusebius, Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch in Syria (Hist. eccl. 3.22) and
in his Chronicum Eusebius dates his martyrdom in Rome to the tenth year of Trajan (108 CE).
His source is Irenaeus (98–117 CE). See Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. 5.28.3. See also Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
3.36.

178
of the Christians celebrated the Sabbath and not Sunday? Again, both groups of
Christians may be celebrating both days. Walter Bauer comments that in Antioch as
well as in Alexandria, Jewish-Christianity co-existed with gentile-Christianity, and
has the impression that both groups were conditioned by a syncretistic-gnostic
setting.50 If his theory is correct, this would explain Ignatius’ concern to establish
orthodox Christianity.

1. If then those who lived in antiquated customs came to newness of

hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but living in accordance with
the Lord’s Day on which also our life arose up through him and his
death (though some deny it), and by this mystery we received the
power to believe, and for this reason also we endure that we may be
recognised as disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher (Magnesians,
9:1).

In this same epistle Ignatius adds polemical comments, clearly indicating that the
Sabbath was being celebrated by some Christians. He claims that Christianity has
primacy over Judaism:

It is absurd to talk of Jesus Christ and practise Judaism. For

Christianity did not base its faith on Judaism, but Judaism on
Christianity, in which ‘every language’ believing in God was
‘brought together’ (Isa 66:18).51

Ignatius also was concerned with the careful observance of Eucharistic rituals, but
does not detail how these rituals are to be carried out.52

2. Especially if the Lord reveals to me that individually you are all

joining, by grace from the Name, in one faith in Jesus Christ, who was
of the family of David after the flesh (Rom. 1:3), son of man and Son
of God, so that you may obey the bishop and the presbytery with
undisturbed mind, breaking one loaf (I Cor. 10:16-17), which is the
medicine of immortality, the antidote which results not in dying but in
living forever in Jesus Christ (Eph. 20:2).53

50
See Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 65.
51
Magnesians, 10.3.
52
Ignatius, Phil. 4; Smyrn. 6; Rom 7; Eph. 20.
53
See Grant, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 4, 53.

179
The Didache

The Didache, the most ancient source of church legislation, reveals another
situation.54 Now there appear to be signs of the regular celebration of the Lord’s
Supper, and that a special day has been set aside for its celebration, reconciliation
with one's neighbour being a precondition of right worship. As in other early
Christian texts, the Didache prayers show clear signs of their origin in Jewish prayers
which have been adapted to Christian use.55

In chapter fourteen of the Didache there is a description which appears to be that of a

Sunday Eucharist, though it has been argued that Easter is meant. The passage again
is ambiguous. Again, it is not absolutely sure that the word ‘sacrifice ’ indicates the
Eucharist, for both prayers and praise were called ‘sacrifices’ in this period.56 This
order, where the cup comes first is only to be found in the earliest text of Luke
22:17ff. and is indicated in 1 Cor 10:16.57

And when you gather together each Lord’s Day.

(κυριακ¾ν δε κυρ…ου) break bread and give thanks. But first
confess your transgressions so that your ‘sacrifice’ may be pure. 2.
And let no one who has a quarrel with his friend join you until they
are reconciled, lest your ‘sacrifice’ be profaned (see Matt 5:23]. 3. For
this is what the Lord was referring to: In every place and at all times
offer a pure sacrifice to me (Mal 1:11), for I am a great King, says the
Lord, and my name is marvellous among the nations (Mal 1:14b)
(Didache 14: 1–3).58
54
Grant suggests it may have been compiled in Syria in the latter half of the first century. See Grant,
Augustus to Constantine, 171. The Didache became incorporated in the Didascalia Apostolorum
(3rd century), which was then subsumed in the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century). The so
called Egyptian Church Order or Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (3rd century) was also
subsumed in the Apostolical Constitutions. See Robert Kraft, ‘Some Notes on Sabbath
Observance in Early Christianity’, Andrews University Seminar Notes 3 (1965), 20ff.
55
See Didache 9:1–10.
56
See Barn, 2:10; Justin. Dial. 117:2b; 1 Clem 40–1. See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 173ff.
57
See The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, 322, n. 1.
58
See Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, 173. Beckwith points out that Κυριακοj (dominical, the
Lord’s) is found in the feminine form of the adjective. The word ‘day’ has been omitted, a
practice common in the early Church. The duplication κυριακ¾ and κυρ…ου is rather unusual.
Beckwith postulates that the Lord’s day was originally an Aramaic term, which was translated
into this Greek form to show that the church’s ‘Day of the Lord’, meant Sunday. See J. T.
Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology: Jewish and Christian (Leiden, Brill, 1996), 38.

180
This description has its parallels in Josephus’ portrayal of the common meals of the
Essenes.

And after this purification is over, every one meets together in an

apartment of their own, into which is not permitted to any of another
sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room,
as into a certain holy temple, and quietly set themselves down; upon
which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a
single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them;
but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for any one to
taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest when he has
dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin and when
they end, they praise God as he that bestows their food upon them
(J.W. 2.8.5).59

It is also mirrored in material that has come to light from the Dead Sea Scrolls in
latter years.

In this way shall they behave in all their places of residence.

Whenever one fellow meets another, with his fellow, the younger
shall obey the older, with regard to the work and the money. They
shall eat together and they shall pray together and they shall take
counsel together. In every place where there are ten men of the
community council, there should also be a priest. And when they
prepare the table to dine or the new wine for drinking, the priest shall
stretch out his hand as the first to bless the first fruits of the bread and
of the new wine (I QS vi, 2–6)60

The first hesitant references to resurrection which is presented as a secondary reason

for the celebration of the Lord’s day in these sources are not mentioned in the
Didache. This shows that resurrection is not yet an established part of the theology of
Sunday in all parts of Christianity, and raises the possibility that the Didache may not
be referring to Sunday worship. Again, the reference to the resurrection is important
in the process of the break between Judaism and Christianity as it brings the role of
Christ more to the fore. The place of the resurrection was to become the primary

59
See Josephus Complete Works, tr. William Whiston, first published 1737, London, Pickering &
Inglis, 1960, 476.

60
See Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 9.See also Karl Georg Kuhn, ‘The Lord’s Supper
and the Communal Meal at Qumran’, in Krister Stendahl and James H. Charlesworth (eds.), The
Scrolls and the New Testament (New York, Crossroad, 1992), 67.

181
meaning given to the celebration of Sunday. In addition, Sunday observance was said
to replace the Sabbath, the feast being called the eighth day, as it followed the
Sabbath, which was called the seventh.61

Justin Martyr

Justin’s First Apology is the most ancient detailed description of the Christian
Liturgy of the Word, the first part of the Mass, and also shows clear marks of its
evolution from worship in the synagogue. It is clear, now, that Sunday is the first day
of the week, and it is linked to the resurrection and the creation of the world. He uses
here, the terms ‘Saturn’ and ‘Day of the Sun’. This appears to be a description of the
ordinary Sunday service.

On the day which is called Sunday we have a common assembly of all

who live in the cities or in the outlying districts, and the memoirs of
the apostles or the writings of the Prophets are read, as long as there is
time. Then, when the reader has finished, the president of the
assembly verbally admonishes and invites all to imitate such
examples of virtue. Then, we all stand up together and offer up our
prayers, and, as we said before, after we finish our prayers, bread and
wine and water are presented. He who presides likewise offers up
prayers and thanksgiving, to the best of his ability, and the people
express their approval by saying ‘amen.’ The Eucharistic elements are
distributed and consumed by those present, and to those who are
absent they are sent through the deacons…

Sunday, indeed, is the day on which we all hold our common

assembly because it is the first day on which God, transforming the
darkness and (prime) matter, created the world; and our Saviour Jesus
Christ arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on
the day before that of Saturn, and on the day after, which is Sunday,
he appeared to his apostles and disciples, and taught the things which
we have passed on to you also for consideration (First Apol. 67).62

His second description is of the liturgy following baptism.

After thus baptising the one who has believed and given his assent,
61
See Barn, 15:9; Justin, Dial. 24.1; 41:4; The Didascalia Apostolorum 21 calls it the first day of
the week.
62
See Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, in Ludwig Schoff, Roy Joseph Deferrari, (eds), The Fathers
of the Church: A New Translation, (New York, Christian Heritage, 1948–), vol. 6, 106–7.

182
 we escort him to the place where are assembled those whom we call
brethren…At the conclusion of the prayers we greet one another with
a kiss. The bread and a chalice containing wine mixed with water are
presented to the one presiding over the brethren. He takes them and
offers praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, and he recites lengthy prayers of
thanksgiving to God in the name of those to whom he granted such
favours. At the end of these prayers and thanksgiving, all present
express their approval by saying ‘Amen. The Hebrew word ‘amen,’
means ‘So be it.’ He who presides has celebrated the Eucharist, they
whom we call deacons permit each one present to partake of the
Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and they carry it also to the
absentees (First Apol. 65).63

Neither liturgy appears to be in the context of a meal, as would have appeared to

have been the practice described in Acts and reflected in earlier literature, showing a
further development to a more formal style. The elements of the liturgy that seem to
be modelled on synagogue worship are firstly, the readings and a homily, and
secondly, prayer recited in common, while standing, ending with the kiss of peace.
The kiss of peace may not have had an exact parallel in synagogue worship, though
there is the blessing for peace. The eucharistic liturgy of bread and wine centres
about Christ. Irenaeus, however, stresses that the Eucharist is an offering to God of
the first fruits of creation, an example of the christianising of a Sabbath day element
and attributing it to Sunday.64

An element, which is at the heart of the synagogue service is omitted in this early
account of Christian liturgy, namely the profession of faith in the unity of God, the
Shema and its blessings.65 It would seem very likely that the prayers in early
Christianity resembled the spontaneous blessings that became formalised in the
Amidah, for this pattern of prayer is evident in the early literature, as has been
demonstrated.

63
See Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, 105.
64
See Irenaeus, AH 4.18.1; see also AH 4.18.4. See Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright and
Edward Yanold (eds), The Study of Liturgy (London, SPCK, 1979), 171–2.
65
All three synoptics mention the Shema: Matt 22:37; Mark 12: 28-29; Luke 10: 25–27a.

183
Graeco-Roman Sources–Second Century

The information from Graeco-Roman sources may reflect popular knowledge, but
tells little about Christian worship in itself. Pliny the younger, a legate of Trajan
from 111 to113CE in Bithynia and Pontus on the southern shore of the Black Sea
mentions among the practices of Christians, their custom of meeting regularly before
dawn on a fixed day to chant verses to ‘Christ as to a god’ Christo quasi deo.
Their custom was to meet on a fixed day before dawn, to say an
antiphonal hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves with an
oath – not in order to commit any crime but to refrain from theft,
robbery, adultery, and disregarding of oaths and the refusal to repay a
deposit upon request. After this they used to depart and then meet
again for a meal, which was ordinary and innocent (innoxium)
(Ep.10.96.7).66

Several questions could be asked. How representative of Christians in general was

this particular group in Pontus? Was the fixed day ‘Sunday’? How long did these
practices continue in this hostile climate?

Again, what was the nature of the service? Was it a synagogue type service at the
first meeting followed by the meal? The common element mentioned in Acts by
Pliny is the meal that followed the first act of worship. The mention of refraining
from theft or adultery may indicate the recitation of a form of the Decalogue as a
feature of the meeting.

Lucien of Samosata (ca 115–200) described Christians as ‘worshipping that crucified

sophist himself and living under his laws’.67 Lucien appears to be referring to a group
that is distinct from Jews, indicating that definite Christian rites were occurring in
the second century, perhaps quite early, and provides indirect evidence for the
celebration of Sunday, especially if this evidence is weighed up with other early
texts.

66
See Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966), 702–
10. See also Grant, Augustus to Constantine, 101.
67
See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York, Doubleday,
1991), 92, n. 20, 102.

184
It follows that the practice of Sunday had become a feature of the church’s life by
about the mid-second century. However, as yet, Christians do not appear to have
broken with the keeping of the Sabbath. Although some have argued otherwise, it
seems reasonable to suggest that in apostolic times Sunday had not yet replaced the
Sabbath nor was it associated with the resurrection or any specific event. Some have
argued that since the New Testament appears to infer that the resurrection
appearances took place on the first day of the week, this was the day of worship.
Again, though Christians at Troas met on the first day to ‘break bread’ (Acts 20:7)
this may not have been the usual practice.

In the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas and the letters of Ignatius, the importance of
Sunday is emphasised, and this is made explicit in Justin. In the late second century,
while Origen had compared the Lord’s Day with the Jewish Sabbath, a number of
such texts prepared the ground for Sunday to assume the idea of rest and cessation
from work that belong to the Sabbath.68 Opposing trends observed in the second
century either advocated the celebration of both the Sabbath and Sunday or sharply
discouraged the celebration of the Sabbath and promoted Sunday. These trends
persisted right through to the fourth and fifth centuries.

Thus, for example, the fourth century writer Epiphanius reported that Marcion had
preached fasting on the Sabbath.

For fasting on the Sabbath he gives this reason: ‘Since it is the rest of
the God of the Jews who made the world and rested on the seventh
day, let us fast on this day, to do nothing appropriate to the God of the
Jews… (Panarion, 3.42.3,4).69

In many provinces of the early church, Saturday was observed as the Feast of the
Creation.70

68
See Origen, Hom. 7.5 in Exod.
69
See The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, tr. Frank Williams, 2nd impression (2 vols, Leiden,
Brill, 1997), vol. 1, 274.
70
Thus, for example, The Constitutions of Hippolytus 16.1 forbid owners to ask their slaves to
work on Saturday and Sunday. See also Apostolical Constitutions, 8.33.

185
Graeco-Roman Sources Third Century

By the third century a change was noticeable. In addition to disapproval of Christians

celebrating the Sabbath, there is an attempt to devalue the Sabbath. The Didascalia,
forbids Sabbath observance. It describes the Sabbath as an imitation of mourning.71

But let us observe and see, brethren, that most men in their mourning
imitate the Sabbath; and they likewise who keep Sabbath imitate
mourning. For he that mourns kindles no light: neither do the people
on the Sabbath, because of the commandment of Moses; for so it was
commanded by him. He that mourns takes no bath: nor yet the People
on the Sabbath. He that mourns does not prepare a table: neither do
the People on the Sabbath, but prepare and lay for themselves the
evening before; because they had a presentiment of mourning, seeing
that they were to lay hands on Jesus. He that mourns does no work,
and does not speak, but sits in sorrow; so too the People on the
Sabbath... (Didascalia 20).72

Graeco-Roman Sources in the Fourth Century

As late as the fourth and fifth centuries some Christians fasted on Saturday in Rome73
and in Spain.74 This practice also was condemned in due course.75 The Apostolic
Canons, which are to be found in the latter part of the Apostolical Constitutions

71
See Hugh Connolly (ed.), Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version translated and
accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969), xxvi ff. The
third century document, originally in Greek, survived in Syriac translation. Considerable portions
of the Greek lie embedded in the fourth century Apostolical Constitutions.
72
See Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum, 191–2.
73
Jerome, Ep. 71.6 (PL 22:672) speaks of the observance in both Rome and Spain in the fourth
century; and in the fifth century Innocent I, Ep. 25.c.4 (PL 20:555), Augustine, Ep. 54.2ff (PL
33:200ff); and Socrates Hist. cccl. 5.22 (Rome).
74
Karle Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents.
(New York, AMS Press.1972), vol. 1, 484.
75
This mention of fasting on the Sabbath was cited by Greek and Roman authors who were under
the impression that Jews fasted on the Sabbath. See Petronius, Fragmenta no. 37, Menahem
Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem, The Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1976), vol. 1, 444. In addition, the idea is hinted at in the second
century gnostic Gospel of Thomas. See Gos. Thom. 86:17–20. Jews, following an ancient custom,
fast before the morning service of Sabbath, and the early comments that Jews fasted on the
Sabbath may have arisen from a misunderstanding of this practice.

186
broach this subject.76

Si quis clericus inventur fuerit die dominica vel sabbato, praeter unum
solum, jejunans, eponatur; si fuerit laicus, segregetur.

If any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord’s Day, or on the
Sabbath, excepting one only (during Easter) let him be deprived; but
if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended (Apostolic Canon 64).77

The Apostolical Constitutions and related literature are quite clear that one is not to
fast on the Sabbath, except at Passover/Easter in memory of the Lord’s death/burial.

Do you therefore fast on the days of the Passover, beginning from the
second day of the week until the preparation, and the Sabbath, six
days, making use of only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water from
your drink; but do you abstain on these days from wine and flesh, for
they are days of lamentation and not of feasting… (Apostolical
Constitutions 5.18).

Wherefore we exhort you to fast on those days, as we also fasted till

the evening, when He was taken away from us; but on the rest of the
days, before the day of the preparation, let every one eat at the ninth
hour, or at the evening, or as every one is able. But from the even of
the fifth day till cock-crowing break our fast when it is daybreak of
the first day of the week, which is the Lord’s day… (Apostolical
Constitutions 5.19).78

The Apostolical Constitutions also say to celebrate both the Sabbath and Sunday as
the first recalls the creation and the second, the resurrection.

But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord’s day festival; because the former
is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But
there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year,
which is that of our Lord’s burial, on which people ought to keep a
fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the
earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the

76
These form the last chapter of the Apostolical Constitutions (8.47), which are generally thought to
date from about the year 375. The author was possibly an Arian. The first six books are based on
the Didascalia, the seventh being a version of the Didache, and the main known source of the
eighth chapter is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. See Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum,
xx.
77
See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 504.
78
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 447.

187
 creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity
then His own creatures (Apostolical Constitutions 7.23).79

However, during the period of the fast before Easter, there was also the cessation of
fasting on the Sabbath and Sunday in some areas of the church.80

There are traces of fasting on the Sabbath in the African church first attested by
Tertullian, who relates that Sabbath has been added to the fast days of Wednesday
and Friday, though there should be no fast on the Sabbath except before Easter.81

Thus, there were differences in various areas of the church. The Sabbath was
regarded more favourably in places in the east such as Alexandria and Cyprus than in
the west, as in Rome. However, the early church was ridden by various heresies such
as docetism, arianism and gnosticism, and in some areas syncretistic forms of
Christianity existed, as in Antioch, as attested by John Chrysostom in his sermons on
the autumn feasts and earlier by Ignatius of Antioch. This was not an isolated case.
Again, the variations may be due to lack of a strong centralising authority in Rome,
the primacy of Rome being first attested in the introduction of the first Epistle of
Ignatius. When the ecumenical Councils began in the fourth century, areas of the
eastern Church began to split off from the Roman Church, as disagreements about
the nature of Christ and the Trinity became irreconcilable. Politics, differences in
culture and rivalry were also elements which contributed to this process of separation
between different strands of Christianity, and the different rate of separation from the
practice of the Sabbath.

A spurious canon attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, the most important

episcopal delegate from Egypt to the Council of Nicaea, speaks of the necessity of
observing both the Sabbath and Sunday. The canon is no earlier than the fifth
century.

79
See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 469.
80
See Athanasius, Festal letter 6.13; Etheria, 27.
81
See Tertullian, De Ieiunio 14:2–3; 15:2.

188
 And when it is the first day (of the week), after they (monks and nuns)
have taken of the body of Christ and His blood, they shall break their
fast. And they shall never eat their fill upon the Sabbath and the first
day till even be come (Canon 92).82

And again:

And if he (the cleric) is a husbandman and does not come to church

on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day before the psalter has been read, he
shall fast and shall not take of the bread... (Canon 49) 83

However, in this instance the observance of the Sabbath has undergone a change
from the original Jewish practice, with fasting being introduced.

Timotheus, Bishop of Alexandria in 381 speaks of the necessity of abstaining from

sexual relations on ‘the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day (Sunday)...because on these days
the spiritual sacrifice (the Eucharist) is offered to the Lord’.84

The text also shows that in Egypt the Eucharist was celebrated on both the Sabbath
and Sunday. Basil the Great, from Antioch recommends daily communion, but says
that he himself partakes of the Eucharist four times a week on Sunday, Wednesday,
Friday and the Sabbath, and also on the other days if there is a saint’s memorial.85

Another witness, Epiphanius of Salamis gives testimony to the special place of the
Sabbath alongside of Sunday as a day of Christian gathering.86

A further witness to reverence for the Sabbath is Pseudo-Ignatius, an editor who

expanded the Ignatian Epistles in the fourth century. Here, the author sees the
Sabbath to be celebrated by Christians as something spiritual, not in the holistic

82
See W. Riedel and W.E. Crum (eds.), Canons of Athanasius of Alexandria, Patriarch of
Alexandria, ca 293–373: The One Hundred and Seven Canons in the Arabic Translation from the
Coptic Version of the Greek, by Michael, Bishop of Tinnis, of the Eleventh Century (Amsterdam,
Philo Press, 1973), 59.
83
See Canons of Athanasius, 122.
84
Responsa Canonica, PG 33:1305.
85
Letter 93.
86
PG 24:832A.

189
sense that it is celebrated in Judaism.

Therefore let us no longer observe the Sabbath like the Jews in taking
pleasure in idleness. Thus if anyone does not wish to work, let him
not eat. And by the sweat of your brow, you will eat your bread, says
scripture. But each of you should observe Sabbath in a spiritual way,
in taking joy in meditating on the Law, and not in resting the body, in
marvelling at the creating of God, and not in eating the food of the
day before, nor in consuming tepid drinks, nor in walking (in the
interior) of the proscribed space, nor (at last) in finding pleasure in
dancing or in senseless noisy activities. After keeping the Sabbath, let
every lover of Christ celebrate the festival of the Lord’s Day-the
resurrection day, the royal day, the most excellent of all days (Ps.
Ignatius, Magn. 9:3–4)87

In addition, this same source condemns fasting on the Sabbath, and speaks of Jews in
polemical terms.

If anyone fasts on the Lord’s day or the Sabbath-with the one

exception of the paschal Sabbath, he is a murderer of Christ (Ps.
Ignatius, Philad. 13).88

The practice of Sabbath along side of Sunday is also widely attested by others who
include Basil of Cappodicia,89 John Chrysostom of Antioch90 and Augustine of
Hippo91 as well as by Coptic Christianity.92 The picture, however, is a mixed one
showing both reverence and disapproval.

Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord’s
day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We
have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the
87
See Willy Rordorf, Sabbat et Dimanche dans l'Eglise ancienne, tr. Etienne Visinand and Willi
Nussbaum (Paris, Delachaux et Niestlé, 1972), 51ff. See Kraft, ‘Some Notes’, 23.

88
See Willy Rordorf, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest
Centuries of the Christian Church (London, SCM, 1968) 145. Rordorf, Sunday, 145.
89
De Ieiunio, 1.7.10; 11.4.7.

90
Hom.13.2 in Gen. The practice is condemned. See also Hom.10.7 in Gen., PG 53:89, where
Chrysostom uses the Sabbath commandment to justify rest from work on Sunday, 171.
91
Ad Casulanum, 2.4

92
See Kraft,‘ Some Notes’, 23–8.

190
 Lord’s day of the resurrection (Apostolical Constitutions, 8.33.2). 93

The text elaborates that on all the major Christian feasts the slaves were permitted to
rest, the rest being because of an event connected with Christ.

Council of Laodicea

The Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia94 mentions the Sabbath and Sunday in no less than
four canons,95 thus emphasising its importance. Laodicea was the site of a strong
Jewish community, a Christian community seemingly being established there in the
first century, as can be gleaned from the Epistle to Colossians.96 Paul, on his first
missionary voyage, visited and preached and recruited in the synagogues of the area
of Phrygia.97

Canon 29 states:

Quod non oportet Christianos judaizare, & in sabbato otiari, sed ipsos
eodie operari: diem autem dominicum praeferentes otiari, si modo
possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint judaizantes, sint
anathema apud Christum.98

Christians shall not judaise and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on
that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being
Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If however, they
are found judaising, they shall be shut out from Christ (Canon 29).99

The text does not specify what is meant by ‘judaising’ but this may include attending

93
Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, 495.

94
Ca 360 CE.
95
Canons 16, 29, 49 and 51.
96
See Col 4:13–16, which mentions Epaphras. In verse 15 Paul sends greetings to the brothers in
Laodicea, and verse 16 mentions the Church of the Laodiceans.
97
See Acts 2:10; 13:1–14:28.
98
Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, reprint. (Graz
Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), vol. 2, 569–70.
99
Hefele, vol. 2, 316. Canon 29 of Laodicea (ca 360).

191
the synagogue, and doing no work on the Sabbath or keeping it in a Jewish
manner.100 The passage also reflects a criticism levelled at the Jews by Greek and
Roman writers who considered it a day of idleness. This is typified in the comment
of the early fifth century Latin writer Rutilius Namatianus:

We pay the abuse due to the filthy race that infamously practises
circumcision; a root of silliness they are: chill Sabbaths are after their
own heart, yet their heart is chillier than their creed. Each seventh day
is condemned to ignoble sloth, an effeminate picture of the god
fatigued (De Reditu Suo, 1).101

Augustine also cites Seneca the Younger who lived from 4 BCE to 65 CE.

Along with other superstitions of the civil theology Seneca also

censures the sacred institutions of the Jews, especially the Sabbath.
He declares that their practices are inexpedient, because by
introducing one day of rest in every seven they lose in idleness almost
a seventh of their life, and by failing to act in times of urgency they
often suffer… (De Civitate Dei, 6.11).102

The second canon which mentions the Sabbath specifically stipulates:

On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be

read aloud (Canon 16).103

The text shows that the Christian liturgy maintained an important element in Jewish
liturgy, the reading of scripture. Two other canons mention Sabbath and Sunday.

One must not offer bread (celebrate the Eucharist) except on the
Sabbath and Sunday only (Canon 49).104

100
See Hefele, vol. 2, 360.
101
Cited from Stern, Greek and Roman, vol. 2, 663.
102
See Stern, Greek and Roman, vol. 1, 431. See also Juvenal, Saturae, 14. 96–106 as cited by Stern,
vol. 1, 102–3.
103
See Hefele, vol. 2, 360.
104
After Rordorf, Sabbath et Dimanche, 49.

192
and
One must not observe the anniversaries of the martyrs during Lent,
but make a commemoration of the holy martyrs on Sabbaths and
Sunday (Canon 51).105

Canons 16, 49 and 51 show clearly that in the region of Laodicea in the fourth
century, despite the interdiction of Canon 29 against Sabbath rest, the Sabbath
enjoyed an important status in worship beside Sunday. Thus, though Sabbath was
important in some areas of Christianity in the fourth century as a day of honour, its
meaning had been changed and christianised.106

The idea of rest was being gradually transferred to Sunday, as was the idea of the
commemoration of creation. Sunday was more clearly seen as the day of the
resurrection than in the second century. The process continued in the fifth century.

Imperial Legislation

The imperial decrees aided the process of transferring Christian allegiance and
Sabbath symbolism more fully to Sunday, by making it officially the day of rest. The
process began with Constantine who decreed Sunday as the official day of rest for
the citizens of the Roman Empire.

The law dates from the 3 March 321 and is addressed to A. Helpidius, the prefect of
the city of Rome.

The Emperor Constantine to A. Helpidius. All judges, townspeople

and all occupations (artium officia cunctarum) should rest on the most
honourable day of the sun. Farmers indeed should be free and
unhindered in their cultivation of the fields, since it frequently occurs
that there is no more suitable day for entrusting seeds of corn to the
furrows and slips of vine to the holes prepared for them, lest haply the
favourable moment sent by divine providence be lost (Codex

105
After Rordorf, Sabbath et Dimanche, 49.
106
See b.Taan. 27b. ‘On the eve of Sabbath they did not fast, out of respect to the Sabbath; still less
(did they fast) on the Sabbath itself. Why did they not fast on the day after the Sabbath? R.
Johanan says, “Because of the Nazarenes”’ See Travers P. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and
Midrash, reprint (Clifton, New Jersey, Reference Book Publishers, 1966) 171. See also b. Abod.
Zar. 6a.

193
 Justinianus 3.12 9 (de feriis) 3.107

However, the motive for the law is not fully known. Was it to win the support of the
Christian minority, or did it simply legalise the sun worship of the cult of Mithras
which was by now widespread? Rordorf suggests that Constantine’s subsequent
Sunday legislation indicates that he wished to establish Sunday as a day set apart for
religious purposes. The day does not appear to have had an expressly Christian
character. This is supported by the fact that no church council makes allusion to
Constantine having decreed that Sunday be specifically a Christian day, nor does
there appear to be any such reference in the Latin patristic sources of the period.

Just as it seemed very inopportune to occupy with legal disputations

and injurious strife the day of the sun which has been honoured with
the veneration due to it, so (conversely) it is seemly and admirable to
fulfil votiva on this day above all days. Therefore shall everyone have
leave on this festival day to emancipate and manumit (slaves), and it
shall not be forbidden to take minutes of proceedings in this
connection (C. Th. 2.8.1) 108

At the same time, a text from Eusebius reports that Constantine also paid honour to
the Sabbath for Christians.109 His motives appear to have been mixed, the text in
Eusebius indicating that as well as tolerating Christian churchgoing on Sunday,
Constantine also composed a kind of liturgical prayer for soldiers that appears
similar to one recited by sun worshippers.110

Constantine had introduced rest from work on Sunday. As work was now forbidden
on Sundays, it is to be concluded that the church took advantage of this situation to
transfer the Jewish idea of Sabbath rest to Sunday. However, the process whereby
Sunday took on some of the characteristics of the Sabbath was gradual.

Through the new Covenant the word (of God) has, therefore,

107
Cited from Rordorf, Sunday, 162. See also C. Th. 8.8.3. and C. Th. 2.8.25.
108
See Rordorf, Sunday, 165.
109
See Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4. 18–20.
110
See Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 4. 18–20.

194
 transferred the Sabbath celebration to the light’s rising and has given
us a type of the true rest in the saving day of the Lord, the first day of
light (Eusebius, `Commentary on Psalm 92).111

John Chrysostom also dictated that Sunday be a day of rest, citing the hallowing of
the seventh day as a reason.112

Conclusion

A sixth century text expresses what may have been a fairly universal church attitude
to Sunday, whose religious value it saw as its responsibility to maintain.

Many wait for Sunday, but not all with the same purpose. Some await
it with awe, and in order that they may send their prayer up to God
and be fortified with the precious body and blood, but the idle and
indifferent in order that they may have time for wickedness when they
are free from work. The facts bear me out that I am not lying.113

Thus it appears that the process of transferring Sabbath symbolism to Sunday was
not complete even by the sixth century. The impetus to transferring Sabbath
symbolism to Sunday was a combination of imperial legislation and the way that the
church authority took advantage of the situation to give the day of rest a Christian
meaning. Prejudices against the Sabbath voiced by Greek and Roman writers, such
as it being a day of idleness and fasting (a misunderstanding of Jewish praxis) found
their way into church writings.

The imperial support of Sunday as the weekly day of rest appeared largely to have
been a matter of convenience more than of religious conviction. The secular and
religious authorities had spoken, the secular decree lending force to the church
stance.

The christianisation of another central Jewish feast, the Passover was another

111
See Rordorf, Sunday, 170ff.
112
See Hom 10.7. in Gen, PG 53:89.
113
See PG 86:1 as translated in Rordorf, Sunday, 169.

195
important area where Christianity separated from Judaism. In this case it is clear, also
that there was on the part of some Christians, who were accused of judaising
practices, a certain reluctance to abandon this central Jewish practice.

196
Chapter Seven. The Separation of Easter from Passover.

It is unlikely to be accidental that Easter should be the most ancient and important of
the Christian feasts,1 considering the prime place in Judaism of the Passover, from
which the Easter is derived.2 In examining the earliest Christian literature treating of
Passover it becomes clear that already in the first century, the moving apart from
Judaism had begun with regard to this feast.

The literature reveals three areas of separation, the first two areas being radical.
Firstly, the focus of the feast has moved from sacrifice in the Temple to the centrality
of the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, Jesus comes to be seen as the Paschal Lamb, while
the literature attacks Judaism for its lack of a Passover sacrifice, claiming that
Christian practices have superseded Judaism.3 Thirdly, there is the struggle to
separate the date of Easter from the date of Passover, the so-called Quartodeciman
problem, where Christians, especially in the east, are accused of judaising. This latter
struggle would stretch over several centuries. It was a less significant form of
separation than the first two areas, but indicates the basic, ambiguous stance of
Christians towards Jewish praxis.

Again, at the same time that Christianity was developing its own interpretation of
Passover, Judaism was also adapting the interpretation of Passover to the loss of the
Jerusalem Temple. This is reflected in the text of the Mishnah Pesahim 10, which
could be seen as creating a precedent in observing the celebration of Passover
without the Temple and Passover sacrifice. Though the Mishnah shows that the

1
Biblical, non-canonical and first century accounts of the evening celebration of the feast of
Passover focus on the centrality of the Passover sacrifice, the festival being described in terms of
sacrifice and temple. See Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and
Early Rabbinic Judaism (Berkeley, University of California, 1984), 14–24.
2
Scholars have suggested that two separate holidays existed, the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and
the feast of unleavened bread, which were later combined in the biblical texts. See Moshe
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972), 216–7,
and Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1974) 178–214. The
Temple Scroll mentions both the Passover sacrifice (17:6–9) and Feast of Unleavened Bread
(17:10–16).

3
See Bokser, Origins, 25.

197
paschal sacrifice was important, it does not portray it as crucial, and focuses instead
on developing other existing elements, particularly the ritual of the evening meal in
the home, the seder, which has become the festival of freedom.4

Is the Lord’s Supper a Passover Meal?

The problem is not easily solved. In the synoptic gospels, the last meal which Jesus
shared with his disciples is portrayed as a Passover meal5 on 14 Nisan (Mark 14:12–
26; Matt 26:17–30; Luke 22:7–23ff), and Jesus’ crucifixion and death fell on 15
Nisan, on the day of Preparation (for the Sabbath), at the ninth hour just before the
Sabbath eve (Mark 15:33–37; Matt 27:46–50; Luke 23:44–46), a day after the
sacrifice of the passover lamb. Matthew and Mark add the detail of the veil of the
Temple being torn in two (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38), which Matthew further
embellishes with the eschatological image of tombs being opened and the
resurrection of the dead occuring. Luke, who does not mention either of these events
has the centurion saying ‘Surely this man was innocent’ (Luke 23:41), whereas in the
other synoptics, the centurion states that surely this was the son of God (uƒÕj Qeoà)
(Matt 27:54; Mark 15:39). However, Mark and Matthew do not mention that Jesus
ate the paschal lamb.6 Luke says specifically that Jesus said to his disciples that he
had longed ('Epiqum…v ™peqÚumhsa) to eat the paschal lamb with them, the meal
taking on the aspect of an eschatological banquet and fulfilment of Passover (Luke
22:15).

In John’s gospel, the last evening meal which Jesus shares with his disciples is
apparently not a Passover meal but one that preceded it. Therefore, during the meal,
Judas is told to buy what was needed for the festival (Pesach) (John 13:29). They

(the soldiers and the commander of the cohort) and the Øπηρšται τîν 'Ιουδα…ων

4
See Bokser, Origins, 1 and n. 1. The Haggadah as a literary work is post-talmudic and integrates
earlier rabbinic sources.
5
Consensus dates the synoptic gospels to earlier than John’s.
6
See note t in Hanoch Albeck’s commentary to Mishnah Pesachim 10:1 in Seder Moed: Masekhet
Pesachim (Jerusalem, Bialik, 1958), 176.

198
(Jewish guards?) (John 18: 12) took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters in
the early morning of the next day (Friday), and the Jews did not themselves enter the
headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and be able to eat the Passover sacrifice
that evening, for entry into a gentile precinct incurred ritual defilement (John 18:28).
In John, Jesus dies on the day of Preparation (παρασκευ¾) for the Sabbath (John
19: 31) on 14 Nisan. This Sabbath was especially important as it fell on 15 Nisan

(Ãν γ¦ρ µεγ£λη ¹ ¹µšρα ™κε…νου τοà σαββ£του – John19:31). However,

the text of John causes difficulties of interpretation as to the precise meaning of

™πεˆ παρασκευ¾ Ãν (John 19:31) which is variously translated as ‘the day of

Preparation for the Sabbath’ (NRSV) or ‘the eve of the Passover’ (New English
Bible) or simply ‘,ca crg’ in Hebrew translations.7

In the synoptics, the words of institution of the Eucharist are linked with what may
be a Passover meal and bear some formal similarity to Exodus 16:15: ‘It is the bread
that the Lord has given you to eat’, and Exodus 24:8: ‘See the blood of the covenant
that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’. However, the
difference is striking: Jesus is portrayed as speaking of himself as the Passover
offering.8

While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it
he broke it, gave it to them, and said, ‘This is my body’. Then he took
a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them
drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant,
which is poured out for many.’ (Matt 26:26–28).9

John’s Gospel shows the gratuitousness of rebirth through water and the Spirit,10 and
the bread from heaven, where its analogy with the manna is made explicit.

Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He

7
The Liddel and Scott Greek-English Lexicon translates παρασκευ¾ as ‘preparation’ or ‘among
the Jews, the day of Preparation, the day before the Sabbath of the Passover.’
8
There is a parallel where the midrashim speak of Isaac as the Passover offering.

199
 gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very
truly, I tell you, it was not Moses, who gave you the bread from
heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from
heaven...’(John 6:31–32).

The claim that Jesus is the bread of life is already problematic, Jesus’ flesh being
shown as being superior to the manna. Thus, Jesus’ giving of his flesh (whether
bread or manna) is held to be the crux of Jewish objections (John 6: 31–32).11 The
Gospel then asserts:

‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and
drink his blood, you have no life within you (John 6:52–53).

The words appear in a context that is scandalous to the Jews, who are shown to be
taking the statement literally, so that the ritual eating of flesh and drinking of blood
may appear to have a certain Dionysiac quality. The literalness of the Jews was
established earlier in the Johannine scenario between Jesus and Nicodemus (3:1–21,
especially v.4). Arthur Nock demonstrates that linguistically the New Testament
thinking is not based on Hellenistic mysteries, and points out that Paul never uses the
language of Hellenistic mystery cults, appearing to have very little knowledge of this
phenomenon. Thus he does not use τελετ» (initiation in the mysteries) or its
correlatives, and only once uses the term µυšιν (an expression to mean instruction in
the mysteries), in a metaphorical fashion (Phil 4:12). Though Paul uses the term
µυστ»rιον (mystery), often, it is used to mean ‘secret’ as in the LXX (Mark 4:11).12

The eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Jesus is repeated in John’s Gospel.

Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in

9
See also Mark 14: 22–25 and Luke 22:17–20.
10
John 3:5.
11
See Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine
Circles (Leiden, Brill, 1994), 138–9.
12
See also I Cor 4:1. See Arthur Darby Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic
Background (New York, Harper Torchbacks, 1964), 132–133.

200
 them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the
Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me (John 6:56–57).

Chilton asserts that the repetition of this assertion , as well as the favourable mention
of Jesus as the bread of life and the manna puts the discourse on a collision course
with Judaism. He points to the mishnaic text which implies that a heinous defect of a
priest involved in the slaughtering of the red heifer would be his intention to eat the
flesh and drink the blood.13

If it was slaughtered with an intention of eating its flesh or drinking

its blood, it is not valid. The law of Sacrilege applies throughout (m.
Parah 4:3–4 ).14

Such flesh and blood belonged only to God, so that the consuming of such flesh and
blood was considered blasphemous. Chilton asserts:

So if Jesus’ words are taken with their Johannine autobiographical

meaning, his Eucharist can only be understood as a deliberate break
from Judaism. The location of the discourse in a synagogue in
Capharnaum (v. 59) makes the break explicit.15

It is likely that this information applies to the contemporary situation of the

Christian community to which the writer of John belongs as regards the
Jewish community in the surrounding area in the last decade of the first
century. Johannine Christians may not have been welcome in the local
synagogues, but was this situation widespread? Account needs to be taken of
variations of behaviour in different localities, as a centralising power in either
Judaism or Christianity to decide policy cannot be presumed.

Paul had earlier claimed the Church to be the Body of Christ.16 Chapter 6 of John

13
See Chilton, Feast, 139.
14
See Lev 5:15ff.
15
See Chilton, A Feast, 139.
16
1 Cor 12: 27. An analogy can be found in Philo where manna was God’s Word and God’s Word
was the soul’s food. See Leg. All. 2. 86, 3.169; Quis r. div. her. 79,192; Q. det. pot. 115. In Philo

201
further elaborates the Johannine interpretation of Jesus as the Word in the
introductory chapter.17 Though the question at stake is not the laws of ritual purity or
the literal eating of flesh or blood, but rather the status of Jesus, who is shown to be
the Passover victim, the bread of life and the manna, it would appear from the
Johannine text that a collision course with Judaism had been set.18 Whether the
matter was as clear-cut as expressed by Chilton is uncertain. Knowledge of the text
of John’s Gospel may not have been very widespread amongst the Jewish
community.

Jesus as the Passover Lamb

The Mishnah (m. Pes. 5:12) relates that when the eve of Passover fell on the eve of
the Sabbath, the shn, icrue was slaughtered at the sixth hour and a half (i.e. at 12.30
p.m), and offered up at the seventh hour and a half (i.e at 1.30 p.m.), and the
Passover sacrifice after it. It had to be slaughtered at this hour, since the lamb had to
be roasted before the beginning of the Sabbath. The Mishnah stipulates that when the
eve of Passover is close to the minhah service, one may not eat until it becomes dark.
Albeck comments that vbye vjbn is at about 9.30 a.m., and that close to the minhah
service is at about the ninth hour, which is at 3.00 p.m.19 The text of John appears to
be implying, then, that Jesus is the Passover lamb as his sacrifice took place at the
time of the killing of the lambs for the Passover offering.

Paul declares in Corinthians: ‘Christ, our Passover (π£σχα)20 has been sacrificed’(1

the manna and the water from the rock both represented the Logos, while the manna symbolised
the food of the soul. The parallel of bread and the word appears in Deut 8:3.
17
See John Chapter 1.
18
In Philo the manna and the water from the rock both represented the Logos, while the manna
symbolised the food of the soul. The parallel of bread and the word appears in Deut 8:3.
19
m. Pes. 10:1 ‘laj,a sg ost kfth tk vjbnk lunx ohjxp hcrg’ ‘
20
Pascha has no equivalent in English. It is the Greek for of the Aramaic tjxp which can denote the
Passover festival, the Passover meal, the lamb or the Christian feast (Holy Week and Easter)
which early was seen as continuing and replacing Passover. See Stuart George Hall (ed.), Melito
of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments. Texts and Translations (Oxford, Clarendon, 1979), 3, n. 1.

202
Cor 5.7), where the text indicates that the concept of Jesus as the Passover lamb was
already familiar to the Church of Corinth.21 Bacchiocchi believes that the observance
of the Passover in the primitive church indicates that initially the sacrifice of Christ
was explicitly associated with the feast, and that its association with the resurrection
was later.22 If this is correct, the primary separation of Easter from Passover, where
Jesus is seen as the Paschal lamb has already occurred in the first century. This
theme of Jesus as the Paschal lamb was to be elaborated in the succeeding centuries.

In the mid second century, Melito of Sardis in his Peri Pascha develops this theme,
so that Jesus becomes the Paschal lamb who brings salvation and redemption. He
bases his sermon on Exodus 12.

The scripture from the Hebrew Exodus has been read and the words
of the mystery have been plainly stated, how the sheep is sacrificed
and how the people is saved and how Pharoah is scourged through the
mysteries. 2.Understand therefore, beloved, how it is new and old,
eternal and temporary, perishable and imperishable, mortal and
immortal, this mystery of the Pascha (π£σχα – Peri Pascha, 1–2)23 :

Jesus is seen as fulfilling the model of the lamb that suffers and dies, superseding the
sacrifice.

For although ‘as a sheep he was led to to slaughter’, yet he was not a
sheep. Although ‘as a lamb speechless’, yet neither was he a lamb.
For the model indeed existed, but then the reality appeared (Peri
Pascha, 4).24

This theme reappears.

Once, the slaying of the sheep was precious, but it is worthless now

21
See also 1 Pt 1:19; Jn 1:29,36; Rev 5:6, 9, 12; 12:11.
22
See Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of
Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome, Pontifical Gregorian University, 1977), 80.
23
Hall, Melito, 3.
24
Hall, Melito, 5.

203
 because of the life of the Lord; the death of the sheep was precious,
but it is worthless now because of the Spirit of the Lord; the blood of
the sheep was precious, but it is worthless now because of the spotless
Son; the temple below was precious, but it is worthless now because
of the Christ above (Peri Pascha 44).25

Although the elements in Melito’s sermon fit the description of a Passover meal, and
provide parallels with the description in the Mishnah, the central focus is on the role
of Jesus and his sacrifice. There is a clear separation from the primary Jewish
meaning. In contrast, the Mishnah emphasises the other elements, such as the bitter
herbs, unleavened bread, the reclining position, and the term afiqimon, the focus
being on the festival of freedom, and not the sacrifice.26

Justin Martyr echoes the idea of Christ as the Passover lamb.

The mystery of the lamb which God ordered you to sacrifice as the
Passover was truly a type of Christ, with whose blood the believers, in
proportion to the Strength of their faith, anoint their homes, that is,
themselves (Dial. 40).27

Christian Attacks on Judaism for Lack of a Passover Offering

Justin Martyr adds a polemical element and attacks Judaism for its lack of a Passover
offering. His point is that while Jews can no longer share in the passover offering the
Christians can do this through the body of Christ.

God does not allow the paschal lamb to be sacrificed in any other
place than where his name is invoked (that is, in the Temple at
Jerusalem), for he knew that there would come a time, after Christ’s
Passion, when the place in Jerusalem (where you sacrificed the
paschal lamb) would be taken from you by your enemies, and then all
sacrifices would be stopped. Moreover, that lamb which you were
ordered to roast whole was a symbol of Christ’s Passion on the Cross.

25
Hall, Melito, 23.

26
See Bokser, The Origins, 26.
27
See Writings of Justin Martyr: Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schopp (ed),
(New York, Christian Heritage, 1948), 208.

204
 Indeed, the lamb, while being roasted, resembles the figure of the
cross… (Dial.40).28

Justin not only attacks the Jews on account of the Passover offering but declares the
Jerusalem Temple to be obsolete, showing the biblical text to be fulfilled literally in
Christ and superseded by Christianity. This idea, also espoused by Melito of Sardis,29
was to be perpetuated in Christian writings.30 Later in the second century the
Christian Pascha moved further from the original Passover symbolism.31 Baptism
preceded the breaking of the fast at cock-crow.32 Lights were solemnly lit at the
commencement,33 and leavened bread replaced the unleavened34 except in the case of
the Ebionites.35 In addition, the Passover feast was celebrated as a recollection of the
Passion of Jesus, and relied on an incorrect etymology of Pascha.36

The Separation of the Date of Easter from Passover

The question of the date of Easter was largely a matter of discipline and dispute
between the various churches, but shows one last area of separation, which
concerned the question of the calendar. Strand has suggested that the celebration of
Easter on a Sunday may date back to apostolic times, and that it may have been
derived from the Essene and Boethusian practices of observing the first fruits
celebration of the barley harvest wave sheaf annually on Sundays. According to the
Temple Scroll, based evidently on a lunar calendar, the feasts of the first-fruits of

28
See.Writings of Justin Martyr, 208–9.
29
See Hall, Melito, 23.
30
See Origen In Rom 2.13 (PG 14:906–907).
31
See Joachim Jeremias in Gerhard Freidrich (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
tr. Gregory W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdman), 1975), vol. 5, 903 ff.
32
Church Order of Hippolytus 16.1; Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, (Paderborn, 1905),
vol. 2, 109, 15.

33
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.9.1ff.
34
See Didascalia 8.1.
35
Epiphanius, Haer, 30.16.1.
36
See Hall, Melito, 46. Melito takes the derrivation of π£σχα from π£σχειν (to be well off).

205
wheat, barley, wine, and oil were always celebrated on ‘the day after the Sabbath’, at
intervals of seven weeks or fifty days from each other. The Temple Scroll shows the
renewal of the covenant to be the most important feast.37

In the first century, Shavuot was a secondary agricultural feast for other Jews, such as
the Pharisees. Thus, it has no separate mishnaic tractate, being included in Bikkurim,
nor was Shavuot associated with the covenant and giving of the torah in the first
century. On the other hand, the language of Acts 2:1 ‘When the day of Pentecost was
accomplished’ (συµπληρουσθαι) portrays Pentecost not only as the completion of
Passover, but also as the day commemorating the coming of the Spirit, and the birth
of the Christian church, and, as such, is closer to the covenant imagery of the Temple
Scroll. While the influence of the so-called Qumran calendar is possible, it appears
that the usual Jewish calendar was followed by the primitive church, rather than that
found in documents at Qumran.38 Though Acts shows the importance of Pentecost,
Passover receives emphasis as the most important Christian feast.

The Quartodecimans,39 who celebrated the Christian Passover on 14 Nisan (Exod

12:6; Lev 23:5), followed the Jewish lunar calendar for Passover on 15 Nisan,
beginning the night of the 14th. Some exegetes conclude that the quartodecimanian
observance was probably the older tradition of celebrating Easter, and was therefore
the original manner in which Easter was celebrated in some parts of the church, so
that it predated the second century Roman practice of celebrating Easter on a
Sunday.40

Quartodeciman Christians of Asia Minor began the day with a solemn fast, mirroring
the Jewish practice of the fast of the First Born, and included a homily on Exodus 12,
as does the Jewish Passover, closing at midnight41 with a communion in

37
See Kenneth A. Strand, ‘Sunday Easter and Quartodecimanism in the Early Christian Church’,
AUSS, 28:2 (1990):131.
38
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1916–1923), vol. 2,
212. See Temple Scroll 17 – 28.
39
From quarta decima, meaning fourteen, expressed in the Greek as ‘ιδ’= 14’.
40
See Strand, ‘Sunday Easter’, 127ff. and Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 211.
41
Retaining the practice of finishing eating the Passover meal before midnight. See also Karl Baus,

206
commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.42 It has been suggested that they
took as their scriptural base the Gospel of John, which situates Jesus’ crucifixion on
the eve of the Passover, on 14 Nisan.43 The Quartodecimans celebrated the Eucharist
only once a year, at this meal, which was a joyous agape and celebration of the
Eucharist early on 15 Nisan.44 Liturgically, the Quartodeciman practice would have
been very similar to the Jewish Passover. Melito of Sardis, for example, delivered
this homily Peri Pascha on Easter day on the Quartodeciman date in Asia Minor on
the day of the Jewish Passover.45 The shift away from Judaism was to make Jesus’
death the supreme moment of the religious calendar.46 This altered focus represented
a radical break with Judaism.

There is support for the idea that the Christian Passover originated at Jerusalem
about 135, this practice being adopted in Rome about 165, under the episcopate of
Soter, having already spread to Alexandria and elsewhere.47 Karl Baus remarks that
the Sunday Easter celebration could be interpreted as a further development of the
original Quartodeciman custom, with the Sunday after the 14 Nisan, the celebration
of Jesus’ resurrection being the culmination of the festival. He suggests this practice
of holding Easter on a Sunday and avoiding celebrating it on the same date as

‘From the Apostolic Community to Constantine’, in Hubert Jedin and John Dolan (eds.), History
of the Church (New York, Seabury Press, 1979), vol. 1, 269.
42
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.24 and the commentary by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace in Eusebius:
Church History in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church .
(Grand Rapids, Eerdmans), 1979), vol. 1, 241. There also existed Ebionite Quartodecimans who
celebrated the 14 Nisan in the Jewish manner with the Passover. See Karle Joseph Hefele, History
of the Councils: From the Original Documents. (Edinburgh T. & T. Clark, 1976) vol. 1, 312ff.
43
Petersen suggests that this is evidence to show that the Quartodecimans were not totally
dependent on either tradition, but had harmonised the two traditions about Jesus’ death. See
William L. Petersen, ‘Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy’, in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei
Hata (eds), Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (Leiden, Brill, 1992), 313, n. 10. See also
Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.23.1; 5.24.6.
44
See Baus, ‘From the Apostolic Community’, 269.
45
See Jean Daniélou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture in A History of Early Christian
Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, tr. John Austin Baker (London , Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1973), vol .2, 235–6.

46
The Quartodecimans did not make Jesus’ resurrection the focus. See Schaff, , 313.
47
See Thomas Talley, ‘Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: the State of Research’, Studia
Liturgica, 14 (1982), 36.

207
Passover aimed to place a stronger emphasis on the contrast with Judaism.48

The Roman church which followed the practice of Sunday Easter created an entire
week of solemn fasting and commemoration of the passion of Christ, while the
Asiatic practice ended the fast on the 14th Nisan, which could fall several days
before the Sunday.49 Thus, it could happen that one part of Christianity was
celebrating Easter, while the other was fasting on Good Friday.50

The question of the date of Easter shows the degree to which the various churches,
especially those of Asia Minor, were loathe in early times to disassociate the date of
the Christian Passover from that of its Jewish antecedent. Numerous church councils
legislated on this problem, firstly in the late second century and then more frequently
from the fourth century.51

The idea of celebrating the Christian Passover on the 14/15 Nisan was revitalised
between the end of the second century and the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. It
appears that the locus had shifted further east to a larger geographical area and
consequently to a greatly increased number of adherents.52 Epiphanius comments on
this resurgence of Quartodecimanism in the late fourth century.53

In 325 the ecumenical Council of Nicaea attempted to establish the rule of Sunday

48
See Baus, ‘From the Apostolic Community’, 270.
49
Scholars have not been able to agree on the time the Easter Sunday practice was adopted in Rome
but the practice appears to have been in place in the latter part of the second century.
50
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 212.
51
See Eusebius, Hist eccl. 5.24.16. The earliest dispute dates from the second century, from the
period of Anicetus who was Bishop of Rome from 150–155 CE.

52
See Strand, ‘Sunday Easter’, 135.
53
Epiphanius, Panarion 50:1.The encyclical letter appears in Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.9 and in
Constantine’s circular (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.17 and Theodoret, Hist. eccl. l.1.10.).
According to Eusebius (Vita Const. I.3.8, PG 20:1061) two hundred and fifty bishops,
accompanied by a throng of priests and others attended the Council. The Synodal Book says the
bishops numbered three hundred and eighteen. See Hefele, vol. 2, 396. John Chrysostom speaks
of three hundred or more Fathers. See Discourses 3.553.

208
Easter as being that of the whole Church. The council did not include its decision
about the celebration of the festival of Easter in its canons, but in an encyclical letter
and Constantine’s circular, which was authoratitive.54 The decrees of the emperor
were regarded as being celestia or divalia statuta (C. Th. 1.15.11), the laws he
prescribed being seen as equivalent to a divine admonition (C. Th. 16. 5.7).
Ignorance or neglect of these decrees was regarded as sacrilege against the sanctity of
the emperor.

The encyclical letter addresses the Churches of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and
Pentapolis:

We give you good news of the unity which has been established
respecting the holy Passover. In fact, according to your desire, we
have happily elucidated this business. All the brethren in the East who
formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews, will henceforth keep it at
the same time as the Romans, with us, and with all those who from
ancient times have celebrated the feast at the same time with us.55

The emperor’s letter was derogatory and hostile towards Jews, stating that Christians
should not have anything in common with the ‘detestable Jewish crowd...and are,
therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul...’56

According to this letter of Constantine, the Synod required that the day on which
Easter is to be celebrated is always to be a Sunday, as celebrated in Rome, Africa,
Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus
and Cilicia. The second prescription forbade that Easter should be celebrated at the

54
See Socrates, Hist. eccl. I.9 and Eusebius, Vita Const 3.17; Theodoret, Hist eccl. I.10. Tanner
points out that the ‘decree of Nicaea on the pasch’ which found its way into some codices of
canons, and one Syriac codex. Paris. Sy .62 does not seem to have been the work of the Council.
See Norman Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (London, Sheed and Ward, 1990), 4, n.
12. The Greek manuscript appears to be a paraphrase of Constantine’s decree. Pitra published it
again, adding to it the Arab version of the canons of Nicaea (considered spurious). See Juris
Ecclesiastici Graecorum et monumenta, vol. 1, 1864, 435 as cited by Henri Leclerq in
Dictionnaire d'Archaeologie chrétienne et de Liturgie (Paris, Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1938),
vol. 13, 1548–9.
55
Translation as given in Hefele, History of the Councils, vol 1, 322.
56
See Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.18. The letter describes the crime as having been that of killing their
Lord .

209
same time as the Jewish feast.57 As a result of this second decision, if it happened
that the 14 Nisan should fall on a Sunday, Easter was not to be celebrated on that
Sunday, but a week later. 58
There were two reasons for this ruling. Firstly, it was
held that the 14 Nisan commemorated the death of the Saviour, so the celebration of
the resurrection should follow that day, and not coincide with it. Secondly, at the
times when the 14 Nisan fell on a Sunday, Christians would be celebrating Easter at
the same time as the Jewish Passover, which the Council wished to avoid. In the
Council documents, it is the East which is accused of celebrating Passover with the
Jews.59 It is significant that large numbers of Jews were settled in this eastern area. It
can be speculated that there were Jewish converts to Christianity who favoured the
Quartodeciman practice.

The third decision made at Nicaea forbade Christians to celebrate Easter twice in one
year, which implies that the equinox should be considered in all calculations of the
date of Easter.60

The Jewish Calculations of the date of Passover (2nd–4th century)

In the second century regularity in intercalation had not yet been established. It
appears that at this time, any Hebrew month might have twenty nine or thirty days
depending on actual observation of the new moon, although astronomy was always
very important. Regularity would also have been impeded by the Romans
suppressing what they considered to be uprisings of Jewish nationalism (t. Sanh.

57
Eusebius, Vita Const. 2.18–20. John Chrysostom mentions that the Council of Nicaea passed a
decree ‘that they celebrate the paschal feast in harmony together (Discourse 2. 4). Three elements
had entered into the celebration of Easter: the month of Nisan, the fourteenth day of that month,
and the closest Sunday either preceding or following that day. See Paul W. Harkins’ translation
and commentary, Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses against Judaizing Christians (Washington,
Catholic University of America, 1979), 54, n. 33.
58
See Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 1, 325.
59
Socrates, 1.9; PG 67:81ff. Saint Athanasius, De synodis, 5; PG 26:688.
60
See Eusebius, Vita Const 3.18 and Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 1, 325. Hefele explains
that when the 14 Nisan fell before the equinox, the Jews kept the Passover before the equinox; but
as the new solar year had not then commenced, the Jews had celebrated two Passovers in the
course of one solar year (i.e. from one Spring to the next). See Hefele, History of the Councils,
vol. 1, 323, n. 1.

210
2:2–9 and parallels). At first, the intervals of intercalation were irregular, since
intercalation was made with reference to the prevailing agricultural season, the
practice of the sabbatical year, and social conditions, and this was still the case in
the second century. According to Segal, whenever regular intercalation was waived
to meet an emergency of the moment, it was to meet only the needs of the Jewish
community of Palestine, for the Jews of Babylon were not an agricultural community
in the second century and were not granted the right to compute the calendar.61

Two views expressed by the Talmud show that Palestinian Jews used calculation in
their calendar reckonings,62 but actual observation also played a part.63 Thus it
appears that the method of intercalation of the calendar by the second century, the
practice of adding a second month of Adar every two or three years in order to
reconcile the shorter lunar year with the solar year, was no longer based solely on
astronomical observation, but on computation.64 Evidence independent of the Talmud
exists in the witness of Peter, the Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century who
wrote in his Περ… τοà Π£σχα that up to the destruction of the Temple, the Jews
celebrated the feast after the equinox, as prescribed in the Mosaic law. This suggests
that computation was being used, and also implies that he thought the Jews of his
time were in error, when occasionally celebrating Passover before the equinox.
However, the Church Fathers evidently relied on the fact that Passover had always
been kept by the ancient Hebrews after the vernal equinox till the fall of the Temple,
and did not appear to consider current developments over biblical practice. The basis
of the Alexandrian bishop’s objection to the changed Jewish method of calculating
Passover focused on the commemoration of the Passion of Christ at what was
considered to be the true paschal anniversary, calculated according to the biblical

61
See J .B. Segal, ‘Intercalation and the Hebrew Calendar’, Vetus Testamentum, 7 (1957):304. See
also y. Ned. 6:3 (fol. 40a), y. Sanh. 1:2 (folio 18d), b. Sanh. 11b; t. Sanh. 2:16 and b. Pes. 51b.
Diaspora Jews observed two days for the festivals but could not compute the calendar.
Occasionally Passover occurred before the vernal equinox.

62
b. Shab.75a; b. Rosh HaSh. 7a.

63
b. Sanh. 11b; y. Maas. Sh. v. 6 (fol. 56c); y. Sanh. 1: (fol. 18d); t. Sanh. 2:6; b. Rosh HaSh. 20a.
64
Segal, ‘Intercalation’, 284.

211
prescriptions.65

Nisan covers the period from the spring equinox to the summer solstice in the Land
of Israel. The incidence of solstice and equinox was actually the primary element
through which intercalation was governed among the Jews of the time of Rabban
Simeon ben Gamaliel (late second century) and earlier.66 In the mishnaic period and
later, an official body among the Jews was responsible for fixing the calendar,
through computation.67 In the mishnaic period, the priests examined witnesses to the
appearance of the new moon,68 but the Nasi reserved sole authority to himself in
calendrical matters, for a year could not be declared embolismic without his
sanction.69 In fact the secrets of intercalation were handed down by the Nesi'im from
father to son, and were not known outside the group of three or five or seven ‘wise
men’.70 Segal explains that the reason for this secrecy lay in ‘the supreme importance
of the calendar in the regular order of religious life.’71

Talmudic evidence bears witness that government authorities began arresting the
messengers from Jerusalem who travelled to the Diaspora to announce the new moon
of Nisan and the date of Passover.72 Phillip Sigal suggests that this was a result of the
decision at Nicaea, for it would have been a logical step for the imperial authorities
to strive to prevent the Nasi from publicly announcing the Passover date. This
followed from the fact that the Nicaean prohibition was designed to establish the

65
See PG 92:72. (Peter of Alexandria) and Eusebius Hist. eccl. 7:32.
66
See Segal, ‘Intercalation’, 287
67
See y. Rosh HaSh. 2:6 (fol. 58b), y. Sanh. 1:2 (fol. 18c), b. Keth. 112a and parallel passages.

68
See m. Rosh HaSh. 1:7.
69
See b.Sanh. 11a, m. Eduy. 7:7.
70
See b. Rosh HaSh. 25a, y. Rosh HaSh. 2:7 (fol. 58b) and m. Sanh, 1:2, b. Meg 12b, b. San 110a,
b. Ket. 112a.
71
See Segal ‘Intercalation’, 260.
72
See b. Sanh. 10a, for example, which relates that a coded message was sent to Raba in Babylonia,
and that messengers sent by the Nasi from Tiberias to announce the intercalation of the year were
apprehended by the Roman authorities but escaped. See also Phillip Sigal, The Emergence, vol. 1,
113ff.

212
uniformity of the date of Easter observance among Christians, and to prevent them
celebrating Easter at the same time as Passover. He suggests that in order to avoid
this interference by the emperor, the rabbis were precipitated in their task of
establishing a permanent Jewish calendar, where the old system of annual
proclamations and special announcements of intercalated years would be
superseded.73 The tradition that Hillel II fixed the calendar in 358/9 is recorded by
Abraham bar Hiyya’s Sefer (Sod) ha-Ibbur (Book of Intercalation) written in 1122,
which relates that Hai Gaon (11th Century) had cited this tradition.74 Yet, reasonable
doubts exist that the fixing of the Jewish calendar was finalised as early as Hillel II.
It would be difficult to prove that the fixing of a permanent Jewish calendar was a
result of the emperor’s decree at Nicaea, but Nicaea may have been a contributing
factor.

Nicaea, however, proved to be ineffective in resolving the dispute, despite the

attempts over the centuries to inflate its importance in this matter.75 The nature of the
debate, as reflected in the synodal letter and Constantine’s decree, appeared to focus
more on the condemnation of the celebration of Easter on the same day and at the
same time as the Jewish Passover, rather than on the question of Sunday Easter or the
calculation of the date of the 14th Nisan. 76

In practice, the disputes continued with Rome celebrating Easter at a different time
from Alexandria, even in 326, the year following the Council of Nicaea, as well as in

73
See Sigal, The Emergence, 113. Saul Lieberman had earlier expressed this view in his
monograph: Texts and Studies (New York, Ktav, 1974), 117f.
74
See Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd rev. edn. (New York ,
Columbia University Press 1958) 206, 11. See also H. Filipowski (ed.), Sefer ha-Ibbur of
Abraham bar Hiyya , London, 1851, 97.
75
See Hefele, vol. 1, 331. It also was not successful in solving the theological problems of the
Trinity nor that of the judaising tendencies among Christians. See also the comment of Isidore of
Seville, De Officiis ecclesiastices 1, 1, xxxii. PL 83:768. ‘Adjuncta est enim ipsorum dicum
observatio per Patres Nicaeni concilii, et orbi universo Christiano persciasum, eo modo pascha
celebrari oportere, ut non solum lunam paschalem, sed et diem Dominicum, in quo resurrexit ab
mortuis.’
76
See also the writings of Athanasius, De synodis 5, PG 26:688 and Epist. ad Afros, 2, PG 25:1052.

213
330, 333, 340, 341, and 343.77 A council was held in Antioch in 341, whose first
canon excommunicated those who set aside the decree of Nicaea concerning the
festival of Easter.78 The decision applied to both the laity and clergy, with severe
repercussions especially for those in clerical office, who would be removed.79
However, by the time of the Council of Nicaea, the Roman province of Asia had
dropped the Quartodeciman practice in favour of the Sunday Easter, responding to
pressure from Rome.80 Even so, as a result of the emperor’s decree, the
Quartodecimans were expelled from the ecclesiastical community.81 It was about the
eighth century that the date of Easter was uniform for the churches united with
Rome. The Quartodecimans were no longer a problem, for, by the ninth century the
rules for the calculation of the date of Easter had been regulated, with the date of
Easter being fixed for the Sunday which follows the full moon after the 21 March.82

Conclusion

The christianisation of Passover began in the first century, the Christian focus
shifting from the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in the temple to centre on the sacrifice
of Christ, who was seen as a substitute for the Paschal lamb. Separation from the
primary Jewish focus in this matter was early. Christian writers were to rebuke Jews
for the lack of a Passover sacrifice. Finally, the insistence on Sunday Easter was
designed to differentiate the Christian dates from the Jewish feast. By the ninth
century, at least in the western church, the date of Passover had become irrelevant for
the fixing of the date of Easter.

77
See Hefele,History of the Councils, vol. 1, 328. Later authors give variations in the dates. It is
clear, however, that the divergencies continued.
78
See Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, reprint (54
vols, Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), vol. 2, 1307ff and Hefele, vol. 2,
67. More than fifty bishops were present. Hefele, vol. 2, 53 and Mansi, vol. 2, 1307-8.
Athanasius, Apolog. c. Arian. c. 20.
79
Hefele, vol. 2, 67.
80
Strand, ‘Sunday Easter’, 136.
81
Eusebius, Vita Const. 3.18.
82
See De temporum ratione ch. 69, PL 90:508. This did not include the churches that split off from
Rome.

214
The recurring problem of the date of Easter could be seen as representing one aspect
of the struggle of the majority-church of gentile Graeco-Roman society against a
minority representing Christian-Judaism within Christianity. Quartodecimanism was
more prevalent in the east, where there was more resistance to the emperor’s decree
regarding Sunday Easter and where the Jewish populations were more numerous, in
such areas as in Mesopotamia, Syria and parts of Cilicia.83

83
See Sigal, The Emergence, vol. 1, 439.

215
Chapter Eight. The Separation of Early Christianity from Judaism.
Archaeological Evidence.

It took about two hundred years for distinctly Christian artefacts to appear. There are
practically no inscriptions referring to Christians before the third century and no
papyrus collections have survived. Likewise, the new religion attracted few comments
from gentile writers, none of whom appeared to have had any great familiarity with the
movement.1 Again, there is little comment even by contemporary writers such as
Josephus, and even the few comments he makes that appear to refer to Christianity are
under the suspicion largely of having been later insertions by Christian editors.2

The early Christians appeared to have had little concern for church buildings, and
hence ornamentation was not a priority. Burtchaell suggests that because of the
disparity between abundant documentary evidence and sparse archaeological remains,
that synagogues (assemblies) must often have gathered in the open in Israel or in
private houses in the Diaspora, more often than not in the homes of affluent members.3
This appears also to have been the pattern for the first Christians who belonged to the
local synagogues, but began to differentiate themselves at an early date from other
Jewish communities by nomenclature, rather than by structure.4 This fits in with the
evidence in the later postexilic literature, apocryphal writings and in Jewish
inscriptions, where the word ‘assembly’5 designated the people rather than a building.6

Domus Ecclesiae

The house church setting conditioned the very nature of worship, assembly and

1
See James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the
Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge University Press, 1992) 272.
2
See Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 272.
3
Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 226–7 .
4
Burtchaell, From Synagogue 279, n. 4 .
5
The Hebrew qahal kve is equivalent to the Greek ekklesia.
6
Burtchaell, From Synagogue, 209–15 meticulously traces this biblical concept.

216
communal organisation, the constituency and location of Pauline communities
reflecting the character and conditions of urban households and other private
activities.7 Thus, during the earliest period, the places where the Christians assembled
for worship remained unchanged in their original domestic functions, as there were no
purpose built church buildings.8 Again, the closeness of Christians to Jews, and the
fact that Christianity claimed to be the ‘New Israel’ and the true expression of
Judaism,9 means that Christian groups would not have had a distinct iconography at
first. This ambivalence, where Christianity claimed on the one hand to be the ‘New
Israel' and on the other, discouraged Jewish praxis, led to a certain uneasiness in the
relationship of the emerging Christian sect to Judaism.

Any variety of worship could take place in such houses, unless a particular cult came
to be regarded as a ‘pernicious superstition’, a reason given by Tacitus for the
persecution of the Christians in the reign of Nero. Christians who would not sacrifice
to the gods were seen as practicing an undesirable cult and fell out of favour.10
Christianity was persecuted for short periods under several other emperors including
Valerian, Domitian, Decius, Maximinus and Diocletian. In refusing to worship the
emperor or to bow to the Roman deities, Christians were attracting attention. Again,
both Jews and Christians were compromised in joining the Roman army because of
their religious beliefs.11

7
See L. Michael White, Building God's House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation
Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, 1990), 4.
8
See L. Michael White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture: Texts and Monuments for
the Christian Domus Ecclesiae in its Environment, Harvard Theological Studies, no.42 (Valley
Forge, Pennsylvania, Trinity Press International, 1997), vol. 2, 4. See also Wayne A. Meeks,
The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. (New Haven, Yale
University, 9, 72.
9
This attitude is already present in New Testament writings. See Epistle to the Hebrews, for
example.
10
See Tacitus, Annals 15:44.
11
See Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire A.D. 284–430 (Hammersmith, London, Fontana
-Harper Collins, 1993), 43–45. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8 and Lactantius’s De mortibus
persecutorum. Toleration for all religions was declared by Constantine and Licinius in the ‘Edict
of Milan’ in 313 CE (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 10.5.). Judaism was a protected religion till the time
of Constantine, but from that time Jewish privileges began to be eroded with the elevation of the
Christian cult.

217
In the Roman world, use of private buildings for religious purposes was a common
phenomenon, domestic dwellings being adapted as synagogues and mithraeums.12
Constantine’s building of numerous Christian basilicas in the fourth century signalled
the elevation of Christianity to the state religion. Various factors such as the nature of
early Christian worship, the newness of the cult and the lack of both a long established
symbolism and emphasis on purpose built architecture, doubtless contributed to the
relative sparseness of material evidence.

Another reason for the lack of early Christian images may have been caused by the
prevailing Jewish interpretation of the proscription of images through the fear of
idolatry.13 Current knowledge about contemporary coinage, ossuaries and small
artefacts of Palestinian Judaism of the Second temple period confirms written
testimony14 that the representation of animate beings was avoided, and that the most
common representations were ritual objects, plants and designs.15 Kraeling puts
forward several reasons for changes in the attitude to images in Israel as early as the
second century CE.16 Following the demise of the Jewish state, observance became a
matter of individual conduct rather than of national policy. Secondly, with the
consolidation of the leadership of the Jewish community, there were fewer cross-
currents and less fanatical extremism. Although there were rigorists among the rabbis
such as R. Menahem ben Simai who refused even to look at the image on a zuz,17 there

12
See White, Social Origins, Catalogue, items 36–57 (Christian), 123ff, Items 58–95 (Mithraism
and Diaspora Judaism), 261ff.
13
‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth’. Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8.
14
See Josephus, J.W. 1:33:2–3; Ant. 17:6:2; 15:8:1–2; 18:8:2.
15
See Rachel Hachlili, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Leiden, Brill,
1988) 104ff and Plates 13–1, for example. Erwin Goodenough’s cumulative evidence in his
monumental work, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols, Princeton University
Press, 1953–1968, remains a major research tool. See especially vols 1–3.
16
See Carl H. Kraeling, ‘The Synagogue’, with contributions by C. C. Torrey, C. B. Welles and B.
Geiger in The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French
Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Final Report VIII, Part I, edited by A. R. Bellinger, F. E.
Brown, A. Perkins and C. B. Welles, augmented edn (New York, KTAV, 1979), 343. Kraeling’s
report on the synagogue was first published in 1956.
17
See b. Abod. Zar. 50a.

218
was a trend to enforce the prohibition against images only when there was any real
danger of idolatry. Thus Rabban Gamaliel II was willing to regard the statue of
Aphrodite in the baths at Acco as an ornament, and kept a lunar diagram to determine
the precise occurrence of moon phases, despite criticism from certain quarters.18
Kraeling wishes to stress, however, that there appeared to exist a variation of responses
to Lev 26:1 over a wide geographical area, but that because of the paucity of material
evidence, generalisations should not be made. Dura Europos may not have been
typical. He concludes that, apart from the synagogues at Dura, and possibly Erciç,
some tombs in North Africa, and a few sarcophagi in Rome, the representation of
things does not include animate beings.19

Syracuse, Sicily

The vast catacombs of Syracuse, which number about one hundred and originated
from the third century reveal some of the earliest Christian remains which cover the
period 300–450 CE or perhaps earlier, dating being a problem.20 Estimates for some of
early-Christian remains from Vigna Cassia have been set as early as 225 CE.21

Syracuse, which became part of the Roman province of Sicily after being defeated in
212 BCE, had a Jewish population from this period.22 According to Acts, Paul stayed
briefly in Syracuse (Acts 28:12), and Chrestus, its first known bishop and Florus, a
deacon attended the Council of Arles in 314; but Christians may have been present as
early as the second century, or earlier, if legend is to be believed.23 By the time of

18
See b. Abod. Zar.4b and .43a–43b. See also y. Abod. Zar. 8b concerning Rabbi Yohanan and
Rabbi Abbun who permitted images on wall paintings and mosaics.
19
See Kraeling, ‘Synagogue’, 345. Some synagogues in Galilee such as at Bet Alpha and at
Hammath Tiberias should be mentioned.
20
See Agneta Ahlqvist, Pitture e Mosaici nei Cimiteri paleocristiani di Siracusa: Corpus
Iconographicum, Memorie. Classe di Scienze morali, Lettere ed Arti, vol. 56 (Venice, Istituto
veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1995) 32, 38.
21
See Ahlqvist, Pitture, 39.
22
See Bonna Daix Wescoat (ed.), Syracuse the Fairest Greek City: Ancient Art from the Museo
Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi (Atlanta, Georgia, Emory University Museum of Art and
Archaeology, 1989), 24.
23
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 10.5.19– 23, Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et

219
Constantine, the older bishoprics of Sicily which claimed apostolic origin, such as
Syracuse, Catina, Messana, Agrigentum, Tauronenium and Panormus were in
existence.24 In the sixth century, as revealed from the letters of Pope Gregory the Great,
though most of the island was Christian, there was also a large Jewish population.25

The funeral art of Syracuse. is concentrated in the three large nuclei of S. Giovanni, S.
Luce and the necropolis of the Vigna Cassia. The latter includes the cemeteries of
Marcia, S. Diego, and S. Maria dei Gesu.26 The images represented include doves,
crosses, stars, the orante figure, representations of the defunct, which are particularly
numerous, and peacocks. The tree of life is also depicted, and several images of the
shepherd who is sometimes shown with a lamb, Daniel in the lions’ den and images
from the cycle of Jonah.27 The Chi-Rho monogram is also in evidence.28

Rome

Some of the earliest Christian artefacts are to be found in Rome. It appears that the
earliest Roman Christian inscription known to date is the memorial of Caracala’s
chamberlain and treasurer Prosens (d. 217).29 Once a crude graffito scratched on a
building on the Palatine was believed to date from the same period. It depicts a donkey

Amplissima Collectio, reprint (54 vols, Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–
1961), vol. 4, 471–7.
24
See Edward A. Freeman, Sicily: Phoenician, Greek and Roman (London, Fisher Unwin, 1926),
344.
25
Freeman, Sicily, 351.
26
Ahlqvist, Pitture, 478–573.
27
See Ahlqvist, Pitture, 478–73, figs: 5 (dove); 6, 38 (crosses); 68 (orante ); 7, 210a, 10b, 11a, 13,
36, 48, 50, 66, 70 (representations of the defunct); 41, 42, 74, 77b (peacocks); 49 (tree of life),
67a, 57b, 62, 76, 80a, 82, 86 (shepherd); 73 (Daniel); 59, 64, 72, 75, 78, 80a (Jonah cycle); 1,
10a, 23, 52–3 (Chi-Rho).
28
` This represented the first two letters of the word CRISTOS, originally a title in Judaism, which
became to be used as a proper name for Jesus and was employed by early Christian writers to
denote his messiah ship (Gal 1:6; Heb 9:11). Cristoj is the Greek form of jhan (from(jan – to
anoint). (
29
See William Frend, The Archaeology of Early Christianity: A History (Minneapolis, Fortress,
1996), 77.

220
being ‘crucified’ with the caption: ‘Alexamenos you worship this god’, which
represented a mockery of Christianity.30 Milburn attests that it is now considered to be
a fourth century artefact, and the only attempt before the end of the fourth century to
depict a figure on a cross.31

In 257 CE the Emperor Valerian ordered that ‘nowhere shall assemblies be held nor
shall any enter the cemeteries,’32 implying that they were places in which to assemble,
and then in 303 CE Diocletian ordered that all Churches should be razed to the
ground.33 It appears that these early church buildings which attracted the emperor’s ire
were Roman ‘title churches’, each of which consisted of a large hall together with
ancillary rooms for purposes of administration. The remains of such a structure may be
found under the church of St John and St Paul.34

Catacombs

De Rossi had concluded that Christians did not oppose the representation of biblical
and liturgical scenes in pictures, and that the earliest frescoes were usually of a higher
artistic standard than the later.35 While the settled conditions of comparative security
which characterised the early years of the Roman Empire greatly assisted in the
diffusion of Christianity, the earliest Christians did not posses the resources to carry
out works of architecture or art works.36 However, catacomb art represents perhaps the
earliest distinctly Christian artefacts known to date.

30
See Frend, Archaeology, 78–9, n. 58.
31
See Robert Milburn, Early Christian Art and Architecture (Aldershot, England, Scolar Press),
1988, 03.
32
See Acts of Cyprian: Some Authentic Acts of Early Martyrs, tr. E. C. E. Owen (Oxford, 1927),
96, as cited by Milburn, Early Christian Art, 303.
33
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.30.1.
34
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 13.
35
See Frend, Archaeology, 79.
36
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 19.

221
In Rome, Christians adopted the Jewish custom of burying their dead by placing the
bodies in recesses cut from the soft volcanic tufa rock in a series of underground
galleries. They followed Jewish practice and also constructed large groups of burial
chambers close to the cemeteries, but outside the city boundaries, and along the main
roads, such as the Via Salaria, or the Via Appia Antica.37 Some fifty or sixty Christian
catacombs have been listed.38

Most Common Images

The subjects of the catacomb paintings involve many scenes from the Hebrew Bible
and New Testament and some from Graeco-Roman iconography. Christian catacomb
art used symbolic scenes to summarise in shorthand fashion the essence of Christian
hope.39 The symbols may be divided into those representing Christ on the one hand and
humankind on the other, or the human soul rejoicing in the prospect of eternity. Much
of the imagery is drawn from a common base of general themes suggestive of natural
bounty and graceful country living,40 while some Graeco-Roman symbols for
immortality such as the phoenix and peacock are used, so that sometimes it is difficult
to discern if the burials are Christian.41

Symbols included the lamb, usually shown in association with the shepherd image, a
depiction of a beardless Christ representing deliverance and victory over illness,
political and social difficulties and death, rather than the death and resurrection
emphasis which appeared after the Constantinian age.42 This image appears about one
hundred and twenty times in the catacombs, and derives from a prototype dating back

37
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 19.
38
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 22.
39
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 30.
40
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 30.
41
Milburn, Early Christian Art, 33. A good example of the depiction of the peacock is to be found
in the catacombs of S. Priscilla, which also feature the orante figure, the meal and the shepherd
and lamb (personal observation).
42
See Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before
Constantine (Mercer University Press, 1985), 14.

222
to 1000 BCE in Carchemish. This was later transformed by the Greeks into the figure
of Hermes before being appropriated by the Christians for their own purposes.
However, in pre-Constantinian iconography, the shepherd has not yet taken on
christological overtones,43 the images appearing before the age of the ecumenical
councils. Again, it would appear that the sporadic persecutions by various emperors
such as Diocletian acted as a deterrent to the development of a distinctive kind of art,
which was clearly Christian.

In catacomb art, Orpheus is another symbolic figure also appropriated to represent

Christ.44 The figure of Orpheus is depicted in the synagogue at Dura Europos, and
appears to represent David.45 Christian art thus followed Jewish art in appropriating
local symbols.

The anchor appears frequently on tituli of the third century, and then is no longer
depicted.46 Other common images are the dove, and the orante figure, the boat, the
olive branch, the palm or tree, the bread, the fish and the vine and grapes.47 Pictorial
representations which appear in Roman catacomb frescoes are similar to the Syracuse
images and include such biblical scenes as the Jonah cycle, Noah in the ark, Daniel in
the lion’s den, the sacrifice of Isaac, Moses striking the rock, Adam and Eve and the
three young men in the fiery furnace, and Susannah and the elders from the
apocrypha.48

Christ is depicted either as the good shepherd or the traditio legis of a seated older
man facing left in a partial sidewise posture.49 Scenes from the New Testament depict

43
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 55.
44
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 32.
45
See Kraeling, ‘Synagogue’, 224–5ff.
46
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 14–5.
47
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 14–26.
48
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 45–55.
49
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 55.

223
the Baptism of Jesus, the visit of the Magi, Jesus the healer, the resurrection of
Lazarus, the woman at the well, Jesus teaching, Christ as Helios, the fishermen and the
multiplication of the loaves and fishes.50

Peter’s Tomb

Although Margherita Guardicci believed she had uncovered the tomb of St Peter under
the present St Peter’s, there are some doubts.51 Peter and Paul were honoured in the
Catacombs of Sebastian. Peter’s name is also closely connected with the Vatican,
where a monument to him was pointed out as early as 220 CE.52 This niched structure
which remains today in a fragmentary state, is thought by some to have been the
‘trophy’ which Constantine is thought to have made the focal point of his great
church.53

Dura Europos

In 1931 a house was excavated in Dura Europos that had been renovated for use as a
place of Christian assembly, and it remains the earliest and best known pre-
Constantinian church building. This Dura Europos domus ecclesia has been seen as
ranking with major finds in the catacombs, North Africa and Asia Minor.54 The
building can be securely dated because of the destruction of the city of Dura Europos
in the Sassanian invasion of 256 CE. Dura Europos was a Roman garrison on the
Syrian frontier, and on the trade route through which passed the Silk Road from China
and thence eastwards to Syria and the rest of the countries bounded by the
Mediterranean.55 The house was built in 232/3 CE, and was renovated for use as a

50
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 57–65.
51
See Frend, The Archaeology, 272–5.
52
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.25.
53
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 42. See also Jose Ruysschaert, ‘Nouvelles recherches
concernant la tombe de Pierre au Vatican (1957–1965)’, Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, 60:3–4
(1965), 822–32.
54
See Frend, The Archaeology, 199.
55
See White, Building God’s House, 7.

224
domus ecclesia in 241.56 It was located in the same street as a temple of mithras and a
synagogue, both also being adapted from existing domestic dwellings. Therefore, in
Dura Europos, Christianity was part of a pluralistic religious milieu, where different
religions lived side by side in apparent harmony. The domus ecclesia was originally a
middle class home of unbaked brick on rough stone foundations.57

Bauer describes seven mural paintings in the Christian chapel,58 two of which depict
scenes from the Hebrew Bible, while the rest are from the New Testament. The two
Hebrew Bible scenes are: Adam and Eve and the fall (Pls. XLIV and XLIX), and
David and Goliath (Pls. XLII.2). The New Testament depictions are: the Good
Shepherd (Pls. XLIV and XLIX), the Paralytic (Pls. XLV and L), the Miracle of the
Lake (Pls. XLV and LI), the Samaritan Woman (Pls XLVI and XLVII.1) and the Holy
women at the Sepulchre (Pls. XLII and XLVIII). It appears that a number of artists
were employed, but generally, the style of the paintings is poor in comparison with the
frescoes in the Temple of the Palmyrene Gods. This would suggest a small Christian
minority population.

Though the full range of images cannot be distinguished, Graber sees a hierarchy in the
images, which he determines from their location as well as from their relative
proportions and different techniques. Thus, the most central spot in the room is
reserved for two images, Adam and Eve, and the Good Shepherd with his flock, with
the image of the Good Shepherd being more prominent.59 It is possible that the
observer was meant to see that through Adam came death and life through Christ,60 as
suggested by the text of Romans 5:12-17. Graber pushes the symbolism further with

56
See White, Social Origins, 123.
57
See Milburn, Early Christian Art, 10.
58
See P. V. C Baur, ‘The Paintings in the Christian Chapel’, 256–85 in M. I. Rostovtzeff, The
Excavations at Dura-Europos: Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of
Inscriptions and Letters. Preliminary Report of fifth Season of Work October 1931–March 1932
(New Haven, Yale University, 1934), 282–3.
59
See André Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins. The A.W. Melon Lectures in
the Fine Arts, 1961, the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. (London, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1969), 20.
60
Baur, ‘Paintings’, 282–3.

225
the interpretation that the theme of the Samaritan woman and Christ walking on the
water evoke baptism and that overall, the images are focused on salvation.61 The scene
of the Samaritan woman and that of David and Goliath are also in juxtaposition, the
paintings being in an indigenous Syrian style, with the characters firmly fixed, possibly
having developed from earlier prototypes.62 The figure of Christ is presented as a social
or personal deliverer. Bauer remarks that the mural art of both East and West made
little appeal to the artistic sense, the main aim of the paintings being didactic. The
convert to Christianity would have been more interested in the subject matter.63 Unlike
the Christian representation of scenes from the Hebrew Bible, the Dura Europos
synagogue scenes appear to make use of aggadic and targumic interpretations, which
begin with the patriarchs and extend to the re-establishment of the exiled and
dispossessed nation in the Promised Land in the messianic era.64 The Dura Christian
iconography differs from the Christian catacomb art through its hierarchical
arrangement of images where some images take priority over others.65

Gutmann points out, in addition, that the Dura Europos paintings, both in the
synagogue and in related Palmyrene shrines such as the Temple of the Gadde show a
close stylistic iconographic affinity to surviving Palmyrene art. Palmyra (then called
Tadmor), situated in the middle of the Syrian desert was one of the most important
caravan cities of Syria, being at the crossroads for different peoples and cultures. It
provided the Roman West with luxury goods from the east, while Palmyrene soldiers
served in the Roman armies in such far-flung places as Africa and Europe.66 Trade
would account for the cultural diversity to be found in Dura Europos, because of the
close connections with Palmyra. Christianity seems to have arrived early in this area,

61
Grabar, Christian Icoongraphy, 20.
62
Grabar, Christian Icoography, 20.
63
See Baur, ‘Paintings’, 283.

64
Kraeling, ‘Synagogue’, 350–1.
65
Grabar, Christian Iconography, 20.
66
See Joseph Gutmann, ‘The Dura Europos Synagogue Paintings: The State of Research’, in Lee I.
Levine (ed.), The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, American Schools of Oriental
Research, 1987), 64-5.

226
and existed side by side with Judaism, doubtless spread by the traders. Yet, as the Dura
paintings were part of domestic places of worship for only eleven years before the
dwellings were destroyed, it is thought unlikely that they could have influenced later
Christian art.67

Conclusion re Dura Europos

Jacob Neusner comments:

Then, there is the question of the painted walls of the synagogue at
Dura-Europos, which reveal a kind of Judaism substantially different
from that described in Jewish literary remains of the period. Literary
tradition would not have led us to expect any such art as this. Again,
Goodenough topples the basic assumption that if the symbols had
meaning for Jews, that meaning must be found by correlating them with
the talmudic and biblical phrases. At Dura, Goodenough stands on firm
grounds.68

It can be concluded that where so called rabbinic Judaism was strong, Christianity
made little progress, as in Sura and Pumbeditha, the home of flourishing rabbinic
academies. Though in the approximate vicinity, Dura Europos was located on a major
trade route and influenced by cross cultural influences. It appears that its dominant
culture was tolerant of minority religions, Christianity and Judaism being part of the
pluralistic religious milieu, where different religions existed side by side in apparent
harmony. Having been a Roman garrison and not a main centre of religious culture,
Dura Europos may not have been a typical case, and, as the archaeological remains
discussed did not endure for a long period, may not have had a significant influence on
later religious art.

Flight to Pella

Scholars are divided as to the historicity of the Pella tradition which relates that the

67
See Gutmann, ‘The Dura Europos Synagogue Paintings’, 66.
68
See Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. with a foreword by Jacob
Neusner, abridged edn (Princeton University Press, 1988), xxi–iii.

227
Jerusalem Christians fled there to avoid the siege of Jerusalem. Brandon summarises
some of the difficulties. Firstly, the city of Pella in Peraea was Greek in origin and
tradition, and thus would have been a strange choice for Jewish-Christians who strictly
followed Jewish law. Josephus in fact relates that, in the time of Alexander Jannaeus,
Pella was hostile to Judaism, and that in about September 66 CE, it was pillaged by the
Jews.69 In addition, it is about sixty miles north-east from Jerusalem, so that a crossing
of the Jordan by a large group in a time of war would have been problematic.70 Again,
he queries the fact that Christian authors make no mention of this tradition before the
third century? In addition, the Christian community of Pella does not appear to have
played an important part in the life of the church during the first and second centuries,
which Brandon would see as having been likely if the whole of the Church of
Jerusalem, which apparently enjoyed some prestige before 70 CE, had migrated in its
entirely to Pella.71

If there is any historicity preserved in the text of Epiphanius which speaks of

Christians having returned from Pella by 117 CE, this short stay could explain the
absence of material evidence. Epiphanius, who like Eusebius derives some of his
information from the second century writer Hegesippus and perhaps from Aristo of
Pella claims that the Nazoraeans (Nazarenes) were the descendants of the Jerusalem
believers who had fled to Pella.72 In addition, it could be argued that there is silence
about Christianity in Pella since the Nazarenes were not considered orthodox or part of
mainstream Christianity, if such a claim could be made at this early date in the
establishment of Christianity.

As opposed to Brandon’s arguments, Ray Pritz suggests that Pella, being a Greek town

69
Ant. 13.392–397; J.W. 2.457–465.
70
See S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of
the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity, first published in 1951 (London, S P C K,
1978), 168–73.
71
See Brandon, The Fall, 172ff.
72
See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.6.3–4; Panarion 29.1.1–29.9.4. See also Robert Houston Smith, Pella
of the Decapolis (London, College of Wooster, 1973–1988), vol. 1, 49.

228
would have been a possible retreat, and less hostile than a Jewish one.73 However,
Josephus’ account of an attack by the Jews on Pella in 66 CE would not appear to
corroborate this argument. Pella is mentioned several times by Josephus as having
been captured by Alexander Jannaeus in 83–82 BCE,74 and incorporated by Pompey
into the Roman Empire.75 Eusebius cites a tradition that this community fled to Pella in
Transjordan just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.76 Another text from
Epiphanius speaks of Christians having returned from Pella and living in Jerusalem in
the time of Hadrian.

Then Hadrian went through Antioch and passed through Coele-Syria

and Phoenicia, and came into Palestine, also called Judaea, forty-seven
years after the destruction of Jerusalem. And he went up to Jerusalem,
then found the renowned and famous city which Titus, son of
Vespasian, had overthrown in the second year of the latter’s reign. And
he found the city all tumbled down and the temple of God trampled into
the earth, except for a few dwellings and the church of God, which was
small, where the disciples, returning after the Saviour had ascended
from the Mount of Olives, went up into the upper room. For there it had
been constructed, that is to say, in the section of Zion which survived
the destruction, along with clusters of dwellings in the vicinity of Zion,
and seven synagogues which stood isolated on Zion, like hovels, one of
which survived until the time of Maximona the bishop and Constantine
the emperor, ‘like a booth in a vineyard,’ as the Scripture says.
Thereupon Hadrian decided to rebuild the city, though not the temple.
So, taking Aquila, the interpreter mentioned previously, who was a
Greek and relative by marriage and who hailed from Sinope in Pontus,
he appointed him to supervise the projects connected with the
rebuilding of the city. He bestowed on the city his own name and the
benefit accruing therefrom; for as he was named Aelius Hadrian, thus
he also named the city Alia. While living in Jerusalem, Aquila saw the
disciples of the apostles flourishing in faith and performing great signs
73
See Ray A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period
Until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century (Jerusalem, Magnes, 1988), appendix, 124ff.
74
J.W. 1.103-105; Ant. 13.392– 397.
75
Pella, as part of Transjordan was incorporated into the Roman Empire together with Palestine.
See J.W. 1.155–157; Ant. 14.74–76 and Synkellos, ‘Chronographia ’, 298D.
76
Hist. eccl. 3:5 ‘When the people of the church in Jerusalem were instructed by an oracular
revelation delivered to worthy men there to move away from the city and to live in a city of
Peraea called Pella, the believers in Christ migrated from Jerusalem to that place.’ As translated
by Smith, Pella, 46. Epiphanius, born later than Eusebius and writing in the fourth century also
mentions this incident. Panarion 29.7.7–8. See also Panarion 30.2.7–8, Adversus Haereses
30.2.7–8.

229
 of healing and other marvels, for they had returned from the city of
Pella to Jerusalem and were teaching. For when the city was about to be
captured by the Romans, all of the disciples were forewarned by an
angel to migrate from the city, which was about to be utterly destroyed;
so they became wanderers and took up residence in Pella, the city
mentioned previously, beyond the Jordan, which is in the region called
the Decapolis. After the destruction of Jerusalem they returned, as I
said, and accomplished great signs (De Pond. et Mens. 14B–15B)77

Smith considers that Epiphanius correctly dates the first year of Hadrian’s reign as
being forty-seven years after the destruction of the Temple, but points out his mistake
in thinking that Hadrian founded Aelia Capitolina at that time in 117 CE. Instead, the
visit described would have taken place in the summer of 130. Smith believes that the
statement that the church had returned from Pella appears simplistic, but the realistic
description of conditions in Jerusalem may preserve a core of historical fact in the
midst of clearly legendary material.78

Recent excavations by the Sydney University team at Pella neither confirm nor
contradict the claims of ancient historians. The discovery in the 1996 season of another
cave with a hidden entrance, with niches for lamps, that was not described by
Schumacher in the mid 1880s, leaves many questions unanswered.79 The cave has been
cleared of artefacts and thus cannot be dated at this stage, nor its former inhabitants
identified.80 However, ceramic evidence confirms that though the groundwork for the

77
As cited by Smith, Pella, vol. 1, 47.
78
See Smith, Pella, vol. 1, 48.
79
See Gottlieb Schumacher, ‘Pella’, in Abila Pella and Northern ’Ajlun (London, Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1885-1890). Schumacher surveyed Fahil (ancient Pella) for the Palestine
Exploration Fund. It had already been visited by several others including Guy Le Strange.
Schumacher left descriptive maps, drawings of several caves (or tombs) and of a basilica (the
West Church), (p. 46), as well as what he described as fragments of a ruined temple, and noted
the ‘gigantic remains of building materials’, (p. 22). Though he believed that a certain rock cut
chamber which he calls an anchorite cave had been inhabited by the first Christians who
reportedly fled to Pella in 70 CE (see pp. 37–39), this cannot be verified.
80
From a public lecture by Dr Pam Watson (in charge of the excavations) on 18 June 1997, at the
University of Sydney. As yet (May 2000), the publication of the results of the Pella Hinterland
Survey (1994–1996) is still being processed. Dr Margaret O’Hea, one of the excavators, reports
that ‘when we saw the 2–3 metre deep bulldozed pits in the Wadi Jirm for the new water storage
ponds, there was absolutely nothing architectural other than a few column capitals which were
"floating" as it were, near the surface, so the early Roman agora in the Civic Complex area is
very much below the water table level!’ Dr Margaret O'Hea, Pella Hinterland. Survey
mohea@arts.adelaide.edu.au (email communication 27/1/1999).

230
revival of Pella stems from the time of Pompey in 63 BCE, after the destruction in the
Hellenistic period by Alexander Jannaeus, no significant rebuilding began till the later
part of the first century CE. The extent of romanisation that Pella underwent is difficult
to determine because of the subsequent extensive Byzantine construction that took
place. The earliest building from the Roman period that partially could be recovered is
the massive curved wall of the exedra of the baths, which may have been constructed
in the early part of the first century.81 This wall is just a small portion that has survived
of the total structure despite the elevated water table.82 A talmudic text testifies that
these baths continued to exist at least into the fourth century.83To date, therefore,
archaeological discoveries in the region of Pella have failed to throw light on the
literary sources.

Earliest Archaeological Traces of Christianity in Israel

There have been two tendencies as regards the earliest Christian archaeological
material in Israel. On the one hand, there is the Italian Franciscan School represented
by Bagatti84 and Testa,85 who have reconstructed a Jewish-Christian history on the
basis of the New Testament and patristic evidence, and used this information to guide
the interpretation of artefacts from archaeology. On the other hand there are those,
such as Joan Taylor,86 who are unable to accept the opinions of Bagatti and the Italian

81
Subsequent excavation has proved that the structure that Schumacher and others identified as a
ruined temple is actually a Byzantine basilica of uncertain date but possibly ‘late fifth century or
deep into the sixth century’. See Smith, Pella, vol .1, 154. and Schumacher, ‘Pella’.
82
See Smith, Pella, vol. 2, 4.
83
‘Rabbi Zeira, while going to the Hamtah of Pehal, perceived that he had gone beyond the Palms
of Babylonia. Rabbi Zeira then sent and asked Rabbi Hiya bar Nava and the two sons of Rabbi
Abitar of Dama, and they replied that priests were accustomed to go as far as that place.’(y.
Shebi. 6.1) Smith postulates that Schumacher may have been correct in assuming that the hot
spring to which this passage alludes was located in the city of Pella itself. Again, the passage
indicates that Jews had easy access to the Greek bath at Pella and presumably to the city, itself, at
least round about the period 279–359. It also shows that Pella lay within the territory claimed by
rabbinic tradition as a part of the Holy Land. See Smith, Pella, vol. 1, 57–58.
84
See B. Bagatti, L'Eglise de la Circoncision, tr. A. Stome (Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press,
1965).
85
See Emmanuel Testa, The Faith of the Mother Church: An Essay on the Theology of the Judeo-
Christians, tr. Paul Rotondi (Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press, 1992).
86
See Joan Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins.

231
Franciscans who have argued for the presence of an indigenous Palestinian Judeo-
Christianity in the early Roman period (50–270 CE).87 Bagatti believed he had
uncovered Christian artefacts from the co-called dark age in Israel (from between 70 to
270 CE) which included amulets, graffiti, lamps, flasks, mosaics and inscriptions in
such areas as Nazareth, Capernaum, Sepphoris, Cana, Cochaba, Tiberias, Gush Halav
and Caparasima.88 Joan Taylor sees his methodology as being flawed, in arguing for
the presence of Christianity on the basis of cryptic symbols rather than first
establishing the religious nature of each site.89

Eric Meyers has concluded that there are no clear archaeological traces of the Christian
community in Israel from 70 to 270 CE.90 He sees the disastrous failure of the Bar
Kochba rebellion as resulting in the relocation of the surviving Jewish population of
Judaea to the coastal towns and Galilee, which replaced Jerusalem as the centre of
Jewish learning.91 However, he concedes that until it is possible to identify and relate
sites and artefacts to a specific religious community, it will not be possible to discuss
pre-Constantinian Christianity from the archaeological-literary perspective.92

There appears to be a striking continuity in the population of Upper Galilee, which

apparently did not participate in the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132–135 CE.93 However,

(Oxford, Clarendon, 1993).

87
The expression Judeo-Christian or Jewish-Christian is used here in the sense of Christians of
Jewish origin who continued the praxis of Judaism See Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places,
20.
88
See Bellarmino Bagatti, L'Eglise de la Circoncision (Jerusalem Franciscan Printing Press, 1965),
especially chapter pages 3–26 and his other books and articles on Nazareth, Emmaus, Ein Karem,
Bethlehem, Dominus Flevit, Bethlehem, etc.
89
See Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 10.
90
See Eric Meyers, ‘Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology ’, BA, 51:2 (1988),
69 –79.
91
See Eric Meyers, Israel and Her Vicinity in the Roman and Byzantine Periods: Notes Offered to
Delegates from the Seventh International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Tel Aviv
University, 1967), 10–11.
92
See Eric Meyers and James Strange, Archaeology: The Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville,
Abingdon, 1981), 32
93
See Richard S. Hanson, Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee 2: Meiron Excavation Project

232
where archaeological remains do not provide definite identification of Christian
communities, it can be suggested that externally, in the early stages, Christians were
archaeologically indistinguishable from Jews, or alternatively, did not form separate
communities of their own, but were included as members of Jewish settlements in the
Galilee and elsewhere. It would seem from literary evidence that the Christians in
Israel in the early stages were of Jewish origin.94 Acts and passages from the Epistles
of Ignatius indicate that outside Israel in the Graeco-Roman world, the earliest
Christians were predominantly of non–Jewish origin. Meyers admits that the work of
Erwin Goodenough has opened up the question of including archaeological data in
evaluating the development within early Judaism and Christianity.95

Jewish Christians on Mount Zion?

The Israeli archaeologist Hillel Geva has concluded that the entire southwestern hill,
including Mt. Zion was occupied by the camp of the Tenth Roman Legion during the
second and third centuries CE.96 This reconstruction of Roman Jerusalem goes against
the generally accepted view that the southern wall of Aelia Capitolina followed the
present line of the southern wall of the Old City, which would have left the present Mt
Zion lying outside the precincts of the Roman walled city.97 He attests that no remains
of a Roman city wall have been discovered in the excavations carried out along both
sides of the foundations of the present southern Old City wall.98

(Cambridge, ASOR, 1980), 113.

94
This is indicated by the gospels, whereas the epistles make it clear that gentiles from the various
cities of the Roman world were permitted to join the Christian movement after the death of Jesus
(see Acts 15). The gospels indicate that in the lifetime of Jesus, the Christian movement was one
of several reforming messianic streams within Judaism. Material from the Dead Sea scrolls has
brought to light more evidence of heterodox movements within first century Judaism.
95
See Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 21–2.
96
See Hillel Geva, ‘Roman Jerusalem’, BARev, 24:2 (1998), 14; and Hillel Geva, ‘The Camp of the
Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration’, IEJ, 34 (1984), 239–54.
97
In constructing the present wall of the Old City, Suliman the Magnificent, like others, recycled
stones from earlier constructions. Clearly visible in the wall leading up to the Jaffa Gate from
Jaffa Street is a stone from the Tenth Legion, pointed out by an Israeli guide (personal
observation). See also Geva, ‘The Camp’, 239–54.
98
See Geva, ‘Roman Jerusalem’, 14.

233
Bargil Pixner argues in the light of literary evidence from Byzantine times (Eusebius
and Epiphanius) that there was a Judeo-Christian community living on Mt Zion in the
time of Aelia Capitolina.99 Geva argues that there is no mention in Jewish sources of a
Jewish-Christian settlement, but the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (333 CE) speaks of a
synagogue on Mt Zion, which was one of seven that had stood there in earlier times.100
Geva concludes that there was no Jewish-Christian community on Mt Zion in the
roman period, as the entire hill was an encampment for the Tenth Roman Legion. He
believes civilian settlement began in the area with the removal of the legion from
Jerusalem at the end of the third century, with the large Hagia Church being
constructed on Mt Zion in the fourth century when the locations of holy sites on Mt
Zion had become established.101

Geva points out further that when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, they obliterated all
traces of the Jewish presence and culture. Zangenberg argues that if no Jews were left
in the city after 70 CE, the Jewish-Christians also would have been expelled, as the
Roman authorities made no distinction between Jewish-Christians and Jews in the
early years.102 However, Pixner argues that all Jews did not leave the city after 70 CE,
or the statement by the Church Fathers that Jews were banished from the city after the
Bar Kochba Revolt in 135 CE would not have been necessary.103

Dominus Flevit

In June 1955, Bellarmino Bagatti completed the excavations at Dominus Flevit on the

99
See Bargil Pixner, ‘Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway’, BARev, 23:3 (1997), 23–66 and ‘The History
of the “Essene Gate” Area’, in Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 105 (1989), 99–102.

100
‘Within, however, inside the wall of Sion, is seen the place where was David’s palace. Of seven
synagogues which once were there, one alone remains; the rest are ploughed over and sown
upon, as said [593] Isaiah the prophet (Is 1:8; Micah 3:12). See ‘Jerusalem’ in Itinerarium
Burdigalens, tr. Aubrey Steward (Jerusalem, Palestine Pilgrim’s Text Society, 1887), 592–3.
101
See Geva, ‘Roman Jerusalem’, 14.

102
See Jürgen Zangenberg, ‘Roman Jerusalem’, BARev, 24:2 (1998), 14.

103
See B. Pixner, ‘Roman Jerusalem ’, BARev, 24:2 (1998), 15–16ff. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.6.3–4.

234
Mount of Olives. He had unearthed a cemetery area with one hundred and fifty-two
tombs dating from the first to the fourth century, which had two distinct periods.
Belonging to the first period were eighteen interments in kokhim (shelves) dating from
the beginning of the Roman occupation to 135 CE, and from the second he identified
sixty-four interments dating from the third to the fourth century as well as seventy
graves dug in the ground.104 Testa notes the absence of material with Jewish
characteristics, such as the candelabrum, the shofar and the ethrog. He interpreted this
as evidence that the tombs were Christian, and noted the chronology, collection of
bones in the ossuaries (which he sees as fitting a belief in resurrection of the body), use
of the letter tav and of chrismon, the use of isolated signs, and names that are
practically identical with those in the New Testament.105 However, Avi Yonah points
out that no specifically Christian onomasticon existed before the latter part of the third
century CE, and that these were typical Jewish names from the first and second
centuries CE.106

Testa gives a summary of excavations since 1873, which he sees as confirming his
case, despite denial by some others, that first century Christian artefacts have been
found. He cites Clermont-Ganneau’s excavations in 1873 of a funerary grotto on the
Mount of Scandal, and the ossuary he found on Mount Scopus in 1900 adorned with a
well formed cross inscribed within a heart.107 The ossuary was discovered inside a
tomb marked with two crosses, the two marks having been scratched by the same man
in the shape of an X over and under the name of Nicanor.108 While admitting that
Clermont-Ganneau believed himself to have discovered Christian remains, Testa
points out that another early excavator, Gladys Dickon thought the two Xs were made
for practical reasons and that the two crosses on the tomb were signs of its later
Christianisation.109

104
Testa, The Faith, 1.
105
See Testa, The Faith, 2–3.
106
See Michael Avi-Yonah, ‘Review of Bagatti and Milik’, IEJ, 12 (1962), 137–9.
107
Testa, The Faith, n. 4 .
108
Testa, The Faith, 3, n. 5.
109
See Testa, The Faith, 4, n. 2.

235
Recent archaeological research published by Shimon Gibson and Gideon Avni
confirms that the so called ‘Jewish-Christian tomb’ investigated by Dr Thomas
Chaplin and Charles Clermont-Ganneau in 1873 on the Mount of Scandal, was in fact
a typical early Roman Jewish burial cave which was later reused in the Byzantine
period for burial purposes.110 Gibson and Avni propose that the tomb belonged to a
Jewish family of the first century CE, and that the well carved cross visible on one of
the ossuaries is a later Byzantine addition and indicates that during that period the
tomb was used again.111 Gibson and Avni further point out (confirming the opinion of
Gladys Dickon) that the rough scratched crosses on some of the ossuaries, and cross-
like signs, as well as others, were actually markers made by the stone-workers while
fitting the ossuaries with their lids.112

Testa also cites the discovery of a burial room in the Jerusalem quarter of Talpiot in
1945 with coins from 42–43 CE, and ossuaries carved with names found in the New
Testament and large crosses traced with charcoal and incised on both the long and sort
sides. He believes these strengthen his case for asserting that the discoveries of
Dominus Flevit are Christian.113 He also mentions the crosses cut into stone walls
observed by J. Jotham-Rothschild, which the later attributed to converted Jews from
the middle of the second to the middle of the third century.114

The Letter Tav and the Cross

The rare symbolic value of the Hebrew letter tav is based on Ezekiel 9:4–6, where
God’s elect are marked with this sign, so as to be protected from slaughter in

110
See Shimon Gibson and Gideon Avni ‘ The “Jewish-Christian” Tomb from the Mount of Offence
(Batn Al-Hawa') in Jerusalem Reconsidered’, RB, 2 (1998), 161–75.
111
See Gibson and Avni, ‘ The “Jewish-Christian” Tomb,’ 163.
112
See Gibson and Avni, ‘The “Jewish-Christian” Tomb’, 169.
113
Excavated by Sukenik. See Testa, The Faith, 4.
114
Testa, The Faith, 4.

236
Jerusalem.115 The archaic form of the final letter tav of the old Phoenician-Aramaic-
Hebrew alphabet was a cross, though it was superseded by the square Aramaic form in
the first century CE.116 Jewish coins from the second century BCE to the second
century CE in times of nationalistic struggle feature the archaic X shape of tav, and it is
found in some Dead Sea scrolls.117 Again, the Shema (Deut 6:8, 11:8) stipulates that a
sign (,ut)or mark be placed on the arms to remind the wearer of divine revelation.

Lieberman points out that traditional rabbinical exegesis sometimes interprets the first
‘mark’ (,ut) to be placed on a human being by God as a letter of the Divine name,
which, according to a Yemenite Midrash was the letter tav, placed on Cain’s hand.118
The cancellation of a bond or other document was crossed out with the Greek cross-
letter chi (X),119 and thus it could be seen as a mark of freedom.120 Deissman postulates
that the subject may have some bearing on the origin of later allegorical mystical
experimentation by Christians with the cross-letter chi.121 Lieberman points out further
that for some Hebrew Christians the form of the tav in the old Hebrew script
represented the cross because of its shape.122 He suggests that Tanhuma123 preserves a

115
See Taylor, Christians, 10.
116
See Howard Marblestone, ‘Matauitatau in Petronius, Satyricon 62.9: Crux Interpretum’, in Meir
Lubetski, Claire Gotlieb and Sharon Keller, Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A
Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, JSOT Supplement Series no. 273 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1998)
498.
117
See Howard Marblestone, ‘Matauitatau’, 498.
118
See Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE. 2nd edn (New York, Philipp Feldheim, 1965), 189–90 n. 30,
who cites Midrash Hagadol Gen p. 12 where the letter tav was the mark God put on Cain’s hand
as a protection. He adds that since other rabbinic sources do not mention that the mark of Cain
was a tav, this could indicate that the original allusion to the tav, as X was abandoned after the
Christians began to use it as their symbol.
119
See Adolph Deissman, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently
Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World,.tr Lionel R. M. Strachan, rev. edn (London
Hodder and Stoughton, 1927), 333–334.
120
Lieberman, Greek, 189–90.
121
Deissman, Light from the Ancient East, 334.
122
See Lieberman, Greek, 188. See also PL 25:88 .
123
‘The tav of ink was (set on the forehead) in order that the destroying angels may have no power
[to torture them and they will die immediately]’(shn u,unhu). Tazria sec. 9. However, the last

237
remnant of a different tradition which connects tav with death whereas the Babylonian
talmud tradition, which links the tav written in ink with life is better attested.124 The
wicked, however are marked with blood. He also suggests that the early Church
Fathers had already linked the mark of Ezekiel with the blood of the Paschal lamb
which was taken to represent Christ,125 and had monopolised the blood-mark as a
symbol of salvation. Jewish teaching was reversed and the sign of the blood became
the sign of doom.126

Rabbinic tradition likewise points to the importance of the Hebrew tav, but written like
the Greek chi (X),127 and almost identical in sound with theta which the rabbis
compared to the Hebrew tav and interpreted as Q (nigrum theta, qanatoj–-death).128
The rabbis, being well versed in both alphabets, interpreted the letters to stand for
either life (mercy, freedom) or death, with the mark X being inscribed on the foreheads
of the righteous, whilst the wicked were marked with Q.129 Thus Bagatti’s
interpretation of the letter tav, as proof that the artefacts are Christian is problematic.
Joan Taylor points out that though Bagatti’s hypotheses received initial support in the
1960s, his interpretations of the ossuaries, and his identification of so-called Christian

two words are found only in the later editions of the Mantua edition based on four mss and are
missing in the first edition. See Lieberman, Greek, 190, n. 35.
124
See b. Shab. 55a ‘Go and set a tav of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous that the destroying
angels may have no power over them, and a tav of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked that
the destroying angels may have no power over them’.
125
See Cyprian, ad Demertianum 22, PL 4: 80b and Testim. adv. Jud. 2:22, PL 4: 745a.
126
Lieberman, Greek, 191, n. 38.
127
See b. Shab. 55a, b. Men. 74b and see also b. Ker. 5b. See Taylor, Christians and Holy Places,
10.
128
Lieberman draws on evidence from b. Shab. 55a, which records the opinion of Rab (3rd century)
that the letter tav (,) stood for death (,nu,) and is of the opinion that Midrash Eicha Rabba
recorded the same opinion of the expression. He points to first century evidence that the theta
was used as a mark of death, the letter being used as an abbreviation of thanatos-death in capital
sentences passed in the gentile courts. See Lieberman, Greek, 185, 191 and n. 38 The rabbis also
were following a tradition which interpreted the tav in Ezekiel as referring to the last letter of the
Hebrew alphabet which Aquila and Theodotian rendered as: to Qau. See Lieberman, Greek,
186.
129
Lieberman, Greek, 189.

238
symbols now are almost discredited.130

Capharnaum

Virgilio Corba, who undertook a later excavation of the octagonal church at

Capharnaum which lies at a short distance from the fourth century Capharnaum
synagogue, believed the evidence indicated three phases of architectural development.
The latest phase (phase 3) was the fifth century octagonal church, whilst the middle
strata are dated to the early fourth century. He claimed that this middle quadrilateral
complex represented the transformation of an earlier Jewish-Christian ‘house church’
situated in the actual house of St Peter at Capharnaum.131 White concludes that the first
clear evidence of Christian usage dates to the fourth century (phase 2).132

Meyers sees the archaeological evidence for Nazareth as being in some ways
analogous to that of the Capharnaum site, and argues against a first century date.133
Thus, archaeological evidence of Christianity from Israel can be dated securely only
from the fourth century.

Snyder points out that the dearth of early Christian artefacts does not prove there were
not Christians present in smaller or larger numbers in certain localities, but only that
their presence had not reached a level of visibility.134 Likewise, the discovery of such
Jewish pictorial art at Dura Europos so attuned to the local cultural milieu goes far to
shatter any hypothesis that Judaism was simply rabbinic after the fall of the temple.

130
See Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places, 10.
131
See White, Social Origins, vol 2,153, who supplies a detailed bibliography. See also V. Corbo,
The House of St. Peter at Capharnaum: A Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of
Excavations, tr. S. Saller, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collection Minor
5 (Jerusalem, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1969).
132
See White, Social Origins, 158.
133
See Myers and Strange, Archaeology, 130.
134
See Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before
Constantine, Mercer University, 1991, 163.

239
Conclusion

A visible Christian presence was achieved when Christians began to repeat certain
symbols such as the shepherd or dove or fish more frequently than their Jewish or
Graeco-Roman neighbours. Some symbols were devised to indicate their attitude
towards the Roman Empire. At the same time Jewish tradition was used as a back-drop
for Christian symbolic art. While at first being indistinguishable from Graeco-Roman
or Jewish symbols, certain distinctly Christian symbols that were used constantly
began to be recognised as being characteristically Christian. At first this
accommodation to the surrounding social matrix made it difficult to distinguish
Christian artefacts. Snyder holds that this accommodation to the social matrix which
was helped by competent intellectuals such as Paul, Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus
and Tertullian was one of the keys to Christianity becoming a universally practised
religion. When the Christian sub-culture expressed a willingness to announce to the
dominant culture that it existed and had a right to exist, Christian self-consciousness
was expressed symbolically. Thus, in the period between the appearance of distinctly
Christian catacomb art and 313 CE (Constantine) was a time of rapid growth when
Christianity offered to the Mediterranean world a religious alternative that was
expressed in activities and symbols that were readily understood by that culture.135

135
Snyder, Ante Pacem, 164.

240
Chapter Nine. Christianity in Rabbinical Literature

While Christian iconography only begins to be visible in the latter part of the third
century in catacomb art, becoming more prominent in the Constantinian age, tannaitic
and amoraitic literature, which derives from approximately the same period also is
reticent on the subject of Christianity. The scarcity of early Christian images derives
from the newness of the religion as well as from the fact of not being a licit religion. In
the case of rabbinic literature, censorship makes it difficult to know what was
originally said by the rabbis about Christianity.

Strict church censorship was practised from the thirteenth century onwards, so that
relatively few texts survived which can be identified for certain as making reference to
Christians or Christianity. Anything that suggested such a reference came under the
harsh scrutiny of the appointed church censors. While the Crusaders had burned
Hebrew books en masse indiscriminately, the rise of the mendicant orders, the
Franciscans and Dominicans, whose members included convert Jews, meant the
church could exercise censorship in removing those passages considered to have some
reference to Christianity. Popper and Herford make use of the work of the nineteenth
century scholar Raphael Rabbinowicz to identify passages which were removed by the
censors, or the instances where substitutions were made.1

The censoring of texts which were suspected of being about Christianity was a
medieval phenomenon, and some manuscripts such as those from Munich and Oxford
contain the expurgated words which are missing in printed versions of the Talmud,
based on the censored manuscripts. Notes left in the margins by the censors allow for
the recovery of some of the changes, and some of the inked out passages can be
recovered. Popper states that outside of Italy, where the influence of the papacy was
felt more strongly, the expurgation of Hebrew books seems only to have taken place
from the seventeenth century. This phenomenon does not appear to have occurred in

1
William Popper, The Censorship of Hebrew Books (New York, KTAV, 1969) 6–10. See also,
Raphael Rabbinowicz, ‘Al Hadpasath ha-Talmud’, in Dikduke Sofrim:Variae Lectiones in
Mishnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, first published 1867–1886 (New York, M. P. Press, 1976)
vol. 1, 1–55.

241
countries under Arabic rule.2

However, censorship does not hide the fact that while Christian texts portray a
preoccupation with Judaism, Jewish texts appear to reveal only a passing interest in
Christianity. While the omission of certain disputed biblical texts from the Jewish
canon of scripture may be seen as a reaction to the Christian appropriation of the
Septuagint,3 the rabbinical texts present another scenario. The minimal place given to
Christianity in rabbinic literature is in marked contrast to the Adversus Judaeos
tradition of the Church Fathers. While censorship doubtless is responsible for the
expression ‘Christian’ not appearing at all in the Talmud or Mishnah, it is evident that
in rabbinical literature there is no systematic approach to Christianity.

Thus, there is no tractate or systematic treatise about the notzrim or minim or

Nazarenes. This differs, for example, from the case of the Samaritans, to which
Maseket Kutim is dedicated. However, the Samaritans, whose Judaic background is
long established, were a powerful, well-defined group with a certain legitimacy, in
contrast to nascent Christianity, a smaller, much less significant group, which was in
the process of establishing its identity.

The talmudic literature that addresses the question of Christianity can be divided into
three categories. The first consists of stories of minim, min or minut, the second of
Jesus stories, and the third of various statements that are known to have lain at the
basis of Jewish-Christian confrontation in talmudic times. This literature will be
examined for what it reveals about Christian-Jewish relations and the question of
separation.

Minim

The term min is problematic. It is used in talmudic literature to describe individuals

2
See Popper, The Censorship, 80ff. and 104.
3
See Mary C. Boys, Has God Only One Blessing? Judaism as a Source of Christian Self-
Understanding (New York, Paulist Press, 2000), 158.

242
who subscribed to different forms of belief, considered heresy. These included gnostic
views, belief in ‘two powers in heaven,’ denial of the world to come and of
resurrection. Christians or Jewish-Christians come under this heading. Tannaim
reacting against the minim (who doubtless included Christians) included Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus, Joshua ben Hananiah, Eleazar of Modein and Rabbi Tarphon in the first
half of the second century 4 However, the literature that has references to minim or
minut is not extensive, and few of these texts are explicitly connected with
Christianity. Although censorship doubtless accounts for the paucity of the number of
these texts, some have been recovered.

The sources that mention minim are listed in detail by Herford and are mostly
tannaitic, in contrast to the Jesus stories reserved in certain manuscript versions which
are amoraic.5 The tannaitic sources on minut may be seen to represent, as it were, an
internal stage in the conflict between Jews and Christians. Those accused of minut
appear to be regarded as deviant Jews, and some may have been Jewish-Christians.

Tannaim

Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus was a controversial figure whose uncompromising

attitudes caused friction with the Jewish religious authorities and finally led to his
excommunication. At one time he was suspected of minut.

R. Eliezer was arrested on account of minut. They brought him to court

for judgement. The hegemon said to him, ‘Should an elder of your
standing get involved in such things?’ He said to him, ‘The Judge is
reliable in my view’ (I rely upon the Judge). That hegemon supposed

4
See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: A Study of Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135-425), tr. H. McKeating. (Oxford University Press for the Littman Library, 1986), 197,
n. 84.
5
See R. Travers Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. reprint (Clifton, New Jersey,
Reference Book Publisher, 1966), 361–97, and Gedalia Alon, Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Erets-
Yirsa'el bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud (2 vols, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1980–1984), vol.
1, 179–192. For Jesus stories see Herford, Christianity, 35–96.

243
 that he ‘since you have deemed me reliable for yourself, so thus have I
ruled: Is it possible that these grey hairs should err in such matters?
(you are) Dimissus (pardoned). You are released.’

And when he left court, he was distressed because he had been arrested
for minut. His disciples came to comfort him, but he did not accept
their words of comfort. R. Akiva came and said to him, ‘Rabbi, May I
say something to you so that you will not be distressed?’ He said to
him, ‘Say it.’ He said to him, ‘Perhaps some one of the minim told you
something of minut which pleased you?’ He said to him ‘By Heaven!
You remind me. Once I was walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris
when I met Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, and he told me of a teaching of
minut in the name of Jesus ben Pantira, and it pleased me. So I was
arrested on account of matters of minut, for I transgressed the words of
Torah: Keep your way from her and do not go near the door of her
house (Prov 5:8) (t. Hul. 2.24). 6

Joshua ben Hananiah

Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah had been a singer in the temple (b. Arak. 11b) and a pupil
of R. Johanan ben Zakkai. He is mentioned as having been one of the chief defenders
of Israel against the minim.

Rabbi Shim‘on ben Azzai said, ‘I have found a roll of pedigrees7 in

Jerusalem, and therein is written, A certain person spurious est ex
adultera (natus); to confirm the words of Rabbi Jehoshua (b. Yeb.
4.13).8

Eleazar of Modein

He who profanes the Sabbaths, and despises the set feasts, and makes
void the covenant of Abraham our father, and gives interpretation of the
Torah which are not according to the Halakah, even though he have
Torah and good works, he has no portion in the world to come. (m.
6
See Herford, Christianity, 137. See also Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta. Kodashim (New York,
KTAV, 1981). See also, parallels – b. Abod. Zar. 16b–17a; Midr. Qohelet Raba 1:8 and also
Yalqut. Shimoni. on Micah 1, and Proverbs 5:8.
7
This may be a reference to the genealogy in the gospel of Matthew or an Aramaic forerunner of it.
Herford, Christianity, 45.
8
See Herford, Christianity, 43. See also y. Sanh. 25d. concerning R. Joshua ben Hananiah. “‘I was
walking in a certain street of Sepphoris, and I saw a certain min take a bird, and he cast it up and it
fell down and was made into a calf.” But it is not so’. Herford, Christianity, 115. See also Hag 5b,
R. Joshua, Caesar and a min.

244
 Abot 3.1).9

This passage does not appear in modern versions of the Mishnah evidently having
been expurgated by the censors.

Rabbi Tarphon

Rabbi Tarphon, Rabbi Eliezer, and Akiva had their colleges in Lydda, which became
an important centre of rabbinic activity, replacing Jabneh in importance in the early
part of the second century. The following text appears to refer to Christian writings.

The margins (iuhkd) and books of the minim they do not save, but these
are burnt in their place, they and their memorials’(i.e. the sacred names
in the text). R. Jose the Galilean says, ‘On a week-day one cuts out the
memorials and hides them and burns the rest.’ R. Tarphon said, ‘May I
lose my son! If they come into my hand I would burn them and their
memorials too. If the pursuer were pursuing after me, I would enter into
a house of idolatry, and I enter not into their houses. For the idolaters
do not acknowledge Him [i.e. God] and speak falsely concerning Him;
but these (the minim) do not acknowledge Him and speak falsely
concerning him.’ (t. Shab. 13.5)10

Tarphon comes from the same period as Elisha ben Abuyah known as aher, as the
latter apostatised. It is possible he became a Christian.11 Thus the instances of minut
described relate to persons considered as deviant Jews and possibly some Jewish-
Christians.

On the other hand, in the amoraic literature, into which category most of the Jesus
stories could be placed, the conflict has advanced to a confrontational stage between
what are now evidently two distinct religions. It is no longer an internal conflict. The
attention paid to minim in rabbinic sources appears to have increased. Although one
must allow for the fact that many references were destroyed by the censors, the few
references in talmudic literature indicate this trend.

9
See Herford, Christianity, 369.
10
See Herford, Christianity, 155.
11
See Herford, Christianity, 155.

245
 The case of Rabbi Eleazar ben Damah, who was bitten by a snake.
Jacob of Kefar Sama came to heal him in the name of Yeshua ben
Pandira, but Rabbi Ishmael did not allow him. He (Rabbi Ishmael) said
to him (Rabbi Eleazar ben Damah), ‘You are not permitted, Ben
Damah’ He (Rabbi Eleazar ben Damah) said to him (Rabbi Ishmael), ‘I
will bring you a proof that he may heal me.’ He did not have time to
bring the proof before he died. Said Rabbi Ishmael, ‘Fortunate are you,
Ben Dama for you departed in peace and you did not break through the
fence of the sages. For anyone who breaks through a fence of the sages,
at the end misfortune will come upon him, as it is said (Eccl. 10:8)
“And as to one who breaks a fence, a snake shall bite him.”’(t. Hul.
2:22).12

It seems evident that Jacob of Kefar Sama13 was a Christian, for he is associated with
Jeshua ben Pantira, who has been identified as Jesus in the talmudic literature.14
Herford points out that the text that says ‘On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged’,
is in the same tractate as ‘Thus did they to Ben Stada in Lod, they hung him on the eve
of Pesah’, and identifies Ben Stada with Ben Pandira. Ben Pandira is seen as referring
to the historical Jesus, the founder of Christianity.15 However, the identification of Ben
Stada with Jesus is problematic because of dating discrepancies.

Amoraim

As Christianity became well established in Babylonia after the deportations of Shapur

in 260, the minim mentioned in amoraic sources such as the Babylonian talmud may
have been Jewish-Christians, or Christians of non-Jewish extraction. Neusner suggests
several texts that may have involved Jewish-Christians, such as:

12
Translation adapted from Herford, Christianity, 103.
13
The town has not been identified with certainty, but may have been in the vicinity of Sepphoris. See
Stuart S. Miller, ‘The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered’, HTR, 86:4 (1993) 381, n. 16. See t. Hull
2:22,23; y. Shabb 14; y .Abod. Zar. 40d, 41a; b. Abod. Zar. 27b; Midr. Qohelet Rab. 1:8. Rabbi
Ishmael lived in first half of the second century. See Herford, Christianity, 103–106.

14
b. Sanh. 43a. Herford states categorically that ‘There can be no reasonable doubt that the “Jeshu”
who is variously called Ben Stada and Ben Pandira is the historical Jesus, the founder of
Christianity.’ See Herford, Christianity, 37.
15
Herford, Christianity, 37. See b. Sanh. 67a (Munich and Oxford manuscripts).

246
 R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu said, ‘There are no minim
among the nations that serve the stars but behold we see them! Then I
should render it, The majority of star worshippers are not minim
(Christians). ’(b. Hul. 13b)

R. Nahman said, ‘Whoever is as skilled in replying to minim as R. Idit

should do so, but not otherwise’. A certain min said to R. Idit, ‘It is
written, “and to Moses he said, ‘Ascend to the Lord’”. (Ex. 24.1).
“Ascend to me, it ought to say’. (Hence the Godhead is divided). (b.
Sanh. 38b).

R. Sheshet used to say to his attendant, ‘Turn me any way (for prayer)]
except east, not because the Shekhinah is not there, but because the
minim (evidently Christians) prescribe turning to the east’ (b. B. Bat.
25a).16

The attention paid by the rabbinic sources to minim appears to have increased. It is
clear that these minim are regarded as the ‘other,’ being polemical in tone.

Jesus Stories

Additional amoraic texts that mention Jesus by name are identified by Herford in the
first section of his book.17

Our Rabbis have taught: always let the left hand thrust away and the
right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust away Gehazi (Paul?)
with both hands, and not like Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah who thrust
away Jesus the Nazarene with both hands.’(b. Sanh. 107a–107b; b. Sot.
47a).18

There are very few texts that survived the censoring and these appear mostly in the
Babylonian Talmud. The following example, was omitted entirely by the censors:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (the Nazarene)19 was hanged. For
forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and
cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he practised sorcery and
entices Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour,
let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was
brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!20

16
Texts from Jacob Neusner, ‘From Shapur I to Shapur II’, in A History of the Jews in Babylonia
(Leiden, Brill, 1968), vol. 3, 12 and 13 n. in referring to b. Ber.58a. All manuscript evidence
supports the reading of min in this text, and not ‘Sadducean’, which was evidently substituted by the
censors.

247
 Concerning this story R. Ula asked: ‘Do you mean that an excuse could
have been found for him? He was an enticer to idolatry, and of such the
Bible says, “You shall not pity or condone” but it was different in the
case of Jesus, for he was a favourite of the royal power’ (b. Sanh.
43a).21

The texts give an unfavourable view of Jesus and their context suggests that
Christianity has been relegated to being a legendary phenomenon or base superstition.

Some texts are parodies of New Testament stories, intended to mock the new
religion,22 or are similar in content as in the case of Hanina ben Dosa who heals a man
from a distance (b. Ber. 34b),23 as in the healing of the centurion’s son, related in three
versions in the New Testament.24 The significant point in each case is that the healing
was effected through prayer alone without any suggestion of practical medicine or
magical acts.25 It should be noted that the Babylonian Talmud text is closer to the
Johannine text than the synoptics showing the use of similar terminology such as
‘son’, ‘ill’, and the healing taking place at a certain hour. Despite the similarities, the
rabbinic and New Testament stories differ in several important points. Thus, Rabbi
Gamaliel’s son is healed by the power of prayer alone, whereas the centurion’s
servant/son is healed by Jesus, and it is the centurion’s absolute belief in Jesus’ powers
that motivated the cure. While the rabbinic account emphasises the power of prayer,

17
See Herford, Christianity,35–96. See also H. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash.
(Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1931). See Philip S. Alexander, ‘The
Parting of the Ways’, in D. G. Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70
to 135., The Second Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and
Judaism. Durham, September, 1989 (Tübingen, Mohr–Paul Siebeck, 1989), 16–17.
18
Herford, Christianity, 97.
19
U Cod. Monac. added hrmubv ; See Herford, Christianity, 406.
20
R Cod. Flor jxp crgcu ,ca crgc ; See Herford, Christianity, 406.
21
See Popper, Censorship, 57, who discusses this text and its continuation.
22
As for example, the continuation of the passage just cited from b. Sanh. 43a, which mocks Jesus’
disciples.
23
See briefer Palestinian version y. Ber 5:5.
24
See Luke 7:1–10; Mt 8:5–10; John 4:46–53.
25
Yona Wisel-Gilead, ‘The Development of the Traditions Concerning the Figure of R. Hanina b
Dosa: A Sociological Study’. (MA thesis, University of Sydney, 1990), 41.

248
the New Testament accounts serve to illustrate that the faith found in gentile circles
was greater than the faith found in Israel and therefore seeks to glorify that faith.26

Kutim and Christians

Censorship of the printed editions of the Talmud was arbitrary. The censors sometimes
wrote Kutim as a substitute for the expressions goy or ‘gentiles’ or ohcfuf hscug,
which were terms used by the rabbis to include Christians. Thus, whenever the term
Kutim is used, a critical reading is needed to discern whether the word is used in its
primary or secondary sense. The older manuscripts show that the reading Kutim is not
original.27 The censorship problem makes it difficult to know just exactly what the
rabbis said about Christianity. Thus, for example, Kutim is secondary in the following
text where it would have replaced the reading ‘hud’: in earlier manuscripts:

‘May I be rewarded, because I have not entered into a partnership with

a Kutim (b. Meg.28a)28

Another example is :

Has it not been taught: (With respect to robbery) – if one stole or

robbed or seized a beautiful woman, or (committed) similar offences, if
(these were perpetrated) by one Cuthean (substituted for the original
word goy) against another, (the theft) must not be kept (b. Sanh. 57a).29

Again, the context of b. Sanh. 107a, which refers to a Cuthean merchant, where again
the context refers to robbery suggests that h,uf is secondary.30

26
See Wisel-Gilead, ‘The Development of the Traditions’, 43.
27
See James Alan Montgomery, The Samaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their History, Theology
and Literature (New York, KTAV, 1968), 166. The author has listed a number of examples from
mishnaic texts including m. Ber. 7.1, and m. Dem. 4.4: 5.9: 6.1; 7.4.
28
See Yitzhak Frank, The Practical Talmud Dictionary, 2nd. edn. (Jerusalem, Ariel, United Israel
Institutes, 1994), 120–121.
29
Translation from Seder Nezikin, Sanhedrin 1, in The Babylonian Talmud (35 vols, London, Soncino,
1935–1978), 388, and see also n. 5.
30
h,uf rjuxk vnus sus

249
A certain number of references to ‘Kutim’ were substituted by the censors for words
such as goy. In addition, Jewish scholars who were forced by the church to change the
text may have made some of these substitutions.31 The references to ‘Kutim’ in the
talmud number more than three hundred, and this is just one example of censorship.32
Other substitutions were made and many passages expurgated.33

Various Statements of Conflict

Only a small number of rabbis are involved in disputations with min. There are also
texts which confirm the validity of the covenant to Israel, some of which may be
expressive of a reaction to the covenant being claimed by Christianity.34 Owing to the
limited number of examples and heavy censorship, it is not possible to know if these
represent actual issues of confrontation with Christians that troubled particular rabbis
such as Abbahu in Caesarea in the third century.

R. Abbahu said: ‘If a man says to you: “I am God” – he is a liar; (if he

says) “I am the son of man” – in the end people will laugh at him; (if he
says) “I will go up to heaven” – he says, but shall not perform.’ (y.
Taan. 2:65b)

I am the Lord your God (Exod. 20:2) – R. Abbahu said: ‘a parable of a

king of flesh and blood; he reigns and he has a father or a brother. The
Holy One blessed be he said: “I am not so, I am the first (Is 44:6) – I
have no father, and I am the last – I have no son, and beside me there is
no God – I have no brother”’. (Exod. Rab. 29:5).35

Unlike this latter case, most of the talmudic writings discuss not so much the idea of
the son of God as the idea of the two powers the minim recognise in the place of the

31
See Popper, The Censorship, 59. See also b. Git. 45a.
32
See Otzar Lashon HaTalmud, edited by Chaim Josua Hasowsk (Jerusalem, Ministry of Education
and Culture, 1967), vol. 18 (Letter Kaf), 142–5.
33
The mention of Rome or Edom which the Jews used constantly was also censored, and some
passages made pointless through such substitutions as ‘Persian’ for ‘Roman’, or ‘Sadducee’ or
‘Epicurean’ for min. See Popper, Censorship, 58–9.
34
See b. Yoma 56b; b. Abod. Zar. 4a, b; Pes. 85b; b. Taan. 3b, 20a; b. Sot. 38b; and b .Yeb. 102b.
35
See Herford, Christianity, 62, 303

250
divine unity.36 This is an example of rabbinical polemic in an indirect way, which acts
either by quoting one of the ideas of their opponents in an inverted form or by giving it
new direction by adding or subtracting an element. Kimelman suggests such a
correspondence may exist also in Origen’s exegesis of the Song of Songs and
commentary on the same verses by Rabbi Yohanan and other rabbis.37 A closer study
of patristic texts and their interrelationship with talmudic texts on issues of dispute
would reveal more examples that are not obviously anti-Christian polemic.38

Conclusion

Although censorship of talmudic texts and substitution of terms has obliterated some
of the evidence for discerning what the rabbis said about Christianity, the literature
reveals two stages in the conflict and process of separation. In the tannaitic literature it
appears that apparently where Christianity is meant, or questions of minut (which may
be references to Christian teachings) these minim are regarded as deviant Jews. The
amoraic literature, which is of a more polemical nature, shows that Christianity has
been relegated to being a separate religion.

John Painter pinpoints the problem about the separation of early Christianity from
Judaism. He comments that, in general, the literature fails to acknowledge that though
continuity can be seen in a number of areas, a distinction needs to be made between
primary, essential elements which mark out Christianity as having separated, and
secondary elements where Christianity remained attached to Judaism. These essential
elements include circumcision, food laws, laws of purity, the calendar, and the

36
See for example San 38b. See Simon, Verus Israel, 193 ff.
37
See Reuven Kimelman, ‘Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century
Jewish-Christian Disputation’, 73:3–4 (1980), 567–95. Origen lived in third century Caesarea, the
headquarters of Palestinian Christianity. His Contra Celsum, composed about 248 mentions his
frequent disputes with Jews, who appeared to have been rabbis.
38
A number of passages are collected in Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. and H.
Strack, and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, 5 vols.
(Munich, Beck, 1924–1928). However, more work on these needs to be done by Christian patristic
scholars who also have a firm grounding in talmudic literature. Again, additional work on a critical
edition of the Talmud where original words are recovered or reconstructed from the manuscript
versions would facilitate this study.

251
liturgical framework of the Sabbath, which remained distinctive in Judaism.39 In
addition, the particular messianism of Christianity, where the focus became
increasingly christocentric, offered a challenge to Jewish monotheism.

By the late fourth century Christianity was firmly established, thanks to the protection
and fostering of the Christian emperors who assisted the process already begun, so that
the church, which began as a minority movement within Judaism, spread to the Greek
world to become the dominant religion in the empire. While claiming to be the ‘New
Israel’, the church sought to shed much of its Judaic base. At the same time,
Christianity’s rise as a western religion coincided with the decline of the Roman
Empire. The fourth century, when Christianity received a power base, saw the
formalisation of the separation between Jews and Christians.

39
See John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (Colombia,
University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 228.

252
Conclusions

Nine areas in which stages or issues of separation can be discerned have been
documented and where possible have been traced chronologically. This method of
studying the question of the separation of early Christianity from Judaism has been
chosen as an alternative to attempting to pinpoint a particular event or date. It is a
problem that the sources for the earliest part of the conflict are not historical in aim
and are open to many interpretations, as the huge volume of commentaries and
secondary literature attests. The moving apart of early Christianity was a process of
gradually letting go of features that were distinctly Jewish and so was a process of de-
judaisation.

Chapter One has looked at the spread of Christianity and the physical moving apart of
Jews and Christians by observing the geographical locations of the bishops attending
various councils. When tables and maps are compared, it becomes clear that at first,
Christian populations lived in close proximity to Jewish populations, apparently only
beginning to move apart and become independent from Jewish communities in the
west from about the third century. In the more densely populated east, where there
were more Jews, the maps indicate the physical moving apart took longer. Also
examined is the origin of the expression ‘Christian’, the development of church
organization based on the synagogue and the growth of the western church
centralisation in the papacy.

Chapter Two has examined the question of the Jewish-Christians who attempted to be
both Jewish and Christian at the same time and to keep a position in both camps. It is
their dilemma that reveals the crux of the problem. Pressure was applied to the so-
called judaising Christians to abandon Jewish ritual practices, but, at the same time,
there was a certain uneasiness and ambiguity of stance, because of the fact that
Christianity is derived from a Judaic base. The problem of the Jewish-Christians
continued into the second century. At this stage, they were considered as deviant Jews.
It was still partially an ‘in-house conflict’, although the church had gone far to attain a
separate identity. At the end of this century, the Mishnah had officially defined the
Jewish position towards ‘the other’, so that those not practising the stipulations of

253
Jewish law were not considered to be Jewish. Again, the reasons for the failure of the
Jewish-Christian movement were bound up with the church becoming a religion of
the gentiles. The characteristics which distinguished Jews were being abandoned by
the church one by one – special food laws, circumcision, and the Sabbath – whilst the
elaboration of christology compromised for Jews the belief in one God. As regards,
the latter, the divinisation of Jesus was as much a problem for the Jewish-Christians
as it was for Jews. In addition, it is argued that the Twelfth Benediction was directed
at various deviants and not directed specifically against Jewish-Christians in the first
century.

The dilemma of Jewish-Christianity which gained acceptance by neither group

illustrates the ambiguity of the Church’s position as regards Judaism. While claiming
to be the successor of Judaism on the one hand, on the other, all Jewish practices were
forbidden, the Christian polemicists taking the view that Jewish ritual law had been
spiritualised and summed up in Christ.

Christianity took on many and varied forms, there being a struggle to establish norms,
practices and doctrines that were considered to be orthodox. The struggle against what
were considered to be non-orthodox doctrines and judaising practices reflects this
struggle by Christianity to gain a separate identity from Judaism.

In Chapter Three, statements about Jews in the early church councils have been
recorded. These begin with the so-called Council of Jerusalem in 52 CE, which
conceded that non-Jews who adopted belief in Jesus were not required to undergo
circumcision or to observe the Law of Moses except for abstaining from food polluted
by idols, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality (Acts 15).
This exemption from the rituals of Jewish law, which had such importance for Jewish
identity was a serious cause of dissension among Jewish converts to Christianity and
gentile converts, and separated Christians from Jews in the very beginning.

When the Temple stood, a proselyte was required to sacrifice a burnt offering either of
cattle or two young pigeons, as well as undergo circumcision and then ritual
immersion. Of the three rituals connected with conversion, only circumcision and

254
 1
ritual immersion remained after the fall of the Temple. Yet, there were differing
opinions as to whether someone who immersed himself but was not circumcised or
2
vice versa could be considered a proselyte. In line with this way of thinking, Paul
took the view that gentile converts were not required to undergo circumcision, but
stipulated that ritual immersion or baptism was a requirement for entry into
Christianity. However, circumcision was to become mandatory in Judaism with the
codification of the Mishnah.

Church councils continued to prescribe against aspects of Jewish praxis, judaising or

association with Jews. In the west, the Council of Elvira in Spain at which nineteen
bishops were present (in 305 or 306), passed four anti-Jewish canons forbidding
intermarriage with Jews, eating with Jews, adultery with Jewesses and the blessing of
fields by Jews, showing these actions were taking place. The Council of Sirmium (351
CE) defined a question of Christology in relation to Judaism while the Council of
Laodicea (360 CE) would not allow Christians to be idle on the Sabbath, forbad
priests to wear phylacteries, to accept festal presents from Jews and unleavened bread,
or to participate in Jewish festivals. In this latter area it was evident that Christians
were associating closely with Jews and taking part in their practices.

At the twenty-one synods at Hippo and Carthage between 393 and 421 so called
Jewish ‘superstition’ was condemned, Jews were not permitted to come forward as
accusers, and several canons were repeated about the date of Easter in relation to
Passover. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) required Jews to convert if
they married Christians. The Synod of Gangra (middle of 4th C.) reiterated the
sanction of Acts 15 that meat offered to idols or that had been strangled was not to be
eaten, whilst the Synod of Vannes (465 CE) forbad clerics to eat with Jews as did the
Synod of Agde (500 CE). The latter also stipulated that Jews were to be catechumens
longer than others, for fear they returned to Judaism. Christians who were attracted to
Jewish services and followed some Jewish practices were accused of judaising and
penalties were enacted against them. However, it was clear that the church councils

1 See b. Ker. 9a.

2 See b. Yeb. 46a–47b.

255
possessed only moral power and not juridical power. The alliance of church and state
begun with Constantine provided a powerful union that boded ill for Judaism.

Chapter Four has shown three conflicting tendencies of the Theodotian Code: the
maintenance of a privileged status for Christianity, prohibition of proselytism and,
later, as the Christian movement gathered strength under imperial protection, hostility
to Judaism3. In addition, close social relations between Jews and Christians are
revealed in the stipulations about Jews. Thus, there are interdictions that forbid
intermarriage between Jews and Christians, Christian participation in Jewish services,
laws forbidding the acceptance of Jewish hospitality, and Jewish circumcision of
Christian slaves, indications that such behaviour was taking place.

Chapter Five examines the Jewish roots of Christian liturgy and focuses on the
element that radically differentiated Christian from Jewish liturgy – its christological
focus. Thus, because of this focus and the evolving trinitarian doctrines, which had a
basis in Greek philosophy, the praying of the Shema, an essential Jewish practice, was
not retained in the developing Christian liturgy. Liturgical material also shows
evidence of the derivation of elements from the Temple liturgy and the early
synagogue, but it is the altered focus that makes Christian liturgy separate from Jewish
liturgy. The liturgical break would have been sealed when Christian views about the
divinity of Jesus made it impossible for Jews and Christians to worship together, a
change occurring in the Christian concept of monotheism when the church’s
membership had become predominantly gentile. Again, a Judaism in transition is
reflected in the literature and liturgical practices of the early church and literature
found at Qumran. Similarities in belief and practices outlined in Qumran literature and
that of the early Christians indicate that their teachings sprang from a common source
within Judaism, rather than from direct contacts between the two ideologies.

Chapter Six speaks of the separation of Sabbath observance from Sunday observance,
outlining the struggle to prevent Christians, who were accused of judaising, from

3 Jean Gaudemet, L'Eglise, dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles) 3: Gabriel Le Bras (ed.), Histoire
du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident (7 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1958), 625.

256
celebrating the Sabbath as well as Sunday. The Sabbath was a central Jewish practice
that the Church sought to remove from Christian practice, the efforts to extirpate it
stretching over several centuries. Here, Constantine’s decree, making Sunday a day of
rest, helped facilitate for Christianity, the transition from Sabbath to Sunday, and the
transferral of some of the Sabbath imagery to that day.

Chapter Seven concentrates on the separation of Passover from Easter. The process of
christianising Passover, a most important date in the Jewish calendar, was well
advanced in the first century. It was given a place of vital importance in Christianity,
but the ambivalence of the Christian position sought to deny its Jewish provenance in
seeking to separate the date of the Christian Passover from the Jewish Passover. The
church is clearly a separate organisation, but is experiencing further separations in
several areas. The issue of separating the Easter date from Passover was addressed in
a synodal letter from Constantine in the wake of the first ecumenical Council of
Nicaea (325 CE), but the effectiveness of the decree is questioned as the struggle
against judaisation continued.

Chapter Eight has looked at archaeology. The early Christians began to differentiate
themselves at an early date from other Jewish communities by nomenclature, rather
than by structure. A visible Christian presence was achieved when Christians began to
repeat certain symbols such as the shepherd or dove or fish more frequently than their
Jewish or Graeco-Roman neighbours. This accommodation to the social matrix was
one of the keys to Christianity becoming a universally practised religion. The period
between the appearance of distinctly Christian catacomb art and 313 CE (Constantine)
was a time of rapid growth when Christianity offered to the Mediterranean world a
religious alternative that was expressed in activities and symbols that were readily
understood by that culture. In Dura Europos, Christianity was part of a pluralistic
religious milieu, where different religions lived side by side in apparent harmony. It
can be concluded that where so called rabbinic Judaism was strong, Christianity made
little progress, as in Sura and Pumbeditha, the home of flourishing rabbinic
academies, but Dura Europos may not have been typical case.

257
The ninth area of separation concerns the minimal place given to Christianity in the
rabbinic writings, even allowing for censorship and euphemisms. This situation is in
contrast to the Adversus Iudaeos tradition of the church Fathers, which has numerous
polemical statements about Jews. The church’s behaviour reveals a new religion
trying to establish itself, at the expense of its parent body. At first, Christianity did not
have a dominant centre. There were many varieties of Christianity, and struggles to
define its basic creeds and definitions. On the other hand, studies of the censorship
practised have begun to reveal some of the original readings. It appears that in the
rabbinic sources, some material has been suppressed that may have related to
Christians. However, there are indications that the Jews of the Talmud were less
preoccupied with Christianity than Christian writers were with Jewish matters. Second
century texts appear to indicate that Christianity was regarded as a deviant form of
Judaism. By the third and fourth centuries, the evidence indicates that Christianity was
regarded as a separate religion.

A common thread runs through all the areas of separation. The Graeco-Roman writers
had identified as the four distinguishing marks of Judaism, circumcision, Sabbath,
food laws and belief in one God. The first three stipulations concerned the non-
retention of Jewish ritual law. The fourth characteristic can be linked to the Christian
interpretation of monotheism. Thus, in the nine areas studied, two pervasive causes of
separation can be identified.

The first concerns the non–practice of Jewish ritual law, when Christianity became
predominantly a religion of non-Jews. Christianity, in order to define itself closed its
ranks to Jewish practices, the process of separation being one of gradual de-
judaisation. Thus, in order to be Christian, one was obliged to reject Jewish law and
Jewish practices. This fact was crucial initially in the separation of Christianity.
Judaism, after the fall of the Temple codified its oral law, and also closed its ranks.
Those who did not keep Jewish ritual law were ostracised.

The early church councils showed a preoccupation with judaising practices. Judaising
Christians attempted to move against the stream in clinging to Jewish practices, but
judaising continued, despite attempts to eradicate it, this problem reflecting the

258
ambiguous position of Christianity towards Judaism in banning Jewish ritual law, but
retaining its Judaic base and claiming to be the replacement of Judaism.

Constantine’s accession to power and his adoption of Christianity as the religion of

the empire led to the erosion of Jewish privileges, as reflected in the Theodosian
Code. The alliance of the church with the ruling powers and the development of
Christianity into a separate hostile religion, boded ill for Judaism. Antisemitism
became an enshrined part of church teaching. The church, which previously exercised
only moral power, now had the power of the state behind it to enforce its anti-Judaic
laws.

The second cause leading to separation was the messianic movement centred on Jesus,
and the gradual development of high christology which emphasised the concept of the
divinity of Jesus. This was reflected in the developing Christian liturgy, in the
christianisation of Passover, the Eucharist and the practice of Sunday over and above
the Jewish Sabbath.

Yet though early Christianity and Judaism moved apart, Christianity has inherited
from Judaism the written Torah, ethical codes of behaviour and other elements that
reflect its Jewish basis. In a certain sense, there has never been a complete separation
between Christianity and Judaism.

The path towards official reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Judaism
took significant steps forward in the twentieth century with the Second Vatican
Council’s Nostra Aetate, and ‘We Remember’ at the end of the century. The apology
of Pope John Paul II in March 2000, may be seen as an important step in the healing
process begun by Nostra Aetate. A strong commitment to reconciliation should ensure
that ‘never again’ will the catastrophe of the Shoah be repeated, or enshrined
antisemitism or anti-Judaism be a part of church teaching.

259
Select Bibliography
Primary Sources and Translations
Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum Gestarum Libri, tr. John C. Rolfe, 3 vols, London, William
Heinemann, 1948–1952

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, Alexander Roberts
nd
and James Donaldson (eds), Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 2 rev. edn, 10 vols, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Eerdmans, 1956–1962

The Apostolic Fathers, tr. Kirsopp Lake, 2 vols, London, Heinemann, 1912–1913

The Apostolic Fathers, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds), Select Library of Nicene and Post-
nd
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2 ser., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1979

The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, Robert M. Grant (ed.), 6 vols,
Toronto, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964–5

Babylonian Talmud, reprint of Venice Edition, 1520–1523, 20 vols, Jerusalem, Peah ha-Torah,
1975

The Babylonian Talmud, edited and translated into English with notes, glossary and indices, 35
vols, London, Soncino, 1935–1978

Barthélemy, D. and J. T. Milik. Qumran Cave 1, DJD 1, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1955

Baumgarten, J. M. Qumran Cave 4. XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), DJD XVIII,
Oxford, Clarendon, 1996

Benoit, P., J. P. Milik and R. de Vaux. Les Grottes de Murabba′at, DJD II, Oxford, Clarendon,
1961

260
 rd
Blackman, P. (ed.). Mishnayoth, 3 rev. edn, 6 vols, New York, Judaica, 1965

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English with
introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, 2 vols, Oxford,
Clarendon, 1976

Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols, New York, Darton,
Longman & Todd, 1983–1985

__________ et al. (eds). The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with
English Translations, Lexical concordance to the Dead Sea Scrolls, 10 vols, Tübingen, Mohr–
Paul Siebeck, 1993–

Conolly, Hugh (ed.). Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version translated and
accompanised by the Verona Latin Fragments, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969

Cotton, H. M. and A. Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal
Hever and Other Sites: With an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts, DJD XXVII,
Oxford, Clarendon 1997

Danby, M. (ed.). The Mishnah, London, Oxford University, 1977

Epiphanius. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages, tr. Philip R.
Amidon, New York, Oxford University, 1990

__________. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, tr. Frank Williams. Nag Hammadi Series
nos 35 and 36, Leiden, Brill, 1987–1994

Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History, tr. R. J. Deferrari, The Fathers of the Church 19,
91 vols, New York, Fathers of the Church, 1948–

261
__________. Church History, Life of Constantine the Great and Oration in Praise of
Constantine 1: Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,
nd
Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds), 2 ser., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1979

__________. The Ecclesiastical History, tr. Kirsopp Lake, 2 vols, London, Heinemann, 1926–
1932

The Epistles of St Clement of Rome and St Ignatius of Antioch 1, Ancient Christian Writers, tr.
and annotated by James A. Kleist, Westminster, Maryland, Newman Bookshop, 1946

Frey, J. B. (ed.). Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum: Recueil des Inscriptions juives qui vont du
e e
ii Siècle avant Jésus-Christ au vii Siècle de notre Ere, 2 vols, Rome, Pontificio Istituto di
Archeologia Cristiana, 1936–1952

Gelzer, Henricus, Henricus Hilgenfeld, and Otto Crintz (eds), Patrum Nicaenorum: Nomina
Latine,` Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace, Leipsig, Teubneri, 1898

Goodenough, Erwin. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, 13 vols, Princeton

University, 1953–1968

__________. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, ed. with a foreword by Jacob
Neusner, abridged edn, Princeton University, 1988

The Greek New Testament. Kurt Aland et al. (eds), London ,United Bible Societies, 1966

Hall, Stuart George (ed.). Melito of Sardis. On Pascha: Texts and Fragments, Oxford,
Clarendon, 1979

The Harper Collins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, with the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, General editor Wayne A. Meeks, London, Harper
Collins/Society of Biblical Literature, 1993

262
Hefele, Karle Joseph von. History of the Councils of the Church from the Original Documents,
tr. William R Clark, first published 1883–1896, 5 vols, New York, AMS, 1972

Herodotus. The Histories, tr. Aubrey de Sélincourt, revised with an introduction and notes by A.
R. Burn, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972

Horsley, G. H. P. and S. R. Llewellyn. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A

Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri, 7 vols, Sydney, Macquarie University Ancient
History Documentary Research Centre, 1981–1998

Jerusalem Talmud, 6 vols, reprint of Venice edition of 1522–1523, Jerusalem, Tiferet, n.d.

Josephus. Works: English and Greek, Loeb Classical Library, 9 vols, London, William
Heinemann, 1965

__________. Complete Works, tr. William Whiston, first published 1737, London, Pickering &
Inglis, 1960

Licht, J. Megilat ha-Serakhim, Jerusalem, Bialik, 1965

Mansi, Joannes Dominicus, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio, first

published 1759, reprint, 54 vols, Graz Akademische Druck–U. Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961

Martinez, F. Garcia, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude. Manuscripts from Qumran
Cave II (11Q20–30), DJD XXIII, Oxford, Clarendon, 1997

Migne, Jean-Paul. Patrologia cursus completus: Series Graeca, Paris, Gregg, 1857–1894

__________. Patrologia cursus completus: Series Latina, Paris, Garnier Frères, 1844–1864

Mishna, Hanoch Albeck (ed.). 6 vols, Jerusalem, Bialik, 1958–1979

263
Philo: With an English Translation. F. H. Colson and G .H. Whitaker (eds), 10 vols, London,
William Heinemann, 1929–1962

Rabbinowicz, Raphael. Diqduqê sopherim: variae lectiones in Mishnam et in Talmud

Babylonicum, first published 1867–1886, reprint, 2 vols, New York, M. P. Press, 1976

Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses against Judaizing Christians 68: The Fathers of the
Church: A New Translation, Ludwig Schoff, Roy Joseph Deferrari et al. (eds), 91 vols,
Washington, Catholic University of America, 1949–

nd
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2 ser., Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans, 1979

Septuaginta, ed. Alfred Rahlfs. Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979

Socrates, Sozomenus. Church Histories 2: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
nd
Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, tr. A. C. Zenos, 2 . series, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Eerdmans, 1979

Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols, Jerusalem, Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1976–1982

Tacitus. The Histories, tr. H. Moore, London, William Heinemann, 1962

Le Talmud de Jérusalem, tr. Moïse Schwab, 6 vols, Paris, G. P. Maisonneuve et Larose, n.d.

Talmud of the Land of Israel: a Preliminary Translation, ed. by Jacob Neusner, Chicago
Studies in the History of Judaism, 5 vols, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1982–

Tanner, Norman T. (ed.). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols, London, Sheed & Ward,
1990

264
Tcherikover, Victor and Alexander Fuks (eds). Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols,
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University, 1957–1964

Theodosiani. Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum

nd
pertinentes, Th. Mommsen and Paulus M. Meyer (eds), 2 edn, Berolini, Weidmann, 1954

The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation with
Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography by Clyde Pharr, New Jersey, Princeton University,
1952

Tosefta, ed. M. S. Zuckermandel, with supplement to the Tosephta by Saul Lieberman,

Jerusalem, Wahrmann, 1970

The Tosefta, tr. Jacob Neusner, 6 vols, New York, KTAV, 1977–1986

Works of the Emperor Julian, tr. Wilmer C. Wright, Loeb Classical Library no. 13, 3 vols,
London, William Heinemann, 1913–1926

Yadin, Y. The Temple Scroll, 4 vols, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society: Institute of
Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Shrine of the Book, 1977

Reference Works

Atlas of the Greek and Roman World in Antiquity, ed. Nicolas Hammond, Park Ridge, New
Jersey, Noyes, 1981

‘Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte: die christlichen Kirchen’, in Geschichte und Gegenwart,

herausgegeben von Hubert Jedin, Kenneth Scott Latourette, Jochen Martin; unter Mitwirkung
zahlreicher Fachgelehrter bearbeitet von Jochen Martin, Kartographische Bearbeitung Hans E.
F. Quast, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1970

265
Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie ecclésiastique: publié sous la direction de Alfred
Baudrillart, Albert Vogt et Urbain Rouziès avec le concours d'un grand nombre de
collaborateurs, Encyclopédie des Sciences ecclésiastiques 4, 9 vols, Paris, Letouzey et Ané,
1912–

Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Angelo di Bernardino (ed.), tr. Adrian Walford, Cambridge,
James Clarke, 1992

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols Jerusalem, KTAV, 1974

Fedalto, Giorgio. Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, 2 vols, Padova, Messaggero, 1988. vol. 1,
Patriarchaus Constantinopolitanus, vol. 2, Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antichenus,
Hierosolytanus

Grant, Michael. Ancient History Atlas, rev. edn, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974

Lange, Nicholas de. Atlas of the Jewish World, New York, Facts on File, 1984

Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, 2 vols, London,Walton and
Maberly: John Murray, 1856–1857

The Times Atlas of the Bible, James B. Pritchard (ed.), Sydney, Bay Books, 1987

Secondary Sources

Agneta Ahlqvist. Litture e Mosaici nei Cimiteri paleocristiani di Siracusa: Corpus

Ionographicum. Memorie Classe di Scienze Morali, Lettere ed Arti vol. 56, Venice, Istituto
veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1995

Aland, Kurt. ‘From the Beginnings to the Threshold of the Reformation’, in A History of
Christianity, tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia, Fortress, vol. 1, 1985

266
Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.), tr. and edited by
Gershon Levi, 2 vols, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1980–1984

Atridge, Walter and Hata, Gohei (eds). Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Wayne State
University, 1992

Avi-Jonah, Michael. The Holy Land. From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B. C. to
A. D. 640): A Historical Geography, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker, 1966

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. From Sabbath to Sunday. A Historical Investigation of the Rise of

Sunday Observance in Early Christianity, The Pontifical Gregorian University, 1977

Bagatti, Bellarmino. Antichi Villaggi Cristiani di Samaria, Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing

Press, 1979

Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323BCE
–117CE), Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1996

Barnes, Timothy D. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University Press, 1982.

Bat-Ševa, Albert. ‘Un Nouvel Examen de la Politique anti-Juive wisigothique,’ REJ, (1975), 3–
29

Bauer, Walter (ed.), Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia, Fortress
Press, 1971

Baus, Karl, ‘From the Apostolic Community to Constantine’, Hubert Jedin and John Dolan
(eds), vol. 1 of History of the Church, vols, New York, Seabury Press, 1979

Beckwith, Roger T. ‘The Jewish Background to Christian Worship,’ in The Study of Liturgy, ed.
Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright and Edward Yarnold, London, SPCK, 1978

267
__________. Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian. Biblical, Intertestamental and
Patristic Studies, Leiden, Brill, 1996

Beckwith, Roger T. and Wilfrid Stott. This is the Day: The Biblical Doctrine of the Christian
Sunday in its Jewish and Early Church Setting, London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978

Bell, H. Idris. Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Liverpool University, 1953

Bloch, A. The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies, New
York, KTAV, 1980

Bokser, Baruch M. The Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism,
Berkeley, University of California, 1984

Botte D. et al. Le Concile et les Conciles: Contribution à l'Histoire de la Vie conciliare de

l'Eglise, Paris, Chevetogne, 1960

Boys, Mary C. Has God Only One Blessing? Judaism as a Source of Christian Self-
Understanding, New York, Paulist Press, 2000

Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London, SPCK, 1951

__________. Jesus and the Zealots, Manchester University Press, 1967

Blumenkranz, Bernard. Juifs et Chrétiens. Patristique et Moyen Age, London, Variorum

Reprints, 1977

Brodd, J. ‘Julian the Apostate and His Plan to Rebuild the Jerusalem Temple’, Bible Review,9:5
(1995), 1–33.

268
Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire,
University of Wisconsin, 1988

Brown, Raymond E. and John Meir. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradle of Catholic
Christianity, New York, Paulist Press, 1983

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary,
London, Tyndale, 1951

Burtchaell, James Tunstead. From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the
Earliest Christian Communities, Cambridge University, 1992

Cameron, Averil. The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430, Hammersmith, Fontana, 1993

Cantalamessa, Raniero. Easter in the Early Church: An Anthology of Jewish and Early
Christian Texts, tr. and ed. James M. Quigley and Joseph T. Lienhard, Collegeville, Minnesota,
Liturgical Press, 1993

Carletti, Sandro, Guide to the Catacombs of Priscilla, tr. Alice Mulhen, Vatican City Pontifical
Commission of Sacred Archaeology, 1982

Charlesworth, James H. ‘A Prolegomena to a New Study of the Jewish Background of the

Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament’, JJS 33 (1982), 265–85.

Chilton, Bruce. A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine
Circles, Supplements to Novum Testamentum no.72, Leiden, Brill, 1994

Clerq, Victor de. Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian
Period, Washington, Catholic University of America, 1954

Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages, Princeton University,
1994

269
270
Cohen, Naomi G. Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse, Frankfurt, Lang, 1995

________.‘Shimeon ha pakuli hisdir od-heth berakhot’, Tarbiz, 52:4 (1983), 547–54

Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1987
Crown, Alan. Biblical Studies Today, Sydney, Chevalier Press, 1975

__________.‘The Parting of the Ways ’, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies, 7:2 (1993), 62–
81

__________. The Samaritans. Tübingen,. Mohr-Paul Siebeck, 1989

Cullmann, O. E. The Christology of the New Testament, tr. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles Hall,
London, SCM, 1959

Dale, Alfred William Winterslow. The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth
Century: A Historical Essay, London, Macmillan, 1882

Daniélou, Jean. The Bible and the Liturgy, University of Notre Dame, 1966

—————. A History of Early Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, 3 vols,
London, Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973

Daniélou J., Couratin A. H. and Kent, J. Historical Theology, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969

Deissman, Adolph. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently
Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, tr. Lionel R. M. Strachan, rev. edn, London,
Hodder and Stoughton, 1927

Derenbourg, J. Essai sur l'histoire et la géographie de la Palestine, d'après les Thalmuds et les
autres sources rabbiniques, first published 1867, Farnborough, Hants, Gregg, 1971

271
 nd
Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, 2 edn, London, Dacre, 1975

Dimant, Devorah and Uriel Rappaport (eds). The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research,
Leiden, Brill, 1992

Doress, Jean. Des Hiéroglyphes à la Croix: Ce que le Passé pharaonique a légué au

Christianisme, Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in Het Nabije Osten,
1960

Drummond, Steven K. and Lynn H. Nelson. The Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome. Armonk,
New York, Sharpe, 1994

Duchesne, L. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution: Study of the Latin Liturgy to the
Time of Charlemagne, tr. M. L. McClure, London, SPCK, 1904

Dunn, James D. G. (ed.). Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135.
Tübingen, Mohr–Paul Siebeck, 1992

___________________. The Partings of the Ways, London, SCM, 1991

Ehrhardt, Arnold. ‘The Adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire’, BJRL, 45:1 (1962), 97–
114.

Elbogen, Ismar. Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichltichen Entwicklung, Leipzig,

Fock, 1913

__________. Ha-tefilah be-yisrael be-hitpathutah he-historit, edited Joseph Heinemann, tr.

Yehoshua Amir, Tel Aviv, Dvir, 1972

The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of
Inscriptions and Letters. Final Report 8, Part I, edited by A. R. Bellinger, F. E. Brown, A.
Perkins and C. B. Welles, augmented edn, New Haven, KTAV, 1979

272
Fedalto, Giorgio. ‘Lista vescovili del patriarcato di Gerusalemme’, Orientalia Christiana
Periodica, 49:1(1983), 5–41

Feldman, L. H. ‘Proselytism by Jews in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Centuries,’ JSJ, .24:1(June
1993), 1–58

Fine, Stephen (ed.). Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, New
York, Oxford University, 1996

Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Semitic Background of the New Testament: A Combined Edition of
Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and a Wandering Aramean: Collected
Aramaic Essays, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997

Flannery, Edward. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism: A

Stimulus Book, first published 1965, rev. edn., New York, Paulist Press, 1985

Fleischer, Ezra. ‘On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer’, (Hebrew) Tarbiz, LIX: 3-4
(Apr - Sept 1990), 397 - 441.

Flusser, David, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, New York, Adama, 1987

__________. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988.

__________. ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism.’, Immanuel 16 (1983), 32–49

__________. ‘The Jewish-Christian Schism’ Immanuel 17 (1983–4), 30–9

_________.‘Some of the Precepts of the Torah from Qumran (4QMMT) and the Benediction
against the Heretics’, (Hebrew), Tarbiz, 61 (1992), 333–74

nd
Flusser, David, and R. Stephen Notley. Jesus, 2 rev. edn, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1997

273
Frend, William H. C. Religion Popular and Unpopular in the Early Christian Centuries,
London, Variorum Reprints, 1976

__________. The Archaeology of Early Christianity, Fortress, 1996

Gager, G, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Towards Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity, Oxford University, 1983

Gaudemet, Jean. L‘Eglise dans l'Empire romain (iv–v siècles) 3, in Gabriel Le Bras (ed.),
Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident, 7 vols, Paris, Sirey, 1955–96

Gelzer, Henricus, Henricus Hilgenfeld and Otto Cunz. Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina Latine
Graece Coptice Syriace Arabice Armeniae, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1898

Geraty, L. T. ‘The Pascha and the Origin of Sunday Observance.’ AUSS, 3, (1965), 85–96.

Geva, Hillel. ‘Searching for Roman Jerusalem’, BARev, 23:6 (1997), 34–45; 72–73

__________. ‘The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological

Reconsideration’, IEJ, 34 (1984), 239–254

Grabar, André. Christian Iconography: A Study of Its Origins. Washington, D.C., London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969

Grant, Robert M. From Augustus to Constantine: The Thrust of the Christian Movement into
the Roman World, London, Collins, 1971

__________. Greek Apologists of the Second Century, London, SCM, 1988

Gutmann, Joseph. ‘The Dura Europos Synagogue Paintings: The State of Research’, in Lee I.
Levine, The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, American Schools of
Oriental Research, 1987, 6–72.

274
Hachlili, Rachel. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel, Leiden, Brill, 1988

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A commentary, Oxford, Blackwell, 1971

Hall, S. G. ‘The Origins of Easter’, in Studia Patristica, 15:1 (1977) 554–67

Harkins, Paul W. Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses against Judaizing Christians,

Washington, Catholic University of America, 1979

Harnack, Adolf von. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries,
translated and edited by James Moffatt, first published 1908, New York, Harper & Brothers,
1961

Hartin, Patrick. ‘Jewish Christianity: Focus on Antioch in the First Century’, Scriptura, 36
(1991), 38–50

nd
Heinemann, Joseph. Hatefilah be-tekufat ha-tana'im ve ha'amoraim: Tiba ve-defusiah, 2 edn,
Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1966

__________. Prayer in the Talmud. Forms and Patterns, New York, Walter De Gruyter, 1977

Hemer, Colin, J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen, Mohr-Paul
Siebeck, 1989

Herford, R. Travers. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, reprint of first 1903 edition, Clifton,
New Jersey, Reference Book Publishers, 1966

Herrin, Judith. The Formation of Christendom, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1987

Hess, Hamilton. The Canons of the Council of Sardica AD 343: A Landmark in the Early
Development of Canon Law, Oxford, Clarendon, 1958

275
Hilton, Michael and Marshall, Gordian. The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism: A Study Guide,
London, SCM, 1988

Hunt, David. ‘Christianising the Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Code’, in Jill Harris and
Ian Wood (eds), The Theodosian Code: Studies in the Imperial Law of Late Antiquity, London,
Duckworth, 1993, 143–58.

Hurtado, Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1988

Jedin, Hubert. Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline. Edinburgh,
Nelson, 1960

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology, tr. John Bowden, London, SCM, 1971

__________. The Prayers of Jesus, London , SCM, 1976

Jones, A. H. M. The Decline of the Ancient World, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1966

__________. The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative
Survey, 2 vols, Oxford, Blackwell, 1964

Jones, Cheslyn, Geoffrey Wainwright and Edward Yarnold. The Study of Liturgy, London,
SPCK, 1978

th
Journal, M. J. Rouet de. Enchiridion Patristicum, 4 edn, Friburgi Brisgoviae, Herder, 1937

Judge, Edwin. ‘Judaism and the Rise of Christianity: A Roman Perspective’, Tyndale Bulletin,
45:2 (1994), 355–368

276
___________. The Conversion of Rome: Ancient Sources of Modern Social Tension: A paper
delivered as a lecture to the Macquarie University Convocation on 14 April, 1979, Publications
of The Macquarie Ancient History Association, no. 1

Jungmann, Josef A. The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great, tr. Francis A. Brunner,
University of Notre Dame, 1959

Juster, Jean. Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain: Leur Condition juridique, économique et sociale,
2 vols, New York, Burt Franklin, 1914

Kalman, Richard. ‘Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature in Late Antiquity’, HTR, 87
(1994): 155–169

Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Tubingen, Mohr, 1985.

Katz, Steven. ‘Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 CE: A
Reconsideration’, JBL, 103:1 (1984), 43–76

Kimelman, R. ‘The Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity,’ in
E P. Sanders et al. (eds). Jewish and Christian Self Definition 2, 3 vols, Philadelphia, Fortress,
1981

__________.‘Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of Songs; a Third Century Jewish-
Christian Disputation’, HTR, 73 (1980), 567–95

Kinzig, Wolfram, ‘“Non-Separation”: Closeness and Co-Operation Between Jews and

Christians in the Fourth Century’, VC, 45 (1991), 27–53

Kirschner, Robert. ‘Two Responses to Epochal Change: Augustine and the Rabbis on Psalm
137’, VC, 44 (1990), 242–62

277
Klein, Samuel. ‘The Land of the Samaritans in the Time of the Talmud’, (Hebrew), JJ, 10
(1913), 133–60

Klijn, A. F. J. and G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, Leiden, Brill,
1973

Kraft, R. A. ‘Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early Christianity’, AUSS, 3 (1965), 18–
33

Kraft, R.A. and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds). Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters,
Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986

Kraeling, Carl H. The Synagogue, with contributions by C. C. Torrey, C. B. Welles and B.

Geiger in The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French
Academy of Inscriptions and Letters. Final Report 8, Part I, edited by A. R. Bellinger, F. E.
Brown, A. Perkins and C. B. Welles, augmented edn, first published i1956 by Yale University
Press, New Haven, KTAV, 1979

Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish
Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE, New York, Feldheim, 1965

Lietzmann, Hans. Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, edited Robert
Douglas Richardson, Leiden, Brill, 1979

Lieu, Judith, John North and Tessa Rajak (eds). The Jews among Pagans and Christians in the
Roman World, London, Routledge, 1992

Linder, Amnon. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, Michigan, Wayne State
University, 1987

Mahler, E. ‘The Subject of Easter at the Councils of Nice and Antioch’, Proceedings of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology, 81, (1904) 153–162, 197–206

278
Mann, Jacob. ‘Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service’, HUCA, 2 (1925), 269–
338.

Marblestone, Howard. ‘Matauitatau in Petronius, Satyricon 62.9: Crux Interpretum’, in Meir

Lubetski, Claire Gotlieb and Sharon Keller, Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A
Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon, JPOS Supplement no.3, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 493–510

Marcus, Jacob R. The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book 315–1791, Harper
Torchbooks, first published 1938, New York, Temple Library, 1965

Marguerat, Daniel (ed.). Le Déchirement: Juifs et Chrétiens au premier Siècle, Le Monde de la

Bible no. 32, Paris, Labor et Fides, 1996

Martinez, Florentino Garcia. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English,
tr. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Leiden, Brill, 1994

Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven,
Yale University, 1983

Meyers, Eric. ‘Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology ’, BA,51 (1988), 69–
79

Meyers, Eric and James F. Strange. Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity, London
SCM, 1981

Montgomery, James Alan. The Samaritans. The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology
and Literature, first published 1907, New York, KTAV, 1968

Milburn, Robert. Early Christian Art and Architecture. Aldershot, Scolar, 1988

Miller, S. S. ‘The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered’, HTR, 86:4 (1993), 377–402

279
Mimouni, Simon C. ‘Les Nazoréens. Recherche étymologique et historique’, RB,105:2 (1998),
208–62

Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 vols, Leiden, Brill, 1965–1970

__________. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism 1: Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
from the First to the Seventh Century, 40 vols, Leiden, Brill, 1973

Nitzan, Bilhah. Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, tr. Jonathan Chipman, Leiden, Brill,
1994

Nock, Arthur Darby. Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background, New York,
Harper Torchbacks, 1964

Nodet, Etienne. ‘Discussion “Les Nazoréens”’ RB, 105:2 (1998), 263–265

Nodet, Etienne and Justin Taylor. The Origins of Christianity: An Exploration, Collegeville,
Liturgical Press, 1998

Oppenheimer, Aharon. The ‘Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in
the Hellenistic-Roman Period, tr. I. H. Levine, Leiden, Brill, 1977

Painter, John. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, University of South
Carolina, 1997.

Pakter, Walter. ‘Early Western Church Law and the Jews’, in Eusebius, Christianity and
Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, Wayne State University, 1992

Parkes, James. The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of
Antisemitism, London, Soncino, 1934

280
 Perelmuter, Hayim Goren. Siblings: Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity at their
Beginnings, New Jersey, Paulist Press, 1989

Perkins, Ann. The Art of Dura-Europos, Oxford, Clarendon, 1973

Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New
Testament Interpretation, London, SCM, 1976
Petuchowski, Jakob J. and Michael Brocke (eds), The Lord's Prayer and Jewish Liturgy,
London, Burns & Oates, 1978

Pixner, Bargil. ‘Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway ’, BARev, 23:3 (1997), 23–66

__________. ‘The History of the “Essene Gate” Area’ Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-
Vereins, 105 (1989), 99–102

Popper, William. The Censorship of Hebrew Books, with an introduction by Moshe Carmilly,
Weinberger, first published 1899, New York, KTAV, 1969

Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period until
its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1988

Rabello, A. M. ‘The First Law of Theodosius II and Celebrations of Purim’, Christian News
from Israel, ns., 24:4 (1974), 159–182

————. ‘Jewish and Roman Jurisdiction’, in An Introduction to the History and Sources of
Jewish Law, ed. N. S. Hecht et al., Oxford, Clarendon, 141–7

Reif, Stefan. Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History,
Cambridge University, 1993

281
Robinson, James Harvey. Medieval and Modern Times: An Introduction to the History of
Western Europe from the Dissolution of the Roman Empire to the Opening of the Great War of
1914, Boston, Ginn, 1916

__________. From the Breaking up of the Roman Empire to the Protestant Revolt: Readings in
European History 1: A Collection of Extracts from the Sources Chosen with the Purpose of
Illustrating the Progress of Culture in Western Europe Since the German Invasions, 2 vols,
Boston, Ginn, 1904.

Rordorf, Willy. Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries
of the Christian Church, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1968

__________. Sabbat et Dimanche dans l'Eglise ancienne, tr. Etienne Visinand and Willi
Nussbaum, Paris, Delachaux et Niestlé, 1972

Rostovtzeff, M. I. The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the

French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Preliminary Report of Fifth Season of Work
October 1931–March 1932, New Haven, Yale University, 1934

Ruether, Rosemary. Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism. New York,
Seabury, 1979

Ruysschaert, José. ‘Nouvelles Recherches Concernant la Tombe de Pierre au Vatican (1957–

1965)’, Revue d 'Histoire Ecclesiastique, 60 (1965), 822–832

Sanders, E. P. et al. (eds). Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, 3 vols, Philadelphia, Fortress,
1981

Saldarini, Anthony J. Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, University of Chicago 1994

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 8 vols, New York, C. Scribner’s Sons, 1916–23

282
Schiffman, L. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of
Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1994

__________. Who was a Jew? Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish Christian Schism,
Hobokem, N. J., KTAV, 1985

Schuller, Eileen. ‘Prayer, Hymnic and Liturgical Texts’, in The Community of the Renewed, ed.
Eugene Unrick and James Vanderkam, University of Notre Dame, 1994

Schumacher, Gottlieb. ‘Pella’ in Abila, Pella and Northern 'Ajlun. London Palestine
Exploration Fund, 1885–1890

Sigal, Phillip. The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, 2 vols, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

Pickwick, 1980

Sherwin-White, Adrian Nicholas. The Letters of Pliny, Oxford, Clarendon, 1966

Sigal, Phillip. ‘Early Christian and Rabbinical Liturgical Affinities: Exploring Liturgical
Acculturation’, New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 63–89.

__________. The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, 2 vols, Pittsburgh, Pickwick Papers,

1980

Simon, Marcel. Verus Israel: A Study of Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman
Empire (135-425), tr. H. McKeating, Oxford University Press for the Littman Library, 1986

__________. La Civilisation de l'Antiquité et le Christianism, Paris, Arthaud, 1972

Sivan, Hagith. ‘Rabbinics and Roman Law: Jewish-Gentile/Christian Marriage in Late

Antiquity’, REJ, 156:1–2 (1997), 59–100

283
Smith, Robert Houston et al. Pella of the Decapolis, 2 vols, London, College of Wooster, 1973–
1989

Stendahl, Krister with James H. Charlesworth, (eds). The Scrolls and the New Testament, New
York, Crossroad, 1992

Stone, Michael E. (ed.). Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Qumran, Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, 2 vols, Philadelphia, Fortress,
1984

Strack, Hermann. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1931

Strack, Hermann and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und
Midrash, 5 vols, Munich, Beck, 1924–1928

Strand, Kenneth A. ‘Sunday Easter and Quartodecimanism in the Early Christian Church’,
Andrew's University Seminary Studies, 28:2 (1990), 127–36

Strus, Andrzej (ed.). Tra Guidaismo e Cristianesimo: Qumran-Giudeocristiani, Roma, Libreria

Ateneo Salesiano, 1995

Synan, Edward A. The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages, New York, Macmillan, 1965

Snyder, Graydon F. Ante Pacem Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine,
Mercer University, 1991.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the
Apostles, New York, Crossroad, 1997

Talley, Thomas. ‘Liturgical Time in the Ancient Church: the State of Research’, Studia
Liturgica, 14 (1982), 34–51

284
Talmon, S. ‘The Manual of Benedictions of the Sect of the Qumran Desert,’ REQ, 2;8 (1960),
475–500

Ta-Shma, Israel. ‘Some Notes on the Origins of the Kaddish Yatom,’ [Hebrew] Tarbiz, 53:4
(1984), 559–68

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, Oxford
Clarendon, 1993

Taylor, Miriam S. Anti-Judaism and Early Christian Identity, Leiden, Brill, 1995.
Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, tr. S. Applebaum, New York,
Atheneum, 1982

Testa, Emmanuel. The Faith of the Mother Church: An Essay on the Theology of the Judeo-
Christians, tr. Paul Rotondi, Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press, 1992

Travers Herford, R. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, reprint of 1903 edition, Clifton, New
Jersey, Reference Book Publishers, 1966

__________. The Separation of Christianity from Judaism’ in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Origins of
Judaism: Judaism and Christianity in the First Century, New York, Garland, 1990, vol. 1, part
3, 359–70

Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religions and Christianization c.370-539, 2 vols, Leiden, Brill,
1995

Turner, C. H. ‘The Early Episcopal Lists’, JTS, 1 (1900), 181–200 and 529–53

__________. ‘The Early Episcopal Lists, III. The Evidence of Eusebius: Comparison of the
Chronicle and the History’, JTS, 18 (1917), 103–34

285
Urbach, E. E. ‘The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on
Canticles, and the Jewish-Christian Disputation’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22 (1971), 247–75

Vallin, Pierre. Les Chrétiens et leur Histoire, Paris, Desclée, 1985

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels, London,
Fontana/Collins, 1976

Werner, Eric. The Sacred Bridge: The Interdependence of Liturgy and Music in Synagogue and
Church during the First Millennium. London, D. Dobson, 1959–1984

White, L. Michael. Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation
Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Baltimore and London, John Hopkins University, 1990

__________. Texts and Monuments for the Christian Domus Ecclesiae and its Environment,

286
vol. 2, in The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, Harvard Theological Studies, 2 vols,
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Trinity, 1996–1997

Wilken, Robert. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's
Exegesis and Theology, New Haven, Yale University, 1971

Wilson, Stephen (ed.). Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, 2 vols, Waterloo, Wilfred Laurier
University, 1986

Whittaker, Molly. Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman views. Cambridge University, 1984

Willis, G. G. A. History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory the Great,
London, Henry Bradshaw, 1994

Wisel-Gilead, Yona. The Development of the Traditions Concerning the Figure of R. Hanina b
Dosa: A Sociological Study, MA, University of Sydney, 1990

Zahavy, Tzvee. Studies in Jewish Prayer. Lanham, New York, University Press of America,
1990

287
288
Table 1. Early Church Council Statements about Jews

Name & Source Dates & Nos Links with Jewish Practice
Location
Council of Acts 15: –11; 19–21; Ca 52 CE Non-Jews who adopt belief in Jesus are not required to
Jerusalem 27–29 undergo circumcision or live by the law of Moses,
except for: abstaining from food polluted by idols, and
the meat of strangled animals and the blood and sexual
immorality.
Synods in Smyrna, Mansi, vol. 1, 725, Late second Dispute over the date of Easter in relation to Passover,
Rome, Laodicea, 1140 century. Fewer the so-called Quartodeciman problem. Christians,
Palestine, Pontus, Eusebius, Hist. eccl. than 20 bishops at especially in the east, were accused of judaising. This
Gaul and 4.3–8, 26–27; 4.26: – each synod latter struggle would stretch over several centuries.
Osrhoene 27; 5.16–24.
(northwestern Jerome, Chronicle,
Mesopotamia). 196
Epiphanies,
Haeres.50.3.
Council of Elvira, Mansi, vol. 2, 257– 305 or 6 CE. Canon 16: Intermarriage with Jews forbidden.
Spain 397, 469–71 19 bishops present Canon 49: Fields not to be blessed by Jews.
Canon 50: Christians not to eat with Jews.
Canon 78:Adultery with Jewesses forbidden.

Synod Arles Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 314 CE Canon 1 was about synchronising the date of Easter in
10.5.19–23 Probably about the Gaul.
Mansi, vol. 2, 471–7 400 bishops
present, but only
33 signatures.
Ecumenical Eusebius Vita Const . 325 CE No canons on date of Easter, but synodal letter and
Council of Nicaea 3, 17–18, and Hiist. 318 bishops Emperor’s letter decreeing Sunday Easter.
eccl. 1:9. 1.9. present
Name Source Date & Nos Links with Jewish Practice
& Location
Council of Mansi, 2, 1307ff, 341 CE Excommunication for those who set aside the decree of
Antioch Athan., Apolog. c. 97 bishops Nicaea concerning the festival of Easter.
Arian., c. 20

Synod of Sardica Mansi, vol. 3, 58 343 or 344 CE Canon 84: The bishop shall hinder no one, whether
81–140. 94 orthodox heathen, heretic or Jew from entering the Church and
Socrates, Hist. eccl., bishops, hearing the word of God.
2.20. Theodoret, numerous Canon 89: He who deals in auguries (soothsaying) and
Hist. eccl. 2.7 schismatic conjuring must be shut out of the church, as must also
bishops those who join in Jewish superstition
Canon 129: Neither may slaves nor freedmen come
forward as accusers, nor any on account of public
offenses are by law excluded from bringing an
accusation, nor any who bear any mark of infamy, i.e.
actors or persons on whom any other stigma rests, nor
heretics, heathens or Jews0 as Canon 6 by 18th synod
in 421.

Twenty one Mansi, vol. 3, 58 Canons (many Several canons repeated over the years concerning the
Synods at Hippo 81–140, 875, 916–30 repetitive) date of Easter.
(393) and Socrates, Hist. eccl. gathered before
Carthage 2.20. the sixth century
between 393 and Theodoret,
421. Hist. eccl. 2.7

Ecumenical Mansi, vol. 7, 363; 451 CE. About Canon 14. (15th Session). Readers and singers etc.
Council of 654–738. 630 bishops cannot marry heretics, Jews or heathen unless the
Chalcedon Hefele, vol. 3, 299 present. person who is to be united with the orthodox party
promises to adopt the orthodox faith.

2
Name & Source Date & Nos Links with Jewish Practice
Location
Council of Mansi, vol. 3, 566 ff Canon was 80 Canon 7: Non-orthodox groups and irregularities about
Constantinople Hefele, vol. 2, 369ff years after 381 the date of celebrating Easter

Synod of Gangra Mansi vol. 2, 1101 ff. Middle of 4th C. Canon 2: Meat offered to idols, with blood, or strangled
Small number of not to be eaten
bishops present
Synod of Vannes Mansi, vol. 7, 951ff 465 CE Canon 9: Clerics are not to eat with Jews.
6 bishops
Synod of Agde Mansi, vol. 7, 323–40, 500 CE Canon 32. (2nd series). Clerics and laity must not
vol. 7, 333–340 35 bishops participate in the meals of Jews. This is forbidden by
the synod of Vannes (c.12) to the clergy alone.
Canon 34 (Jews must be catechumens for 8 months).
Canon 40. Christians not to eat with Jews.

Synod of Sirmium Mansi, vol. 3, 257ff 351 CE Anathema 11 & 12 concerning denial of divinity of
About 12 bishops Jesus
Synod of Laodicea Mansi, vol. 2, 563 360 CE Canon 16: On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions
in Phrygia Hefele, vol. 2, 310– of the Scriptures shall be read aloud.
8. Canon 29: Christians shall not Judaise and be idle on
Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day
they shall honour...
Canon 36: The higher and lower clergy not to make or
wear phylacteries.
Canon 37: Forbidden to accept festal presents from
Jews, or to keep the festivals with them.
Canon 38: No-one shall accept unleavened bread from
Jews. See also Canons 49 & 51.

3
4
Table 2. List of Bishops who Attended Nicaea (325 CE)
Geographical Locations in Relation to Jewish Communities.
(i) Latin Bishops and Prominent Greek Bishops at Council of Nicaea 325 CE.

Bishop Town Jewish Population

Latins
Hosius Corduba Yes
Cecilian Carthage Yes
Marcus Calabria Yes
Nicasius Dijon Yes
Domnus Stridon (Pannonia)
Victor & Vincent (priests, Rome Yes
representatives of Pope
Silvester)
Eastern Church
Alexander (accompanied by Alexandria Yes
Athanasius)
Eustathius Antioch Yes
Macarius Jerusalem Yes
More Important Sees
Eusebius Nicomedia Yes
Eusebius Caesarea Yes
Potamon Heraclea (Egypt) Yes
Heracleopolis
Paphnutius Higher Thebes Yes
Spiridion Cyprus Yes
Paul Neocaesarea Yes
James Nisibius Yes
Leontius Caesarea Yes
Hypatius Gangra Yes
S. Nicolas Myra (Asia Minor) Yes

See: Karle Joseph Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils. From the Original Documents,
to the Close of the Council of Nicaea. A.D. 325 (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1894), vol. 1, 270–
3 and Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain: Leur Condition juridique, économique et
sociale (2 vols New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), vol. 1, 179–209.

All the Latins and the most famous bishops came from towns with Jewish populations.

Eusebius reports there were more than two hundred and fifty bishops present at the Council of
Nicaea (Eusebius Vita Const. 3.6 and 9), whilst Athanasius, another eyewitness mentions
more than three hundred (Apologia contra Arianos, c. 23 and 25) (Ad Afros c.2). Hefele points
out that the number of bishops present varied according to the months. See Hefele, vol. 1,
271.

289
(ii) Bishops who Attended Nicaea

Bishop Town Jewish Population

I. Spain
Hosius Corduba Yes

II. Rome
Victor and Vincent Rome Yes
(presbyters representing
Pope Silvester) (see i)

III. Egypt
2. Alexander Alexandria Yes
3. Alpocration Alpocranon
4. Adamantius Cynon Yes
5. Albetion Pharbaethus
6. Philippus Panephysis
7. Potamon Heracleopolis Yes
8. Secondos Ptolomaidos
9. Dorotheos Pelusium Yes
10. Gaius Thmuis

Province of Thebes
11. Antiochos Memphis Yes
12. Tiberios Tauthites
13. Atthas Schedia Yes
14. Tyrannos Antinoi Yes
15. Olusianus Lycopolis

IV. Upper Libya

16. Daches Berenice Yes
17. Zophiros Barce
18. Sarapion Antipyrgos
19. Secundos Tauchira
20. Titus Paratonium

Approximately a 50% correlation with Jewish population. In these areas, about half of the
Christian population had spread beyond areas where Jews were numerous.

290
(iii) Bishops who Attended Nicaea

Bishops Town Jewish Population

V..Province of Palestina
21. Macharius Hierosolyma Yes
22. Germanus Neapolis Samaritan
23. Marinus Sebastae Samaritan
24. Gaianus Sebastea Samaritan

25. Eusebius Caesarea Mixed & Jewish population

26. Sabinus Gadera Yes

27. Longinus Ascalon Yes
28. Petrus Nicopolitanus Yes
29. Macrinus Iamnia Yes
30. Maximus Eleutheropolis Yes
31. Paulus Maximilianopolis
32. Ianuarius Ierico Yes
33. Heliodorus Zabulon Yes
34. Aetius Lydda Yes
35. Siluanus Azotus Yes
36. Patrophilos Scythopolis Yes
37. Ascelpas Gaza Yes
38. Petrus Aila Yes
39. Anthiocus Capitoliades

The table indicates that there was a close geographical association with Jewish communities
in Palestine. On the other hand, christianisation in Samaritan areas was sporadic and slow.
When Palestine was reorganised under Diocletian into Palestine Prima, Secunda and Tertia ,
this greatly increased the Samaritan Diaspora. See Alan Crown, ‘The Samaritan Diaspora’ in
The Samaritans (Tübingen, Mohr–Paul Siebeck, 1989), 208–9. The conversion of Constantine
to Christianity brought about a significant erosion of the status of Jews and Samaritans and
considerable discontent. (See Alan Crown, ‘The Byzantine and Moslem Period’, in The
Samaritans, 66–7).

291
(iv) Bishops who Attended Nicaea
In Syria nine out of twenty-one episcopal delegates lived in towns with Jewish populations.

Bishop Town Jewish Population

VI. Province of Phoenicia
40. Zenon Tyrus Yes
41. Aeneas Ptolomaidas Yes
42. Magnus Damascus Yes
44. Theodorus Sidon Yes
44. Hellenicus Tripolitas Yes
45. Gregorius Berytus Yes
46. Marinus Palmyra Yes
47. Thadoneus Emisa/Alasiae Yes
48. Anatholius Emisae Yes
49. Philocalos Paneas
VII. Province of Syria
50. Eustatius Antioch Yes
51. Zenobius Seleucia Yes
52. Theodotus Laodicea Yes
53. Aphius Apamie Yes
54. Philoxenus Hieropolis
55. Salamanus Germaniciae Yes
56. Piperius Samosota Yes
57. Archelaus Doliche
58 Eufration Balaneae
59 Baladius/Phalatus
– chorepiscopus
60. Zoilus Gabala Yes
61. Bassus Zeugma Yes
62. Manicios Epiphanea
63. Gerontius Larisa
64. Eustatius Aretusa
65. Paulus Neocaesarea
66. Diricius Cyprus Yes
67. Seleucus
– chorepiscopus
68. Petrus Gendaro
69. Pagasius Arbocadami
70. Bassonus Gabula
III. Province of Arabia
71. Nicomachus Bostra
72. Cyrion Philadelphia
73. Gennadius Esbunta/Isbundon
74. Seuerus Sodoma
75. Sopater Beresatana
76. Seuerus Dionysiade

292
(v) Bishops who Attended Nicaea

Bishop Town Jewish Population

(1X) Province of Mesopotamia
77. Aetolaus
78. Iacabus Edessa Yes
79. Antiochus Nisibis Yes
80. Marius Resaina
X. Province of Perside Macedonopolis
81. Johannes
XI. Province of Cilicia
82. Theodorus
Persa
83. Amphion (Alphion)
84. Narcissus Tarsus
Yes
85. Moyses Epiphania
86. Nicetas Neroniades
87. Eudemon Castabala
chorepiscopus Flavias
88. Paulinus
89. Macedonius Adanu Yes
90. Tarcondemantus Mopsuhesticu
91. Heychius
Aegeae
92. Narcissus
Alexandria
XII. Province of
Irenopolis
Cappadocia
93. Leontius
94. Eupsicius
95. Eurithrius Caesarea
96. Timotheus Tyana
97. Ambrosius Coloniae
98. Stephanus Cibistra
– chorepiscopus Comana
99. Rodon
chorepiscopus
100. Gorgonius
– chorepiscopus
XIII Province of Armenia
Minor
101. Eulalius
102. Euethius
103. Eudromius
– chorepiscopus Sebastia
104. Theophanes Satala
– chorepiscopus
XIV. Province of Armenia
Maior
105. Aristheus Armeniae
106. Acrites Diosponti
XV. Diosponto
107. Helpidius Comana
108. Euticius Amasia Yes
109. Heraclius Zelonensis/Zenon

293
(vi) Bishops who Attended Nicaea

Bishop Town Jewish Population

XVI. Province of Pontus
Polemoniacus
110. Longinus Neocaesarea
111. Domnus Trapezus Yes
112. Stratophilus Pitsusa
XVII. Province of
Paphlagoniae
113. Philadelphus Pompeiopolis
114. Petronius Ionopolis
115. Eupsychius Amastris Yes
XVIII. Province of Galatia
116. Pancharius Ancyra Yes
117. Dicasius Tauias
118. Erechtus/Eutechius Gatmauias
119. Philadelphius Iuliopolis
XIX. Province of Asia
120. Theonas Cyzicus
121. Menofantus Ephesus Yes
122. Orion Ilium
123. Eutyhius Smyrna Yes
124. Mithres Hypaepa (near Odemisch)
125. Marinus/Macrinus/ Ilio Hellesponti
Marcianus/Macarius
126. Paulus Anaea
XX. Province of Lydia
127. Artemidorus Sardis Yes
128. Sarapas Thyatiron Yes
129. Ethymasius Philadelpia Yes
130. Pollion Barensis
131. Agogius Tripoli
132. Florentius Ancyra Ferreae Yes
133. Antiochus Aureliopolis
134. Marcus Stando
XXI. Province of Phrygia
135. Nunechius Laodicia Yes
136. Flaccus Sanao
137. Procopius Synnada
138. Pisticus Aznon
139. Athenodorus Dorilao
140. Eugenius Eucarpia
141. Flaccus Hierapolis

294
(vii) Bishops who Attended Nicaea

Bishop Town Jewish Population

XXII .Province of Pisidia
142. Eulalius Iconium Yes
143. Telemacus Hadrianopolis
144. Hysicius Neapolis
145. Eutychios Seleucia Yes
146. Sranus/Apagnius/ Limenae
Granius/Uranius
147. Tarsicius Apamea Yes
148. Patricius Amblada Yes
149. Academius Papa
150. Policarpus Metropolis
151. Heraclius Barensis
152. Theodorus Usensis
153. Adon Lycia Yes
XXIII. Province of Lycia
154. Eudemus Patara Yes
XXIV. Province of
Pamphilia
155. Callicles Perge
156. Euresius Termessus
157. Zeuxius Isaarorum
158. Domnus Aspendus
158. Quintinus Seleucia Yes
160. Patricius Macrimianopolis
161. Aphrodius Magyitus
XXV. Insulae
162. Euphrosinus Rhodus Yes
163. Meliphron Cos Yes
164. Strategius Lemnos
165. Apollodorus Cercyra
XXVI. Province of Cariae
166. Eusebius Anthiocia Yes
167. Emmonius Aphrodisias
168. Eugenius Apollonias
169. Letodorus Cibyra
170. Eusebius Miletus Yes

295
(viii) Bishops who Attended Nicaea
Bishop Town Jewish Population
XXVII. Province of Isauria
171. Stephanus Baratu
172. Athaneus Coropissus
173. Edesius Claudiopolis
174. Acapius Seleucia Yes
175. Silvanus Metropolitan of Isauria
176. Faustus Panemuticorum
177. Antonius Antiochia Yes
178. Nestor Syedra
179. Esychius
– chorepiscopus
180. Quintus Timanadorum/Cumanadensi
181. Paulus Laranda
182. Theodorus Uasadorum
183. Anatholius
– chorepiscopus
184. Quintus
– chorepiscopus
185. Tiberius Alistra
186. Aquilas
– chorepiscopus
187. Eusebius Isauria Yes
XXVIII. Province of Cyprus
188. Cyrillus Paphos Yes
189. Gelasius Salamina
XXIX. Province of
Bithyniae
190. Eusebius Nicomedia Yes
191. Theognius Nicaea
192. Maris Chalcedon
193. Cyrillus Cius
194. Esychius Prusias
195. Gorgonios Apollonia Yes
196. Georgius Plusa
197. Euethius Adriani
198. Theophanes
chorepiscopus
199. Rufus Caesarea Yes
200. Eulalius
chorepiscopus
XXX. Europa
201. Pedorus Heraclea Yes
202. Marcus Comeensis
XXXI. Dacia
203. Protogenis Serdice

296
(ix) Bishops Who Attended Nicaea

Bishop Town Jewish Population

XXXII. Moesia
204. Pistus Marcianopolis
205. Marcus Euboea
206. Strategius
XXXIII. Province of
Macedonia
207. Alexander Thessalonica Yes
208. Budis Stobi
XXIV. Achaia
209. Pistus Athenae Yes
210. Strategius Ephestiensis
XXXV. Province of
Thessaliae
211. Cleonicus/Claudinus Thebae Yes
XXVI. Calabria
212. Marcus Calabria Yes
XXXVII. Carthaginiensis
213. Caecilinus Carthage Yes
XXXVIII. Dardinia
214. Dacus Macedonia
XXXIX. Thessaliae
215. Claudinus Thessaliensis
XL. Dalmatiae
216. Budius Strubon
XLI. Pannonia
217. Domnus Pannoniensis Yes
XLII. Galliarum
218. Nicasiuus Diuiensis/Duxias
XLIII. De Gothis
219. Theophilus Gothia
XLIV. Bosphoron
220. Cadanus Bosporus Yes

Tables based on lists from Henricus Gelzer, Henricus Hilgenfeld, and Otto Crintz (eds), Patrum
Nicaenorum: Nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace, Leipsig, Teubneri,
1898.

297
Table 3. Bishops who Attended the Council of Arles (314)
Bishops/presbyters/deacon Town Jewish Population
Provinces of Arles
1. Province of Sicilia
Chrestus – bishop Syracuse Yes
Florus – deacon
11. Province of Campania
Proterius–bishops Capua Yes
Agrippa and Pinus –
deacons
111. Province of Apulia
Padus – bishopCrescens – Arpi Yes
diacon
1V. Province of Dalmatia
Theodorus – bishopAgatho Aquileia
– deacon
V. Ex urbe Roma –
Claudianus and Vitus – Rome Yes
priests
Eugenius and Cyriacus –
deacons – representing Pope
Silvester.
Province of Italia
Merocles – bishop Mediolanum (Milan)
Severus – deacon
VI. Province of Viennensi
Orefius – bishop Massilia Yes
Nazrius – reader
Marinus – bishop Arelata (Arles) Yes
Salamas –priest
Nicasius, Aser, Ursinus and
Petrus –deacons
Verus – bishop, Vienna
Bedas – exorcist
Daphnus–bishop, Vienna
Victor – exorcist
Faustinus – priest Arausio (Anges)

Innocent – deacon Nicaea (port)

Agapius-exorcist
Romanus –priest Aptensium (Apta-Iulia) Yes
Victor-exorcist

298
Bishops/priests/deacons Town Jewish Population
from Gaul
Imbetausius – bishop Rhemes
Primigenius – deacon
Avitianus-bishop Rotomagus
Nicetius – deacon
Reticius – bishop Augustodunensa (Autun)
Amndus – priest
Philomius – deacon Lugdunun (Lyons) Yes
Vocius–bishop
Petulinus –exorcist Agrippina Cologne)
Maternus – bishop
Macrinus – exorcist
Province of Aquitanica
Genialis – deacon Gabalum
Orientalis – bishop Burdegala (Bordeaux) Yes
Flavius – deacon Trevirorum
Agroeius – bishop
Felix – exorcist
Mamertinus – bishop Elusa
Leontius–deacon
Province of Britannia
Eborius – bishop Eboracensi (York)
Restitutus – bishop Londinensium
Adelfius – bishop Colonia Londinensium
Arminus – deacon Lindinensium – (Lincoln)
Province of Hispania
Liberius – bishop Emerita Yes
Florentius – deacon
Sabinus – bishop Baetica
Natalis – priest Urso
Cytheris – deacon
Probatius – priest Terracina Yes
Castorius – deacon
Clementius – priest Caesaraugusta (Saragossa)
Rufinus – exorcist
Termatius – bishop Bastitensium (Basti – Baza)
Victor – reader
Province of Mauritania
Fortunatus – bishop Caesariensi (Caesarea-Oran)
Deuterius – deacon
Province of Sardinia
Quintasius – bishop Caralis Yes
Ammonius – priest

299
From Province of Africa

Bishop/priest/deacon Town Jewish Population

Caecilianus – bishop, Carthage Yes
Sperantius – deacon Utina
Lampadius – bishop Utica
Victor–bishop Beneventina
Anastasius – bishop Tuborbitana
Faustus – bishop Pocofeltis*
Surgentius – bishop
Province of Numidia
Victor – bishop Legisvolumini*
Vitalis –bishop Verensium – Vera (Vaga?)
Gregor – bishop Rome Yes
Epictetus – bishop Centumcellis
Leontius and Mercurius- (Civitavecchia) Yes
priests Ostia

Tables after J D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Graz

(Akademische Druck- U. Verlagsanstalt ) 1960 (first published 1859),vol. 2, 476–7 and Jean
Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire romain: Leur Condition juridique, économique et sociale
(New York, Burt Franklin, 1914), 180–209.

* Exact location unknown

The number of bishops and others who attended the council varies in the sources, with some
estimates as large as 600. However, the council documents contain only 33 signatures. It is the
spread into western Europe into areas where there are no Jews or at most very few Jews, that
demonstrates Christianity’s physical separation from Jewish populations was already taking
place in the west by the third century or in the latter part of the second century.

300
301
31
32
33
34